Your favourite M16

[Shadrach]

My favorite M16 is this.

*runs away*

 

[Murphy]

I don't get it.

So you didn't play EA(TM)'s Battlefield(TM): Vietnam(TM) and read the loading screen text about M16s being jam-happy as opposed to the super reliable AK which supposedly prompted many US soldiers to pick up AKs from fallen Vietcong?

 

[CandleJack]

HK416/417 is my favourite AR-derivative rifle.

Piston-operated as opposed to Direct Impingement means it doesn't poop where it eats.

However my absolute favourite aesthetically is the old AR10.

The cocking handle in the sights is just s3x

The wood looks nice too

 

[Alexander Ostmann]

So you didn't play EA(TM)'s Battlefield(TM): Vietnam(TM) and read the loading screen text about M16s being jam-happy as opposed to the super reliable AK which supposedly prompted many US soldiers to pick up AKs from fallen Vietcong?

Guess not.

 

[D3terioNation]

So you didn't play EA(TM)'s Battlefield(TM): Vietnam(TM) and read the loading screen text about M16s being jam-happy as opposed to the super reliable AK which supposedly prompted many US soldiers to pick up AKs from fallen Vietcong?

Well I dont agree that it was commonplace cos AK's drew fire. Simple as.

If you wanna die by friendly fire, sure pick up an AK

 

[Peter.Steele]

So you didn't play EA(TM)'s Battlefield(TM): Vietnam(TM) and read the loading screen text about M16s being jam-happy as opposed to the super reliable AK which supposedly prompted many US soldiers to pick up AKs from fallen Vietcong?

M16's were not jam-happy, in and of themselves. The problem was with the ammunition. Early ammunition used the wrong type of powder, because that's what the factory had a lot of, left over from the .30-06 and .308 lines. The wrong type of powder caused a lot of fouling, which then caused reliability issues. Once the powder and ammunition issue was sorted out, the M16 and its derivatives became a remarkably reliable and effective weapon system.

Unfortunately, by that time, it had already gotten a bad name, and that's the reputation that stuck.

Seriously, you don't think that we'd keep the same rifle for almost 50 years if it was an unreliable piece of crap that got its operator killed, do you?

 

[Ermac]

M16's were not jam-happy, in and of themselves. The problem was with the ammunition. Early ammunition used the wrong type of powder, because that's what the factory had a lot of, left over from the .30-06 and .308 lines. The wrong type of powder caused a lot of fouling, which then caused reliability issues. Once the powder and ammunition issue was sorted out, the M16 and its derivatives became a remarkably reliable and effective weapon system.

Unfortunately, by that time, it had already gotten a bad name, and that's the reputation that stuck.

Seriously, you don't think that we'd keep the same rifle for almost 50 years if it was an unreliable piece of crap that got its operator killed, do you?

According to one report I read, Eugene Stoner knew ball powder was a requirement, but failed to design his rifle that way. Rifles have been using ball powder for hundreds of years. It was unacceptable the M16 had problems with it. Yes, I agree though that the M16 is more reliable then you people think.

 

[Flogger23m]

Yes, I agree though that the M16 is more reliable then you people think.

This. If it was so unreliable, then highly professional militaries and forces such as the IDF (who replaced the AKM and Galil) and the British SAS would not have used them.

 

[Peter.Steele]

According to one report I read, Eugene Stoner knew ball powder was a requirement, but failed to design his rifle that way. Rifles have been using ball powder for hundreds of years. It was unacceptable the M16 had problems with it. Yes, I agree though that the M16 is more reliable then you people think.

The problem has nothing to do with the design of the M16, except insofar as it's a gas operated rifle that uses a very light-weight bullet out of a barrel of X length. The deal is that powder that's extruded burns (a) more consistently, (b) more cleanly, and (c) works better for lightweight bullets in a weapon intended for low maintenance, compared to ball powder. It's a little more expensive, though.

As far as Stoner's design goes, though ... I'd put the fault more on the procurement guys that didn't want to spend the money on ammo manufactured correctly. Although Stoner may have known that the military had more ball powder than rod powder, nobody forced the military to buy a rifle optimized for rod powder.

 

[Klaus]

This. If it was so unreliable, then highly professional militaries and forces such as the IDF (who replaced the AKM and Galil) and the British SAS would not have used them.

