Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 62

Thread: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Formerly Golden CO....
    Posts
    1,057

    Default Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    Slightly tounge-in-cheek, mostly dead serious, plenty of fun!

    Theres a bit of off color language so, adults only please...

    (BTW, I didnt write this, I just agree with it)

    http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/Hate_the_AR15.htm
    If you love wealth more than liberty... We ask not your council or your arms... May posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
    - Samuel Adams

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Central Pennsylvania
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    Buy an Olyimpic Rife, GOOD HIGH QUALITY MAGS. and jambs of ANY type should be minimal. A couple of army friends shot my Olympic and loved how smooth and jamb free it cycled even at a high rate of fire.

    My .02 cents.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    utah, usa
    Posts
    5,589

    Default Re: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    Sgathak, a well argued post with some good points and Iím certain I wonít be changing anyoneís opinion, but here are a few thoughts from an AR enthusiast:
    First off, is there something the matter with Ergonomics? I know thatís pretty high on my priority list when it comes to choosing a battle rifle. Iíve always wondered if olí Alexia Kockmoninov was born with a third arm somewhere and he designed his rifle with that in mind. Certainly he designed it such that Soviet Communist manufacturing would be up to the task of actually producing it.
    For anyone who thinks that utility and accuracy go hand in hand as firearms' performance characteristics, the AR outshines any Battle rifle designed in the last 100 years. Note, I said battle rifle, not assault rifle, although again, no rifle designed in the last century is as flexible as the AR. It can be a submachine gun, a grenade launcher, a camp carbine, a varmint rifle or a championship winning target rifle. I found out years ago, that even with sub moa rifles, Iím hard pressed to hit inside an 8Ē target offhand standing at 100yds and thatís when Iím dead calm and have all the time in the world. Who, on this post of (Iím assuming fairly competent marksmen) can do substantially better? The last thing I want is a battle rifle that the best it can do is 3-4Ē off the bench at 100 yds. Thatís under ideal conditions. That translates to a foot at 300 yards. Now when I couple that with my huffing and a puffing, my adrenaline racing and someone shooting back at me, I damn sure want a rifle that shoots where Iím pointing it and the AR does that better than any other gas operated military rifle in the world.
    This rifle has had its share of detractors since its inception and it has endured as our countryís main battle rifle longer than any other in spite of that. Blame that on politics if you want. Remember though, the AR was thrown into the heat of battle with the shortest test and evaluation period of any American battle rifle. It got a lot of criticism in its early years, some deserved, some not. (My experience has been that the folks who complain the most about the AR are generally the ones with the least amount of experience with it.) I think its evolution into the platform we have currently is another great tribute to its design, not a drawback. What other military rifle design of the last 100 years has been able to accommodate anywhere near the prolific aftermarket innovations? The AK functions really well when its dirty. What the H*** else does it do? Does the AR have its problems? Of course it does. I donít claim to be an expert and certainly not a curmudgeon anywhere nears Sundleís level; I only started shooting the M16 in 1981 when I joined the Army. Iím still shooting them today, professionally and as a hobby. I spent the morning today at the 300 meter course of fire range out at Camp Williams, (UTARNG) doing some live fire stuff. I canít count how many rounds Iíve fired over the course of 25 years in the Army, but Iíll guess its > 100K. If you want to know what units Iíve been in, ask and Iíll tell you, I wonít be compromising any sources. Iíve seen my share of breakageís and malfs. Stocks, particularly at the forward hinge pin, firing pins, gas rings, extractors, failures to feed, failures to extract, magazines with weak springs, dirty magazines and on. Iíve never seen a gas tube break and the only time Iíve seen a gas tube plugged is when Joe Snuffy sticks things in Ďem he isnít supposed to. Thereís no way, repeat, no way a gas tube can clog from functioning. Way too much pressure for that to happen. Do they require regular maintenance? Absolutely! Some well-placed oil will do wonders for it. Does that mean you drown it in CLP? Not, but it doesnít take a rocket scientist to soon discover where and how much lubrication to feed an AR. When the oil gets dirty, wipe it down and lube it again. The old saw about it not firing when it gets dirty is just that, an old saw. Do you change gas rings often? Yes. Do you clean the carbon out of the bolt and the carrier? (They make a tool for that.) Yes. Do you clean under the extractor? Yes. As to powder sensitivity, when was the last time that was an issue with mil spec ammo? Circa 1965 I recall. I donít think Iíll be using any Wolf or Chicom ammo next time I go to war.
    Thereís no question that the AR requires better maintenance than many other battle rifles. Thatís directly related to its gas impingement operating system. That same system is what makes it inherently the most accurate battle rifle ever devised. Any one (not just soldiers) whose life depends on the functionality of their combat weapon will find the time to keep it ďbattle readyĒ. I never once, in the course of my Army career, depended on a unit armorer for anything but parts procurement. If it needs doing on an AR, I can do it. Iíd be willing to lay a bet that an overwhelming majority of Soldiers and Marines, faced with a choice of any weapon on the battle field would pick an AR over any other. Does that mean they donít pick up Klankikovs and use them when itís expedient? Of course not. Any soldier worth his salt is going to make use of materials at hand. Thatís one of the things that has always distinguished the American fighting man, their adaptability and I maintain, thatís the main reason the AR is still going strong after fifty years. Its adaptability. Lastly, not that I hold any particularly excessive grudges against the Chinese, the Russians, the French, the Spanish, or the Egyptians, I just like my battle rifles made in the U.S.A.
    "A Patriot Must Always Be Ready To Defend His Freedom Against His Government"- Edward Abbey

