- Jul 30, 2003
- 1,963
- 65
- 26
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Face it, it's a bad gun. Don't you tire of the short range, innacuracy and constant cleaning? We need a modern Garand.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Replace the M-16?
- Thread starter Megachihuahua
- Start date
- Status
MrsGnomeCrusher
Veteran
- Mar 17, 2004
- 1,812
- 85
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Arguments can go both ways. The M16A2 can be a devastating weapon in the right hands. I have never had a stoppage in eight years. The M4 carbine was a good idea gone stupid. This is why the Marines are now fielding the M16A4. Smart changes to a reliable weapon when properly maintained. I own an M1 and love it. My 1911 is my favorite. The military updated to make things easier for NATO. We will probably never see a weapon like the M1 or 1911 in full service again. Oops, sorry. The 1911 is making a comeback for the Marines.
Upvote
0
daidhaid
walkin' slack
my 16 did not jam but then I knew how to maintain it also ya gotta keep mags and ammo in good condition
as well as know how to use it.
there well may be other weapons that are superior in various ways like over 3oo m or for bayonets
but when you consider the weight of the weapon and the ammo and ease of field maintenance and the lethality of wounds and the range of conditions it can function in
the 16 is a good platform.
as well as know how to use it.
there well may be other weapons that are superior in various ways like over 3oo m or for bayonets
but when you consider the weight of the weapon and the ammo and ease of field maintenance and the lethality of wounds and the range of conditions it can function in
the 16 is a good platform.
Upvote
0
Peiper
rationalist libertarian
It has been argued that since the days of Kennedy's McNamara "Whiz Kid" policy making, US defense policy decisions have been in the hands of civilian industrialists and out of the hands of the military.
Two recent examples of pure waste are the hated Stryker mobile brigades and the now canceled Comanche helicopter program.
The most famous example is the general use long rifle, the M-16A2. Far from being a theater perfect weapon, the M-16 series was widely held as an inferior weapon in Vietnam. While improvements, primarily in the form of a forward assist, to the weapon were made during the course of the war, many soldiers preferred other weapon systems such as the M1A or even the AK-47.
[For M-16 horrors, reference page 76 of Jim Fallows' National Defense, Random House 1981]
Oddly enough, roughly thirty years later, soldiers, still register serious complaints. The following is an excerpt from a letter written by a Marine in Afghanistan:
"The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when fired from the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself (once again) to be woefully inadequate as man stopper. Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. Penetration is also sadly deficient. Even light barriers are not perforated by this rifle/cartridge combination. Troopers all over are switching to the seventy-seven grain Sierra Matchking (loaded by Black Hills) whenever it can be found. Its performance on enemy soldiers is not much better, but it does penetrate barriers. We're fighting fanatics here, and they don't find wimpy ammunition particularly impressive!"
"Adding to our challenges, our issue M-9 pistol (Beretta M92F) is proving itself unreliable. They are constantly breaking. To make matters worse, the 9mm hardball round we use is a joke. It is categorically ineffective as a fight stopper, even at close range. Some troopers, after numerous, desperate requests, are now being reissued 1911s! However, the only ones available for issue are worn out. Magazines are hard to find, and 45ACP ammunition is scarce."
So what could replace this system? Why not the classic .308? The cartridge has the stopping power and the range to get the job done. Sure you cannot carry as much ammunition as the 5.56mm, but then you do not have to shoot your target five times to drop him. The .308 has been the battle-rifle cartridge for much of the world for ninety years. Why should we let the fact that we made a mistake converting to an Air Force target rifle impede the abilities of our military?
For more debate take a look at the following Warfare Research magazine's website under "Magazine:" http://www.g2mil.com/
They publish interesting articles which can be found towards the bottom of the "Magazine" section every month.
Enjoy.
Two recent examples of pure waste are the hated Stryker mobile brigades and the now canceled Comanche helicopter program.
The most famous example is the general use long rifle, the M-16A2. Far from being a theater perfect weapon, the M-16 series was widely held as an inferior weapon in Vietnam. While improvements, primarily in the form of a forward assist, to the weapon were made during the course of the war, many soldiers preferred other weapon systems such as the M1A or even the AK-47.
[For M-16 horrors, reference page 76 of Jim Fallows' National Defense, Random House 1981]
Oddly enough, roughly thirty years later, soldiers, still register serious complaints. The following is an excerpt from a letter written by a Marine in Afghanistan:
"The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when fired from the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself (once again) to be woefully inadequate as man stopper. Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. Penetration is also sadly deficient. Even light barriers are not perforated by this rifle/cartridge combination. Troopers all over are switching to the seventy-seven grain Sierra Matchking (loaded by Black Hills) whenever it can be found. Its performance on enemy soldiers is not much better, but it does penetrate barriers. We're fighting fanatics here, and they don't find wimpy ammunition particularly impressive!"
