MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
It really makes you wonder how the Israelis got talked into buying them doesn't it. Israel would have done far better to buy AKs considering their climate.
The Mighty Mattel
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
- Status
Balog
Member
Let's see, where to begin?
On this thread I wrote the following about the relative value of "first-hand experience."
The problem with basing one's views solely on what you have experienced is that you are not statistically significant. No offense intended to any, but saying "I've never had a problem with X type of rifle / pistol / shotgun / car / truck / blender / toaster oven etc" means very little. Substituting "My platoon" for the personal pronoun in the following sentence doesn't mean much either. I want to base my views on the objective experience of as many people as humanly possible.
As to what the "spec ops" types choose, there are several points to be made.
1: Given the nature of the units, knowing what the majority actually prefer is difficult at best.
2: Their needs are not representative of the needs of the average grunt. 3: A nice perk of being in a SF unit is that the weapons match the mission. The fact that they often use MP5SD's, M14's, and M4's does not mean that they would be a good issue weapon.
4: SEAL Team Six is one of the most elite units in the world. For handguns, they used M9's and S&W .357's (per Richard Marcinko's autobiography.). Does that mean we should start handing out six guns as standard issue? (Actually, that would be pretty cool.)
5: SF units generally have heavily modified, tricked-out, and tuned-up weapons. Again, just because they sometimes use some variety of weapon that's kinda like an AR15/M16 isn't a strong argument for the type.
6: The weapon chosen by different nations' SF teams is often reflective of nationalistic pride. If German SF units use H&K that doesn't make it the best. If French SF units use the FAMAS that doesn't make it the best. If Russian SF units use AK-74's or AN-94's that doesn't make them the best. If Austrian SF units use the Steyr AUG that doesn't make it the best. If American SF units choose an M16 variant that doesn't make it the best.
7: Every Russian or Finnish SF soldier I've seen interviewed loved the AK platform and disdained the AR. Not conclusive, but food for thought.
8: Let's face it. Even "operators" aren't immune from the dreaded "Iwannacoolgun" virus. I think the hoopla over the "Israeli corner gun" is a good example. Quite often, SF types choose the "best" available. But they are people too, and their choices are not automatically perfect.
I don't trust the random internet commandos on either side. If I was looking at people who's voice I would listen to it would be people like: John Leppelman, John Culbertson, actually pretty much every author I've ever read who fought in the Vietnam War, Mark Bowden etc etc. People who are accountable for their writings.
As for reliable internet sources, what about our own George Hill? This page goes into fair detail about the AR problems.
This page by Dick Culver would seem to be about as reliable and well researched as you could hope for, as is the second part of the article.
Edit for typo.
On this thread I wrote the following about the relative value of "first-hand experience."
The problem with basing one's views solely on what you have experienced is that you are not statistically significant. No offense intended to any, but saying "I've never had a problem with X type of rifle / pistol / shotgun / car / truck / blender / toaster oven etc" means very little. Substituting "My platoon" for the personal pronoun in the following sentence doesn't mean much either. I want to base my views on the objective experience of as many people as humanly possible.
As to what the "spec ops" types choose, there are several points to be made.
1: Given the nature of the units, knowing what the majority actually prefer is difficult at best.
2: Their needs are not representative of the needs of the average grunt. 3: A nice perk of being in a SF unit is that the weapons match the mission. The fact that they often use MP5SD's, M14's, and M4's does not mean that they would be a good issue weapon.
4: SEAL Team Six is one of the most elite units in the world. For handguns, they used M9's and S&W .357's (per Richard Marcinko's autobiography.). Does that mean we should start handing out six guns as standard issue? (Actually, that would be pretty cool.)
5: SF units generally have heavily modified, tricked-out, and tuned-up weapons. Again, just because they sometimes use some variety of weapon that's kinda like an AR15/M16 isn't a strong argument for the type.
6: The weapon chosen by different nations' SF teams is often reflective of nationalistic pride. If German SF units use H&K that doesn't make it the best. If French SF units use the FAMAS that doesn't make it the best. If Russian SF units use AK-74's or AN-94's that doesn't make them the best. If Austrian SF units use the Steyr AUG that doesn't make it the best. If American SF units choose an M16 variant that doesn't make it the best.
