Overrated???


PDA






USMCDK
April 15, 2008, 02:52 AM
Hello everyone,

I have been thinking for a while about the (M-16) style weapon systems out there and can't help but wonder if it has become an overrated weapon design?

Please don't misunderstand. I have noticed in more and more Magazines, out there, have this weapon system on their covers and article after article about how wonderful it is. Sure it's easy to build, easy to break down, and clean! Versatile??? you betcha, but here's where I get all bothered by this...

I served in the USMC and learned this weapon system in and out. The more and more we trained with it, the more we realized what a POS is was. The old-timers (as the call themselves in the corps i.e. vietnam vets) would always tell us how the M-14 was the greatest rifle they had ever fired along with some that would claim the M1A1 was king.

There are so many other rifles out there that shoot farther and more accurate than any m16 varient out there of even the same calibers. So why is it that the M-16 types are revered as the end-all-be-all weapon now-a-days???

I just can't help but FEEL that this weapon system is just overrated.

So what do you guys have to say about this??? (I mean the weapon system not my opinion)

Sincerely and respectfully,

USMCDK

If you enjoyed reading about "Overrated???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
woodybrighton
April 15, 2008, 03:53 AM
it throws lead down range and doesn't jam what more do you want?
for a combat weapon it works
5.56 could be a slightly better round but nothing is going to give you one round stops every time
m14 is not that brilliant weapon too light for automatic fire too heavy as a standard rifle if you fighting at normal combat ranges getting in and out of armour etc.
not really designed to mount optics.
cause there is better stuff out there. What there isn't is a rifle that is going to be a leap like from the Springfield to the Granard

ugaarguy
April 15, 2008, 03:54 AM
Someone, I think it was Bartholomew Roberts, noted that all the new weapons systems on the market - SIG 556, Robinson XCR, FN SCAR, Magpul Masada/Bushmaster ACR - have copied the AR-15 in terms of ergonomics & control layout. Most also break down very similarly to an AR-15.

Since you work for SIG perhaps you could tell us why SIG chose to do this on the 556. The 556 safety, mag catch, and bolt catch are all positioned almost exactly the same as on an AR-15. The 556' takedown pins are in the same locations and work identically to those on an AR. Heck, it even uses STANAG magazines.

You see, for all the complaints about the AR platform, there's still much good. Most of the early complaints have also been addressed throughout the history of the rifle. Magpul's anti tilt followers are a cheap fix for improved magazine reliability. M4 cut feed ramps have improved reliability during rapid/sustained fire. Piston operated drop on uppers are available if you must have one. Faster twist bbls. have allowed the use of heavier bullets. The weapon's modularity and huge aftermarket mean you can further tweak the ergos to perfectly fit the shooter. Last, with just some simple care the rifles work quite reliably.

In conclusion, no, the M-16 / AR-15 rifles are not over rated. They're good rifles, and good rifles get lots of press.

USMCDK
April 15, 2008, 04:02 AM
Well I am not really allowed to tell you much about Sig weapons to be honest, it can get me fired. But you are right they did mimic the M-16 for what reason I couldn't tell you even if I was allowed to cause I just don't know.

You do speak a volume of truth ugaarguy but I still can't help think that it has become an overrated weapon system. There's plenty of weapon systems that out shoot it caliber for caliber.

I guess what I am trying to ask is...

What is everyones opinion about the M-16 design and what is it so darn popular compared to other weapon designs and functions out there???

poorfolks
April 15, 2008, 04:04 AM
i believe that the problem (?) has to do with many factors, so there goes the chance of an easy answer. i personally like the rifle platform because i carried it through two tours in iraq. i would not purchase an exact copy of the model i used but the after market has refined the platform to a very functional rife with many uses. i have a varmint style ar and it is great for its intended use, it is also a twenty four inch tube and full stock.
the fact that it is a true black rifle has an appeal to a younger generation, who grew up watching r rated movies and lacking parental guidance. most people just want it to look cool and have no idea how to deploy the weapon the way it is intended. the way the media, all forms of it, portrays the rifle also has a huge impact. if they started pushing any other weapon the way the ar platform is pushed on the public there would be a shift in interest. look at the glock, the media talked about the pistol until it was a house hold name. soon the ar platform push will go the way of joe camel and crystal pepsi, some will look back and think, others will laugh. what the heck, just my two cents.

johnnyonthespot
April 15, 2008, 07:39 AM
i have read at least a dozen testimonials by military men complaining about the m16 and .223 platforms.

I never hear anyone complain about a .30-06 round...

hrm?

Horsemany
April 15, 2008, 07:55 AM
I don't have any problems with the guns themselves. They are largely disproving the myth that a semi-auto can't be as accurate as a bolt. They are not flawless but they have proven themselves for over 40 years. They need not be compared to the M-14. The real genius of the design was it's modularity. I can't think of any other gun that can go from 16'' barrel CQC gun to 24" prairie dog smoker. It's versatility will keep it the U.S. service rifle for years to come IMO.

I do however get a little disgusted at every other thread being about AR's and AK's on this and other forums. I remember just a few years ago if you wanted to read about "rifles" there were plenty of threads about the classic bolt actions that I'm into. I haven't read a thread about a pre-64 model 70 in months. 3 or 4 years ago they were pretty common. Nothing against the AR's. I wouldn't like to read about any type of rifle that much. Just my .02

stubbicatt
April 15, 2008, 08:09 AM
Perhaps it is similar to the 350 Chevy engine... maybe not the best choice for every application, but a good choice for most. Parts and accessories are readily available. If properly maintained will do the job for a long time.

I just don't like the AR platform.

Ash
April 15, 2008, 08:17 AM
What I don't get, really, is that it seems if you clamp on a new thing, the rifle suddenly becomes a whole new model in the magazines. Add one thing or the other and, suddenly, we aren't even talking about the AR-15 platform. It reminds me of the gag-photo of the guy with everything attached to his tacticool AR, including the swiss-army knife.

I like the platform just fine, but changing out the handguards does not suddenly make it a new model. This may not really be directed to folks here, just an observation I have made.

Ash

Walkalong
April 15, 2008, 08:21 AM
If over rated, then what is so much better? If something was, it would be everywhere like the AR is.

An AR is a very versatile rifle, with a lot going for it. I am not an AR nut like some, although I do like them and have a couple, but they are undeniably an excellent platform.

Horsemany
April 15, 2008, 09:20 AM
Do any of you guys remember a few years ago when the threads were more about sporting rifles. It seems like anymore if there is a thread about sporting rifles it's often someone looking for the cheapest whatever. Nobody seems interested in the medium to high end guns. A lot of people want cheap guns or tactical guns. Is it just me or has the market made a drastic change in the past few years? Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread. This has just kinda been naggin at me a while.

ArmedBear
April 15, 2008, 10:10 AM
People have bought cheap hunting rifles for a long time. Lots are rusting in basements. Now and then somebody dies and you get to see what sort of crap people used to buy, when the family goes through his old stuff.

The guns you see at gun shows are only the ones WORTH reselling...

And yes, there are some old sleepers, too, but man, there's been a lot of junk out there.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 15, 2008, 10:11 AM
There are so many other rifles out there that shoot farther and more accurate than any m16 varient out there of even the same calibers.

Really? I can think of a few bolt guns that can outshoot an AR; but I cannot think of a single semi-automatic rifle and certainly not a 5.56 model. Which rifles did you have in mind?

