All-purpose Assault Rifle

Cant Go Wrong With A M14 Style Rifle

Socom II or AR10.

Chieftan:

I feel really bad about the Nam era soldiers/marines who had to fight with that generation M16. It was fielded way to early and the government decided to ignore Stoners requirement on the type of powder to save money. The result was a rifle that jammed often.

But rest assure that the bugs of the rifle have been worked out since then. The M16A2 is a reliable weapon when properly maintained. The only people I have seen that have had their rifles jam in my two tours in Iraq, were non combat soldiers. A lot of these guys rarely left the FOB and rarely cleaned their rifles. My unit opted for M16A4s instead of the carbine for general issue. There were only a few carbines in the company and most were carried by the officers and senior NCOs.....basically guys who didnt fire them all that much.

definately either an FAL or an M1A

Things have changed. The carbine in it's newest version, the M4 is more unreliable than the "rifle" version. And the most dramatic failure of the rifle was when Jessica Lynch's unit was essentially wiped out and captured aided and abetted by the NEW M16 failing when another GI needed his/her rifle most. Nothing new here. By the way that was 2003, 35 years AFTER I saw the first M16 jam in combat. At least they are consistent.

Click to expand...

Issue A -- Every weapons system assigned to Lynch's unit failed during the ambush, up to and including the sainted John Moses Browning's own M2HB. This speaks to incredibly shoddy officers and NCOs in the unit, and says nothing about the weapons systems. The same unit, armed with AKs, PKs and other "ultra-reliable" Russian kit, or anything else, would have had a similar experience for the simple reason that troops who do not care for their weapons (and unit leadership who does not enforce this if the troops don't do the right thing) will not have reliable weapons.

Issue B -- The Vietnam era M16s and modern M16A2/A4s and M4s are different. If you're not familiar with the modern weapons, ranting and raving about them and insisting they're just as flawed as the one they handed you 40 years ago is not a very productive contribution to the discussion.

HorseSoldier Issue B -- The Vietnam era M16s and modern M16A2/A4s and M4s are different. If you're not familiar with the modern weapons, ranting and raving about them and insisting they're just as flawed as the one they handed you 40 years ago is not a very productive contribution to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Agreed and I'll add the following:

The Vietnam era M14s and modern MK14s and M14 EBRs are different. If you're not familiar with the modern weapons, ranting and raving
about them and insisting they're just as flawed as the ones tested over 40 years ago is not a very productive contribution to any discussion.

Horse Solider, I agree that they did jam a M2HB. Actually they were unable to even get it into action. I agree that ONE of the problems was lack of supervision. There were other contributing factors, some of which was the fault of the person they saw in the mirror every morning.

However, the fact remains that the AK's and the other com block weapons shooting at them DID NOT JAM!

The basic design of the M16A1 and the M16A4 are still same. I agree with proper maintenance and use of the newer lubes can improve things, but as long as it's using a gas impingement system, you will have a heat (lube cook off) carbon problem.

Like a lot of people of my generation I'm not a AR / M16 fan. During my Army tour (72-76) I've witnessed the M16 fail. I've also seen it do a lot of thing well. The older 1 n 12 barrels with the 55 grn bullet was devastating at 150 yards and in. I haven't been that impressed with the heaver bullet and the faster twist barrels. All still have troubles with car wind shields, and bodies.

I had to carry the AR family up to 96. When I no longer need a government entity approval on the weapon or caliber I carried I got rid of the AR's that I had. I went to the AK / SKS family of weapons. You see I no longer have a massive supply chain to back me up, nor do I have a company of men and access to air support.

My decision works for me. Your decision works for you. Both are right for the individual.

One last thing. Pointing out the history of a particular weapon is not clouding the issue, It's just telling the truth.

I'm still waiting for a compelling reply to the fact that the US Army's own sand tests, on two completely separate occasions, showed that three different piston-drive potential replacements were far more reliable than the M4. We're not talking jimbob's theory of direct impingement problems, or one random person, we're talking about the Army's own tests where they wanted the M4 to do well and it didn't.