7: Every Russian or Finnish SF soldier I've seen interviewed loved the AK platform and disdained the AR. Not conclusive, but food for thought.
8: Let's face it. Even "operators" aren't immune from the dreaded "Iwannacoolgun" virus. I think the hoopla over the "Israeli corner gun" is a good example. Quite often, SF types choose the "best" available. But they are people too, and their choices are not automatically perfect.
I don't trust the random internet commandos on either side. If I was looking at people who's voice I would listen to it would be people like: John Leppelman, John Culbertson, actually pretty much every author I've ever read who fought in the Vietnam War, Mark Bowden etc etc. People who are accountable for their writings.
As for reliable internet sources, what about our own George Hill? This page goes into fair detail about the AR problems.
This page by Dick Culver would seem to be about as reliable and well researched as you could hope for, as is the second part of the article.
Edit for typo.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
You'll notice that the Dick culver article is about m-16s in vietnam, and as such has little or no relevance to current weapons.
In any event, no one has shown me a weapon that's better than the m-16, yet.
In any event, no one has shown me a weapon that's better than the m-16, yet.
Balog
Member
Andrew wyatt wrote:
Define better. And define what documentation of this you would accept.
Define better. And define what documentation of this you would accept.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
It's hard to define better, but I'd consider a weapon that improves on at least one aspect of the m-16, without falling below the performance level of the m-16 in another area an improvement. A more reliable rifle with poorer ergonomics and shootability is not an improvement.
a shootable weapon in my hands that i could personally test against an m4.
a shootable weapon in my hands that i could personally test against an m4.
Balog
Member
For documentation Andrew wyatt wants:
Since I can't afford to buy you a rifle...
And why would you test a proposed general issue rifle against an exotic special purpose weapon?
Since I can't afford to buy you a rifle...
And why would you test a proposed general issue rifle against an exotic special purpose weapon?Balog,
I find it interesting that just like all the other members of the he-man AR haters club that the only opinoins and experience you trust are the ones that support your preconcieved notion of what the truth is. The people who have used the M16 in combat everyplace from Vietnam to Iraq and have posted positive feedback are discounted because they aren't statistically significant.
I see from your profile that you are a USMC recruit. 0311 by any chance? You are about to get some firsthand experience. Of course whatever it is it won't be statistically significant because it's only one persons experience...yours. So good or bad it will be meaninless.
Back in one of the other M16 bashing threads, I discredited the jouster.com article with facts from accountable authors like Ed Ezell and the people who wrote TM9-1005-319-23&P. If it wasn't so late, I'd dig out the thread...But it's there, do a search you'll find it.
I was issued my first M16A1 in December of 1974. I turned in my last M16A2 in October of 2003. During that time I used the M16 in every position in a rifle platoon from rifleman to platoon sergeant and as a chief of firing battery and first sergeant in an artillery battery. I have used the M16 in every climate that exists from the arctic to the desert. I have run more zero, qualification ranges and LFXs then I can count. I have probably seen every kind of malfunction and broken part that is possible with that weapon. In 1990 I helped train soldiers of the 6th Bn, 110th Bde of the Honduran Army. These poor kids were issued the junkiest looking M16A1s I had ever seen. Dust covers were missing or flapping in the breeze due to broken springs. The finish was nearly gone on them. Furniture was cracked and broken, held together with 100 mph tape. But you know what, those weapons functioned. they took them into combat on the part of the border near Ojo De Agua that they were responsible for. They never asked us for new rifles because theirs didn't work. They never complained that the Sandanista's AKs were better....Today I carry a Colt R6920 in my squad car. I have the utmost confidence in it to function in a life support role.
But since my personal experience is statistically insignificant, even though there were days I was running ranges where I might see several hundred different M16s a day get put through their paces.....I guess I should just stay out of this.
Tell you what, ship off to boot camp and spend a few years living with the weapon, then come back and tell us what you think. But just remember, your personal experience will be statisically insignificant.....