If anything, I would say the M16 series is underrated. During the recent sand tests, the M4 fired almost three times its basic load of ammo in a raging sand storm without cleaning and repeated this ten times while functioning at better than 98% and most people considered this a horrible failure.

As already noted, the ergos and modularity are top notch and set the standard for the rest of the market. From my perspective, you have a well-proven, infinitely-tested rifle that is tops in ergos, modularity and accuracy and while not tops in reliability, is certainly way up there in reliability.

The more and more we trained with it, the more we realized what a POS is was.

Really? In what ways did you find it not meeting your expectations? My experience has been the opposite. The more I train with the AR, the more I appreciate it compared to other rifles. What kind of training did you do with it in the military?

some that would claim the m1a1 was king.

Well, an M1A1 would be an Abrams tank, not a rifle. So you can certainly make the argument it is the king compared to any rifle.

ArmedBear
April 15, 2008, 10:18 AM
What is the AR, really? How do you define it?

All you have to do is look through a catalog or two and it becomes clear that the only thing that makes an AR an AR is the stripped lower receiver. Everything else, and I mean everything else can be had from multiple vendors in many configurations and sometimes with radically different engineering. Hell, now you can even get lowers that are quite different from a standard one.

How can you call something "overrated" or "underrated" or anything else, when it has little definition except for certain standard dimensions? Is the Picatinny Rail overrated? Is the 1" scope overrated? How about sling swivel studs?

Deer Hunter
April 15, 2008, 10:22 AM
Speaking of accuracy, are we talking about your run-of-the-mill fielded M16, or some custom built AR stateside that only eats hand-rolled rounds?

fingerbanger
April 15, 2008, 10:25 AM
i agree the m16 ptatform would not be my first choice. dont know about the after markets though. they may have perfected it by now. didnt care for the m16a1 or a2 both jammed, so often in fact every soldier is taught the SPORTS drill not in the event it jams but i the likely hood that it will jam. and mine did often. i didn't find cleaning the thing to be easy either maybe our armorer was just to picky though. my 2 cents

H2O MAN
April 15, 2008, 10:30 AM
USMCDK

I have been thinking for a while about the (M-16) style weapon systems out there and can't help but wonder if it has become an overrated weapon design?

Please don't misunderstand. I have noticed in more and more Magazines, out there, have this weapon system on their covers and article after article
about how wonderful it is. Sure it's easy to build, easy to break down, and clean! Versatile??? you betcha, but here's where I get all bothered by this...

I served in the USMC and learned this weapon system in and out. The more and more we trained with it, the more we realized what a POS is was.
The old-timers (as the call themselves in the corps i.e. vietnam vets) would always tell us how the M-14 was the greatest rifle they had ever fired...

There are so many other rifles out there that shoot farther and more accurate than any m16 varient out there of even the same calibers.
So why is it that the M-16 types are revered as the end-all-be-all weapon now-a-days???

Many think the AR type is the end-all-be-all weapon - it is not - none are.
The M16 platform is cheap and easy to make and there is alot of profit to be made on the civilian side of the market.
This is why you see the platform on the cover of every gun magazine.
Nothing wrong with that, but it does tend to blow the platforms capabilities out of proportion.


I prefer the M14 platform and the 7.62mm NATO round, I also like the AK platform in 7.62 x 39.


I recently purchased a Colt LE 6920 just to have one.

Over rated? Maybe
Useful? Defiantly

Ghost Tracker
April 15, 2008, 10:46 AM
A firearm design doesn't reach the level of popularity held by the AR without a large group of experienced shooters deciding they LIKE 'em. Yes, there are detracters of the .223 as a caliber. Yes, there are folks with tales of less-than-ideal performance. Yes, there will always be shooters who are loyal fans of other designs (M1A, HK 91, AK, FN FAL, etc.) making fine arguments to substantiate their alternative preferences. But the fact remains...that the sheer (over-whelming) number of AR manufacturers, parts builders, application options, and Championship Winning shooters that support & reinforce the AR's status makes the suggestion that the design is over-rated seem, uh, short-sighted.

Success in the (free)marketplace is based strictly on value received. Billions of dollars worth of success hint that the AR is on top until the next rifle innovation competes for those same dollars. It hasn't happened yet.

rangerruck
April 15, 2008, 10:58 AM
actually, I think the weapon system itself is fine, except for the gas tube, which has a fix, but was never implemented, the rate of fire, and the necessity of cleaning. But all 3 of these complaints are covered , in one way or another , by piston drive., if they wont' fix the gas prob with the ar.
I also think the ar is overly accurate, and should be as to it's origional design, barely stable, and within 4 moa. Then if we were to switch to a 6. 45, the grendel, the creedmore, or any other round, where to only change would be to change all the ar's bbls, then this would take care of many other problems, mainly all having to do with the round itself.

H2O MAN
April 15, 2008, 11:00 AM
Ghost Tracker

Success in the (free) marketplace is based strictly on value received.

No, not really.
There have been many successful items in the free marketplace that deliver less value than expected.
The AR platform is riding a wave of popularity - get one and enjoy it.

Vern Humphrey
April 15, 2008, 12:01 PM
I just can't help but FEEL that this weapon system is just overrated.
It is and it isn't. The AR 15 was rejected by both the Army and Marines, although as you might expect, a few people here and there liked it.

MacNamara ordered it adopted -- primarily to show the generals he was in charge, and to boost the economy of the northeast -- where he and the Kennedys came from, and where the rifle was made.

The M16s we were issued in Viet Nam were truly POSes. But since then, there have been literally thousands of changes to the rifle. It's a different rifle now, and the ammo is also much different.

We have changed our tactics to adapt to the weapon, minimizing its weaknesses and capitalizing on its strong points.

We have innumerable accessories, parts, tools and so on in stock -- it isn't just a rifle anymore, it's a complete system.

And we have a huge institutional memory on the M16. Currently serving Sergeants Major cut their teeth on this rifle, know it inside out, and don't have experience with other rifles and tactics.

11c2v
April 15, 2008, 01:07 PM
There will always be those who hail the black rifle, and those who spurn it.

1. I have served with the A2. I have sent many rounds down range. I have cleaned it in garrison. I have field stripped in the field. I have experienced few malfunctions with it throughout over 5 years in the infantry. Truth is, I bet most of the malfunction claims come cooks and clerks firing blanks.
I find it likely some armorers won't/don't replace faulty extractors and ejectors causing a FEW weapons to jam more frequently than I have had or witnessed.
Of course were are trained in SPORTS! We train for every possibility in combat. To do less is to die. I don't like dying.

2. And true, a 7.62 will penetrate deeper brush than the 5.56. Basic physics here fellas. The heavier round carries far more energy. Compare the muzzle energy: 55 grains@ 3240ft/sec for the 5.56 = 1282 ft/lbs.
150 grains@2820ft/sec for the 7.62 = 2649 ft/lbs.
Consider the weight difference when you load up with a minimum 210 rounds.
I prefer to pack more of less for a firefight. My two cents.

Overall I enjoyed my time with ser# 6459999 M16A2

woodybrighton
April 15, 2008, 02:38 PM
the SA80a2 is probably more accurate than an m4 and more reliable too gas piston and hand forged by rhine goblins:evil:

elmerfudd
April 15, 2008, 02:44 PM
Personally, I do think it is overrated. It's a fairly accurate and very ergonomic design that's somewhat lacking in reliability. It's main claim to fame is that it was adopted by the U.S. military. If we had adopted the FNC, Sig 55x, or even the AK, you'd be seeing tons of tricked out versions of those rifles and you would be hearing about how they were the greatest design ever.

