mg357
Absent Comrade
Dear Smith and Wesson Forum i would like to here some opinions from my fellow Forum members about the m16 rifle sincerely and respectfully mg357 a proud member of the Smitha and Wesson Forum.
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
opinions on the m16 rifle
- Thread starter mg357
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
venomballistics
Member
mine is quite mixed.
the pro's .. it is probably one of the most intuitive rifles ever devised, it balances divinely, promotes an outstanding shooting form, and handles fast and furious.
It is also a brilliant rifle from a platform point of view where upper receiver / barrel assembly's can be swapped out like contender barrels due to its modular design.
its kinda like a '57 Chevy of the firearm fraternity.
the cons.
5.56MM nato. sorry folks, aint nothin on the battle field this can do that the 7.62 NATO it replaced, could not do better... unless, of course, we are ever invaded by limb rat death squads and zombie possum battalions.
the pro's .. it is probably one of the most intuitive rifles ever devised, it balances divinely, promotes an outstanding shooting form, and handles fast and furious.
It is also a brilliant rifle from a platform point of view where upper receiver / barrel assembly's can be swapped out like contender barrels due to its modular design.
its kinda like a '57 Chevy of the firearm fraternity.
the cons.
5.56MM nato. sorry folks, aint nothin on the battle field this can do that the 7.62 NATO it replaced, could not do better... unless, of course, we are ever invaded by limb rat death squads and zombie possum battalions.
Based on all period reports I've read the M16 was terrible. I was initially issued a M16A1 and by then the bugs had been pretty well worked out. With one exception the only times I had malfunctions were directly related to worn magazines, and those were few. I thought the M16A2 was an improvement in most areas with the three round burst being the exception.
I think the AR platform is the easiest rifle for a novice shooter to learn to shoot well that the US ever adopted.
I think the AR platform is the easiest rifle for a novice shooter to learn to shoot well that the US ever adopted.
bitstream
Member
Every one I've issued to head down range has came back with the person I issued it to. Guess that's worth some credit.
One guy returned his without cleaning it first; it took an hour to get the sand and carbon out, but it function checked ok before I even started to clean it.
One guy returned his without cleaning it first; it took an hour to get the sand and carbon out, but it function checked ok before I even started to clean it.
m1gunner
US Veteran
The current M-16 variant fills the need for a cheap, mass produced carbine style weapon for para-military and light combat forces.
The original M-16 was a good civilian/target range weapon, it wasn't up to surviving daily field conditions.
The original M-16 was a good civilian/target range weapon, it wasn't up to surviving daily field conditions.
mkk41
US Veteran
Speaking of the full size rifle and not the M-4 carbine? The M-16 has come a long way. Having qualified with and been issued the M-16A1 , which I never liked , the latest version , the heavy barreled M-16A2 & A3 versions are wonderful rifles. Maybe not for all theaters of operation. They got the bugs worked out for jungle use , but that find red sand of the Mid-East gets EVERYWHERE. It averages out OK. I do enjoy shooting my Bushmaster at local club matches.
Not to start a flame war , but gimme an M-14 any day!
Not to start a flame war , but gimme an M-14 any day!
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,100
- Reaction score
- 6,434
Don't like it or the cartridge, and I have carried one in war and peace.
Despite all the ballyhoo about the "tumbling" bullet, the round is merely a
glorified varmint round, lacks range and punch for serious use. Useless against thin skinned vehicles and light fortifications. In Vietnam the main function of M-16 armed riflemen was to point out targets to M-60 gunners, and all attempts to use the 5.56 round as a machine gun round have failed. I don't like the way the gasport and tube are welded together, means it is impossible for the user to clean it thoroughly and the problems they had in Vietnam when different powders were used-in wartime you use what you can, not what you'd like. The fact that after nearly 50 years of service they're still trying to find a round that gives satisfactory all around service is a serious indictment IMHO. Like how every new conflict reveals new shortcomings. Like the M-1 Carbine a good weapon for someone whose main function is to something else but not as a main battle rifle.
