Been through this one about a “hunderd” times, but personally I like them and their variations. Been running them for over 30 years.
I’m not blaming you, but this same topic has been written ad nauseum this year by numerous authors and numerous titles. What is behind all this knocking of the M16?
“I don’t know but someone who would told me a long time ago that the M16 jammed a lot. And that the M-14 was better.”
The original M16 did. The M14 fails too (extractors popping out, for instance). All machines fail. Even the vaunted AK.
The M-14 was better for the 1960s/post Nuclear battlefield. The 7.62mm ( is too powerfull for CQB.
This is more blame Bush and trying to excuse 0bama for a lack of policy in Afghanistan.
There is nothing wrong with the M-16. What is the main battle weapon of the israeli Army? Nuff said.
A while back, I had the Springfield Armory M-1A, which is the civilian version of the M-14. It’s a great gun and I’ll probably buy another with a match barrel and composite stock someday. My military friends all liked it but it’s not light and the ammo can get pretty heavy, too.
My young Marine friends haven’t had problems with jamming but they keep their firearms (they also have AR sporter rifles) pristine. However, the M-16/AR-15 platform is getting long in the tooth. Barrett and Heckler & Koch have some new alternatives, similar to the existing platform, the US military is testing. I think both are chambered in 6.8MM (something in between the current 5.56MM and the M-14’s 7.62MM).
M-16 = rounds have less punch, but one can carry more ammo.
M-14 = more powerfull rounds, but can't carry as many.
The M-16 is a fine piece of machinery, as such it needs care to keep it going. The Garrand was also a fine piece, if it could have lost some weight through modification (new alloys, fiber stock)it would still be a fine piece. All weapons have initial flaws that have to be worked out after fielding. The M-16 is probably as reliable as the most reliable weapon out there. It also has better accuracy than most.
Even the earliest M16 worked better than our politicians.
Anything mechanical is prone to failure at some given point.
I have had the opportunity of firing most of the older and newer versions of the M16/M4 family, as well as some of the newer technologies available. There are some good ones out there, SCAR, SiG, even the new Ruger. But none of these are battlefield tested. Piston systems, similar to the AK also have problems aside from the 'cleaner' advantage.
The main issue with any of these is caliber.
The 5.56x45 is an excellent round but lacks a lot downrange. The 6.8 SPC is exceptional for longer range accuracy and energy, as is being needed in Afghanistan, where the heavier M14 in 7.62x51 is making another comeback as a battlefield weapon.
But what it all really comes down to, in it's simplest form, is the M4 is light, handy, maneuverable, accurate within it's limits. And when you are carrying around, body armor, pack(40 lbs), ammo, scope, radio, etc, it makes a difference.
We had problems with fte any time the weapon got hot and had a lot of problems during Desert Shield when we first arrived in the middle east. The weapons had been stored with a light coating of oil and the fine sand combined with the oil and made the rifle a single shot. Guys who weren't on the front lines didn't find out that their rifle was a paperweight until they got into a firefight.
The 5.56 uses a slow rate of rifling to keep the bullet barely stable during flight. The slow rotation allows the bullet to tumble when it strikes soft tissue and cause more damage. The slow rotation and ultra velocity combine to cause the bullets to fragment or tumble if they hit anything during travel.
The light bullet doesn't always do the job, especially at long ranges. The only real firefight that I was in during Desert Storm took place at around a quarter of a mile. We found blood after the battle indicating that we had scored hits, but all of the bad guys were able to continue fighting and leave under their own power. I think that a larger projectile would have improved our odds. During that battle, two of the seven weapons jammed and one couldn't be cleared until after the fighting was over. You really don't want to resort to a 9mm pistol when the enemy is a quarter mile away.
I had one AR-15 that jammed sometimes, and broke TWICE. And two AK-47’s that never broke OR jammed!
I heard the same thing. One Marine I knew always managed to keep an M-14 around even when the brass threw temper tantrums and tried to force him to carry the M-16.
I don’t know how he got away with it.
Bump.
The M16 is a fine rifle when maintained. However, the design is almost 50 years old. Other nations around the world are creating new designs and better designs while we redress the same platform over and over and over again.
Sadly, we won’t see any real new effective systems here in the US for a long long time. Thanks to all the short sighted elected officials that killed the innovative firearms industry in this nation.
If you take care of it, it will take care of you.
Fussy and punchless and less than ideal for war?
Got my vote.
Stuff you know if you have an AK-47:
It works though you have never cleaned it. Ever.
Stuff you know if you have an AR:
You have $9 per ounce special non-detergent synthetic teflon infused oil for cleaning.
Stuff you know if you have a Mosin Nagant:
It was last cleaned in Berlin in 1945.
Stuff you know if you have an AK-47:
You can put a .30" hole through 12" of oak, if you can hit it.
Stuff you know if you have an AR:
You can put one hole in a paper target at 100m with 30 rounds.
Stuff you know if you have a Mosin Nagant:
You can knock down everyone else's target just from the shock wave of your bullet going downrange.
With good smokeless ammunition the M16 works great but if the ammo is cheap and the powder is not smokeless the weapon becomes damn near useless.You pretty much have to fieldstrip that weapon and get rid of the soot and carbon deposits.Because if you just add oil to it that soot and carbon become stickey as hell and the weapon will refuse to function.