Tarvis
April 15, 2008, 02:50 PM
Like I actually know anything, but wouldn't an upper chambered in something a little more potent, such as 6.8 or 6.5 fix one of the major problems with the m16 platform? The 5.56 was adopted partially for its weight savings while still being *considered* lethal, correct? Something between 7.62 nato and 5.56 sounds like the ticket to me. Throw on a piston and problem solved.

I just built my first ar 2 weeks ago so I can't speak to the reliability.

dscottw88
April 15, 2008, 02:51 PM
I Agree that although the rifle receives a lot of press time in recent years, It is indeed Underrated. People don't appreciate the weapons features. For a semi-auto, its fricking accurate. Ergonomically its also amazing! And its compact, lightweight design remains unbeatable. When I hear people talking down the AR platform I can't help but to think they are uneducated and opinionated. It's not perfect by any means, but its better than most other firearms out there.

DougDubya
April 15, 2008, 02:52 PM
Much of the problem with the current crop of AR's is that the barrels are too short for the lighter 5.56mm projectiles.

The Marines solved their problems by going to heavier bullets.

A better solution would be a full length-ish barrel (18 inches minimum) and a true folder, but that's not possible unless you really alter the lower, like on the ZM series.

ArmedBear
April 15, 2008, 02:57 PM
The Marines solved their problems by going to heavier bullets.

I thought the Marines are still using 20" M16A4 rifles as their general-issue weapons.

Zak Smith
April 15, 2008, 02:59 PM
The best thing you can add to an AR-15/M4/M16 is an Aimpoint or a magnified ACOG.

-z

H2O MAN
April 15, 2008, 03:13 PM
I prefer the EOTech with it's precise 1 MOA dot centered inside the 65 MOA circle of death :evil:

http://www.athenswater.com/images/LE6920-COLT.jpg

Zak Smith
April 15, 2008, 03:16 PM
It's besides the point-- which is that the weapons system is solid and works, and that it can be more of a force multiplier with simply a better sighting system. (From an overview, the Aimpoint and EOTech serve the same purpose. )

ArmedBear
April 15, 2008, 03:23 PM
That's what I was saying...

An AR is anything built on something with the dimensions of this:
http://www.carricozarmory.com/images/bushy_stripped.JPG

Compare two "ARs" and essentially every single part can be a different design, even some of the pins. There are many sighting systems and combinations thereof, almost every external dimension is variable, there are many barrel lengths and contours, grip designs, stock designs and dimensions, gas systems, piston systems, trigger guards, triggers, etc., etc.

"An AR" is only slightly more specific than "a bolt action".

pete f
April 15, 2008, 03:33 PM
I just keep wondering why you keep making mistakes on nomenclature after spending 4 years(?) in the USMC.

The M1A1 is a tank, the M1A was a civilian copyrighted name (never a military rifle as far as any research I have done) for a semi version of the M14. M1C or M1D were military accepted model or version names of the M1 Garand rifle, selected to be used as sniper or marksman rifles.

SlamFire1
April 15, 2008, 04:09 PM
What is everyones opinion about the M-16 design and what is it so darn popular compared to other weapon designs and functions out there???

American civilians are familiar with AR's. Not that many people own AUG's, FAMAS, F2000, or HK416 assault rifles. The people here, they like what they own.

The M16 platform is getting long in the tooth. Bullpup designs equal the M4 in compactness, but are ready to deploy without having to extend the buttstock. I thought the integral optical sights was the path to the future, and the FAMAS, AUG have them. However the trend is to stick adapters, screws, rails, and things on top, all of which add more complexity and failure mechanisms to something that should be as simple as a rock.

The M16 remains dust sensitive. I cannot think of, and I suspect that no other weapon design used the direct gas expansion system. This should tell us something: there are better, more reliable gas operating systems out there.

Nations which use the M16 do so because they are given to them. Free is hard to beat. However whenever someone decides to start from the ground up, the final solution is not a M16. That should say something too.

As much as I love my M1a, it seems that the full power "battle rifle" is a speciality item, if not a musuem relic.

Owlnmole
April 15, 2008, 04:18 PM
I don't claim to be a gun expert, but I do know a little about communications. The dominance of the AR platform today is not because of its historical greatness, but because the civilian and military leaders of the most powerful nation in the world decided to field it for their forces, and after that, there was so much at stake that it just had to work. Look at the way the U.S. forced 7.62x51 down NATO's throat when there were much better calibers available.

Also, when you look at the competitors in the market, especially if you go back in time to when the AR was a new weapon, there were and have been a lot of comparable rifles. But the combination of relatively easy U.S. laws allowing many competing manufacturers and refinement over the years has left us with a good, though not perfect system.

It's a bit like Microsoft and Apple--Apple always had the better product, but Microsoft got in on the ground floor with big business and cornered the market. Then everyone had to figure out how to make their !@#$%^& DOS and Windows systems work, dammit, so they eventually did.

Anyway, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it...it's worth what you paid for it. :-)

Bartholomew Roberts
April 15, 2008, 04:20 PM
Nations which use the M16 do so because they are given to them. Free is hard to beat.

Not true. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have dumped free AKs in order to purchase M16s. The weapon is also used by groups as diverse as Hamas and FARC - neither of which can legally purchase M16s.

However the trend is to stick adapters, screws, rails, and things on top, all of which add more complexity and failure mechanisms to something that should be as simple as a rock.

The problem with integrated optics a la the AUG is that when they fail, so does your only sighting system and you are stuck with whatever optic was chosen regardless of how useful it is for your particular needs.

The screws, rails, et al. add a wonderful range of flexibility to any weapon for anyone capable of tightening a screw or thumbing a lever shut. As for point of failure, there is a picture somewhere in the archives here of an M4 with ACOG that was strapped to the outside of a vehicle when a 155mm shell (IED) went off on the vehicle. Parts of the upper receiver are missing entirely; but the ACOG in its issue TA51 mount is still gripping the picatinny rail of the upper receiver.

Of course, requiring people to correctly attach a thumbscrew or QD lever mount does add a minor amount of additional complexity. I would suggest though that anybody incapable of managing that additional complexity probably shouldn't have a rifle anyway.