"Adding to our challenges, our issue M-9 pistol (Beretta M92F) is proving itself unreliable. They are constantly breaking. To make matters worse, the 9mm hardball round we use is a joke. It is categorically ineffective as a fight stopper, even at close range. Some troopers, after numerous, desperate requests, are now being reissued 1911s! However, the only ones available for issue are worn out. Magazines are hard to find, and 45ACP ammunition is scarce."
So what could replace this system? Why not the classic .308? The cartridge has the stopping power and the range to get the job done. Sure you cannot carry as much ammunition as the 5.56mm, but then you do not have to shoot your target five times to drop him. The .308 has been the battle-rifle cartridge for much of the world for ninety years. Why should we let the fact that we made a mistake converting to an Air Force target rifle impede the abilities of our military?
For more debate take a look at the following Warfare Research magazine's website under "Magazine:" http://www.g2mil.com/
They publish interesting articles which can be found towards the bottom of the "Magazine" section every month.
Enjoy.
Upvote
0
The feature on the M16 family replacement (the XM8) was very fascinating, due to enter service in 2007. When will the last M16/M4 leave US service ?
Upvote
0
Peiper
rationalist libertarian
The XM8 is an attempt to salvage something from the horrible OICW program.
The conventional 5.56x45 FMJ is very velocity dependent in its wounding mechanism. The immutable laws of physics dictate that no matter how nice or sexy the weapon, a 12.5" barrel is not going to be more lethal than the already problematic 14.5" M-4, and may be less accurate. This would necessitate a better round (not the 6.8 ), a longer barrel, or both.
The conventional 5.56x45 FMJ is very velocity dependent in its wounding mechanism. The immutable laws of physics dictate that no matter how nice or sexy the weapon, a 12.5" barrel is not going to be more lethal than the already problematic 14.5" M-4, and may be less accurate. This would necessitate a better round (not the 6.8 ), a longer barrel, or both.
Upvote
0
stillsmallvoice
The Narn rule!
- May 8, 2002
- 2,053
- 181
- 62
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi all!
I'm a medic in the IDF reserves (rank of sergeant). I did my basic training in 1991 & have been doing 3-5 weeks of annual reserve duty ever since. I trained on Uzi's & Galil's, as well as M-16's (which is what I've been routinely issued for reserve duty, even though I greatly prefer the Galil http://tinyurl.com/3xnrb & always beg the armorer to issue me one (beg as I might, I get an M-16; although as a medic, it would be much easier to work with an Uzi hanging on me rather than an M-16 or a Galil). The Galil is much more durable & dependable under all weather conditions. You can fire it full of sand/dust, rusty, etc; M-16's are very fickle by comparison.
Israel Military Industries is presently developing the Tavor http://tinyurl.com/3btly as a successor to the Galil.
Be well!
ssv
I'm a medic in the IDF reserves (rank of sergeant). I did my basic training in 1991 & have been doing 3-5 weeks of annual reserve duty ever since. I trained on Uzi's & Galil's, as well as M-16's (which is what I've been routinely issued for reserve duty, even though I greatly prefer the Galil http://tinyurl.com/3xnrb & always beg the armorer to issue me one (beg as I might, I get an M-16; although as a medic, it would be much easier to work with an Uzi hanging on me rather than an M-16 or a Galil). The Galil is much more durable & dependable under all weather conditions. You can fire it full of sand/dust, rusty, etc; M-16's are very fickle by comparison.
Israel Military Industries is presently developing the Tavor http://tinyurl.com/3btly as a successor to the Galil.
Be well!
ssv
Upvote
0
While I agree that it is high time for a new and improved weapon system for US soldiers, and while I will also agree that an M16 is happiest when it is clean. I refute the claims of inaccuracy. I shoot 38-40 out of 40 every time I go to the range. The iron sites are more of a hinderance at range than the weapon itself, with a decent scope long range engagements become more successful.
I myself am a big H&K fan, and would like to see something from them. I'd also like something in bull-pup configuration, offering a full length barrel in a shorter package. But that's just me.
I myself am a big H&K fan, and would like to see something from them. I'd also like something in bull-pup configuration, offering a full length barrel in a shorter package. But that's just me.
Upvote
0
daidhaid
walkin' slack
Ok we need a new rifle. You have convinced me, it's time.Jcleesport said:
However; a lot of dead and wounded enemy around the world would be surprised to find out the weapon being harshed out, in the xtian forum, is so weak inaccurate and ineffective.
when it did the job of killing and wounding.
I liked Higher's comments. they seemed balanced
and I liked my 16. It was accurate and reliable, but that doesn't make it the best.