Jeff
I find it interesting that just like all the other members of the he-man AR haters club that the only opinoins and experience you trust are the ones that support your preconcieved notion of what the truth is. The people who have used the M16 in combat everyplace from Vietnam to Iraq and have posted positive feedback are discounted because they aren't statistically significant.
I see from your profile that you are a USMC recruit. 0311 by any chance? You are about to get some firsthand experience. Of course whatever it is it won't be statistically significant because it's only one persons experience...yours. So good or bad it will be meaninless.
Back in one of the other M16 bashing threads, I discredited the jouster.com article with facts from accountable authors like Ed Ezell and the people who wrote TM9-1005-319-23&P. If it wasn't so late, I'd dig out the thread...But it's there, do a search you'll find it.
I was issued my first M16A1 in December of 1974. I turned in my last M16A2 in October of 2003. During that time I used the M16 in every position in a rifle platoon from rifleman to platoon sergeant and as a chief of firing battery and first sergeant in an artillery battery. I have used the M16 in every climate that exists from the arctic to the desert. I have run more zero, qualification ranges and LFXs then I can count. I have probably seen every kind of malfunction and broken part that is possible with that weapon. In 1990 I helped train soldiers of the 6th Bn, 110th Bde of the Honduran Army. These poor kids were issued the junkiest looking M16A1s I had ever seen. Dust covers were missing or flapping in the breeze due to broken springs. The finish was nearly gone on them. Furniture was cracked and broken, held together with 100 mph tape. But you know what, those weapons functioned. they took them into combat on the part of the border near Ojo De Agua that they were responsible for. They never asked us for new rifles because theirs didn't work. They never complained that the Sandanista's AKs were better....Today I carry a Colt R6920 in my squad car. I have the utmost confidence in it to function in a life support role.
But since my personal experience is statistically insignificant, even though there were days I was running ranges where I might see several hundred different M16s a day get put through their paces.....I guess I should just stay out of this.
Tell you what, ship off to boot camp and spend a few years living with the weapon, then come back and tell us what you think. But just remember, your personal experience will be statisically insignificant.....
Jeff
Adam
Member
Good point. As I said earlier I'm not big fan of AK, but they are works. It's one big "+" for this design. I think that the best weapon out there is made by H&K, but it's just my personal opinion. All the best. Adam
Tony Williams
Member
An interesting debate. I would like to make a contribution, if a comment from a non-American non-soldier is permitted!
I have been researching the history of assault rifles and their ammunition for a book I am writing with Max Popenker (there's a brief history of the subject at: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm ). It seems to me that there are two separate issues here:
1. The adequacy of the 5.56x45 cartridge
2. The reliability of the M16 family.
It is fair to say that the US Army got into a bit of a tangle over cartridge design after WW2. The Ordnance Department wanted a new cartridge to use in a selective fire 'Light Rifle', but also wanted it to match the long-range performance of the .30-06 and to be of .30 calibre. Everyone and his dog told the top brass that it wouldn't work, that you can't control a powerful .30 cal rifle in fully automatic fire, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Only a few years after the M14 in 7.62x51 was adopted, they began to realise their mistake (the full-auto option was generally disabled as useless) and went to the other extreme, adopting the little .223/5.56x45 in the M16. This was meant to be an interim measure until the flechette-firing SPIW was ready, but the SPIW never happened so the US Army (and in due course NATO) was left with the 5.56x45.
The 5.56x45 has always been controversial in its performance. It can work very well, but there have been many first-hand reports of it failing to stop attackers who have been shot several times at short range. Its wounding ability is down to two features; rapid tumbling and fragmentation. Rapid tumbling can be a disadvantage if the bullet hits something (e.g. an arm) before entering the body, and fragmentation depends on the detail of bullet construction. It is not officially tested for, and it seems that some ammo batches don't do it. The little bullet is also more easily stopped by, say, ammo mags kept in chest pouches.
There have been many research efforts and test cartridges produced since WW2 in various countries (including the USA) which have concluded that the ideal military cartridge would be in the 6-7mm range. The new 6.8x43 Rem SPC being developed for SOCOM to fit into 5.56x45 actions is pretty close to the theoretical ideal, and has the potential to replace the 7.62x51 as well as the 5.56x45. However, that has many hurdles to clear before adoption, no matter how good it is.