Derek Zeanah
April 15, 2008, 04:42 PM
I think the disconnect is in how you're measuring the weapon, and what you think its role is. A few thoughts: A .308 hits harder than a .223, as does 30-06, .50 caliber, 20mm rounds, and those big things they occasionally still shoot from battleships. More lethality is a good thing all else being equal, but I think history shows that the .223 is a sufficient mankiller provided it's used within its limits.
It's easy to shoot an AR or M16. I've watched my platoon in basic get training on the weapon and parts were just painful. I can't imagine how much harder it would be with a "real" rifle like an M1 Garand. Adding kick to the issues these city kids are trying to master means we can't train them in nearly the same amount of time. When I went through Infantry Basic (1991) I believe we spent about 1.5 weeks on the range. I don't think I've ever fired a rifle as easy to shoot as the M16, though it royally sucked on the bayonet range.
They're reliable, provided they're clean, have good mags, and aren't shooting blanks. I grabbed a couple of good mags early on and never let them go, and I never had a malfunction on the range. Still plenty with blanks, and we fired many more blanks than real ammo, so that might contribute the the perception that they're prone to malfunction.
We don't rely on direct fire of individual weapons to kill the enemy like we did 60 years ago. Nowadays (or at least the way I was taught, in the Army) we try to achieve fire superiority in order to get the enemy hunkered down, pick up a handset, and say "adjust fire, over..." High explosive does the job, and more ammo means you can suppress an enemy more effectively/longer.
The exception to the above is in MOUT situations, which seems to be a big part of Iraq. Here, I can't think of a better weapon than the AR platform. Even the shortest barrels produce enough velocity to cause reliable fragmentation at short indoor ranges (= ugly wounds), penetration through multiple rooms is minimized compares with something like a 30-06 which presents less risk to friendly troops, and a short AR with a collapsible stock is probably more quick in chose combat than anything other than an MP5 (which is limited by firing pistol cartridges).
Support troops should be considered too. What we're doing in the middle east seems to revolve around mobile combat, and it's easier to deploy a shorty AR, from Humvee, while wearing body armor, than any previous weapons platform other than the M1 Carbine and Thompson SMG. If you've got to react to enemy fire close up while confined to a vehicle what would you like more? Aren't that many weapons that make more sense that aren't specialty weapons.Now, some of the new bullpup designs are pretty sexy, and the M16 does get annoyingly dirty annoyingly fast, but overall it works.

Seems pretty apparent to me.

H2O MAN
April 15, 2008, 04:50 PM
pete f


I just keep wondering why you keep making mistakes on nomenclature after spending 4 years(?) in the USMC.

The M1A1 is a tank, the M1A was a civilian copyrighted name (never a military rifle as far as any research I have done) for a semi version of the M14.

Actually . . . M1A is Springfield Armory Inc's. name for their civilian version of the M14.
Other makers call them by other names ... all of mine are stamped M14.

Wouldn't want you to make the mistake of calling them all M1As ;)

cornman
April 15, 2008, 04:56 PM
The Ford Crown Victoria must be the best car to own since that is what most police officers have. I think this is the mentality that many have towards what the Military uses for small arms.

SlamFire1
April 15, 2008, 07:46 PM
Nations which use the M16 do so because they are given to them. Free is hard to beat.

Not true. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have dumped free AKs in order to purchase M16s. The weapon is also used by groups as diverse as Hamas and FARC - neither of which can legally purchase M16s.

I can only speculate that Iraq and Afghanistan are not using their money to "buy" American weapons. It is likely, years after we are all dead, someone will do the forensic accounting and write in the history books where our $5,000 per second went.

Hamas or the FARC are very troublesome, dangerous organizations. But I really doubt that either of them have conducted weapons procurement other than through arms smuggling. From what I heard, the average M16 in the hands of a Hamas terroist was acquired through drug for arms deals with Isreali soldiers.


Of course, requiring people to correctly attach a thumbscrew or QD lever mount does add a minor amount of additional complexity. I would suggest though that anybody incapable of managing that additional complexity probably shouldn't have a rifle anyway.

We currently have an all volunteer Army. It has not always been this way. Many of the folks in Iraq are average intelligence, highly motivated, and when you get into the National Guard or Reserves, many are interested in guns and things. To assemble, maintain a kluge takes a reasonable amount of mechanical aptitude. And we still have the example of Private Jessica who could not clear a jam in her M16. Her statement "It jammed". If it was not for the current emphasis on increasing weapons familiarization we would be shipping more Private Jessica’s home in body bags.

We should not assume that the average draftee will ever be interested in his weapons at all. We should not assume that those draftees sent into the infantry will have a high mechanical aptitude. For them, things should be simple, reliable, and easy to maintain.

I am still surprised by the lack of mechanical aptitude of people. And some of these people are folks who served our country in times of need. One gun club member, a Vietnam vet, has twice brought me his Mosin Nagant bolt to reassemble. He can’t figure that out on his own. If you show him, step by step, get him to do it step by step, by rote, he can do it. If he forgets a step, someone has to put the thing together for him. He is not stupid. And I suspect, he is typical of what we will get when we go to the draft. Good guys, who with training, can perform their function. But don’t expect them to repair, debug, complex items on their own.

I have sighted in guns for a State Senator, now a Judge. He was unable to understand the concept that moving the sight blade right meant the bullet moved right.

Since he lives in a 1) Mansion and is 2) filthy rich, and 1.a) I don't, and 2.a) am not, maybe I would have been better off with less mechanical aptitude.

fal 4 me
April 15, 2008, 07:53 PM
some that would claim the m1a1 was king

Well, an M1A1 would be an Abrams tank, not a rifle

The M1A1 is a tank



Could he have meant the M1A1 Paratrooper Carbine or the M1A1 Thompson Submachine gun?:neener::neener::neener::neener::neener:

NMshooter
April 15, 2008, 08:08 PM
So long as you keep your AR/M-16 well lubed you will find it to be FAR more reliable than some folks give it credit for.

At least in my experience.

Lots of old wives tales out there that still get far too much attention.

You even occasionally hear the one about the M-1 carbine and the supposed failure to penetrate heavy clothing, despite the fact that .30 carbine zips through all soft armor and needs steel or ceramic plates to stop it.

I suppose 50 years from now when the M-16 has been replaced with a smoothbore weapon firing APFSDS ammunition because nothing else will do against the body armor commonly worn by first rate soldiers we will hear all sorts of complaints about the lack of "knock down power"...;)

I want one of David Drake's power guns; or a David Weber pulser; Bullets are a bit too chancy...:neener:

Joe the Redneck
April 15, 2008, 09:16 PM
I tend to think most things are over-rated.

I love my ar, but I also love my ak, and my sks for that matter. I would not feel underarmed with any of them.

I wouldn't mind an xcr or a h&k either.

Nothing made by the hand of man is perfect. But certain platforms have their true believers.

I knew one guy in my life that used to do "black ops work" in some of the yuckier parts of the world. Thye used everything and anything they could be locally supplied with. Generally speaking, they used shotguns.

The only thing I take issue with is the "M1 Garad" and "M14" crowd. These are more specialized weapons. Humping that ammo around and a four foot long rifle can really slow you down. Not to mention recoil can become a factor.

I am very interest in the new 6.8 round. I think there is a lot of potential in that.

Joe

mccook8
April 15, 2008, 09:42 PM
I bought my AR mostly because it is the semiautomatic rifle I am most familiar with, thanks to Uncle Sam.

...and I'd imagine that quite a few of the veterans of the last 40 years or so who own them bought theirs for the very same reason.

No need to RTFM, it's already second nature.

It's more accurate than an AK or SKS. It's much cheaper than the vast majority of the .308 and other .223 offerings.

...and it's powerful "enough" and reliable "enough" - as long as you keep it clean "enough".

H2O MAN
April 15, 2008, 09:58 PM
Joe the Redneck The only thing I take issue with is the "M1 Garad" and "M14" crowd. These are more specialized weapons.
Humping that ammo around and a four foot long rifle can really slow you down. Not to mention recoil can become a factor.

Recoil, what recoil?

Troops carried the Garand and its heavy ammo to hell and back without complaining.
The M14 is a lighter more compact rifle that replaced the Garand troops that have been lucky enough to have the M14 respect it.

Todays modernized M14 currently in use in OIF is a very specialized weapon that fills many roles.

