Replies

That's a strong statement durus and it's debatable. The M16s I shot were field quality rifles shooting field quality ball ammo. They were capable of shooting 4-5 MOA at best. I have shot civilian AR15s with very high quality reloads that would shoot .25 MOA. Throughout 8 years as an infantry rifleman, I never saw a service rifle, with open sights, firing standard issue ball ammo that was capable of anything near that.

Its potential for good accuracy is primarily within 100-300 yards. Accuracy degrades beyond that due to the light bullet and the low ballistic coefficient. It's ability to cause devastating wounds beyond 300 yards also degrades especially from shorter barreled rifles.

Furthermore, oh8eleven, the routing of hot gasses into the chamber remains a design flaw. Even after about 50 years, it remains a poor design.

Bottom line, it has been fifty years now and the shortcomings of the M16 have been well documented after every conflict it has seen. I think we could do better and I think the 5.56 mm NATO round has proved repeatedly that it kind of sucks in general.

If I had to rush out to meet an enemy, I would absolutely grab my FN FAL in 7.62 mm before I would grab any of the direct gas impingement 5.56 mm rifles in my collection.