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    317

    Default Re: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    You guys (Humper) just don't get it - the thing defecates on itself - it is a piece of pot metal crap - it breaks and/or jambs at the drop of a hat - it doesn't work when you take it into combat conditions - it won't make it through a run in the shoot houses at Gunsite/Thunder Ranch where it can be kept clean - if you want to bet your life on a rabbit cartridge, great - not me, and it shouldn't be foisted off on our troops - I am not trying to be mean to you Humper personally, but the fat lazy weak Americans need to wake up and see that the thing is garbage - it doesn't work! Do some friggin' PT instead of sitting on our collective fat butts so you have the biceps to handle a RIFLE - Yeah, the M14 or Garand are heavy, but you darn near can't break 'em and they always go bang with a cartridge that turns cover into concealment - YMMV
    Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    317

    Default Re: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    Sgathak, a well argued post with some good points and Iím certain I wonít be changing anyoneís opinion, but here are a few thoughts from an AR enthusiast:
    First off, is there something the matter with Ergonomics?

    NOTHING WRONG AT ALL - G3s, FALs, M14s ARE NOT EXACTLY LEFT HANDED MONKEY WRENCHS

    I know thatís pretty high on my priority list when it comes to choosing a battle rifle. Iíve always wondered if olí Alexia Kockmoninov was born with a third arm somewhere and he designed his rifle with that in mind. Certainly he designed it such that Soviet Communist manufacturing would be up to the task of actually producing it.
    For anyone who thinks that utility and accuracy go hand in hand as firearms' performance characteristics, the AR outshines any Battle rifle designed in the last 100 years.
    THE M16/AR IS NOT A BATTLE RIFLE - IT DOES NOT FIRE A FULL POWER CARTRIDGE - IT IS MOST COMMONLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS A CARBINE, OR IN MILITARY GUISE, AN ASSAULT WEAPON - THE DEFINING ISSUE LEAVING WWII GARANDS WAS TO SHORTEN THE CARTRIDGE/REDUCE THE POWER TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE - A .22 CALIBER HYPED UP RABBIT ROUND DOES THAT - MAYBE THAT IS WHY POLICE USE .223s NOW - THEY DON'T OVERPENETRATE - BUT IF YOU DON'T PENETRATE, YOU CANNOT INCAPACITATE/KILL THE ENEMY SOLDIER/TWO-LEGGED VARMINT

    Note, I said battle rifle, not assault rifle, although again, no rifle designed in the last century is as flexible as the AR. It can be a submachine gun, a grenade launcher, a camp carbine, a varmint rifle or a championship winning target rifle.
    YOU CANNOT HAVE A TACK DRIVING TARGET RIFLE THAT WILL FUNCTION RELIABLY IN COMBAT - YOU CAN MAKE ONE WITH REALLY TIGHT TOLERANCES FOR TARGET, AND LOOSEN THEM UP ON ANOTHER FOR THE BATTLEFIELD, BUT YOU AREN'T GETTING BOTH IN ONE RIFLE - M14s COULD BE TUNED UP TO BE SUPER ACCURATE TOO, BUT THE ARMY MARKSMANSHIP UNIT DIDN'T TAKE THEIR M14s OVER TO VIETNAM AND INTO THE RICE PADDIES