Then we come to the rifle. The M16 had a terrible start in Vietnam due to the mix-up over propellant type, coupled with advice that it didn't need cleaning. Those problems were resolved quickly and the weapon now seems to be about as reliable as most western 5.56x45 rifles. However, the direct gas operating system is fundamentally less good in terms of reliability than the gas-piston type. The XM8's mechanism is borrowed from the HK G36 (and was borrowed by HK from the AR-18) and with various other features has been developed to produce superior reliability (15,000 rounds without cleaning, no problems). The AK-47 and its derivatives also use a gas piston which, combined with other design features, has made this the standard in reliability for decades (there are plenty of independent reports confirming this). The jury is still out over how the G36 compares with the AK.
To sum up, the 5.56x45 cartridge is smaller and less powerful than the ideal, and the M16 is no better than average in reliability (although good in ergonomics and handling). Most of the time, the combination performs well, but it is possible to do better. The XM8 in 6.8x43 could be as good as it gets (unless you like bullpups, in which case the new FN F2000 looks very interesting).
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
I have been researching the history of assault rifles and their ammunition for a book I am writing with Max Popenker (there's a brief history of the subject at: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm ). It seems to me that there are two separate issues here:
1. The adequacy of the 5.56x45 cartridge
2. The reliability of the M16 family.
It is fair to say that the US Army got into a bit of a tangle over cartridge design after WW2. The Ordnance Department wanted a new cartridge to use in a selective fire 'Light Rifle', but also wanted it to match the long-range performance of the .30-06 and to be of .30 calibre. Everyone and his dog told the top brass that it wouldn't work, that you can't control a powerful .30 cal rifle in fully automatic fire, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Only a few years after the M14 in 7.62x51 was adopted, they began to realise their mistake (the full-auto option was generally disabled as useless) and went to the other extreme, adopting the little .223/5.56x45 in the M16. This was meant to be an interim measure until the flechette-firing SPIW was ready, but the SPIW never happened so the US Army (and in due course NATO) was left with the 5.56x45.
The 5.56x45 has always been controversial in its performance. It can work very well, but there have been many first-hand reports of it failing to stop attackers who have been shot several times at short range. Its wounding ability is down to two features; rapid tumbling and fragmentation. Rapid tumbling can be a disadvantage if the bullet hits something (e.g. an arm) before entering the body, and fragmentation depends on the detail of bullet construction. It is not officially tested for, and it seems that some ammo batches don't do it. The little bullet is also more easily stopped by, say, ammo mags kept in chest pouches.
There have been many research efforts and test cartridges produced since WW2 in various countries (including the USA) which have concluded that the ideal military cartridge would be in the 6-7mm range. The new 6.8x43 Rem SPC being developed for SOCOM to fit into 5.56x45 actions is pretty close to the theoretical ideal, and has the potential to replace the 7.62x51 as well as the 5.56x45. However, that has many hurdles to clear before adoption, no matter how good it is.
Then we come to the rifle. The M16 had a terrible start in Vietnam due to the mix-up over propellant type, coupled with advice that it didn't need cleaning. Those problems were resolved quickly and the weapon now seems to be about as reliable as most western 5.56x45 rifles. However, the direct gas operating system is fundamentally less good in terms of reliability than the gas-piston type. The XM8's mechanism is borrowed from the HK G36 (and was borrowed by HK from the AR-18) and with various other features has been developed to produce superior reliability (15,000 rounds without cleaning, no problems). The AK-47 and its derivatives also use a gas piston which, combined with other design features, has made this the standard in reliability for decades (there are plenty of independent reports confirming this). The jury is still out over how the G36 compares with the AK.
To sum up, the 5.56x45 cartridge is smaller and less powerful than the ideal, and the M16 is no better than average in reliability (although good in ergonomics and handling). Most of the time, the combination performs well, but it is possible to do better. The XM8 in 6.8x43 could be as good as it gets (unless you like bullpups, in which case the new FN F2000 looks very interesting).