I prefer specialized weapons :cool:

http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14Mod1-small.jpg

CBS220
April 15, 2008, 10:02 PM
If the 5.56 won't put a burglar down, it's because you're missing. That's a bunk argument against a good cartridge.

The AR is simply one of the easiest to use, most reliable, versatile, affordable, and worthwhile rifles available.

MIL-DOT
April 15, 2008, 10:12 PM
Several hours ago i resisted the urge to reply to this query, mostly because the thread already had no shortage of lenthy,informed repiles. But now, several rum & cokes later........:evil:
My short answer : YES, the ar-15/M-16 is over-rated.I think it's success is due largely to the fact that it was continually and repeatedly hammered down our throats for decades, till FINALLY, it works "acceptably well",and due to it's numbers and years in service, it's now......."well accepted".
Don't misunderstand, i learned to shoot (well) on the A-1 version as a Marine in the early 80's, and was happy enough with the rifle that i bought myself a Colt car-15 (SP1) when stationed at camp pendleton, and still have it today. I also have a retro tri-guard AR that I built (OK,assembled) a couple years ago. So i LIKE the rifle.
I just don't LOVE it.
I love.....the AK-47.And this is something that just came over me a year or so ago.Rather than ramble endlesselly and pointlessly on, i'll hopefully illustrate my point with an old,favorite quote of mine, "simplicity is the hallmark of genius".
YMMV.

pgeleven
April 15, 2008, 10:14 PM
i have read at least a dozen testimonials by military men complaining about the m16 and .223 platforms
give a troop ANYTHING and have him lug it around in the desert or woods for a year and hells yes theyre going to bitch about it. compared to similar-priced alternatives, the AR platform is hella reliable. i think about the ones i carried in my 10 years of service and the hell i put them through, thrown about, beaten, bouncing inside of a tank, it still fired everytime (given my CLP didnt burn off when my senior refused to take ANY brass back to the ASP, and we werent going to get to chow until this ammo pallet vanishes...). i would trust my M4 in the desert more than my M1A, i KNOW the M4's magazine will feed another round, you seldom get the same inner assurance with the alternative rifles. ive fired about every individual and crew served weapon our current US military has in its arsenal (to include a SMAW), and i was more satisfied with the M16/M4.
once the assault weapon ban expired, gun owners everywhere FINALLY got to get what they were waiting for, a post-ban assault rifle without the pre-ban price tag. once the ban ended they have been making the weapon more affordable, attractive, customizable, and adding about 345,834 accessories to it a year (im holding our for my rail mounted Ipod carrier and a side mount for a Tom-Tom, maybe a cappucino machine...), so its going to be in the spotlight for awhile and on many gun mag covers to come. i personally think the weapon system has come a long way and deserves the attention it gets. dont get me wrong, i dont like half the pages of every magazine i own showing pictures of Brand A-Z's version, and i loathe what the war has done to the price of .223, but i wouldnt take anything else with me if i knew my a$$ would be on the line.
a lot of you will want to crucify me for saying this, and i wouldn't put it past them to delete my THR.org account, but the AR series will one day be to our grandchildren what the Garand is to us. deplorable to think about, but very feasible.

Bartkowski
April 15, 2008, 10:25 PM
It amazes me that so many people say the m16/m4/ar15 style is unreliable just because they heard that it was from someone on the internet. I don't have much experience with the design but I am very pleased with what I have encountered so far.

My AR has only failed because of a cheap magazine that it came with. My cousin and a friend of mine, both serving in the military have done nothing but praise the weapon. The only time my friends rifle would fail was when he hadn't cleaned the magazine.

The only thing I do not like about the AR is the price. For some dropping $1000 on a rifle isn't a big deal, but for me it is quite a bit of money.

chupacabrah
April 15, 2008, 10:34 PM
What is everyones opinion about the M-16 design and what is it so darn popular compared to other weapon designs and functions out there???


I think the answer is capitalist propaganda....




:neener:




It is a good rifle, but like many other things in life, it is not the "end all be all". I too think it is overrated, but many things are.

The M16/AR whatever platform is well known especially to americans, so of course it will get more press. it's what the "good guys" use.

_N4Z_
April 15, 2008, 10:58 PM
I had a M16A1 while in the active Army 86-90. I today, right now, have an AK clone.

I could hit things at 300m far easier with the M16, than I can with the AK.

The AK is far easier to clean. Then again so was the M60 machinegun compared to an M16.

The M16 did suffer occasional jams which were easily cleared. My AK has had 1 jam, also easily cleared, out of several thousand rounds.

I consider both good rifles with each having it's own strong and weak points.

Recently on the Mil Channel, they rated the top 10 rifles of the world. Most here already have heard or seen this, but for those who have not, AK #1, M16 #2. I would agree.

*thought the list was a touch bogus though as it only gave the Mosin Nagant rifles an honorable mention... kooky talk! :rolleyes:

Eightball
April 16, 2008, 12:19 AM
it's easy to build, easy to break down, and clean!it's easy to build, easy to break down and clean, it's accurate, modular, multi-calibre, lightweight, handy, low-recoiling, good sights, good ergonomics.....the list goes on about the AR platform.

cbsbyte
April 16, 2008, 01:10 AM
Not true. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have dumped free AKs in order to purchase M16s. The weapon is also used by groups as diverse as Hamas and FARC - neither of which can legally purchase M16s.

Well Hamas etc obtain the weapon through illegal means, and from Israeli soldiers. Israel was given all their AR rifle about 20 years ago, that is why they use the older A1 models. Many Asian countries also where given older M16s in military aide deals.
There are several nations that did adopt the M16 or M4 platform on their own accord. Canada and Denmark come to mind. They use the Canadian Diemaco variant as do many other countries that adopt it. The Diemaco C8 is a popular weapon with many special forces units around the world, including the British SAS. Georgia just adopted the M4 carbine because the prime minster likes the rifle.

Still the majority of nations that adopted the M16s because they were free, or sold at reduced prices. Many of those nation, such as Israel are replacing their aging rifles with new technologies.

mukluk
April 16, 2008, 02:27 AM
I'm rather suprised nobody caught this yet...

I have sighted in guns for a State Senator, now a Judge. He was unable to understand the concept that moving the sight blade right meant the bullet moved right.

Last time I checked if you move the sight blade right then the bullet impact will move left, not right ;)

BBroadside
April 16, 2008, 03:28 AM
Vern Humphrey wrote: "MacNamara ordered it adopted -- primarily to show the generals he was in charge, and to boost the economy of the northeast -- where he and the Kennedys came from, and where the rifle was made."

McNamara was a California boy. He taught at Harvard for a little while, but I wouldn't say he was from the Northeast.

Diverting contracts from the M14 to the M16 seems like a strange way of helping the Northeast, given that the former was made by Springfield and H&R (in Mass.), TRW (in Ohio), and Olin (in Connecticut).

pgeleven
April 16, 2008, 09:30 AM
Last time I checked if you move the sight blade right then the bullet impact will move left, not right
good call

SlamFire1
April 16, 2008, 10:14 AM
Last time I checked if you move the sight blade right then the bullet impact will move left, not right

Sorry, I was thinking of the Judge's M629 and the rear sight blade. Trying to explain to him about turning the screws and the direction which the rear sight blade moved, and then which way the bullet "moved".

You are correct about front sights. And you would be correct that making a sight adjustment moves the point of impact, not the bullet.