The M16 is by far the more superior weapon. It's lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their smallarms on a daily even during combat deployment this is a non-issue.

In fact, as people here said, most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War.. The 5.56 ammunition given then to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well.

The Galil is heavy, not as accurate and you can't really place any optics on it without special adapters. Many people also don't like the Galil/AK safety mechanism but that's more a personnel preference issue. The M16 design, however, is very user friendly and allow numerous modifications to be made such as mounting various uppers.

Thus, you are right - the reason proffesional armies prefer the M16 is it's the pure quality over the Galil/AK - However now that we are using the TAR21, **** the M16.

 

[Ermac]

This. If it was so unreliable, then highly professional militaries and forces such as the IDF (who replaced the AKM and Galil) and the British SAS would not have used them.

And have replaced the M16 with the Tavor now

 

[Ermac]

The M16 is by far the more superior weapon. It's lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their smallarms on a daily even during combat deployment this is a non-issue.

In fact, as people here said, most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War.. The 5.56 ammunition given then to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well.

The Galil is heavy, not as accurate and you can't really place any optics on it without special adapters. Many people also don't like the Galil/AK safety mechanism but that's more a personnel preference issue. The M16 design, however, is very user friendly and allow numerous modifications to be made such as mounting various uppers.

Thus, you are right - the reason proffesional armies prefer the M16 is it's the pure quality over the Galil/AK - However now that we are using the TAR21, **** the M16.

You copied and pasted that. It's one persons opinion. Lighter? Let's see about that. Colt defense's website. M16A4. 3.26 kg unloaded. Izmash's website. unloaded AKM 3.1 KG. The AK is more then accurate enough for most combat enagements. Most shots are not place beyond 300m's in a typical firefight. More versatile? The AK can have lots of optics,grenade launchers,flashlights, etc also.

The Galil is heavy, because it uses a milled receiver which is not needed. It's overbuilt. It's an AK inspired design, but it's not an AK. Almost all AK designs can easily mount optics today. The Galil has a thumb safety. Most soldiers issued a M16 and M4 are not issued additional uppers anyways. They don't have that luxury.

The problem has nothing to do with the design of the M16, except insofar as it's a gas operated rifle that uses a very light-weight bullet out of a barrel of X length. The deal is that powder that's extruded burns (a) more consistently, (b) more cleanly, and (c) works better for lightweight bullets in a weapon intended for low maintenance, compared to ball powder. It's a little more expensive, though.

As far as Stoner's design goes, though ... I'd put the fault more on the procurement guys that didn't want to spend the money on ammo manufactured correctly. Although Stoner may have known that the military had more ball powder than rod powder, nobody forced the military to buy a rifle optimized for rod powder.

Well, the carbon and heat is put directly on the bolt in the M16 design. In piston designs, the powder and heat is vented off earlier so not nearly as much carbon and heat gets to the bolt area. Ball powder didn't cause issues with the M1 Garand,M14, and other rifles at the time. War time pressures can allow less then optimal ammo quality, and that's why a rifle should be more tolerant to various ammo types. Many also will use the chrome lining excuse. The French were in Indochina for 8 years, and I don't believe any of the rifles they used had chrome lined barrels, and I never heard them complain about it.

 

[Peter.Steele]

And have replaced the M16 with the Tavor now

That has less to do with unreliability of US weapons than it does with the unreliability of US politicians. The TAR-21 is as good a bullpup as is made anywhere, and the fact that Israel has significant numbers of foreign customers for it makes it viable to produce, and the fact that it's indigenous gives them a source of weapons that cannot be cut off by the caprice of boycotts and embargoes.

 

[Ermac]

That has less to do with unreliability of US weapons than it does with the unreliability of US politicians. The TAR-21 is as good a bullpup as is made anywhere, and the fact that Israel has significant numbers of foreign customers for it makes it viable to produce, and the fact that it's indigenous gives them a source of weapons that cannot be cut off by the caprice of boycotts and embargoes.