    I found out years ago, that even with sub moa rifles, Iím hard pressed to hit inside an 8Ē target offhand standing at 100yds and thatís when Iím dead calm and have all the time in the world. Who, on this post of (Iím assuming fairly competent marksmen) can do substantially better? The last thing I want is a battle rifle that the best it can do is 3-4Ē off the bench at 100 yds. Thatís under ideal conditions. That translates to a foot at 300 yards. Now when I couple that with my huffing and a puffing, my adrenaline racing and someone shooting back at me, I damn sure want a rifle that shoots where Iím pointing it and the AR does that better than any other gas operated military rifle in the world.
    BET YOU CAN FIND PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE - THE SAS/ROYAL MARINES DITCHED THEIR M16s IN THE FALKLANDS AND GRABBED A FAL AS SOON AS THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON THEM - REMEMBER, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO HIT THE BAD GUY, THE RIFLE HAS TO FIRE - I HAVEN'T SEEN OR HEARD OF ANY AR TYPE WEAPON THAT WILL DO SO IN COMBAT - PAT ROGERS TAUGHT MY LAST CLASS AT GUNSITE - HE INFORMED US THAT THE STANDARD RULE IN THE CIRCLES HE MAINTAINS IS THAT AT 400 RDS YOU BETTER BE BREAKING THE THING DOWN AND CLEANING IT OR IT WILL BE A MALFUNCTION FACTORY - GUYS I KNOW OVER IN THE SANDBOX HATE THE THING BECAUSE IT BREAKS, FALLS APART FROM WALLERED OUT PIN HOLES IN SOFT ALLOY RECEIVERS, AND IT DOES NOT STOP PEOPLE - HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM AN E-MAIL I RECEIVED FROM A MARINE IN THE GULF
    "I've never been more
    disgusted with a weapon than I am with the M16. The accuracy is great and
    I'm comfortable with the opperation of it but beyond that it's worthless.
    A couple weeks ago we had reports of a different squad in our platoon
    taking contact from 2 gunmen. They returned fire and swore up and down
    that they hit multiple times but both guys got away. Within 30 minutes we
    recieved a call from the hospital that they recieved two gunshot victims.
    One had suffered 28 shots and the other 10. Both were still alive. This
    doesn't even seem like a bad joke to me. It's prettymuch tragic. There
    are so many stories, especially from the recon guys, of the 223 costing
    Marines their lives. When is something going to be done about this? How
    many Marines and soldiers have to die before someone will decide that
    maybe it'd be a good idea to get a better system? Next time I come out
    here. I'm bringing at least a couple magazines of balistic tipped ammo or
    something. After seeing what happens with ball and seeing how pissed off
    everyone is about it, I don't think anyone would even SAY anything to me
    about it let alone charge me. Not to mention I think I'd risk NJP for
    something like that. And that's IF I get caught which I have no idea how
    that would happen. A lotta the guys that use 9 mm are using hollow points
    regularly and noone gives a ****. Dunno I'll keep thinking about it.
    Maybe look into what the consequences would be for doing so. Or who knows
    maybe I could even get authorization somehow."

    This rifle has had its share of detractors since its inception and it has endured as our countryís main battle rifle IT IS A CARBINE

    longer than any other in spite of that. Blame that on politics if you want.
    THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I ATTRIBUTE IT TO - THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX HAS RULED OUR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT AND FIELDING EVER SINCE WWII - THE LOACH WAS A MUCH BETTER HELEICOPTER THAN THE KIOWA, BUT LADY BIRD JOHNSON OWNED STOCK IN THE COMPANY THAT MADE THE KIOWA - THE M16 CAME OUT OF THE MCNAMARA WHIZ KID DAYS - YOU KNOW, WE CAN WIN THE WAR FROM THE PENTAGON/WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE WE HAVE ANALYZED THE NUMBERS AND KNOW MORE THAN THE GUYS WITH THEIR BOOTS MUDDY

    Remember though, the AR was thrown into the heat of battle with the shortest test and evaluation period of any American battle rifle.
    CARBINE

    It got a lot of criticism in its early years, some deserved, some not. (My experience has been that the folks who complain the most about the AR are generally the ones with the least amount of experience with it.) IS THAT WHY THE GUYS DEPLOYING TO COMBAT ARE GIVING THEIR EYE TEETH TO GET M14s?