As a kid, when I asked about why we have night and day, my Mom told me it was because "the Sun goes up in the morning and comes down at Night". At the time, that was good enough, and all the information I needed to know.

buzz_knox
April 16, 2008, 10:21 AM
Not true. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have dumped free AKs in order to purchase M16s. The weapon is also used by groups as diverse as Hamas and FARC - neither of which can legally purchase M16s.


Toss in Israel as well. They largely warehoused the Galil and purhcased more 16s (often Vietnam era surplus) and modified them to mee their demands.

And yes, Israel gets a lot of American dollars. But those are the same funds they spend on items like aircraft (F-15s and F-16s), electronics, etc . . . and they still budgeted those funds for M16s.

I don't think SAS gets Americand funding, but they do use 16s in preference to other weapons.

usmc68
April 16, 2008, 10:51 AM
Did anyone watch the History Channel's program on the M16? I found it interesting but defer to the expertise in this forum if it was factual.

SlamFire1
April 16, 2008, 04:00 PM
Did anyone watch the History Channel's program on the M16? I found it interesting but defer to the expertise in this forum if it was factual.

Yes, it was interesting. The whole episode was created around a David versus Goliath theme, with Stoner and his corporate backers being the virtuous David.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Army was happy with the M14 and was not interested in spending time or money evaluating his rifle. Unfortunately there was no one from the Testing side of the house to reply to Stoner's claims of sabotage during the Artic Tests. It has been my experience, that when a Contractor’s piece of equipment fails, the Contractor never accepts the blame. Instead they do whatever they can to shift the blame to anyone or anything but never themselves. Therefore to understand what really went on, you need at least two sides to the story.

mr.trooper
April 16, 2008, 04:41 PM
Its a good weapon, but tis not worth $1,000+ . Especially considering that its competition is commonly available for 1/2 the price. That has more to do with marketing and the tactical craze than design superiority.

RockyMtnTactical
April 16, 2008, 05:17 PM
I love the AR15. Overrated? I guess it depends on how you feel about it personally. To me, no way is it overrated.

However, mine work and work well.

44AMP
April 16, 2008, 07:59 PM
First, just a little bit of background. so you know my opinions did not come just from something I read on the internet.

I was an Army Small Arms repairman from 75-78 and I handled, inspected, and repaired literally thousands of M16A1 rifles. I have built (assembled) AR rifles, and I have been a shooter and reloader for close to 40 years.

The AR rifles today are the result of 40+ years of tweaking to correct the flaws in the original design, and the flaws in application of the original design that appeared to be flaws in the design.

There are two basic components to the AR rifles, the guns themselves, and the cartridge. The 5.56mm round is puny, compared to every military rifle round before it. In the majority of states it is not powerful enough to legally hunt deer. Whenever you compare it against a larger caliber round, it will be found wanting. However, for what the military wants (today) it serves well enough.

The AR rifle design has some great features, and some that are less than the best possible. As others have said, the military got the AR rammed down their throat by the MacNamara defense dept, those same bean counters who were responsible for the removal of more weapons and weapons systems from the US military than would have been lost to a Soviet nuclear first strike!

Over enough time, we have gotten most of the bugs out of the system, aside from those which cannot be altered as long as we stay with the basic AR design.

For all those who claim things like "nobody ever complained about the .30-06" or "they carried the M1 to hell and back without complaining", I got news for you. They complained. They bitched. They whined and sniveled, just like soldiers today do. They did it about the M1, they did it about the 1903 Springfield, and about the rifle-musket. I'm pretty confidant they bitched about the weight of the spears, swords, axes, clubs, and rocks used from day one. It is something soldiers do. When soldiers aren't complaining, watch your butt!

But one thing I never heard of was anyone complaining that their M1 wouldn't kill the enemy. Yes, it is heavy, by today's standards. And they thought it was heavy back then. But they knew that heavy meant sturdy. Blocking a German bayonet lunge, or buttstroking a Banzai charging Japanese called for a weapon that was rugged. I don't know about the latest AR rifles, but I can tell you from experience that many times Vietnam troops had to go hand to hand with their M16s, and found themselves with two pieces of broken rifle afterward. Light weight has drawbacks. So does heavy. There is no free lunch. Don't think those WWII vets cared about the weight? Just look at any picture from WWII, not taken in the midst of actual combat. And look at the number of rifles who's butt in on the ground. Nearly all. When you don't have to carry it, you don't.

Many,many things have changed since those days. Military doctrine has undergone major changes since WWII. The guys who landed on Guadalcanal with 1903 Springfields (Marines, who hadn't gotten M1 Garands yet, because there weren't enough to go around yet) were given 40 rounds of ammo, and that was expected to last them two weeks in combat! We sure have come a long way. In those days, riflemen were taught to shoot only when they had a target. Suppressive fire was the job of the machinegun. We did learn that in combat there are drawbacks to that philosophy, but it took some time.

With AR rifles, every troop carries a (light) machinegun, or did until they took away the full auto setting.

the M16 is very easy to shoot. Current designs shoot well. The military doesn't train soldiers to be riflemen today like they did generations ago. WWI troops were taught to hit man size targets at 600 yards, and area targets at 1200, with their bolt action .30-06 rifles! When I was in, we were taught to hit at the tremendous range of 300 meters! And they didn't bother to spend the time needed to ensure the majority could do even that!

As shooters, lots of us understand what is rifle is for. What it can do, and what it is not so good at. And we all want our equipment to be the best it can be, because when it is real, it is our butt on the line. The military has a slightly different view. The lives of the individual soldiers are not the most important thing. The mission is. Lives are important, and should not be wasted, but the mission is the most important thing. And if you can get the mission accomplished with what you have, better equipement is a low priority.

The AR is the most popular military type rifle today (in the USA) because there is no real alternative. The reason the AR has been constantly upgraded and improved, instead of being replaced is cost. There is nothing in the pipeline that is a significant enough advantage over the AR to overcome the cost of replacing the huge investment that 40+ years of AR use has built up. Aftermarket gadget designers make thing for the AR, because they want to make money. They make money by selling the most of their product that they can. So they make it for the AR, because there are more AR out there than other things. And people buy ARs because there are so many aftermarket add ons. The cycle builds on itself. The Ruger 10/22 is the most accessorised .22 on the market, and a huge seller because of that. And because it is a huge seller, lots of people make accessories, etc. It is a fine gun to start with, but not significantly better than many other .22s. But all the neat stuff you can get for them.....you get the picture?

USMCDK
April 16, 2008, 08:31 PM
Really? In what ways did you find it not meeting your expectations? My experience has been the opposite. The more I train with the AR, the more I appreciate it compared to other rifles. What kind of training did you do with it in the military?

We did the normal training with it annually at the range 200-300-500yard line, but also I was stationed in 29stumps (29 palms CA) and it nothing but desert, the weapon would jam almost every time I went to the range and let me tell you I cleaned the hell outta this weapon before and after the range (white glove style) Lubed it real nice before the range, not excessively but a nice slick layer and then stored it with a really thin layer as they wanted us too. None the less the weapon would still jam. I inspected the hell outta the thing as well for burrs nicks dings scratchs you name it. The only thing I wouldn’t check was the measurements on it to see if they were still within the thousandths of an inch of tolerance. I may just have been issued (3) bad rifles in my time. But at least now you know what I did for training. Oops forgot to add we did role playing as well it’s called DTC (Defensive Tactics Course) we shoot blanks and paintball rounds out in the desert and even with this I had mis-fires FTF FTE jams you name it. Hell I’d rather carry the 249saw or the 240B/G (Bravo being the army versions and the Gulf being the Marine’s)

How can you call something "overrated" or "underrated" or anything else, when it has little definition except for certain standard dimensions? Is the Picatinny Rail overrated? Is the 1" scope overrated? How about sling swivel studs?