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Andrew Wyatt
Member
it's harder to clean without losing the pins that hold the reciever together, since they're non captured, and the gun is rock to lock, and it only exists in the same way the P7m7 exists.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
last i heard, m4's were standard issue in army infantry formations, and they seem to represent the standard new rifles are supposed to beat. (the XM8 lie sheet used an m4 as a comparison weapon)
SapperLeader
Member
In my unit, the soldiers fall into two categories. Those who know guns and those who dont. Those who dont know guns, all love the m-16 with no questions asked. They also love the ak though they ahve never seen one except on tv. Among the gun nuts, most of us like the m-16, but often complain about caliber. Were pretty excited by the 6.8 if it ends up being adopted. Most of us have fired aks, and consider them great weapons, but wouldn't trade our m-16 for one. Also, most of the gun nuts in my unit, have bought personal ar-15's for our own use. Some have even bought aks.
Ive talked to combat vets coming back from afghanistan, and most wouldnt mind a cartridge witha little more distance, but wern't too worried about it eitehr. One platoon sergeant who's paltoon was surrounded for a day, explained to us, that the artillery was doing most of the work, and his team leaders and squad leaders usedsmoke rounds to mark out 300 meters. He told the troops to only shoot when the enemy got that close. Anything farther belonged to the mortors and gunships.
I guess the point of my long post, is that most service men dont have a problem with our rifle, and that most service men dont have a clue about guns. Some of us do, but a lot dont.
Ive talked to combat vets coming back from afghanistan, and most wouldnt mind a cartridge witha little more distance, but wern't too worried about it eitehr. One platoon sergeant who's paltoon was surrounded for a day, explained to us, that the artillery was doing most of the work, and his team leaders and squad leaders usedsmoke rounds to mark out 300 meters. He told the troops to only shoot when the enemy got that close. Anything farther belonged to the mortors and gunships.
I guess the point of my long post, is that most service men dont have a problem with our rifle, and that most service men dont have a clue about guns. Some of us do, but a lot dont.
Balog
Member
Jeff White: whew, long post. Let's take it piece by piece shall we?
I don't recall referring to any posted material. Some random internet guy saying "I was in the Army and I love the M16!" doesn't really carry any weight with me. If we really want to get into that pissing contest I'll be happy to provide links to scads of posts by soldiers who were issued the '16 and don't like it. But as I've said I'd prefer to stick with people who are A)identifiable and B)accountable. To me, this means books. And every book I've read about combat in Vietnam has had nothing but bad things to say about the M16. Ditto for Blackhawk Down although a lot of the problems addressed there are with the round fired, not the weapon firing it.
03 something. We'll see what after boot. BTW thanks for knowing how we designate our MOS's. Every Air Force/Army person I've told I'm going in as "an 03" think I mean I'm gonna be an occifer.
Ran a search. Every thread that seemed likely to deal with the subject had lots and lots of posts. I'll go through 'em later. And since my argument doesn't really depend on that site it fairly irrelevant what Mr. Ezell had to say about it.
Remember what we said about internet sources and accountability? I'm not making any comment about the information just given other than to say that I have no reason to trust your word anymore than I do the word of all the ex-vets on the internet who hate the M16. If it'll make you feel better I wouldn't put any stock in what you said if you had been dead against the M16 either. I'll say it again. Every real, live accountable author I've read who used the '16 in combat had problems with it.
Ok, that's about the fifth or sixth crack you've made about my using the term "statistically insignificant." Since you seem determined to be obtuse about it I guess I'll have to explain.
A single person's experiences with any piece of machinery is not conclusive or even very convincing evidence in and of itself. Can we at least agree on that? The fact that my sister got over 250,000 miles out of her car without having to do anything but routine maintenance is not proof positive that early 90's Buicks are super reliable. However, if a person who has been a Buick mechanic for twenty years told me that those models of cars are super reliable that would be information worth noting. Assuming he met our accountability requirements.
