The Best Assault Rifle.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-23-2005, 05:39 PM

Have to say I am glad that I never had to carry or use a M-16 in combat. I like my trusted M-60D.

lesofprimus · 11-23-2005, 05:48 PM

Yea NS, at close quarter combat, the stopping/knockback power of the AK works wonders....

In a certain place in South America, we were almost overrun... I say almost, because the firepower we were carrying was the only thing that made the difference... I got a little boo boo from this engagement, and if I had been using a smaller caliber weap, I would have had 5 bad guys in a small hole with me....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-23-2005, 05:57 PM

We hear a lot today from the ground guys who complain about the stopping power of the M-16/M-4

lesofprimus · 11-23-2005, 07:00 PM

So do I Adler, and the Military est. seems to want to do something about it, which is why I like the Barrett M-468 option.... Not too pricey and u can still use all the M-16/M-4 gadgets...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-24-2005, 02:42 AM

My buddy got to shoot the Barrett at a land combat expo and loved it!

evangilder · 11-24-2005, 06:54 AM

I would agree that the M-16 was not enough. It would sometimes take several hits to put a man down and I always seemed to get one that had a tendency to jam. Usually a quick pull on the charging handle would clear it, but that is precious time when you are under fire.

carpenoctem1689 · 11-24-2005, 10:17 AM

The M-16/M-4 to me seems like a SWAT weapon for raiding a building, not a combat infantry weapon. And i would only give the SWAT designation because the M-4 is more compact than the AK-47, and you can attach american scopes (infrared, Night vision). I dont know if the U.S produces ones that could fit easily to an AK-47. The ammunition is simply not big enough to take an enemy down in a single hit most of the time. Some guys dont fall after a hit from an M-16, but if you see someone hit by an AK-47, there ass goes down. The reason the M-16, or one of the reasons, was because they changed from ball, to stick powder, which in the moist atmosphere of vietnam, would expand the shell, and jam it in the barrel/breech, making the weapon useless. Therefore many soldiers wouldnt leave a round chambered for fear of just that happening.

FLYBOYJ · 11-24-2005, 11:01 AM

I posted this somewhere else, but I cant remember, so bear with my repeat....

My brother entered the Army in 1966 and did 2 tours in Vietnam with the 82nd Airborne, he spent time in the Ashore Valley and at a fire base outside of Hue. He used the M-14 and M-16 and he actually preferred the -14 although he said he learned very quickly to keep his M-16 clean at all times. He said he thought the M-16 unreliability claims were a bit exaggerated and felt a solder who wasn't lazy and kept his weapon clean had nothing to worry about. He also said during his tour it was dangerous to use a captured AK-47s as you could draw fire to your position from friendlies due to the AKs sound when fired. He thought the AK was a good weapon but not as accurate as an M-16. In his last months in Viet Nam (early 1969) he was involved in some real close in combat and managed to acquire a Mossberg shotgun. He said that was very effective!!!!

Nonskimmer · 11-24-2005, 02:22 PM

As I recall, the first M-16's were advertised as "self-cleaning", weren't they? Therefore a lot of grunts took it quite literally and never bothered to clean the damn things. Hence, it jammed a lot and quickly earned a bad rep because of it. That would gum up any rifle.
Then of course you had the issue of the bolt not always closing all the way when the weapon was charged, which necessitated the addition of the forward bolt assist on subsequent models, including the Canadian C7 and C8.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-24-2005, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carpenoctem1689

The reason the M-16, or one of the reasons, was because they changed from ball, to stick powder, which in the moist atmosphere of vietnam, would expand the shell

Actually ball is standard today.

lesofprimus · 11-24-2005, 04:52 PM

For close quarter combat, the MP-5 is damn near unbeatable.... God I love that weapon....

While I was engaged in OPs, I carried a sawed off 12 gauge Mossberg slung over my back.... Between the AK and those 2 weapons, I didnt need anything else for any mission profile...

evangilder · 11-24-2005, 04:52 PM

I do know that oen of the things that helped for us when in the field was to never completely fill a clip. 25 round clip...23-24 rounds. Leave them full and the spring got weak. Then the round misfeeds at the most inopportune time and you have a problem!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-24-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

I do know that oen of the things that helped for us when in the field was to never completely fill a clip. 25 round clip...23-24 rounds. Leave them full and the spring got weak. Then the round misfeeds at the most inopportune time and you have a problem!

That or to regularly empty your clip and streach the spring. That keeps that from happening and then you can keep a full clip. Atleat that is what I did with my 9mm so that I could keep 15 rounds in each clip. Doing this I never had a problem The guys that did not do this, had the same problem that you are talking about there.

CharlesBronson · 11-25-2005, 08:07 AM

I really love the FN-FAL, heavy punch of the 308 and light weight.

P38 Pilot · 12-03-2005, 11:14 AM

Similar to your story flyboy, I had a 2nd Cousin to serve in Vietnam.
He said to stay alive you had to keep your M-16 clean at all times! He actually trained with an M-14 at BT but just they got over there, they were thrown an M-16. He said that the M-14 was good but had a tough kickback. He said when you knew how to fire the M-16 at a ceratin angle, he could be very useful.