I don’t think that you are really directing this at me, but just for clarification purposes I did say and I quote I just can't help but FEEL that this weapon system is just overrated. Thank you…

It is and it isn't. The AR 15 was rejected by both the Army and Marines, although as you might expect, a few people here and there liked it.

MacNamara ordered it adopted -- primarily to show the generals he was in charge, and to boost the economy of the northeast -- where he and the Kennedys came from, and where the rifle was made.

The M16s we were issued in Viet Nam were truly POSes. But since then, there have been literally thousands of changes to the rifle. It's a different rifle now, and the ammo is also much different.

We have changed our tactics to adapt to the weapon, minimizing its weaknesses and capitalizing on its strong points.

We have innumerable accessories, parts, tools and so on in stock -- it isn't just a rifle anymore, it's a complete system.

And we have a huge institutional memory on the M16. Currently serving Sergeants Major cut their teeth on this rifle, know it inside out, and don't have experience with other rifles and tactics.


Well spoken my friend well spoken…

Consider the weight difference when you load up with a minimum 210 rounds.

11C2V what branch of service are you in? We in the USMC only carry 180rounds (6 mags full 30rds a piece) same goes for us fake guys in the ARNG.

The Marines solved their problems by going to heavier bullets.

Okay Doug here we go, my fabulous friend, with our debating LoL I love this… PLEASE do explain what you meant by this??? Thanx

I thought the Marines are still using 20" M16A4 rifles as their general-issue weapons.

When I was in MOST of the infantry units had or were switch(ed/ing) over to that model but as of now I am not sure and can’t really fight that statement or agree with it.

I just keep wondering why you keep making mistakes on nomenclature after spending 4 years(?) in the USMC

Corrections my friend reread my original post I typed along with some that would claim the M1A1 was king. Thank you…

USMCDK

Vern Humphrey
April 16, 2008, 09:06 PM
44AMP brings up an interesting point. When I was a young recruit, bayonet training was very vigorous -- we bashed, slashed, lunged, parried, and bashed and slashed some more. And we used our own issue M1 rifles. Then we used those same rifles to qualify with.

Later, when I was a training company commander in between tours in Viet Nam, we'd have had a heart attack if someone suggested we have the troops use M16s like that.

elmerfudd
April 16, 2008, 09:24 PM
Toss in Israel as well. They largely warehoused the Galil and purhcased more 16s (often Vietnam era surplus) and modified them to mee their demands.

But Israel has also decided to ditch the M16 in favor of an AK based rifle.

USMCDK
April 16, 2008, 10:19 PM
I thought that they were still using the Uzi type weapons???

_N4Z_
April 16, 2008, 10:48 PM
Waaa?! Uzi is old school for the IDF. Where you been keeping yourself?

They have a really nice ride coming down the pike right now called the Tavor. Have a look with the below link. They also had a spot about it on FutureWeapons (MilChannel) awhile back.

http://www.defense-update.com/news/62302tavor.htm

elmerfudd
April 16, 2008, 11:31 PM
The Tavor appears to be an AK derivative. I haven't managed to find a diagram yet of it's operating system, but the descriptions I have read describe it as a long stroke gas piston with the piston attached to the bolt carrier and there aren't too many other designs like that.

JCMAG
April 17, 2008, 12:12 AM
5.56mm = great for selective fire and full auto. Light recoil + flat-shooting bullet = great accuracy in bursts.

Now, we lowly, untrustworthy peasants, will only be firing semi-auto, so, unless you are adverse to recoil, you can get something with a little more umpf for your black rifle.

AK-47: I honestly do not see the appeal. It's the pug of the rifle world. Sorry, but I am vain.

AR-10: Fine, fine, fine rifle. The new sniper system being adopted by the military is based on it. It is also highly customizable like the AR-15, and has specialty chamberings popping up, too.

M14/1A: One of the finest rifles ever made.

M1: It might not have a detachable magazine, but it will do damn near anything a black rifle can and with style. :cool:

But, if you want 5.56mm, you are not going to beat the AR-15. Not for aesthetics, not for ergonomics, not for functionality. You could get rifles like the Ruger Mini or that Keltec rifle that, if you fold down the foregrip, it turns into optimus prime or something, I don't know. But the AR-15 is still the king in 5.56mm -- just like the 1911 is the king of the .45 ACP.

P.S. .... don't forget the Beowulf...:evil::evil::evil:

P.S.S. Someone mentioned the IDF. God bless Israel.

alaskanativeson
April 17, 2008, 02:09 AM
Sounds like most everything has been said here but it doesn't mean I'm not going to put in my bit.

I hate to sound too Clintonesque, but it depends on how you define overrated. If you're talking about some of the people who worship the AR15 at the mighty alter of black rifles then yes, it's overrated. Of course that's only because the ones oyu are judging have small minds that have been sent out into the real world too soon.

As a weapon the M16 has proven itself. Yes, the early versions in 'Nam sucked. They have done much since then to improve on it. Whether it was because McNamara wanted to show how tough he was or whatever the reason the weapon survived, improved, and now dominates. Maybe they could have chosen a better design but it's what we have, it's worked well for a long time.

The 350 analogy is a great one. It worked well for a long time but it would have been much more efficient if Chevy had decided to stuff a short block diesel in their trucks.

USMCDK
April 17, 2008, 04:46 PM
This is all too true. I have to admit that the weapon has come a long- drawn-out, far-dragged thru the mud way and does have it's utter fine points. I do like the weapon system, when it works, like the brand new ones that only you have fired.

One other thing that I forgot to add to how I cleaned my rifle was I took the barrel, gas tube attached, and soaked the heck outta it in a solution/solvent tank for about an hour. Then I would take it out and use a brass brush (tubular in shap and long about 4in and run that puppy in and out of the gas tube just to get out all that carbon. Talk about black sludge, it looked like over done coffee that had been sitting on the warmer for 10hrs. I did this about three times just to make sure I got the most of it out. Let me tell you the weapon shot damn near like a charm after that. Never did do it again though, cause me armorer threw some kinda wild fit about me doing that. something about not having the authority to clean the gas tube in fear of ruining it or some crap. *SIGH* you just can't please 'em all can ya???

Wolfgang2000
April 17, 2008, 10:42 PM
The AR /M16 platform has seen success for the same reason the majority of us use IBM clone computers with windows based operating system.

It's the "'industry standard". Yes there is better more efficient out there. But so many use it, the cost is less and there is more "stuff" out there for it.

You should also understand that the people that make the decision on the weapon that is used are not the one carrying it. They just pay for it. If they can keep cost down, and get something that works "OK", well why not. It's not their but on the line.

USMCDK
April 18, 2008, 04:14 PM
If they can keep cost down, and get something that works "OK", well why not. It's not their but on the line.

too true.. damn those :cuss:

bwavec
April 19, 2008, 12:06 AM
It will take the literal "next step" (whatever that may entail) in personal weaponry to replace the AR.

When it was initially fielded the AR was a drastic departure from what the US military was using. We will need the same type of change to displace the AR platform from the military (and the currently vogue new chamberings and piston designs are only modifications, not real dramatic changes).

pete f
April 19, 2008, 09:58 PM
Israel went to M16/m4's because we gave them to them, for free, and sent them millions of rounds of ammo for free, under a foreign aid american products program.

