M16/AK bit

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a former Marine and a vet of the First Great Sandbox Playground War, I wouldn't hesitate to take the M16A2 and it's variants into combat and put my life on line with it again in any climate
Click to expand...

The above is generally the kind of statement that is made by those of us who have used the M-16a2 in real conditions, including me.

[hypothetical quote] The AR jams if it even smells like sand outside, and the .223 will barely kill anything beyond 15 yards [/hypothetical quote]

The above is the kind of statement made by those who read and/or speculate about warfare, and those who repeat things they see on the internet, regardless of the veracity of the reporting.
 
Not sure thats really the point with Crucible's post. if he could clean his weapon and had the nessisary material to do it then it worked and worked well. no what if in there. he came home alive. I would also like to point out that one current Marine, on ex Marine, and one other vet have made it clear that the M16A2 would be their weapon of choice dispite cleaning. Now as for the AK, its a good weapon and as our SF vet from Nam pointed out it should never be overlooked as a solid weapon. But really what I would say (this is my oppionion) is that the M16 is a much more refined weapon. It takes a bit more care but is sexy about the way it deals in its craft. The AK is just a work horse and performs very well but is less cultured so to speak. I guess that the AK really is the perfect weapon for an amry of lesser soldiers many of whome are uneudcated, poor, young, and have no good formal training in firearms. The AK takes abuse. The M16 not so much but then I would hope that the soldiers that are being turned out by the US military are not the above.
 
I'm interested in hearing from a vet who rarely cleaned his M-16A2 after shooting and never had problems with it. My biggest beef with the rifle itself (apart from the gopher cartridge it uses) is the fact that it must be cleaned so often to function well. I would never tolerate such poor engineering in a personal firearm.
 
I'm interested in hearing from a vet who rarely cleaned his M-16A2 after shooting and never had problems with it
Click to expand...

Any vet worth his salt inspected and cleaned his weapon(s) whenever possible-his life depended on it's function, regardless of it's supposed reliability (and yes, I cleaned mine often as did every Marine...it's one of the things we do-regardless of weapon size or type). Purposely not cleaning it would have gotten a deserved asskicking-others depended on that person and his ability to engage the enemy too.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that vet to claim he purposely didn't clean his weapon in combat zones to essentially experiment to see how long it would take Murphy to show up.

If you think that weapon is poorly engineered, I'll show you a tens of thousands of Marines who use them and hit point targets routinely to 500 yards and area targets farther than that, reliably, in any climate or condition, and hardly think thier weapon is poorly engineered. Myself included.

Cruc
 
That's my point. A firearm that must be cleaned "whenever possible" is not a firearm that has ANY place in my collection--let alone during wartime. Presumably soldiers in combat have better things to worry about than cleaning all the little parts in their M16A2's. The firearm is per se defective for that reason alone. The whole batch should be returned to the maker.

I have no doubt Marines can hit targets with their rifles. I think that's great, in fact. But it's also completely irrelevant. The AR-15 and offshoots make fantastic target rifles and varmint rifles. They can be extremely accurate. However, any rifle that must be cleaned after each use as a religious matter has no place in any military force. The need for constant cleaning is a defect that might be overlooked by benchrest shooters who would clean it anyway, but why it should be overlooked by the military is beyond me.
 
:rolleyes:

Have you even served in the military? Served in a hostile place that required the carrying of arms?

Forget it. You don't get it; I'm done trying. Keep on living in that world of yours.

C-
 
Well you're the expert on combat, so you tell me. Are you prepared to tell me, as a vet, that routine cleaning of your M16A2 was a very useful and positive function that helped make you fight better? If so, please explain how the need for constant cleaning was a positive aspect of the M16A2's design. Maybe there's some military benefit to having to constantly strip down and ream out all the little parts that I just can't see, being a mere civilian and all.

I'm still wondering what "world" I'm living in. I suppose it's the world where crappy plastic rifles are sold off :neener:
 
Pretending that you are the all knowing authority on rifles just because you served in the Marine Corp is a little presumptious on your part.

Cosmoline makes a good point about the Stoner system needing to be constantly maintained to make sure that its tight tolerences don't get clogged up. And that is the fundamental split between the Kalashnikov and Stoner design philosophy's: tight tolerences vs. loose tolerences. While I would vote that loose tolerences are more desirable, I don't think there is an objective standard as to say one if "better" than the other, both work and do their jobs.

Also, saying that because an M60 melted down it's barrel does not mean that an AK would under normal conditions; the guy firing the M60 probably spit out a few belts before that barrel started to melt down, and to do the same thing with the same amount of rounds in an AK would take significantly longer.
 
