So you say direct injection doesn't work

[nimbleVagrant]

I'm hesitant to interject myself into this measuring contest, but I am curious; during the Tet offensive, were men firing 500+ rounds through M16 rifles in minutes? And I'm not talking about 30 minutes or even 10 minutes, but 3 or 4 minutes.

 

[tirod]

Since you did, for your sake, I expect you to be competitive.

Crosshair is arguing from a perspective of ego, the mil vets are explaining reality. Happens all the time on the internet. The biggest indicator of it is quote by quote refutation of off topic side issues.

What a lab test indicates is exactly that. What happens in combat is exactly that. Get back to comparing apples to apples and there is no disagreement, as each side is discussing something completely different.

You can destroy ANY weapon with repeated firing, even those built to withstand long uninterrupted belts of it. Just plan on doing something about it, including dumping your canteen on it, or shoveling snow, or a half dozen other things done in combat to cool a continuously firing weapon that cannot stop.

Printed reports from a lab test and actual acts in the field in wartime are not apples and apples. Those that served see the difference, those with no clue aren't going to be able to debate, regardless of the integrity of their structured arguments. They aren't talking about something they know, they are repeating a second hand story, recorded to document something they didn't observe and likely never experienced.

Let's talk reality, not from injured ego, and maybe the rest of us can actually learn lessons others paid a high price to learn.

 

[HKFan9]

+20 to Kraig and Chindo. Experience talks... the rest... specially the internet walks. Crosshair you seem to just be arguing for the sake of arguing at the point, it's a little hard to argue against the man who was in charge of one of the units who requested the testing. That is not something you joke about, or make up either.

Thank you to Kraig and Chindo for your service.

 

[Magog]

3 days after Tet, we regained more land then before their sneak attack.

There spray and pray BS did not do them any good, and the AK is only good for killing unarmed civilians.

 

[zukiphile]

Kraig, you a helpful and interesting writer, and this isn't a dig.

Some people base their beliefs on what they read on the Internet, some people base their beliefs on what they've done and seen.

We are all reading this on the internet.

 

[Father Time]

the AK is only good for killing unarmed civilians

Unless the person useing it actually trained in its use. In which case it can be a very effective weapon.

Its the operator not the rifle that makes the difference.

 

[Quentin2]

crosshair

Nobody said it doesn't work, just not as good as alternative designs.

crosshair, I bet this is what got you PO'd, this is your agenda. You come into a direct impingment thread looking for a fight to justify your apples and oranges (alternative designs).

Well that's just fine, start another piston vs. DI thread of your own. Don't critcize those who have real experience. And one is the OP of this thread.

And have you served? If not maybe you should show a little more respect to those who have. Kraig and Chindo were in combat and are telling you how it was, they're not reading this stuff off the internet. Though I have nothing like their experience I was there for Tet, 1968 and a lot of rounds were being pumped through M16s, even from guys who up to that time carried the same ammo from when they got in country. Sure there were horror stories of guns that didn't work some justified due to ball powder and bad magazines but no doubt much can be blamed on poor maintenance. For guys who figured it out there were ways to clean your rifle, plenty of rags, shoelaces, gasoline and motor oil, etc.

Sure a lot of guys were carring piston guns, I started out with the M14 myself but when I got the Mattel I thought it was swell. 40+ years later, guess what - it still is.

 

[thesheepdog]

Crosshair, put a cork in it!!

Kraigwy is a very knowledgeable man with lot's of combat, shooting and instructing experience.
You're ranting and raving over the most ridiculous stuff; just give it a rest before you get this thread closed!

 

[Jimro]

I can't believe nobody mentioned the "cook off" problem yet.

If you get the barrel so hot that it cooks off the rounds before the bolt is in fully battery you get that "flame out the ejection port" problem. The rifle then goes into uncontrollable full auto mode because the hammer doesn't need to drop to fire off a round. And because the bolt isn't forward sometimes that primer gets blown back in someones face....

Just think how hot your chamber has to be for that to happen.

Just think how elevated chamber pressures are because the powder is being raised to auto ignition temperature before igniting.

I didn't do it myself, but I worked with an NCO who destroyed an m240 barrel during the surge in Iraq. The barrel glows red, the rate of fire drops off, and then "POP" a bullet bursts out of the side of the barrel as it droops. There is a good reason for barrel changes every minute.

So my point is that an M4/M16 firing that much is literally chewing itself to bits before the barrel bursts because of the cook off problem (which has happened on a Range where I was working. The rifle functioned perfectly once cool).

Jimro (Iraq '09, wasn't around for Vietnam)