The comment was aimed at the people who pop up in these threads saying "Well I was issued an M16 it I never had any problems with it!" I'm sorry, but that flatly contradicts the opinion of the majority of the writings of the real live identifiable accountable people who I've read. Maybe that's a statistical anomaly. Maybe I'm drawn by some psychic power to only read books written by people who've had problems with the M16. I don't know. But when the opinion of Joe Internet is diametrically opposed to the experience of people like John Leppelman or John Culbertson, I'm inclined to go with the opinion of the people who aren't basking in the anonymity of the internet.
But what about the people I meet in real life who A)were issued the M16 and B)do think it's wonderful? Well, during the basic training period the trainee is, for lack of a better word, indoctrinated. They are told that as United States soldiers they have the best training, the best leadership, the best logistics, the best planes, the best arty, the best vehicles, the best equipment, and best rifles. Take a young, impressionable person in completely controlled circumstances and spend a couple months drilling all that into his head and whattya know? He might end up believing it! Given the lack of firearms experience common among today's young people he might not know rifles exist that don't need to be cleaned several times a day in bad conditions. He might not know rifles exist that don't shoot dirty propellant gas back into the close tolerances of the chamber. I'm not saying that everyone who likes the M16 is some poor brainwashed chump.
I'm simply saying that the majority of the credible evidence I've seen leads me to believe that the AR15/M16 is a sub-optimal platform.
I don't recall referring to any posted material. Some random internet guy saying "I was in the Army and I love the M16!" doesn't really carry any weight with me. If we really want to get into that pissing contest I'll be happy to provide links to scads of posts by soldiers who were issued the '16 and don't like it. But as I've said I'd prefer to stick with people who are A)identifiable and B)accountable. To me, this means books. And every book I've read about combat in Vietnam has had nothing but bad things to say about the M16. Ditto for Blackhawk Down although a lot of the problems addressed there are with the round fired, not the weapon firing it.
03 something. We'll see what after boot. BTW thanks for knowing how we designate our MOS's. Every Air Force/Army person I've told I'm going in as "an 03" think I mean I'm gonna be an occifer.
Ran a search. Every thread that seemed likely to deal with the subject had lots and lots of posts. I'll go through 'em later. And since my argument doesn't really depend on that site it fairly irrelevant what Mr. Ezell had to say about it.
Remember what we said about internet sources and accountability? I'm not making any comment about the information just given other than to say that I have no reason to trust your word anymore than I do the word of all the ex-vets on the internet who hate the M16. If it'll make you feel better I wouldn't put any stock in what you said if you had been dead against the M16 either.
I'll say it again. Every real, live accountable author I've read who used the '16 in combat had problems with it. Ok, that's about the fifth or sixth crack you've made about my using the term "statistically insignificant." Since you seem determined to be obtuse about it I guess I'll have to explain.
A single person's experiences with any piece of machinery is not conclusive or even very convincing evidence in and of itself. Can we at least agree on that? The fact that my sister got over 250,000 miles out of her car without having to do anything but routine maintenance is not proof positive that early 90's Buicks are super reliable. However, if a person who has been a Buick mechanic for twenty years told me that those models of cars are super reliable that would be information worth noting. Assuming he met our accountability requirements.
The comment was aimed at the people who pop up in these threads saying "Well I was issued an M16 it I never had any problems with it!" I'm sorry, but that flatly contradicts the opinion of the majority of the writings of the real live identifiable accountable people who I've read. Maybe that's a statistical anomaly. Maybe I'm drawn by some psychic power to only read books written by people who've had problems with the M16. I don't know. But when the opinion of Joe Internet is diametrically opposed to the experience of people like John Leppelman or John Culbertson, I'm inclined to go with the opinion of the people who aren't basking in the anonymity of the internet.
But what about the people I meet in real life who A)were issued the M16 and B)do think it's wonderful? Well, during the basic training period the trainee is, for lack of a better word, indoctrinated. They are told that as United States soldiers they have the best training, the best leadership, the best logistics, the best planes, the best arty, the best vehicles, the best equipment, and best rifles. Take a young, impressionable person in completely controlled circumstances and spend a couple months drilling all that into his head and whattya know? He might end up believing it! Given the lack of firearms experience common among today's young people he might not know rifles exist that don't need to be cleaned several times a day in bad conditions. He might not know rifles exist that don't shoot dirty propellant gas back into the close tolerances of the chamber. I'm not saying that everyone who likes the M16 is some poor brainwashed chump.
