PBS Newshour Looks at the M-16 and its Problems

Status
Not open for further replies.
I own DPMS Panther Carbine - basically what some people would call an M4, but semi-automatic. It is more reliable than my Glock handguns, making it the most problem-free firearm that I own.

It is a bugger to clean - I honestly hate that groove thingy in front of the chamber - it makes it really hard to get crap outta there. The gas system likewise takes a lot of effort. It's design is overly complex for what it is.

Easily my favorite gun, and the one that all my friends want to 'try out'. It has a huge 'WOW!" factor. It is the gun that I've wanted to own since the days of my childhood; shooting it is a dream come true.

It isn't a miracle gun - mine has been problem-free but that isn't to say that it doesn't have drawbacks, and the drawbacks certainly merit the possibility of replacement by the military.

If somebody knocks it - it shouldn't come from PBS ... those people have never had their car off the pavement and their only contact with firearms are the old rich guys who shoot clays with their Weatherby Athena's down at the polo club.
 
let's see.....

scientific and technical analysis from a guy who knows more about torpedos than rifles.....

M-16/M-4 wouldn't want to get shot by one.

AKM wouldn't want to get shot by one.

Take a vital organ or head shot from either 5.56 or 7.62x39 and I don't think you'll have much fight left in you....and likely wont' live to fight another day.

Take one in the leg with either, and you'll probably be able to keep firing your weapon for several minutes, untill you either bleed out or are evacuated.

If I had to operate in the deasert without any kind of logistical support (i.e. armorer, cleaning supplies, etc...) then I think I'd rather tote an AK.

If I had to run accross a field while taking fire from an enemy 500 yds away, I think I'd rather he was shooting at me with an AK.

and the beat goes on...:rolleyes:
 
It is more reliable than my Glock handguns, making it the most problem-free firearm that I own.

Throw a few handfuls of that fine sand from an Arabian desert into the action, and that'll change...

"Your weapon will malfunction!"

"Yes Gunny!"

"Expect your weapon to malfunction!"

"Yes Gunny!"

"I can't hear you!!!

"YES GUNNY!!!"

"Outstanding! Dismissed!"
 
Actually they went to rescue a crashed helicopter (the second blackhawk crash), Shugart (with the M25) and Gary Gordon (with a heavily modified M-16), held the zone by themselves for well over an hour

I am not familiar with the M25. What exactly is that system?
 
Well I have heard from Vets of Somalia that they did have to shoot those guys about 3+ times in order to drop them, that's mostly why Randy Shugart had the M1A.
From what I've read, the problem in Somalia (and the current wars as well) is that the 62gr "penetrator" round doesn't fragment quick enough on thin targets out of a 20" barrel, and doesn't fragment hardly at all out of a 14.5" barrel. Thats why there's a big push towards the new mk262 77gr (which is a SMK with a cannelure) round. It fragments nicely out of short barrels, and a few people I've talked to who have been in the sandbox speak highly of it.

The other major problem in Somalia was that the militiamen were doped up on Khat, a mad max stimulant, which causes an adderd adrenaline rush even greater than that normally experienced by combatants, making it even harder to put them down.

It's a known fact that a natural adrenaline rush has allowed seriously wounded soldiers to keep pushing forward- theres some pretty well known stories out of the WWI and II. We've also heard about the situations where cops have had to shoot speedfreaks more than a few times. Together, those factors must make a monstrosity of a situation.

IIRC, I recall reading that even a sizeable percentage of insurgents in Iraq were on stimulant drugs.
 
I'll get in a word before the mods close this, the M-16 is a good weapon has range, accuracy, was at the time a suitable replacement for the M-14 until the issues arose, they were "fixed" so now the weapon works to a degree I know troops in Iraq have to clean it by mandate 3 times a DAY, kinda hard to do that if you're getting shot at, so in conclusion if I was in a desert or humid/rainy environment, with soldiers high on drugs,adrenaline,politics,allah, or their life, I would take something else. my .02 1/2 cents.
 
OK, lets back off and take a better look at some facts:
1. The story claims the AK74 hits twice as hard as our M4/M16. That is a load of uneducated drivel. The AK74 is NOT chambered for the 7.62X39 but for the 5.45X39 a cartridge of LESS power than our 5.56.

2. The story claims that his "better" rifle is now standard issue in Singapore. OK when is the last time Singapore engaged an enemy combatant? He sold it to Singapore because nobody else would buy it and he gets NO royalties on a per unit basis. He hoped that after he got one country to buy into his new rifle others would follow.

3. Want to see a battle rifle designed by folks who are more familiar with actual ground pounding combat? Look no further than South Korea and their Daewoo rifle which has an M16 lower, an M16 bolt and bolt carrier mated to a kalashnikov type gas piston system with a variable gas port size including a shutoff to fire grenades.

No, the M4 / M16 isn't a piece of crap; neither is it the best we could provide to our men on the ground.
 
"The gas system likewise takes a lot of effort"

Dude....you clean your gas system:confused:

How...and why?