My Arsenal AK has fairly tight tolerances and it never jams. There is this huge gas piston thing that gets between the gunpowder residue and the moving parts.

I cant hit things at 500 yards, but I will never jam at 10 or 25 yards, even if I am unable to clean it or have to use substandard ammo for a while. Considering I live in a crowded suburban area, my likelihood of engaging anything beyond 150 yards is slim.

I personally wish it wasnt necessary to compromise for a combat rifle, but I will gladly take reliability over accuracy in the assault rifle area. If I need accuracy beyond 400 yards, I will ditch the assault rifle w/reflex sight for a scoped bolt action.
 
Shouldn't all weapons be cleaned whenever possible?
Click to expand...

My Mossberg 500's and Rugers have gone months and even years between cleanings in the past. After last year's fishing season I stripped down my Mossy 500A bear gun for cleaning. When I tipped the receiver over, sand and crud literally poured out :D I clean my Mosins after shooting, but not because I have to. They could last a war or two without cleaning, and I've seen some in the past that appear to have done just that. THAT is how a firearm should be built.
 
Cosmoline said:
Presumably soldiers in combat have better things to worry about than cleaning all the little parts in their M16A2's.
Click to expand...

Actually, boredom is a HUGE factor in a combat zone...it ain't all duck, cover, shoot back. I've spent MANY hours cleaning M16A2's, M249's, and M9's that were already reasonably clean. Clean the tool that keeps you alive, or sit around telling boot camp stories...clean. Gotta back up my fellow jarhead here, the M16A2 is a perfectly viable rifle, even though I wish the M14 was still standard issue.

S/F

Farnham
 
I don't see where crucible was pretending to be the all knowing authority on rifles. All he said that in the military you clean your weapons whenever you can. Not because of the system, but because it's military doctrine to clean weapons whenever you can. He didn't say, "We cleaned our M16s whenever we could." He said they cleaned their weapons whenever they could -- meaning everything from M16s to M2s, M240s, M249s and whatever else they had. Would you jump to the same conclusion that since they cleaned their M2s whenever they could that the design is poor and you wouldn't want one?

You're trying to make it out like they cleaned their M16s whenever they could because they were M16s, which is exactly what he didn't say.
 
What a GREAT many AR fans have told me over the years is that the design is perfectly reliable IF the firearm is kept clean. Then there are the claims that soldiers who don't follow the religious cycle of cleaning and cleaning again are the ones to blame when the M16 stops functioning. I find this absurd. As a prerequisite for a combat firearm, I would think it should be able to withstand a month of off-and-on firing without a serious cleaning. By all accounts, the M16 and all of its progeny cannot meet this basic requirement. Most other assault rifles I know of can. And I personally know the AK-47 can take not only continue to function after several months of use, it can continue to function after a crazy roommate uses gobs of crisco as in innovative "lube." The AK passes the reliability test with flying colors. The AR-15 NEVER HAS.

There almost seems to be a notion in military circles that nobody in the US military is ever going to have to go more than a few days without being able to render their firearm useless for cleaning in a quiet out-of-the-way place. That's insane. It's like designing a car with an engine that will jam up every 3,000 miles if a teardown isn't done within that time because you think it's good for the mechanics to get the practice!
 
Dog bites man, no big deal. Man bites dog, everyone is jumping.

Usually bad things that happen to the minority end up getting a majority of the spotlight. A few bad apples seems to really escalate a problem more than it really is. It's also easier to get attention from something negative than something positive. (I know there is an idiom for this somewhere but I don't remember it)

I won't say anything with absolute fact because I've never been in a battle environment and have no right to judge otherwise, but this is what I think.

The original M16A1's seem to have the biggest gripes and issues. With the M16A2 revision, the problems of the original were solved (at least I assume they were). However, a lot of negative stigma still stems from those who used the original A1's and M16's are often lumped into one group despite a first and second generation design. I won't say the M16A2 has never failed, but a few cases here and there seem to generally give a particular firearm a black eye and people repeat this until it becomes urban legend.

For example, some people are under the assumption that ARs are jammomatics and refer to the AK as a superior alternative. Yet, we have another group of people who say AKs melt and are cheap pieces of crap and an AR is superior. Both are hated by certain people. Both have likely had real (albiet isolated) problems. I think you'll find no matter the firearm, you'll find some negativity associated with it which people tend to get fixated on over the majority of praises offered.
 
I'm waiting for someone to torture test their AR-15. 10,000 rounds straight without any cleaning. Cool by dunking in a bucket of water.