I'm simply saying that the majority of the credible evidence I've seen leads me to believe that the AR15/M16 is a sub-optimal platform.
Balog
Member
Andrew wyatt wrote:
Really? I hadn't heard any such thing. Do you have any source for this?
Really? I hadn't heard any such thing. Do you have any source for this?
Blackhawk 6
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 439
Light infantry units have all been fielded M-4's. Some mechanized units may still be using M-16A2's while they await the fiedling of their M-4's.
Balog
Member
Is that just the Army or has the Corps gone that way too? I'd hate to see a group proclaiming themsleves riflemen issued a carbine.
fix
Member
They are not issuing M4s to line infantry units. I believe they are in the process of adopting A4s across the board, but I haven't heard anything definite on that. You and many folks can't seem to understand that, like everything else in the modern military, the definition of rifleman has evolved. Does the USMC still shoot the same KD course of fire? Yes, with a few practical alterations such as the elimination of the loop sling everywhere but the 500 yd line. Is the course practical? For basic marksmanship skill evaluation, yes. For practical combat shooting, no. We live in a dynamic 300 meter world, and the carbines are ideal for that. That's just the way it is. The fact that the average Marine can easily make shots at 500 yds is of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. It is a plus and no doubt a confidence booster, but the reality of the situation is that 500 yd shots in typical engagements are not practical. I wish you the best in your Marine Corps career, and will give you this simple piece of advice. Drop all your romantic ideas of what a rifleman should be. The Marine Corps will define that for you, not Fred from the Shotgun News.
Joe Demko
Member
Balog,
What makes you think "real live authors" are "accountable?" Delta Press and Paladin Press, for starters, are very much gun oriented publishing houses and I've seen errors in stuff they've published. Guess their authors aren't accountable. Recently saw it stated in a book published by a mainstream publisher that pkm pistols and AK-74 rifles use the same ammunition. Guess that publisher doesn't hold its authors accountable, either. The fact that something is in print as hard copy doesn't make it infallible.
Frankly, though, you do seem to be starting from the position that the AR/M-16 is bad and working backwards from there. You don't like the platform and authors A and B agree with you, so they are statistically significant but Jeff White isn't. Please do not launch into an explanation of "statistically significant" for me, since I expect my undergraduate and graduate statistics instructors have already covered it adequately. Do your real, live, accountable authors have any genuine statistical analysis of M-16 failure rates to offer or is it simply that their blatherings are on paper and ours aren't that make them significant?
BTW, fix gave you some excellent advice. Every branch of the service has its own way they define things and want things done. They will explain that to you in detail when you get there. Set aside the things of childhood and the ways of civilian thinking. They will only get you in trouble.
What makes you think "real live authors" are "accountable?" Delta Press and Paladin Press, for starters, are very much gun oriented publishing houses and I've seen errors in stuff they've published. Guess their authors aren't accountable. Recently saw it stated in a book published by a mainstream publisher that pkm pistols and AK-74 rifles use the same ammunition. Guess that publisher doesn't hold its authors accountable, either. The fact that something is in print as hard copy doesn't make it infallible.
Frankly, though, you do seem to be starting from the position that the AR/M-16 is bad and working backwards from there. You don't like the platform and authors A and B agree with you, so they are statistically significant but Jeff White isn't. Please do not launch into an explanation of "statistically significant" for me, since I expect my undergraduate and graduate statistics instructors have already covered it adequately. Do your real, live, accountable authors have any genuine statistical analysis of M-16 failure rates to offer or is it simply that their blatherings are on paper and ours aren't that make them significant?
BTW, fix gave you some excellent advice. Every branch of the service has its own way they define things and want things done. They will explain that to you in detail when you get there. Set aside the things of childhood and the ways of civilian thinking. They will only get you in trouble.