Despite all the ballyhoo about the "tumbling" bullet, the round is merely a
glorified varmint round, lacks range and punch for serious use. Useless against thin skinned vehicles and light fortifications. In Vietnam the main function of M-16 armed riflemen was to point out targets to M-60 gunners, and all attempts to use the 5.56 round as a machine gun round have failed. I don't like the way the gasport and tube are welded together, means it is impossible for the user to clean it thoroughly and the problems they had in Vietnam when different powders were used-in wartime you use what you can, not what you'd like. The fact that after nearly 50 years of service they're still trying to find a round that gives satisfactory all around service is a serious indictment IMHO. Like how every new conflict reveals new shortcomings. Like the M-1 Carbine a good weapon for someone whose main function is to something else but not as a main battle rifle.
Evil Dog
US Veteran
Same here... the M-16 and it's clones are indeed fine rifles but are quite underpowered when compared to the M-14. For targets under 200 yards the M-16 works well but certainly wouldn't be my choice for 500 yards and beyond. Which rifle might be better kinda depends on what you expect to be doing.
The Last Standing Knight
Member
I trained with the M16A1 in boot camp and got the M16A2 when I got to ITS-San Onofre...they were new to the Corps at that time.
The 16 is lightweight, holds lots of ammo, and in the A2 version..a very accurate rifle even out to 500 meters. It has a ton of stuff you can hang on it, if one has the desire to do that.
IMHO, the system, while originally designed by Eugene Stoner to be low maintenance, turned into a high maintenance and fragile monster which always seemed to go wrong at the wrong time regardless of how clean you kept it.
I have talked to people in the know and have been told the new versions of it have a reliablility factor on a close par with an AK. I believe them.
That being said, I still have issues with the direct gas operating system and do not trust it. That is why my SHTF rifle is a Ruger Mini-14 and not an AR series weapon.
The 16 is lightweight, holds lots of ammo, and in the A2 version..a very accurate rifle even out to 500 meters. It has a ton of stuff you can hang on it, if one has the desire to do that.
IMHO, the system, while originally designed by Eugene Stoner to be low maintenance, turned into a high maintenance and fragile monster which always seemed to go wrong at the wrong time regardless of how clean you kept it.
I have talked to people in the know and have been told the new versions of it have a reliablility factor on a close par with an AK. I believe them.
That being said, I still have issues with the direct gas operating system and do not trust it. That is why my SHTF rifle is a Ruger Mini-14 and not an AR series weapon.
deralte
US Veteran
While some don't care for the .223 and say it won't do what the 7.62 will, please remember it is much lighter and you can carry a lot more rounds for the same weight. We don't use the marksmanship in this day and age and most firefights consist of spraying the area the enemy is in - therefore, more ammunition is required. I wish we could have had it in Korea.
Grayfox
US Veteran
I can't speak for the current models, but the A1s I was issued back in the early 70s were unreliable pieces of crap.
I'll never own one.
I'll never own one.
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
I've heard the M-16 has killed lots of bad guys.
GyMac
US Veteran
I was issued an M-16, both A1 and A2. I like and respect them. They don't pack the punch of an M-14, but they seem to get the job done. I find it interesting that the Iraqis who are issued AK's, want the M-4.
Chris
Chris
Evil Dog
US Veteran
What a shame. One well aimed shot beats the heck out of a dozen sprayed in the general direction.
m1gunner
US Veteran
I ran across the shot to hit ratio for the M-16 in our troops' hands some time ago, it wasn't a performance to brag about.
Let me begin by saying I am 43 years old and have never been in the military. I got my first AR-15 at age 13 and my first M16, a M16A2, when I was 28 or so. I have never had an issue with either the AR or a M16. Granted, none of my AR's or M16's have seen the kind of hard use a military weapon would see, but I think I've been around them enough to know a bit about them.
IMO, because of many of the issue of the M16 in the early stages of the VietNam conflict, the M16 got an undeserved bad reputation. The biggest issue came from the change to ball powder, which fowled much more than IMR powder. That said, had the M16 not gotten such a bad rap when first introduced, there would not be such the controversy about it, a controversy that still exists almost 50 years later.