Perhaps for infantry use there should be more than one type of rifle in use.
Let the grunts who will carry and use it.
Let them sort out what is best.
Some may prefer the accuracy punch and penetration of a heavier round and a longer barrel.
The weight of weapon and its ammo aren't an issue for every mission or every soldier.
others may prefer lighter weapons with lighter and faster 5.56 ammo loosing its energy fast and tumbling inside an enemy.
That round and it's shockwave make very nasty wounds.
On the penetration point consider that when a fast round does not penetrate that also means it's energy stays in what it hits.
It is that energy being released that messes the victim up.
So why not mix it up and deploy two rifles.
the logistics won't be that bad.
the comment about picking up an AK in combat is not well thought out.
Only under dire circumstance when need outweighs risk would you want to fire an enemy weapon in combat.
It is a good way to draw fire on your position.
the sound is distinctive and the tracers were green last time I saw them.
It would tempt your buddies or our aircraft to fire you up or some FO to call you in.
better to booby trap that weapon and leave it for a moron to find.
Or send it back to the rear for some one to claim for a war souvineer...
But ya gotta bring back the good old Moro mangling 1911 it's powerful dependable and cool.
Upvote
0
Jive Turkey
I speak Jive
When the 1st Marine Division came to replace us, I traded my M4 with a Lance Corpral's M16A4, I thought it was ungainly. We call M16 muskets here, but it's not like the M4 is such a supeior weapon, just easier to jump with and in tactical MOUT situatians. I cringe at the thought of pieing a corner with a musket.
Still, to each their own.
Upvote
0
brotherChristian
Veteran
Whole lotta' OPSEC violatin' goin' on, here. Talking about performance, durability, etc. of weapons which are well known and unclassified is fine, but please watch what you say about your own equipment, unit, movement, etc.
On that note, the M16A2 is a fine weapon. If one knows what one is doing, it is no trouble to drop a 300m target every time. The M4 is MUCH easier to use (especially in a Humvee) but doesn't have the same range accuracy. The XM8 (which has already been fielded) attempts to solve this problem with interchangeable barrels (up to sniper length), laser sight, folding stock, full auto setting, and magazine drum extensions. Yes, it is a platform for the much maligned 5.56 round, but if you need a bigger bullet, call for fire!
On that note, the M16A2 is a fine weapon. If one knows what one is doing, it is no trouble to drop a 300m target every time. The M4 is MUCH easier to use (especially in a Humvee) but doesn't have the same range accuracy. The XM8 (which has already been fielded) attempts to solve this problem with interchangeable barrels (up to sniper length), laser sight, folding stock, full auto setting, and magazine drum extensions. Yes, it is a platform for the much maligned 5.56 round, but if you need a bigger bullet, call for fire!
Upvote
0
daidhaid
walkin' slack
in light of the concerns about opsec perhaps we need to counter with some disinformation.
we could all exagerate the range so the enemy hangs back.
or we could all exagerate the inaccuarcy so they get closer.
then the accuracy challenged can get in on the action.
How about claiming tracers burn pig blood.
That might make them nervous.
we could all exagerate the range so the enemy hangs back.
or we could all exagerate the inaccuarcy so they get closer.
then the accuracy challenged can get in on the action.
How about claiming tracers burn pig blood.
That might make them nervous.
Upvote
0
brotherChristian
Veteran
Yes, a few very minor things (guess I shouldn't have said "whole lotta'"Jive Turkey said:
); but if I pointed them out I would draw even more attention to them. I am the furthest thing from paranoid, I honestly don't care what information anyone has. But I try to follow scripture and obey my earthly masters; even when I think they are being silly.
Upvote
0
How about we replace the M16 with Jesus?
American Christianity is like nothing you would find in the Europe that I know. It is inconcievable that such a topic would appear among the Christians I know. Not judging that one way or the other: merely noting a difference. Again the union between Country and God, would worry European Christians.
American Christianity, American Church seems to be firmly in the saddle of an organism, where powerful military forces unleash awesome ordinance on an "enemy". Again no judgement in this, because any outcome can be good or evil. But, does it worry anyone: that there is this tight union between followers of God and Jesus; and the unleashing of hell on earth.
American Christianity is like nothing you would find in the Europe that I know. It is inconcievable that such a topic would appear among the Christians I know. Not judging that one way or the other: merely noting a difference. Again the union between Country and God, would worry European Christians.
American Christianity, American Church seems to be firmly in the saddle of an organism, where powerful military forces unleash awesome ordinance on an "enemy". Again no judgement in this, because any outcome can be good or evil. But, does it worry anyone: that there is this tight union between followers of God and Jesus; and the unleashing of hell on earth.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
