Author Topic: M-16 Poor Stopping Power/Reliability *** AGAIN!!!! (Read 1056 times)

S.S. · « **on:** April 21, 2003, 09:41:01 AM »

How many nails is it gonna' take to nail the coffin shut
on the M-16. Military Folks I know are requesting to
use their personal (I'm talking their Big Game Rifles)
weapons in Afghanistan ! Special forces are asking to be issued
the M-14 again! The .223 has no REACH to it
in combat! I have heard the reports coming out of
Iraq that are saying the same thing! I wonder how many
AMERICANS will have to die because of that piece of crap
before the government gets the message. Several of the
recently released P.O.W.'s said their weapons jammed!!
Our Soldiers should have the best weapons available,
there is no excuse for them not to!
I would like to request (Under the freedom of information act)
the reports on the circumstances surrounding our combat
casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just to see how many had jammed
weapons or had shot their adversary first before being wounded themselves because the 5.56 bullet did not do its job!
I know this is going to draw fire from the AR loving folks,
but that is something I am already used to! Lots of folks think
that a "CIVILIANIZED" AR is the greatest thing since the wheel.
Well thats all well & good as long as you are punching holes
in paper or coyotes and have time to clean it after every 100 shots or so! But when the "Feces hits the fan" and
and you are shoulder deep in a swamp with muddy water running
out of your receiver & mag well I think that the confidence
level will drop quite rapidly.
When one of the main arguement for the use of the 5.56
is that it allows for a quick follow up shot, something is wrong there!
A second shot should not be necessary!

I'm gonna have to add REV. before my name on that post,
lots of preachin' I guess

1911crazy · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2003, 11:15:24 AM »

We have the ultimate weapon the M14?? I would go with a "1918 BAR" if I had my choice nothing like sending a barrage of '06 out there once the bad guys are hit the'll never get up. It just makes me mad when I think about our young men and women in the service dying because of bad weapons?? Maybe we should buy the AK's off the russians and send them over there they are better than anything we have?? BigBill

We could send them surplus yugo sks's they would be better too!!!! I never had any love for the .223 any way. Our military round should be no less than 6.5mm or 7mm!!!!

savageT · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2003, 11:51:59 AM »

Heck ya,
Why not re-issue M1-Garands and be done with it? I wonder if the U.S. could find enough "Off-Shore Sources" to make them?

Seems we got all kinds of real nasty, heavy-duty 20/50cal. arms using depleated uranium anti-tank rounds, but nothin for our ground-pounder G.I.'s except .223 fmj M-16's. Of Course, I did see some Remington m700's with bi-pods and very nice scopes.............

Wonder who you have to know to get those?

Jim

1911crazy · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2003, 12:50:44 PM »

Quote from: savageT

Heck ya,
Why not re-issue M1-Garands and be done with it? I wonder if the U.S. could find enough "Off-Shore Sources" to make them?

Seems we got all kinds of real nasty, heavy-duty 20/50cal. arms using depleated uranium anti-tank rounds, but nothin for our ground-pounder G.I.'s except .223 fmj M-16's. Of Course, I did see some Remington m700's with bi-pods and very nice scopes............. Wonder who you have to know to get those?

Jim

YES "M1 Garands" and "Bar's" and "M14's" all over again?

I guess the bottom line is a .30cal knock down power??? BigBill

L-Roy · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2003, 03:08:13 PM »

M1 Garand, all the way!!

.45 COLT · « **Reply #5 on:** April 22, 2003, 03:11:40 AM »

S. Sumner wrote:

Quote

I'm gonna have to add REV. before my name on that post,
lots of preachin' I guess

Why not? Jesse Jackson got away with it for a LONG time.

The M16 is junk. I said that since I first saw one in 1966 and have seen nothing to change my mind since. I was lucky in that the units I was with didn't have to use it. Our weapon of choice was the M14.

The M16 had so much hype that a lot of people believed it - and still do. The fact of the matter is that the .223 is an adequate varmint round, nothing more and the rifle itself is unreliable under combat conditions. Never should have been put in service as a military weapon. If it's necessary to poke a hole in someone, I want the biggest hole possible and when I pull the trigger I want reliable action. The M16 doesn't fill the bill on either count.

jerrl · « **Reply #6 on:** April 22, 2003, 08:02:06 AM »

I think a lot of people just have too much time on their hands.