The AK could do it! SO could the 1911, for that matter. Indeed it's been done to 1911's by forum members.
 
What kind of momentum does a 5.56mm round have left at 800 yds? It's probably pretty pathetic. Does an assault rifle really need this kind of accuracy? That's why we have designated marksmen, after all. Give them M14s and let them take the 500 yd + shots.
Click to expand...

The current issue .223 round can punch through both sides of OUR issued helmet at 600 yards, that was the standard that it was designed for. Of course it needs a penetrator to accomplish this, but regardless it doesnt lack the penetration to do the job.

I'm waiting for someone to torture test their AR-15. 10,000 rounds straight without any cleaning. Cool by dunking in a bucket of water.
Click to expand...

I recall a couple of successfull attemepts at this over at AR15.com, its been awhile since i checked to see if any new ones have been done though.

As for the AK47 "melting" its nonsense. One thing to remember is that most AKs arent actually made in the third world backwaters that they end up serving in. MOST of them are made in Eastern Europe, Russia, or China, all nations that figured out how to make steel a long time ago. Also, lets not forget that most of the AR15/m16 is made of alluminum rather than steel.
 
Indeed it's been done to 1911's by forum members.
Click to expand...

Link, please?

I thinkyou'll find the 1911 is a gun that has the whole issue of tight tolerance/loose tolerance to itself. I've heard arguments that a) it was built with such loose tolerances, that it is deadly reliable, but can't hit much, and b) the ones are tightened up require so much tnkering to get them to work, it isn't worth it.

And wasn't the original jamming issue due to the gun being designed for one type of powder, and someone coming along and realizing they ahd a bunch of this other stuff lying around, and they were just gonna use that?
 
This AK versus AR has gone on long enough. The're both great within the're design paramaters. Accept them both for their virtues and let it be...Essex County
 
That sounds about right C Yeager. To that fellow who responded to my story about the M60 melting... you are right I think I mentioned in there that story was sort of an exception not a rule. I only cited it because I think it shows that the AK under the right circumstances could melt down. But that is nothing special as most firearms have their limits.

Now the comments about military cleaning and the M16 falling short of a military weapon because it needs cleaning. I think it has become apparent by our military guys that the cleaning of the rifle is military doctrine and done regradless of weapon. If our military were to have AK's they would clean them just as riggoressly. And I would bet that they would be rewarded with better fuctioning weapons. I have yet to hear of in ANY moddern war a case where somebody could not clean their weapon, only would not seems to stand. Somebody made the comment earilier that most of this disscussion deals with what if this or what if that.

The commnet about the "urban ledgend" bit is very true. This happens with all sorts of things not just firearms as everybody is aware. But I know the reason for posting this thread in the first place was to get more or better information out there then what was offered before. Truth was when I read the post I responded too about M16 performance in Iraq I felt that whoever posted it had doctured the email in some way. I refuse to believe and I think it has been shown in the subsiquent disscussion that the M16 is by no mean inferior to the AK just different. As with any part of this debate you will get die hard fans on both sides but the truth of the matter is as follows...

1) Any weapon will function better if it is cleaned regularly
2) The drawbacks of personal weapons should be thought about and made less through thought and training and procedure
3) No weapon is a cure all and perfect

This has been the case from the dawn of warfare. Not too long ago I rented the movie Braveheart and was struck by something. The battle where the celts defeat the brits is a pretty cool instance filled with tactical inovation on the part of Walace. But what really got to me wasn't his ability to beat Longshanks but rather the fact that if he had gone up against the army of J. Caesar he would have been ripped to pieces. See the celtic manner of fighting hadn't changed in 200 years.

The opening scene of Gladiator is similar to Braveheart but the celts are destroied. In his war commentaries Caesar makes note of the clet's bravery and selflessness and mentions their tactics with respect. But that didn't stop him from destroying them on the field of battle because dispite the Celtic heartyness the Romans were more disaplined and professional. In many many recorded battles the Romans beat armies 10 times their number with minimal loss of life on their side.

Now their soldiers were not nessisarily the bravest, not nessisarily the strongest, they couldn't fight alone as Samurai or Gladiators but then again they didn't have too because their great generals (J. Caesar, G. Pompey, M. Maximus [not the movie one. he war a real man], and even A. Caesar aka Octavius) knew how to fight and draw the enemy into their own battle so that the weakness of the Roman army was not a hinderence. Eventully without the power of great generals walking hand in had as statesmen or emperors the Roman Empire fell.