I think it has to do with they found the Tavor to be a better rifle. " The TAR-21 was found to be significantly more accurate and reliable (as well as more comfortable) than the M4 carbine during extensive field testing - but the battle proven and widely issued M16 rifle and its variants will remain in service for some time to come; their unit purchase price is about one third that of the TAR-21. Originally there were some problems with fine sand getting into the Tavor's chamber, but reportedly, numerous adjustments were made and the problem has been corrected. Tavor CTAR-21 rifles saw combat service in Operation Cast Lead, used by Givati Brigade and Golani Brigade, and the soldiers reported the Tavor rifles functioned flawlessly"

The Israels could easily produce their own M4 rifles, but they have chosen not to. The Taiwenese,Chinese, and Germans produce M4 type rifles without any licensing royalities. The M4/M16 are indeed reliable rifles, but there are more reliable rifles out there though. Remember the M4 came in last place for the dust test. The army is looking into buying piston upgrades for their M4A1's. The Marines recently adopted the M27 IAR (HK416 basically) they could adopted a regular DI M4, but they chose not. Many armies around the world that have experience with M4 and M16's are purchasing numbers of HK416's for testing. So that tells you that there are more reliable rifles to be had.

 

[Flogger23m]

You copied and pasted that. It's one persons opinion. Lighter? Let's see about that. Colt defense's website. M16A4. 3.26 kg unloaded. Izmash's website. unloaded AKM 3.1 KG. The AK is more then accurate enough for most combat enagements. Most shots are not place beyond 300m's in a typical firefight. More versatile? The AK can have lots of optics,grenade launchers,flashlights, etc also.

The Galil is heavy, because it uses a milled receiver which is not needed. It's overbuilt. It's an AK inspired design, but it's not an AK. Almost all AK designs can easily mount optics today. The Galil has a thumb safety. Most soldiers issued a M16 and M4 are not issued additional uppers anyways. They don't have that luxury.

A better comparison to the AKM is the M4. They are more similar in terms of length and size. In which case, the M4 is lighter. My AR (mid length, A1 stock) certainly felt lighter than my AKM (wood furniture).

And while you can mount optics to AKs, the mounting solutions are not very good from what I hear. I have never used AKs with optics, but I always hear that they are uncomfortable to use. The exception seems to be the Ultimak rail, but that is only good for Aimpoints it seems (Eotechs melt from the heat). It lacks the space to mount optics/scopes that are long as well. And you're still left with an antiquated control layout, even with Tantal style safeties and extended magazine release latches.

But I don't see the point in debating AK VS M4/M16. Just about every military that had the choice between the two have historically chosen the M16 family over the AK.

As for the Tavor being more accurate, I'd like to see some groupings. I'd agree with Peter though, I believe the Tavor procurement has more to do with politics. Israel is a large exporter of military equipment. Making their own rifle and exporting it will probably net them some nice profits. Going off topic, but here is an xample, the LITENING pod on a USMC F/A-18:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Litening_Pod_on_FA-18.jpg

I have seen no reliability complaints from the Canadians about their C7s either. The British seem to think non piston ARs work fine to, and went with the LMT over the HK 417:

 

[Ermac]

A better comparison to the AKM is the M4. They are more similar in terms of length and size. In which case, the M4 is lighter. My AR (mid length, A1 stock) certainly felt lighter than my AKM (wood furniture).

And while you can mount optics to AKs, the mounting solutions are not very good from what I hear. I have never used AKs with optics, but I always hear that they are uncomfortable to use. The exception seems to be the Ultimak rail, but that is only good for Aimpoints it seems (Eotechs melt from the heat). It lacks the space to mount optics/scopes that are long as well. And you're still left with an antiquated control layout, even with Tantal style safeties and extended magazine release latches.

But I don't see the point in debating AK VS M4/M16. Just about every military that had the choice between the two have historically chosen the M16 family over the AK.

As for the Tavor being more accurate, I'd like to see some groupings. I'd agree with Peter though, I believe the Tavor procurement has more to do with politics. Israel is a large exporter of military equipment. Making their own rifle and exporting it will probably net them some nice profits. Going off topic, but here is an xample, the LITENING pod on a USMC F/A-18:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Litening_Pod_on_FA-18.jpg

I have seen no reliability complaints from the Canadians about their C7s either. The British seem to think non piston ARs work fine to, and went with the LMT over the HK 417:

The mounting solutions are fine. I have scopes on my AK. Yeah, you might have to live your head a bit to look through the optics, but it's not a big deal. The Russians have been that type of set up for over 50 years and it works. The Russians don't use ultimak garbage. An AKM and a M4 wouldn't be fair either. And you're comparing plastic to wood. The Russian stopped using wood a long time ago and use plastic now. An AKM is rifle length to the Russians, and they have their own carbine versions. A lot of armies could afford a M16, but use something else. I disagree, it's not politics. What's stopping them from making domestic M4's for their army and export? The Canadians don't have extensive combat history and experience with the M4 and M16 like America does. The US army wouldn't be fielding piston rifles if they didn't think the reliability could be better. The LMT is a relatively newly fielded rifle. Not to the mention, the developments of pistons and larger calibers is like the AR trying to be an AK.

