A caliber comparison question.

[d2wing]

Well that’s not an opinion shared by all. The M16 and 5.56 adoption has more to do with politicking and greasing the the right palms than science. Remember the M16 was touted as to not require any cleaning or routine maintenance; pure pseudo science. “Militarily scientist” is an oxymoron.

Actually the M-16 was adopted as the result of a real scientists study conducted before the M-16 was designed. McNamara backed it and it was so. Greased palms or not. The rifle was originally designed for the .308. That's a fact not opinion. And yes McNamara decided to delete Chrome lining and then other decisions were made downstream of the designers that included the use of less than optimum powders. And of course the no need for cleaning fiasco. Not the fault of the scientists and engineers but of politicians and Military staff. Perhaps you are right about greased palms. And by golly if the 45-70 was good enough for Custer it should be good enough for the Army. Right?
I liked both the M-14 and M-16, and the .357 but wouldn't feel bad about having a Colt .45 ACP.

 

[wagonburner]

Actually the M-16 was adopted as the result of a real scientists study conducted before the M-16 was designed. McNamara backed it and it was so. Greased palms or not. The rifle was originally designed for the .308. That's a fact not opinion. And yes McNamara decided to delete Chrome lining and then other decisions were made downstream of the designers that included the use of less than optimum powders. And of course the no need for cleaning fiasco. Not the fault of the scientists and engineers but of politicians and Military staff. Perhaps you are right about greased palms. And by golly if the 45-70 was good enough for Custer it should be good enough for the Army. Right?
I liked both the M-14 and M-16, and the .357 but wouldn't feel bad about having a Colt .45 ACP.

Not sure how you manage to interpret my post as to have said the M16 didn't start off as a 308. Nor how you allude I'm somehow claimed we should still use a 45-70. Maybe some stronger readers are needed?

The notion that scientists' work led to the adoption of the M16 and 5.56 cal is laughable. The M16 and 'scientists' have never crossed paths.

 

[d2wing]

Not sure how you manage to interpret my post as to have said the M16 didn't start off as a 308. Nor how you allude I'm somehow claimed we should still use a 45-70. Maybe some stronger readers are needed?

The notion that scientists' work led to the adoption of the M16 and 5.56 cal is laughable. The M16 and 'scientists' have never crossed paths.

Not true but don't let that stop you. The original Stoner designed rifle was changed from NATO 7.62 to 5.56 as a result of a scientific study and tests and has been proven correct for 50 years. You have malicious opinions, I have facts. And you are really off topic and I will not respond to any more silliness on your part.

 

[Dave T]

d2wing,

As you throw out insult after insult you might consider the name of this forum, The High Road. Please climb down off you pedestal and stop treating the rest of us as idiots. It's annoying.

And by the way, I hate to bust you're inflated bubble but you're not the only person here to serve in Vietnam.

Dave

 

[GEM]

The OP was about handguns and we are insulting each other over 223?

Closed