Separately, I would think that our soldiers in the sandbox(es) would be happy to spend only 2-3 minutes a day cleaning the rifle instead of 15-30, so they could pursue their hobbies (sleeping, eating, showering...).

This is a new rifle(to me, anyway) by Saiga; the RAK-47. It fires the 308 round that seems to be ubiquitous in the US.

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/beta/storeproduct409.aspx

Issue A -- Every weapons system assigned to Lynch's unit failed during the ambush, up to and including the sainted John Moses Browning's own M2HB. This speaks to incredibly shoddy officers and NCOs in the unit, and says nothing about the weapons systems. The same unit, armed with AKs, PKs and other "ultra-reliable" Russian kit, or anything else, would have had a similar experience for the simple reason that troops who do not care for their weapons (and unit leadership who does not enforce this if the troops don't do the right thing) will not have reliable weapons.

Click to expand...

No doubt there were/are leadership problems. I don't doubt these folks didn't know how to set the head space on that 'MaDeuce' either.

I have never, I repeat, NEVER, heard of such a problem with another family of weapons, in any military group. If the weapon is THAT susceptible to jamming with the difference of function vs non-function is that close, it is frankly unacceptable. Some things never change. :banghead:

Issue B -- The Vietnam era M16s and modern M16A2/A4s and M4s are different. If you're not familiar with the modern weapons, ranting and raving about them and insisting they're just as flawed as the one they handed you 40 years ago is not a very productive contribution to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Contrary to your very wrong assumption, I am very aware of the differences. It is that knowledge and awareness that is the basis for my concern, and apparently a lot of other folks too. Hell, the Israeli's didn't trust the widow maker so much they finally developed their own rifle. Apparently they care about their troops a lot more than our leadership does.

Why, did the Israeli's spend all that money and time?? Poor reliability of the M16/M4 systems. No doubt they didn't like 14% of their troops, that survived, being placed at risk. (remember those are only the ones that lived to complain about their weapons failing)

The bolt still sucks, it is the only major weapons system that I know of that the operator often carries an additional bolt, to replace the broken one, in the rifle. The existing bolt is simply to weak. The heat from the gas impingement exacerbates that weakness.

A very similar problem exists with the extractors. Again the very nature of the system exacerbates the innate weakness of it's to small and weak extractor.

Today, last week, 40 years ago. They ain't fixed that ****.

Some things never change! :banghead:

I'm still waiting for a compelling reply to the fact that the US Army's own sand tests, on two completely separate occasions, showed that three different piston-drive potential replacements were far more reliable than the M4. We're not talking jimbob's theory of direct impingement problems, or one random person, we're talking about the Army's own tests where they wanted the M4 to do well and it didn't.

Click to expand...

BINGO!!!

Don't forget that earlier the Corps had found in their testing the M4 jammed 3 or 4 times more often than the M16 Rifle. (I really don't remember the model sitting here right now)

Don't let any of that sandy factoid stuff get in the kool aid, though. It is similar to the FAL folks who ignore the fact that in Yemen the Brits had to modify their FAL,s because of the sand causing them to jam too. They had to make "sand cuts" in/on the bolt, to increase the FAL's reliability in the desert.

Many folks who have only fought with the M16 family, just don't know any difference.

Go figure.

Fred

Chieftain, I have to agree with you. The bottom line is that middle eastern sand is VERY hard on guns.

I dumped that AR's kept the FAL.

springfield SOCOM. look it up. dont doubt me.

I'll stick to my FAL Scout.

to the OP wait till the ACR I am

to the OP wait till the ACR I am

Click to expand...

Why? It's vaporware.

Go figure.

Fred

I'm pretty fond of this one. Only costs $900 dollars, quality is as good as or better than HK, better barrel than HK. Magazines are $30 dollars for 10.

PTR??

Beautiful rifle.

Yes, and thank you.

Contrary to your very wrong assumption, I am very aware of the differences. It is that knowledge and awareness that is the basis for my concern, and apparently a lot of other folks too.