 

[Flogger23m]

The mounting solutions are fine. I have scopes on my AK. Yeah, you might have to live your head a bit to look through the optics, but it's not a big deal. The Russians have been that type of set up for over 50 years and it works. The Russians don't use ultimak garbage. An AKM and a M4 wouldn't be fair either. An AKM is rifle length to the Russians, and they have their own carbine versions. A lot of armies could afford a M16, but use something else. I disagree, it's not politics. What's stopping them from making domestic M4's for their army and export? The Canadians don't have extensive combat history and experience with the M4 and M16 like America does. The US army wouldn't be fielding piston rifles if they didn't think the reliability could be better. The LMT is a relatively newly fielded rifle. Not to the mention, the developments of pistons and larger calibers is like the AR trying to be an AK.

It doesn't matter what they call it, but it is the most comparable variant in terms of size. The Russians can call them "war rifles' opposed to assault rifles, but the standard AK and M4 would be the most comparable variants of the two. The AKS-74U would be be more comparable to the MK18 and other "Commado" variants of the M16. Likewise, the M4 is more comparable to the normal AK-74. Obviously there are a lot of short comings with the AK, which is why the Russian military is looking to replace the AK-74M with an entirely new design. Russian SF is currently using Eotechs (or clones), BTW. Infact, the Russian military as a whole is moving away from Russian built military equipment and buying more foreign designs as of late:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/29/world/la-fg-france-warships-20101230[url]http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/29/world/la-fg-france-warships-20101230[/URL]

Just because they used something for 50 years (poor scope mounts) doesn't mean it is the greatest. I suspect this is a large reason why the Russian military wants to dump the AK series.

As for Israel making unlicensed M4/16s, I doubt they would do that. They would ask the USA for permission first or pay for licensing (unlike the PRC, we have close ties to Israel). Israel fights in urban environments a lot, so a bullpup probably makes more sense for them as well. But as I said earlier, Israel is probably looking to make money from selling the rifle to foreign countries.

I don't really understand your last comment either... the AR-10 was originally 7.62x51.

This has gone off topic, hasn't it?

 

[Ermac]

It doesn't matter what they call it, but it is the most comparable variant in terms of size. The Russians can call them "war rifles' opposed to assault rifles, but the standard AK and M4 would be the most comparable variants of the two. The AKS-74U would be be more comparable to the MK18 and other "Commado" variants of the M16. Likewise, the M4 is more comparable to the normal AK-74. Obviously there are a lot of short comings with the AK, which is why the Russian military is looking to replace the AK-74M with an entirely new design. Russian SF is currently using Eotechs (or clones), BTW. Infact, the Russian military as a whole is moving away from Russian built military equipment and buying more foreign designs as of late:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/29/world/la-fg-france-warships-20101230[url]http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/29/world/la-fg-france-warships-20101230[/URL]

Just because they used something for 50 years (poor scope mounts) doesn't mean it is the greatest. I suspect this is a large reason why the Russian military wants to dump the AK series.

As for Israel making unlicensed M4/16s, I doubt they would do that. They would ask the USA for permission first or pay for licensing (unlike the PRC, we have close ties to Israel). Israel fights in urban environments a lot, so a bullpup probably makes more sense for them as well. But as I said earlier, Israel is probably looking to make money from selling the rifle to foreign countries.

I don't really understand your last comment either... the AR-10 was originally 7.62x51.

This has gone off topic, hasn't it?