    I think its evolution into the platform we have currently is another great tribute to its design, not a drawback. What other military rifle design of the last 100 years has been able to accommodate anywhere near the prolific aftermarket innovations?
    EXACTLY THE ISSUE - IT IS A GREAT TOY FOR ARMCHAIR COMMANDOS - THE PEOPLE THAT KILL FOR A LIVING HATE IT, BUT HAVE TO MAKE IT WORK BECAUSE THEY CAN'T OVERTHROW THE LOGISTIC SYSTEM BY THEMSELVES

    The AK functions really well when its dirty. What the H*** else does it do?
    WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT IT TO DO IN COMBAT?

    Does the AR have its problems? Of course it does. I donít claim to be an expert and certainly not a curmudgeon anywhere nears Sundleís level; I only started shooting the M16 in 1981 when I joined the Army. Iím still shooting them today, professionally and as a hobby. I spent the morning today at the 300 meter course of fire range out at Camp Williams, (UTARNG) doing some live fire stuff. I canít count how many rounds Iíve fired over the course of 25 years in the Army, but Iíll guess its > 100K. If you want to know what units Iíve been in, ask and Iíll tell you, I wonít be compromising any sources. Iíve seen my share of breakageís and malfs. Stocks, particularly at the forward hinge pin, firing pins, gas rings, extractors, failures to feed, failures to extract, magazines with weak springs, dirty magazines and on. Iíve never seen a gas tube break and the only time Iíve seen a gas tube plugged is when Joe Snuffy sticks things in Ďem he isnít supposed to.
    I CONCUR HERE - BUT AT SOME POINT IT NEEDS TO BE GI-PROOF - ALSO, AFTER YOU SHOOT YOUR COUPLE OF HUNDRED ROUNDS DURING YOUR RANGE TRAINING, YOU GO BACK TO THE BILLETS AND GI THE THING - CAN'T ALWAYS DO THIS IN COMBAT - WHAT IS THERE TO BREAK IN AN M14 - FIRING PIN, AN OCCAISIONAL EXTRACTOR - NOTHING ELSE WEARS OUT OR BREAKS - IT IS JUST A ROBUST SYSTEM, VS. A MATTEL TOY - THE STONER WEAPON WAS DESIGNED FOR AIR FORCE SECURITY WORKIGN FROM A HARDSTAND AND GOING BACK TO A WARM DRY SET OF BILLETS - YOU DON'T WANT MASSIVE PENETRATION FOR A SECURITY GUY ON A TARMAC SURROUNDED BY F-4S AND RADAR PLANES/GEAR - TOTALLY DIFFERENT WORLD THAN BEING DRUG THROUGH THE WOODS/RICE PADDIES

    Thereís no way, repeat, no way a gas tube can clog from functioning. Way too much pressure for that to happen. Do they require regular maintenance? Absolutely! Some well-placed oil will do wonders for it. Does that mean you drown it in CLP? Not, but it doesnít take a rocket scientist to soon discover where and how much lubrication to feed an AR. When the oil gets dirty, wipe it down and lube it again. The old saw about it not firing when it gets dirty is just that, an old saw.
    SORRY - OUT OF 10 ARs IN MY LAST CLASS AT GUNSITE, NOT A SINGLE WEAPON COMPLETED THE COURSE WITHOUT MALFUNCTIONS - ALL STUDENTS WERE PRIOR SERVICE/LAW ENFORCEMENT AND I WITNESSED THEM STRIPPING THEIR WEAPONS EACH DAY - THE THING DOESN'T RUN RELIABLY ENOUGH TO BET MY LIFE ON - SURE, IT IS FUN/GREAT FOR PARLOR GAMES AT THE RANGE ON THE WEEKEND, BUT IT DOESN'T STAND UP TO SUSTAINED USE/COMBAT

    Do you change gas rings often? Yes. Do you clean the carbon out of the bolt and the carrier? (They make a tool for that.) Yes. Do you clean under the extractor? Yes. As to powder sensitivity, when was the last time that was an issue with mil spec ammo? Circa 1965 I recall. I donít think Iíll be using any Wolf or Chicom ammo next time I go to war.
    Thereís no question that the AR requires better maintenance than many other battle rifles.
    THANK YOU - I'D RATHER MY GUYS WERE DIGGING IN, RESTING, EATING, DOING RECON, ETC..