They were new, un issued weapons.

The Tavor is a bullpup, 5.56 version, they have tried a .30 carbine version as well, to see about getting more punch, called he Magal. WHich brings up the biggest problem with the .223/5.56 is the lack of punch, if you are looking at the anemic .30 carbine as a up grade, the original must be pretty weak.

Number 6
April 19, 2008, 10:50 PM
The Tavor is a bullpup, 5.56 version, they have tried a .30 carbine version as well, to see about getting more punch, called he Magal. WHich brings up the biggest problem with the .223/5.56 is the lack of punch, if you are looking at the anemic .30 carbine as a up grade, the original must be pretty weak.

In everything I have ever seen on the Magal, that is not the reason for chambering it in .30 carbine. Everything I have read on the rifle states that Israel has had a long tradition of using .30 carbine for police work and the Magal continues that tradition as well as using existing stocks of ammo and magazines.

USMCDK
April 20, 2008, 01:53 AM
pete F and Number 6 I appreciate the explainations that you have given me about what Isreal is using now a days and I actually will take the responsiblity for this thread deverting from my OP. +100 to you guys for your homework with three gold stars too.

Now back to the original topic at hand my friends... Thanx guys/gals

Howaido
April 20, 2008, 09:52 AM
Don't ask me. I prefer the AK design and haven't touched an AR but only a couple times since I left the Army. The AK with a modern optic is the best option for me.

_N4Z_
April 20, 2008, 10:00 AM
Right on Mr. Gunfight. We should start a new club. Prior service Army that prefer AK's over AR's! :p Woohooo!! Coke / Pepsi challenge? :D

Had my Vector clone out yesterday along with a couple other friends. Both the AK and my Marlin336 30-30 had some time gong shooting at 300 yards.

Was a good day! Now I wont say that both scored 100% hits at that range, but they both did rather well. AK managed 5 hits in a row, open sights, before logging a miss. Thats pretty good considering how "inaccurate" this animal is supposed to be.

Was 78 degrees out and sunny, no appreciable wind, was a GREAT day of shooting !! ;)

wcwhitey
April 20, 2008, 10:38 AM
Everyone has made great points and I can agree with most of them on both sides as it comes down to pure personal preference. Every weapon that has ever been devised goes through an evolution of improvement. The heralded M1 Garand was changed numerous times during its service. It had problems with freezing up solid in the winter, op rod issues, etc. etc. The M14 had accuracy and full auto controllability problems.

I was a Navy guy who cut me teeth on .308 Garands, M14's and 1911's when everyone else was getting the M16's and Beretta's. I qualified Expert with the M14 and used to laugh when the Marines would get jealous. However over the years I got used to the M16, it took time but I found it to be a great rifle, accurate and ergonomic. It does like everything else have limitations. It is also at the end of it's evolution, what else can be done to it? The problem as I see it now is that there is very little coming down the pipeline that would be a substantial enough improvement to justify the expense.

Lastly, I think the only big limitation of the M16 is the 5.56. The same rifle in a 6mm-ish 100 grain round would have been the way to go IMHO.

USMCDK
April 21, 2008, 12:32 AM
IMHO The M16, in the military, should be revised to have a gas pistol instead of a tube. Furhter mor I agree with the last statement about it being calibrated in something areound the 6mm-ish round, some where between 5.56 and 7.62

7.62-5.56= 2.06(divided by)2= 1.03+5.56= 6.59mm (some where in the lines of a glorified .25/.26caliber)

Famaldehide Face
April 21, 2008, 10:51 AM
The SA80A2 is better than ever and the most accurate 5.56 rifle this day. Would the US ever consider adopting it or a derivative?

Suppose it would be ok to manufacture again as H&K sorted the problems out.

H2O MAN
April 21, 2008, 10:58 AM
Running Gunfight Don't ask me.
I prefer the AK design and haven't touched an AR but only a couple times since I left the Army.
The AK with a modern optic is the best option for me.

That works for me :evil:

I am about to sell off my unfired 6920 to fund another T56SHTF build.

USMCDK
April 22, 2008, 12:01 AM
A WHA???? t56shtf??? Pics Please

buzz_knox
April 22, 2008, 08:49 AM
They were new, un issued weapons.

Not all. Many are described as surplus Vietnam era, with the uppers/stocks replaced by the IDF to make them M4/CAR pattern. That's consistent with the photos shown of them.

And why would the US supply Israel with "millions of rounds of ammunition" when Israel supplies ammunition to the US?

H2O MAN
April 22, 2008, 09:44 AM
USMCDK A WHA???? t56shtf??? Pics Please

I have pics ;)



Norinco Type 56S HTF

http://www.athenswater.com/images/Type56SHTF-with75rdDrum.jpg



Pictured with my Colt LE 6920

http://www.athenswater.com/images/T56SHTF-LE6920-2.jpg


My T56SHTF is a work in progress, I am shopping for a Micro T-1 and a BFG/Vickers sling.



Pictured with my MK14 SEI Mod 1

http://www.athenswater.com/images/1K-T56SHTF-MK14SEIMod1.jpg
.

pbearperry
April 22, 2008, 09:47 AM
I have never liked the M16 platform or the caliber.Give me an improved M14 any day.

doc2rn
April 22, 2008, 10:02 AM
Give me a Garand any day! The M1A1 is a far superior weapon to the M-16A1. I fired both in the service and it is like comparing a Cadilac to a Yugo. The only reason they stick with a loser is because they dont have to resupply the ammo as often since they make you carry it, and you can carry more 5.56 than 7.62. It is merely a logistic thing.
All the M series needs is a better upper and it would become a better warriors weapon system.

SlamFire1
April 23, 2008, 09:37 AM
It has been my experience, that when a Contractor’s piece of equipment fails, the Contractor never accepts the blame. Instead they do whatever they can to shift the blame to anyone or anything but never themselves. Therefore to understand what really went on, you need at least two sides to the story.


Well to quote myself, and to show that I am not making this up, here is a section from an AP story released two days ago, a summary of the M4 dust tests.

If you are not familiar with these tests, the Colt M4 came in last. So how does Colt explain this?, by besmirching the Army testers!.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jbr9M6g2XazXjqN8iq_bbJaNwV5wD905MTPO0

“Colt executives can't account for the M4's poor showing. And they hinted that the M4s sent from Colt's plant in Hartford may have been mishandled after being delivered to the lab.
"There's no way they left the factory like that," says Phillip Hinckley, Colt's executive director of quality and engineering. "It does leave a major question mark in your head." “

Corporations act exactly like psychopaths. One behavior is when things go wrong, they do not accept blame, responsibility for their actions. It is always someone else's fault. This is a clear and classic example of how they they manipulate the Media to shift the blame.

So, when you see Stoner on the History channel claiming the Army rigged the Artic tests against the M16, don't believe it until it is verified by a non-Colt employee.

USMCDK
April 23, 2008, 09:08 PM
Wow What a :cuss: bag of corse he's not going to let his company take the blame, they'd lose sales and of course it just easier to blame the military (WHICH TRAINS DAILY ON SAID WEAPON) of tampering, mishandling, or whatever to said weapon system. I am sorry but that's plain ignorance and arrogance if you ask me. THanks for believing in us you :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "Overrated???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!