Think about this, the M1 Garand was the official US service weapon for under 20 year, the M16 is approaching 50 years of service. Few people will bash the M1, but you can always find someone to bash the M16. I think M1's are wonderful, I have about 20 of them, but it hasn't been as successful, in terms of longevity, as the M16.
IMO, because of many of the issue of the M16 in the early stages of the VietNam conflict, the M16 got an undeserved bad reputation. The biggest issue came from the change to ball powder, which fowled much more than IMR powder. That said, had the M16 not gotten such a bad rap when first introduced, there would not be such the controversy about it, a controversy that still exists almost 50 years later.
Think about this, the M1 Garand was the official US service weapon for under 20 year, the M16 is approaching 50 years of service. Few people will bash the M1, but you can always find someone to bash the M16. I think M1's are wonderful, I have about 20 of them, but it hasn't been as successful, in terms of longevity, as the M16.
MR. IHC
US Veteran
my expierience was that if kept clean, it was very effective, but you gotta keep it clean!
GatorFarmer
Member
M4s, and to a certain extent even the full size rifles, tend to have issues with dust. This has led to a focus on piston guns, different gas systems, etc. As a "just in case", the Marines even developed and issue a nice new bayonet.
Old A2s in the hands of rear area troops didn't do that well in the early days of the current wars. For reference, see the Jessica Lynch incident.
The M249 killed a fair number of Somalis, and killed more Iraqis and Afghanis. Partial replacements for it in the SAW role being considered don't change the caliber, they just attempt to become even more light and handy.
It is actually just the opposite for rifle and carbine armed soldiers and Marines. Especially the more experienced ones, they tend to be very careful about when they fire and marksmanship is quite good- not only in the Marines with their A4s, but also in the Army. Issue of optics is now pretty much universal, and for a time the Marines had so many precise head shots that their was a brief investigation to determine whether they were simply executing prisoners. They weren't. The optics made it just that effective to use their rifles.
The last A2s are being retired from Parris Island this month, fully replaced at last by A4s, but the recruits still learn their A4s with iron sights.
The Aimpoints, ACOGs and EoTechs, particularly when magnified make hits on man sized targets relatively easier. Semi auto fire is normal, most rifles still only have three round burst selectors anyway and these aren't the most useful thing.
There are also DMR variants of the M16 and even M4 in service.
That was the Vietnam era percentage of rounds fired. Things have changed a bit. An M16/M4 is problably more likely to produce a hit than any previous individual weapon.
Old A2s in the hands of rear area troops didn't do that well in the early days of the current wars. For reference, see the Jessica Lynch incident.
The M249 killed a fair number of Somalis, and killed more Iraqis and Afghanis. Partial replacements for it in the SAW role being considered don't change the caliber, they just attempt to become even more light and handy.
It is actually just the opposite for rifle and carbine armed soldiers and Marines. Especially the more experienced ones, they tend to be very careful about when they fire and marksmanship is quite good- not only in the Marines with their A4s, but also in the Army. Issue of optics is now pretty much universal, and for a time the Marines had so many precise head shots that their was a brief investigation to determine whether they were simply executing prisoners. They weren't. The optics made it just that effective to use their rifles.
The last A2s are being retired from Parris Island this month, fully replaced at last by A4s, but the recruits still learn their A4s with iron sights.
The Aimpoints, ACOGs and EoTechs, particularly when magnified make hits on man sized targets relatively easier. Semi auto fire is normal, most rifles still only have three round burst selectors anyway and these aren't the most useful thing.
There are also DMR variants of the M16 and even M4 in service.
That was the Vietnam era percentage of rounds fired. Things have changed a bit. An M16/M4 is problably more likely to produce a hit than any previous individual weapon.
Harrison
US Veteran
In the M16 version, a great battle rifle, but a wimpy caliber. Something like a 6.8 or 6.5mm would be much better.
M4, need 2" more barrel length and makes an already wimpy caliber even worse. 16" barrel in 6.8 or 6.5 would be great.
M14 is over rated.
M4, need 2" more barrel length and makes an already wimpy caliber even worse. 16" barrel in 6.8 or 6.5 would be great.
M14 is over rated.
Similar threads