Anyway....back on topic

Methinks this is a thinly veiled attempt to get funding for new weapons

Like when all the PD's were switching to that all powerful .40 cal....so they could get new weapons

AR's...and their miltiary cousins run just fine with minimal attention

As tuner pointed out...sand in the chamber will stop any weapon

The AK is not as reliable....nor the AR as unreliable as the errornet would have us all believe

PS:

The 5.45x39 is actually a pretty good round...flat shooting...lots of velocity and it yaws on contact...better than 7.62x39
 
The "Media" has been bashing the M16 series rifle based on what happened to the early ones in Vietnam. The bashing happened during Desert Storm, and has been happening since we got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They don't want to be confused with the facts.

FWIW, I've got 35 years experience with M16's and AR's, and I can say they have worked fine, since the bugs got worked out.

Yes, they need to be kept clean, but, they don't need to be spotless.

And, yes, I own an AR, along with an M14 clone, an M1 and several other military semi auto's, including an AK.

And, yes, the AK is far more reliable. Because it's far more reliable than ANYTHING. But, as has been said, they aren't as reliable as some folks would try to make you think.
 
Rubbish.

Yeah, I saw that by chance on TV, and all I can say is: They found one disgruntled engineer (who is looking to sell several products of his own invention) and one disgruntled solder. Great reporting P-BS.
 
Usually anything with a piston is going to be more reliable than a direct gas system given the same amount of maintenance. Meaning an AR cleaned and then fired until it jams will fire less rounds before a jam compared to an AK cleaned and then fired. Does this really matter if you are cleaning your AR 3 times a day? Probably not.
 
There's no doubt that the platform is outdated and that better ones are available. Ones that don't need to be cleaned over and over again. It's bordering on archaic at this point, and has served longer than any other main rifle. But replacing the thing isn't a matter of swapping over to the AK's, which are also outdated. As we saw with the debacle over the OICWS, the DOD isn't really up to the task of designing a replacement. They still can't figure out what war they're going to fight. And if we pick out a new one from existing designs it's probably not going to come from any American factory. So we're stuck with the half century old firearm firing ammunition designed to counter armored Rooskies, and probably will be for awhile longer.
 
"It's the shoulder thing that goes up"..."no, it's not."
Makes me laugh every time :D

Anyways I caught the last 1/2hr or so. I immediately discounted the entire thing when the one guy said that it was made to be fired from the hip and that's where "assault rifle" came from. :rolleyes:
 
sure, maybe M16's jam, and suck, and shoot tumbling bullets in random directions, but you KNOW all our enimies WISH their rifles where as evil and black as ours!
 
Cosmoline said:
There's no doubt that the platform is outdated and that better ones are available. Ones that don't need to be cleaned over and over again. It's bordering on archaic at this point, and has served longer than any other main rifle. But replacing the thing isn't a matter of swapping over to the AK's, which are also outdated.

Bingo.

I could totally understand if PBS were talking about a better replacement technology, but they aren't.
 
I liked the part of the show where they said the more crap you hang off a M-16, the more apt it is to malfunction.

My ole man did developement work on the AR. He said it was crap back then.

Where ever his soul is now, he is smiling at me sportin an M1 garand
 
3. Want to see a battle rifle designed by folks who are more familiar with actual ground pounding combat? Look no further than South Korea and their Daewoo rifle which has an M16 lower, an M16 bolt and bolt carrier mated to a kalashnikov type gas piston system with a variable gas port size including a shutoff to fire grenades.

YES

I love the K2, its a great gun. I'm not a big AR fan, reliability and ammo arguments aside, I just don't like how they feel. I find shooting ARs just unpleasant. Personal taste. But the K2.... love it. Wish they were cheaper and more available.
 
It's funny if you realize that it was L. James Sullivan who designed the M16, and not Stoner. Stoner designed the AR-10 and Sullivan, along with another Armalite engineer, Robert Freemont, redesigned and scaled down the AR-10 for the 223 cartridge. At the time, Stoner was primarily interested in 7.62x51mm weapons.

Sullivan is basically blaming himself.
 
Some further thought aftewr watching the whole vid.

They make a big deal about the M16 being 50 years old, and yet the AK, supposedluy more advanced, is even older.

Can we build a better weapon? Certainly. Is the M16 good enough? Yes.

Sullivan made th point that the rifle decides battles. This hadn't been true in hundreds of years. Artillery, air power, tanks and the machinegun are the principle deciders in war. Small arms account for less that 1% of casualties in modern mechanized war.

This article is all about creating controversy and trying to show the pentagon in the worst possible light.
 
Guntech, even if what you say is true, the 223 M16 still uses Stoners DI system and parts of the AR-10. It's just that everything is scaled down.

Get this, I believe Stoner created the Stoner 63/63A AFTER the M16 and the 63 was found to be more complex and required higher maintenance than the M16! I guess sometimes weapons just don't come out right.

But the AR18 was designed by Arthur Miller and crew to fix some of the M16's problems. It's just that by that time, the M16 was fully developed and the AR18 was not desired. However, the AR18 is copied on alot of weapons. The L85, G36, and some others I can't think of. If I'm correct here, even the Steyr AUG has the AR18 system but using a different bolt carrier. Everything else is the same, the M16 bolt, short stroke gas piston, riding on 2 recoil rods instead of rails, etc. I'm pretty sure there are more that use the AR18 as a base design.

BTW, I've heard that rebels in Africa are getting their hands on AR18's and finding them to be far superior to the AK's they always use. Can anyone confirm this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top