    Thatís directly related to its gas impingement operating system. That same system is what makes it inherently the most accurate battle rifle
    CARBINE

    ever devised.
    MINUTE OF ENEMY SOLDIER THAT GOES BANG EACH TIME I PULL THE TRIGGER IS PLENTY OF ACCURACY AND WAS FOR THE GARAND, ONE OF THE MOST ACCURATE BATTLE RIFLES EVER - AND REMEMBER, YOU DON'T HAVE A BATTLE RIFLE IN THE AR - IT IS A CARBINE WITH AN UNDERPOWERED RABBIT CARTRIDGE, NOT A FULL POWER BATTLE RIFLE CARTRIDGE


    Any one (not just soldiers) whose life depends on the functionality of their combat weapon will find the time to keep it ďbattle readyĒ.
    WHY TAKE THEIR TIME UP WITH THIS? ARE THERE NOT OTHER THINGS THEY COULD BE DOING TO BEAT THE ENEMY? WHY SHOULD WE SADDLE THEM WITH ANOTHER TIME CONSUMER - WHY DON'T WE HAVE THEM PAINT ROCKS WHILE THEY ARE AT IT?


    I never once, in the course of my Army career, depended on a unit armorer for anything but parts procurement. If it needs doing on an AR, I can do it. Iíd be willing to lay a bet that an overwhelming majority of Soldiers and Marines, faced with a choice of any weapon on the battle field would pick an AR over any other.
    I HAVE NEVER HEARD ONE DECLARE THIS, NOT THAT I ASK EACH ONE - YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THOUGH, NOT MANY OF THE SOLDIERS/MARINES HAVE EVER BEEN ABLE TO FIELD TEST ANY OTHER PLATFORM, SO IF ALL YOU KNOW IS M16s, THEN HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE BETTER - I DO HEAR OF MANY TROOPS USING THE PICKED UP AKs TO CLEAR HOUSES WITH

    Does that mean they donít pick up Klankikovs and use them when itís expedient? Of course not.
    YOUR LOGIC DOESN'T CONNECT HERE - IF THE AR/M16 IS THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD, THEY WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO EVER PICK UP ANOTHER WEAPON - THEY SURELY NEVER RUN OUT OF AMMO SINCE THEY CAN CARRY 3 TIMES AS MANY RABBIT ROUNDS FOR THEIR CARBINE VS. A RIFLE ROUND LIKE THE 7.62X51


    Any soldier worth his salt is going to make use of materials at hand. Thatís one of the things that has always distinguished the American fighting man, their adaptability and I maintain, thatís the main reason the AR is still going strong after fifty years. Its adaptability.
    DISAGREE - THE ADAPTABILITY IS THE SOLDIERS' FOR FIGURING OUT HOW TO STAY ALIVE WHEN SADDLED WITH A SHERMAN TANK TO GO UP AGAINST PANTHER Vs - WE JUST HAVE ALOT OF M16s - IT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS THE BEST THING GOING

    Lastly, not that I hold any particularly excessive grudges against the Chinese, the Russians, the French, the Spanish, or the Egyptians, I just like my battle rifles made in the U.S.A.
    NOW YOU ARE GETTING TO THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX - COLT HAS SOMEBODY SEWN UP - DOESN'T MEAN IT IS THE BEST, OR THAT IT WORKS AT ALL - IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY PAID SOMEBODY OFF TO GET THE CONTRACT - IN THE MIC, THE WORSE YOU MAKE THE BASE PRODUCT, THE BETTER FOR FOLLOW-ON PARTS SALES - I TESTIFIED IN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER CASE AGAINST FMC ON THE BROKELY FIGHTING VEHICLE - THE MONEY GRUBBERS AT FMC PURPOSEFULLY DESIGNED THE POS TO BREAK SO THEY COULD SELL THE ARMY MORE REPAIR PARTS - JUST LIKE COLT SELLS MORE EXTRACTORS AND GAS RINGS TO THE ARMY

    CONFUSING THE SPRAY AND PRAY USE OF A CARBINE WITH THE DISCIPLINED MARKSMANSHIP APPROACH OF A BATTLE RIFLE JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