I agree. Lets scrap the 5.56 and get a good round that will really reach out and touch somebody. Let's go with the AK and the 7.62X39. I mean after all every time we go up against the AK we loose. Look at all those casualties we took when we invaded Granada and Panama. We lost those wars then the AK beat us in Desert Storm and now we have lost in Agghanistan and Iraq. Why the 5.56 is not even as good as the 6.5 Jap. When we landed on Tarawa and Iwo the Japs had those little ol pop guns and if that chrome plated bullet ever hit you it would just zip on thru and do very little actual damage. All you really needed was a band aid to cover that itsy bitsy little hole.

If you don't like the AK and want something better, why you remember the Krag don't you. It was a lot like the M-14 in length of service and durability. Hey that 30-40 round really packed a wallop!

Give me a break already. :-D :-D

hawkeye1903 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 22, 2003, 07:12:44 PM »

Dump the M-16. I saw a documentary that stated Robert Macnamera (Sec. of Defense?) early-mid 60's forced the M-16 down the throats of the military. He never fired a shot in anger and looked down upon the military. Should tell you something about the rifle and the round.
Any rifle like the M-16 with a device built into it (forward assist) to "correct" defects is not to awe inspiring for reliability.

I wouldn't go with the AK or its round either. Long range accuracy is poor with the sights and round.

Go to chuckhawks.com - he makes the case for a new military round, the 6mm NATO (actually a .243) This is a great site for gun/cartridge knowledge.

While were preaching, let's dump that 9mm too. That is a real joke.

S.S. · « **Reply #8 on:** April 23, 2003, 04:15:54 AM »

Hey previous Post
Do I Detect a Little humor !!!

Well when you have to fire a persons body weight
in bullets at him to kill him, (A proven fact from Viet Nam,
Ratio of shots fired to number of enemy casualties. )
I don't think that is too funny!
Have you ever went into combat with an M-16 ?
Have you ever even fired a real M-16 to see how many
times they jam on full auto!
The shooting range at your local gun club doesn't count,
target shooting is not combat.
When our own soldiers are getting killed or captured
because of the piece of junk weapons they have,
I don't think that is funny!
If our own soldiers are coming out of combat saying that
the M-16 jams constantly or that they have to shoot an
enemy multiple times before he falls, I BELIEVE THEM !!!
When I see with my own eyes the failures of an M-16
and the 5.56 cartridge I must ask myself how and why
it is still in service.
We have too many politicians and arm-chair generals
(and now news media)
who think they know how to fight a war and have
never been in one !
I have been shot twice myself and stabbed once,
I know what combat is all about.
People who have never been in combat should not even be able
to comment about it, Seems like they have no right to!

As I do not wish to get into trouble with the moderator again,
I think I'll drop this conversation for now.

kevin.303 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 24, 2003, 06:34:14 AM »

i have an amerian cousin how served in the U.S.M.C during the 80's and often said he wouldn't trust the m16 for hunting squrriel's, let alone as a infantry weapon. a number of my high school teachers put in time with the canadian army when they made the transition to 5.56 from 7.92(.303) and said we where better of with the latter. if you think about it the m16 is nothing more then a really fast .22.what we need are the old 220 gr. or equal military loads that our great-grandfathers used in the war to end all wars, and the next big one

Jose Grande · « **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2003, 12:28:44 PM »

I've owned several of the rifles mentioned in the posts above & I've shot targets with most of them. I sold my AR years ago. The M-1 is it as far as I can see.
A service M-16 is not accurate at long range any way. And anybody with common sense knows the energy from an -06 is many times better than a .223 .

wallynut · « **Reply #11 on:** May 03, 2003, 05:03:59 PM »

I've used m-16's and I know about the limitations of this weapon. Like everyone else, I have my own opinions of what would make a great military weapon. It was a shame that the U.S. government didn't cooperate with other countries in using the FAL in 308cal. Very dependable, almost as accurate as a M-14(with better sights, who knows?), but easier to maintain. The gas system is simple, easy to clean, and adjustable (which can be a good thing in a battle when a weapon can not be cleaned)