Click to expand...

Really? I still don't hear many current end users complaining, just a lot of folks on the internet . . .

Hell, the Israeli's didn't trust the widow maker so much they finally developed their own rifle. Apparently they care about their troops a lot more than our leadership does.

Why, did the Israeli's spend all that money and time?? Poor reliability of the M16/M4 systems. No doubt they didn't like 14% of their troops, that survived, being placed at risk. (remember those are only the ones that lived to complain about their weapons failing)

Click to expand...

It's a neat little story, just completely wrong.

The Galil was developed as a replacement for the FAL. It entered service around the same time the Israelis got their first M16s, during the 73 War resupply we rushed them.

And what really happened? The Galil got pushed out of the limelight by the M16 and M4. IDF currently issues it as a personal defense weapon for guys who hopefully don't need a rifle at all (tank crews, etc). Their shooters carry M16s or M4s. If the Galil was such an improvement one would think that, even if they get rifles from us cheap, they'd give the better combat long gun to their infantry and give the inferior weapon to the guys who ned a PDW.

Or perhaps they do. Having used a real Galil more than most folks who post on this board, and trained a good number of people to use it as well, I can safely say I prefer the M4A1 for various reasons.

The bolt still sucks, it is the only major weapons system that I know of that the operator often carries an additional bolt, to replace the broken one, in the rifle. The existing bolt is simply to weak. The heat from the gas impingement exacerbates that weakness.

Click to expand...

Strangely, it "sucks" so much that it's been copied on a number of service rifles developed since the adoption of the M16 . . .

thanks

Just want to thank all posters on this thread.
This is my first visit to the High Road and I joined this thread because I've been looking for a semi-automatic .308 for hunting, SHTF and range fun and I was considering the DPMS LR-308 AP4, the RRA LAR and the PTR 91 KFM4.
All three are, broadly speaking, in the same price range, but I was leaning PTR-ish because I've had very good luck with H&K pistols ... and because I had heard of the controversy surrounding the direct-impingement design.
So, while the M-16/M-4 debate may have seemed to some of you to be a bit off topic, it's been, for me, very helpful and informative.
I note that several of you are veterans or active duty military. Thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. (I'm thinking that blogging, with or without smileys, isn't much of an option in countries that do not enjoy freedom of speech, and we have you to thank for this, and much, much more.)
Were it up to me, you'd have more choice in the weapons you carry. I see a purpose in standardizing on ammunition, less so in choice of platform. But I imagine that just isn't practical. As a taxpayer, I'm willing to spring for the best. As a citizen, I'll take your word on what that is. But that's just me
As a civilian, I do have a choice, and having read your excellent postings, I'm going with my original inclination.
While slightly more countries have used the M-16 than the G-3 in their armed forces (73 or so versus about 80, according to Wikipedia), I note that Burkina Faso went with the G-3. So, who you gonna believe, Burkina Faso or Jamaica? Me, I'll go with Burkina Faso every time. (Just kidding. I didn't even know where Burkina Faso was 'til I just now looked it up.)
And as to the original question, I'll agree with those posters who've argued there is no "all-purpose" rifle. For the SHTF: a sturdy and reliable platform (see the numerous recommendations above, my opinion would be uninformed) firing a popular cartridge. For HD: an HK .45 USP-C tricked out with an under-barrel light (this opinion is informed).
Again, thanks for the thoughtful (and thought-provoking) posts.
My $0.03.

I would vote for an M-1A. 5 round magazines are available, and although not easy to disassemble, the bolt has a lever attached to it where a jam is easier to clear. FAL's Can have this feature, but you'll have to make one yourself or use a bolt carrier from a paratrooper model. A Siaga is similiar though not quite as capable as the average M-1A. I happen to believe a ROMAK III would work for your purpose as well. Don't use cartridges with bullet weights over 180gr. and you should be fine. It is going to be a bit hard to find an M1-A for $1200, they often cast a bit more.