    ELMBOW, ET AL, THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU IN ANY WAY - I HAVE TRIED TO STAY ON THE TOPICS/POINTS AND NOT CALL ANY NAMES - SORRY RIGHT UP FRONT IF I SLIPPED AND IT CAME OUT THAT WAY


    IT IS JUST TIME THAT WE STICK TO DEMONSTRATED RESULTS/FACTS AND CUT THE HYPE AND ORDERS TO SOLDIERS TO SAY THAT THEIR M-16 IS THE BEST CARBINE IN THE WORLD - IT IS TERRIBLE IN DESIGN, MATERIALS, CHAMBERING, AND IN GETTING OUR GUYS KILLED - SAYING IT IS GREAT/FUN TO SHOOT/MINE HAS NEVER MALFUNCTIONED IN 3 TRIPS TO THE RANGE ON SATURDAY = THE EMPORER'S ROBE IS GRAND - THE EMPORER IS NAKED BOYS, AND IT IS TIME EVERYONE WOKE UP TO IT - NEXT YOU'RE GONNA BE TELLING ME HOW GREAT THE HUMMERS ARE FOR RECON AND SECURITY VEHICLES! USE THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB - STONER'S ABORTION WOULD BE MARGINALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR AIR FORCE SPs ON A REAR AREA HARDSTAND WITH INADEQUATELY STABILIZED/ABOUT TO TUMBLE PROJOS - IT IS NOT THE TOOL YOU ARM MARINES/SOLDIERS WITH FOR FRONT-LINE COMBAT

    TALK TO CLINT SMITH ABOUT THE INCREASE IN HEAD WOUNDS WHEN THE ARMY WENT TO THE M16 FROM THE M14 - THAT SKYSCRAPER SIGHT SET MEANS YOUR HEAD IS MORE EXPOSED TO USE THE THING -

    WE SHOULD TAKE EVERY ONE OF THESE ALUMINUM POSs AND GIVE THEM TO THE CHINESE - MAYBE THE M14/FAL/G3 AREN'T PERFECT, BUT THEY AT LEAST RUN/DON'T FALL APART IN YOUR HANDS FROM WALLERED OUT PIN HOLES IN SOFT ALUMINUM (OR INSERT YOUR FAVORITE BREAKDOWN MALADY)

    HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!!
    Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    utah, usa
    Posts
    5,589

    Default Re: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    usma84dab, You'll notice in my post I did not once mention the caliber issue, because I fully agree with you on that point. To wit, we have the AR10. For the record, my AR10 is not finely tuned, hardly ever jams, (I never say never) even after 400 rounds and will shoot moa, and that's minute of enemy head litrally at 800 yards, not hoping I can hit 'em at 100.
    I was talking about design in my previous post, not caliber. You'll not get an argument from me on that score. Now, since we're talking about "real" battle rifles, any .308 will do. The best your enemy is going to have is the 7.62x39. Stay more than two hundred yards distant and have your way with them. But the question goes unanswered, which .308? Let's start with 2nd best, the FAL. 2nd best controls (to the AR10), 2nd best accuracy (to the AR10), and tied with the H&K for reliability. (Galil is first here but it doesn't count, its a 7.62x39). "THE DEFINING ISSUE LEAVING WWII GARANDS WAS TO SHORTEN THE CARTRIDGE/REDUCE THE POWER TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE". Not true. The idea behind the development of the.308 was twofold. Reduce the weight of the soldier's ammo issue and take advantage of modern ball powders operating at higher pressures to duplicate 30.06 ballistics in a smaller case. The M16 E2 was designed for full auto fire and as such featured a stabilizer assembly, front and rear handgrips, and a hinged rubber butt pad. It also had a modified sling that allowed the shooter to pull down and back on the front handguard greatly controlling dispersion. By the time Vietnam rolled around we were no longer producing marksmen in the armed forces. The M14A2, designed primarily for semi-automatic fire was being used with "spray and pray" tactics and was proving completely unmanageable in full auto mode. this is THE primary reason the Army establishment started looking seriously at the Air Force's SP weapon. And Eugene Stoner didn't design the AR to shoot the 5.56, he adapted his AR10 .308 battle rifle design to shoot the 5.56. And since we're picking on weapons design here, the M14 has its quirks..its 1940's technology, its heavy and its clumsy. It aint so great in the reliability dept. either...gas cylinder plugs loosen,locking recesses foul, operating rod springs are notorious for weakening, spindle valves malfunction, firing pins break and extractors break. It did improve on the Garand by adding the detachable mag and going to .308 but that doesn't make up for its weaknesses. I got a feeling if you could be a fly on the wall during WWII , you'd have heard plenty of GIs complaining about the Garand. I won't argue that the FAL and H&K are slightly more reliable than an AR10 but I won'tput the M14 in that category. AR's with their gas tube instead of piston do demand regular cleaning and oiling, but they run great if you take care of them.

    WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT IT TO DO IN COMBAT? How about hit what I'm aiming at.
    I notice the excerpt from your Marine addressed the ammo issue and NOTHING else. In fact he stated: "The accuracy is great and
    I'm comfortable with the opperation". accuracy and ergonomics.
    AND I WITNESSED THEM STRIPPING THEIR WEAPONS EACH DAY. It takes about ten minutes to strip an AR clean, lube and reassemble. Did that cut in to Miller time at Gunsite? I suppose someone could go out of their way to not perform regular maintenence on their battle rifle just to see how long it would take to malfunction. That's a nominee for Darwin's short list IMO and he needs to be painting rocks instead of clearing rooms.
    IS THAT WHY THE GUYS DEPLOYING TO COMBAT ARE GIVING THEIR EYE TEETH TO GET M14s? Ammo issue again.

    IF THE AR/M16 IS THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD, THEY WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO EVER PICK UP ANOTHER WEAPON - THEY SURELY NEVER RUN OUT OF AMMO SINCE THEY CAN CARRY 3 TIMES AS MANY RABBIT ROUNDS FOR THEIR CARBINE VS. A RIFLE ROUND LIKE THE 7.62X51
    Again, an ammo issue. I always feel undergunned and will pick up a 2nd weapon whenever I'm presented the opportunity. Ever see that picture of PFC Vernon Haught during the Battle of the Bulge? The guy was fairly bristling with weaponry. Does that mean he didn't like his Garand? I don't think so. He like having the odds in his favor.
    COLT HAS SOMEBODY SEWN UP..Who in the H*** did 10 employee Armalite have sewn up when their design got picked?
    I'm with you on the Bradley and Hummer brother, both Pieces OS in my opinion. Can't agree with you on the AR (design) though.

    ALSO, AFTER YOU SHOOT YOUR COUPLE OF HUNDRED ROUNDS DURING YOUR RANGE TRAINING, YOU GO BACK TO THE BILLETS AND GI THE THING -And I do take a bit of umbrage from this comment,implying that I'm a cornfield commando with no experience. I reckon I could hold my own with most "Gunsite" and "Thunder Ranch" grads who IMO are mostly guys that read too many gun rags and are worried about black pajamed ninjas coming for them in the dark of night. I've used the M16 in North Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few and it's never let me down, but then I took a few minutes away from latrine duty every day because I, even though I'm a soldier not a Marine, believe the following with all my soul:

    "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

    My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

    My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will . . . .

    My rifle and I know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit . . . .

    My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights, and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will . . . .

    Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

    So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but Peace!"
    "A Patriot Must Always Be Ready To Defend His Freedom Against His Government"- Edward Abbey

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mohawk Valley
    Posts
    9,687

    Default Re: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    My prediction in another thread was that the army will return to the 7.62mm NATO and the .45ACP.

    I fired familiarization with the M16 when it was still an X-something. In dense, close terrain like Vietnam, I suppose a short-range rapid-fire carbine made sense. Also for people of short stature (Audie Murphy's favorite was the M2 carbine, but he was about 5'3".)

    In open terrain where you are not nose to nose with your enemy, the full-size .30 is a lot better. So is aimed fire. Making a lot of noise without effect is not suppressive fire, it's noise. Vietnam averaged 55,000 rounds per enemy casualty, Korea was more like 35,000 rounds. Inflicting casualties on the other guy is what wins wars.

    The first Gulf war had almost no infantry engagements, but I wondered at the time what would happen. Both the AK and the M16 have serious range limitations. The Russians took a lot of casualties in Afganistan ineffectively returning fire with the AK against .30 WWI and WWII rifles handled by troops who could shoot and bring effective fire at 500-600 yards against a rifle that could only reply when in the 200-300 yard range.