Blackhawk 6
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 439
I believe Fix is correct regarding the USMC and M-16A4's. However, virtually every USMC AAR I have read mentions Marines requesting M-4's. I would not be surprised if that has an impact.
Cosmoline
Member
They didn't buy them, we GAVE them the rifles. And the IDF has a wide array of weapons to draw from depending on circumstances. Their small arms inventory is superior to ours, covering everything from reconditioned Mauser snipers to M-1 Carbines, Galils, AK-47's, and so on.
They also use my dogs, which shows their wisdom in these matters.
Of course, they got my dogs for free as well
Balog
Member
Golgo-13: I never said published authors are perfect. I do contend that they are more accountable for errors than any random guy on the internet. If I read a book about a group of Third World soldiers using taped together M16's that were perfectly reliable I wouldn't believe that author either. But when a real live publically identifiable person writes something untrue, they can be shown to be a liar and discredited. The anonymity of the internet offers no such opportunites.
I never said that Jeff White's apparently massive experience isn't valid. I simply said that I don't accept purely internet sources.
fix: you fight the way you train. Justifying handing out gimped rifles by saying "No one in a modern war really needs to take long shots" seems presumptous.
I never said that Jeff White's apparently massive experience isn't valid. I simply said that I don't accept purely internet sources.
fix: you fight the way you train. Justifying handing out gimped rifles by saying "No one in a modern war really needs to take long shots" seems presumptous.
fix
Member
You also train the way you most likely expect to fight.
Gonna be a long 12 weeks for you.
Gonna be a long 12 weeks for you.
Joe Demko
Member
There is nothing unbelievable about weapons in the conditioned described being functional. Dust covers have nothing to do with the mechanical functioning of the piece. DPMS, among others, sells upper receivers with no dust cover or provision for one. Finish has nothing to do with mechanical function. Cracked/broken furniture has nothing to do with mechanical function. The forestock is there to protect your hand and cover the gas tube. A broken or cracked one held in place with tape will still do that. Likewise, the rear stock covers the receiver extension tube and gives a comfortable surface for shouldering the gun. As long as the receiver extension tube isn't damaged in a way to interfere with the buffer motion, the gun will function just fine with a cracked stock, broken stock, or no stock at all.
You still haven't shown or cited any real statistics about the M-16 and your perception of its shortcomings. Statistics is, you know, a form of mathematical analysis. So far, your definition of "statistically valid" seems to be "this information came from a published author with whom I agree." So, let's see the data tables and the analysis, or a link to them...or let's quit throwing around the term "statistically valid" in a way that makes it devoid of meaning.
fix
Member
You don't see any hard data because the operators (you know, the folks who matter) are, by and large, happy with the weapon and see no need to justify that to the cake eating AR haters club.
Balog, you can discount Jeff White on the internet, but if Jeff were to write a book then he would be accountable???? He is posting under HIS OWN NAME. His background is not a secret. He is very accountable, he is a moderator on one of the biggest gun boards on the internet, as well as modding on other boards that are populated with professional soldiers and police officers. Thousands and thousands of people critically read what he says, I would hazard a guess and say that Jeff and people like him are MORE accountable than your average gun writer. There are gun books out there riddled with inaccuracies, and many of the stories they convey are the same ones that we hear 2nd and 3rd hand right here. How many of us have taken the time to write a letter to Ian Hogg when he puts down something patently false? Now how many people are going to immediatly jump on Jeff when he says something they disagree with?
It is no secret here that I don't like ARs, they just plain don't fit me and I don't like them. However that is my PERSONAL OPINION. The vast majority of the combat veterans I know have not had a problem with the gun, and in the world of competitive shooters (you want guys with insane round counts, there you go) I am an oddball in that I'm one of the only guys who doesn't choose to use an AR. They aren't bad guns, and they are really good at some things.
It is no secret here that I don't like ARs, they just plain don't fit me and I don't like them. However that is my PERSONAL OPINION. The vast majority of the combat veterans I know have not had a problem with the gun, and in the world of competitive shooters (you want guys with insane round counts, there you go) I am an oddball in that I'm one of the only guys who doesn't choose to use an AR. They aren't bad guns, and they are really good at some things.
- Status