Now this may be a bit long winded but the moral of the story here is that if you get a weapon such as the M16 that has a flaw or two but also performs extremely well then the nature of battle should be drawn into that weapons strong suit not its weak one. And there are other weapons to make up for any short commings of the M16.

Now as the AK is conserned the same rules apply. However, the advantage the M16 has over the AK isn't so much a part of the weapons themselves but by they armies using the weapons. The US military for the most part knows the limitations on the M16 and as a result cleaning the weapon is a part of doctrine. And there are also weapons that would more then make up for shortcommings and are intigrated effectivly into a fireteam. I dont think the enemy in Iraq can do this. They have neither the funds or the quility of soldiers to make up for the AK's shortcommings but that dosn't mean they are stupid. Most fighting now and even from the start centered around car bombs and such. I think if they go head to head with NATO troops they will be cut to pieces AK or no. And of course if they are not then we hear about it on the news and if they are it is just shuffled under the rug. Or worse made out to be a non issue or the one US soldier/marine lost in the firefight will be noted instead of the 19 or so hostiles he took with him.
 
Chrome Cures All Ills! :)

The only part of the M-16/AR-15 series of rifles that takes longer than 2 minutes to clean to what I consider,"Combat Effective", is the bolt itself...

Other than the bolt/carrier combo,which in my experience can go atleast 700+ rounds without cleaning/failure,(I am sure it would go more but I just couldn't push my nearly $900 rifle ;)) it only takes a minute to achieve,"Combat Clean"; unhinge the receiver,remove and wipe off the bolt carrier(not fully disassemble), wipe off the inside of the receiver walls, add one SMALL drop of oil to the firing pin(through the bolt carrier hole no disassembly) and another SMALL drop to the two vertical holes where the dust cover recess is built into the bolt carrier and run something throught the chamber(just in case of debris) barrel cleaning not needed during combat....

Clean enough for combat in about 2minutes(probably less) and will get you through to your next chance to detail clean :neener: ! Also I say you could run the AR completely DRY(except for those two drops for the firing pin channel) and the AR doesn't seem to care much :neener:

PS I bet the constant cleaning some are giving their weapons in Iraq and other conflicts is also a modicum of control that they have over a very chaotic situation :confused: ? Think about it, IED's, insurgents, anit-American sentiment everywhere,missing your loved ones and on top of that you have a job to do. That job depends on THIS rifle....That Rifle represents getting home in one piece and a whole lot more to that soldier, it is basicly his life/significant other :)

Edit: I have no combat experience(I was a Boy Scout for a while though)and all views, ideas, thoughts, considerations, and opinions are the sole property of my being which I expressly reserve the RIGHT to change at any time ;)
 
What a GREAT many AR fans have told me over the years is that the design is perfectly reliable IF the firearm is kept clean. ........... By all accounts, the M16 and all of its progeny cannot meet this basic requirement. Most other assault rifles I know of can. And I personally know the AK-47 can take not only continue to function after several months of use, it can continue to function after a crazy roommate uses gobs of crisco as in innovative "lube." The AK passes the reliability test with flying colors. The AR-15 NEVER HAS.
Click to expand...

Cosmo--have you ever been in the US Military? Have you ever been involved in the formal testing of US small arms or the arms of our adversaries?

If the answer to the above questions is "NO", you are merely spouting internet rumours generated by armchair commandos.
 
"A torture test was conducted on March 3,1911. Each pistol fired 6000 rounds. One hundred shots would be fired and the pistol allowed to cool for 5 minutes. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol would be cleaned and oiled. After firing those 6000 rounds, the pistol would be tested with deformed cartridges, some seated too deeply, some not seated enough, etc. The gun would then be rusted in acid or submerged in sand and mud and more tests conducted. Browning's pistols passed the whole test series with flying colors."

6,000 rounds straight up, THEN tested with deformed cartridges, THEN rusted IN ACID or submerged in sand and mud, THEN more rounds fired.

Tell me, what chance is there do you think an AR-15 could do this?

STONER VS. BROWNING IS A SHORT AND ONE-SIDED FIGHT :evil:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

5
  • Locked
M16\M4 Performance in Iraq
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
7K
JShirley
JShirley
2
  • Locked
M16/AK Bit II
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Wynterbourne
W
D
  • Locked
In Vietnam Ak or M16
2 3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
5K
Art Eatman
A
S
  • Locked
Automatic m4/m16
Replies
12
Views
11K
ACP230
A
B
  • Locked
Video on why AR is more accurate than AK.
Replies
9
Views
583
Pulse
P
Back
Top