I don't know where you heard that the Russians are looking to replace the AK-74 with an entirely new design, I've heard them say it's outdated, but haven't heard them say that. The AK-200 is the contender right now. The US military uses foreign designed weapons too. M9 Beretta,M240,Benelli M4,SIG Sauer P226,M249 light machine gun,FN SCAR,AT4,Soltam K6,M119 howitzer,Alenia C-27J Spartan, Should I go on? Like you said, you don't have experience with AK optics. Just going by what others said. The Taiwanese have close relations with the US and they make the T91 assault rifle. Very M4 like. We have close relations with the Germans (we have US military bases there) and they make the HK416. It would have been easy for Israel to develop a M4 type weapon, not necessarily a carbon copy of the M4. There's no evidence to suggest that Israel has adopted the Tavor entirely for export. The AR10 hasn't really seen much combat, and the new .308 chambered AR's are really different from the old AR10's. The parts won't even interchange.

 

[Flogger23m]

I don't know where you heard that the Russians are looking to replace the AK-74 with an entirely new design, I've heard them say it's outdated, but haven't heard them say that. The AK-200 is the contender right now....

The AR10 hasn't really seen much combat, and the new .308 chambered AR's are really different from the old AR10's. The parts won't even interchange.

Last I read Russia decided to cancel the AK-200 and were looking for something entirely new. But I might be wrong.

As for the "AR-10s", I was responding to your "Not to the mention, the developments of pistons and larger calibers is like the AR trying to be an AK." comment. I don't see how an AR in a larger caliber is trying to be an AK? Especially since it was designed to be in a larger caliber originally. If anything, putting adjustable M4 stocks (like the one you linked to) and optics on an AK is like making an AK and AR.

I'm sure the Tavor is good, but all I am saying is it was bought for these reasons rather than the M16/M4 being unreliable:

1) They do not want to depend on the USA for their standard issue small arm.

2) Foreign sales. Selling someone an entirely new gun would probably sell better than "another M4", especially since that market is rather congested.

3) The IDF wanted a bullpup since a lot of their recent fighting takes place in urban environments. Their standard issue version will be the short M variant with a 13 inch barrel. I guess they want their rifle as portable as possible.

Also, the Canadian C7 has probably seen as much, if not more combat time than the Israeli Tavors. Again, if the design was so unreliable the British would not have chosen the L129A1 and would have went with the HK 417, or even the SCAR H. The SAS has had experience with the Stoner design for years now. I know there are large differences between the the C8 and LMT, but if the C8 proved to be extremely unreliable then I am sure they would not have even considered the LMT.

 

[Ermac]

Last I read Russia decided to cancel the AK-200 and were looking for something entirely new. But I might be wrong.

As for the "AR-10s", I was responding to your "Not to the mention, the developments of pistons and larger calibers is like the AR trying to be an AK." comment. I don't see how an AR in a larger caliber is trying to be an AK? Especially since it was designed to be in a larger caliber originally. If anything, putting adjustable M4 stocks (like the one you linked to) and optics on an AK is like making an AK and AR.

I'm sure the Tavor is good, but all I am saying is it was bought for these reasons rather than the M16/M4 being unreliable:

1) They do not want to depend on the USA for their standard issue small arm.

2) Foreign sales. Selling someone an entirely new gun would probably sell better than "another M4", especially since that market is rather congested.

3) The IDF wanted a bullpup since a lot of their recent fighting takes place in urban environments. Their standard issue version will be the short M variant with a 13 inch barrel. I guess they want their rifle as portable as possible.

Also, the Canadian C7 has probably seen as much, if not more combat time than the Israeli Tavors. Again, if the design was so unreliable the British would not have chosen the L129A1 and would have went with the HK 417, or even the SCAR H. The SAS has had experience with the Stoner design for years now. I know there are large differences between the the C8 and LMT, but if the C8 proved to be extremely unreliable then I am sure they would not have even considered the LMT.

I never said the M16 and M4 was unreliable, I just said there are more reliable rifles out there. Putting optics on an AK is not making it an AR at all. The AK could accept optics before the M16 ever was fielded. The only reason I gave you that link was to show the AK could accept optics well. The AR15 trying to be like an AK in that it's adopting a larger intermediate caliber round of similar power of a 7.62x39. Look at this video. IMI Tavor TAR-21 War-Weapons.com Future Weapons - YouTube The Israel weapon instructor says the M4 would shut down in climatic conditions. "We thought we could achieve a better rifle then the M16." So the primary reasons they replaced the M4 with the Tavor according to this video they wanted a more reliable rifle (once again not saying the M4 is unreliable) and they wanted a shorter rifle.