    The only real problem I had with the M14 was I thought it was a bit too long with that XXL flash hider. I've handled the shortened Garands (so called "Tanker" models, actually the T27 type, never put into production) and like the balance and agility a lot. An M14 or modern variant of about the same size would be just the ticket.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    utah, usa
    Posts
    5,589

    Default Re: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    I've shot a few of the so called T-27 variants, (tankers) and found them to be very inaccurate. In discussing this with folks more knowledgable about weapons design than me, their consensus is that the muzzle is too close to the gas port. If that's the case, the design would require it keep its longer barrel, assuming of course accuracy matters in a battle rifle. The Italian BM59 is an M1 tanker, converted to .308 with a 20 rd. mag. Its accuracy likewise sucks (same reason I suppose) and the muzzle blast is horrific. I have two uppers for my AR10, a muzzle braked 16" A2 style and a flat topped 22" style. The muzzle braked barrel is loud as Hell and the 22" barrel is a pussycat. A .308 in any configuration probably needs a bit longer barrel. I would like to think the U.S. might someday return to both calibers ralph mentioned but I'm not holding my breath. More likely scenario, is something along the lines of the new Rem sp round. An AR type rifle with a piston operating system is my guess. The organizational structure (MTOE for Army weenies) is more likely to change so that small units will see the majority of their members carrying "assault rifles" designed for MOUT scenarios with a select few designated as marksmen carrying longer ranging .308 type weapons. As much as we all long for the good old days of picking off the enemy at 'fer distances, the continued urbanization of the world is going to force U.S. involvement in more and more urban conflicts. The quick handling characteristics of an M4 style weapon will continue to gain importance. For those interested, here are a few reading ideas: For urban tactics read the Army center for lessons learned study of the Battle of Leningrad and for an insight into why the Soviets got their asses kicked in Afghanistan read "The Bear Went Over the Mountain. Don't remember the author on that one but a google search will bring it up.
    "A Patriot Must Always Be Ready To Defend His Freedom Against His Government"- Edward Abbey

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Formerly Golden CO....
    Posts
    1,057

    Default Re: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    **KABOOM**

    Didnt expect this firestorm [img]/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif[/img]

    USMA84DAB hit damn near every thing I would have said already...

    I am however going to clarify that even though I prefer Russian weapons, my dislike of the M-16 isnt based on said preference (despite the dig elmbow, sorry) but for the mechanics of operation... its Goldbergian design and delicate features make for a rifle that DOES NOT WORK IN COMBAT!

    It is my opinion that the M-16 is a junk rifle! For all the reasons laid out in the original linked page... Even Stoners later designs didnt run with such flawed designs. Further, to my knowledge, no other major military that has designed its own rifle has the M16 operating system. Its flawed! (and flawed is a polite term)

    WRT to the T-27 design, Im dont know, but as speculation Im not sure that barrel length has much to do with it as the now (re)issued M-14 SOCOM has only a 16in bbl.
    If you love wealth more than liberty... We ask not your council or your arms... May posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
    - Samuel Adams

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Formerly Golden CO....
    Posts
    1,057

    Default Re: Why I Hate The AR-15/M-16

    SOCOM M14 w/16in bbl



    The SA-58 (US made FAL) is also available in 16in bbl (all the way down to 11in bbl) and is reliable, accurate, and as ergonmic as you want it to be. It can mount every wizbang flashlight you want too.

    The Brazilians have made extremely reliable 223 version fo the FAL, and FN produces the FNC which has had excellent results in reliability and accuracy tests (sorry, no proof handy, its been a while since I saw the report.)

    Im not sure how the FAL falls as "#2" to the AR-10, since the AR-10 shares all the design faults of the AR-15, while the FAL is utterly reliable with an impeccable service record.

    I would like to to offer up the fact that the SIG 55X family is an EXCELLENT rifle, with AR ergonimcs and AK functionality. How? AK action, NATO design influence.

    Maybe the XCR will put alot of this argument to rest???? AR looks/accessories, AK type action, FN controls - 223, 6.8, and soon in 308!

    Finally, and just a small point. The Galil is not a 7.62X39 rifle. Its is a 223 mainly, and is also available in 308.
    If you love wealth more than liberty... We ask not your council or your arms... May posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
    - Samuel Adams

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •