Who wants to join my "I Hate AR15/M16s" Club?

[Shin-Tao]

The 16 is fine for target shooting in the shade of your pickup. It sucks in the field.

[WalterGAII]

We ought to have some kind of qualification test prior someone posting here. Anybody who has a lower I.Q. than that of an unborn rhinoceros, Democrat, etc., shouldn't be allowed to post.

[Zorro]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Rant mode: ON Finicky, over toleranced, ammo sensitive, ugly, malf prone, soft alloy receivers, flimsy magazines, defecates where it ingests, tiny gas tube, terrible breach design, pathetic extractors and ejectors, easily bent body, crappy stock sights, numerous stupid "improvements", plastic stocked, too many parts, lame .223 caliber choice, too weak for .308 battle rifle...[/quote]

Finicky - Yes no doubt about that!

ammo sensitive - In the EXTREME!

flimsy magazines - Or NEVER Worked new!

numerous stupid "improvements" - Never asked for AND didn't WORK!

lame .223 caliber choice - Sorry PLAIN wrong on that! The 5.56X45MM is VERY good at creating MASSIVE wounds with the Geneve Convention mandated FMJ rounds!

The biggest negative with the M-16/AR-15 is It FAILS when you are really in trouble!

Anyone that has ever used the REAL IN THE FLESH MILITARY ISSUE NOT TARGET RIFLE M-16/AR-16 has had the thing FAIL on YOU!

The WORST sound in the world is to have the Bad Gguy in your sites and pull the trigger and hear a quiet.....

click!

Not BOOM or BRAAAAP!


Just click!

But it's always loud enough to tell WHERE you are!

Sorry I always asked for the Shotgun when I could get it in RFL

[Art Eatman]

Some of y'all oughta go back and clean up the language in your posts, okay? As far as I'm concerned, this is a Family Channel.

I'll give y'all credit for not gettin' particularly personal. And, as rants go, I'd give this one at least an 8.8.

"Cool a c'est vous, Boy-san!", to dredge up some GI slang from before y'all wuz born...

Art

[DUDE]

ok if .223 is a lame round than why is it in service in more than 40 countries around the World now i love the AR15 but i'd love to have a Springfeld Army M1A but if you can not tell me wear to git one for $700 than i'am stay with my AR15 till the Day i have $1000 in my hand. O and the U.S. Military still likes to have one U.S. Military GUN Manufacturing in the US. and yes i no that the M16A2 is now Manufacturing by Fabrique Nationale but we still have the M4 and M4A1 Carbines Manufacturing by Colt

------------------
Technical Sergeant Andrew Robert Smith
CO LRRP Team
of the Second Ranger Battalion Charlie Company in WW2 Online.

[MAD DOG]

I have seen the .223 create cavernous wounds in rodents. There is nothing quite like the pink mist effect on ground squirrels.

I have also seen a young man that was shot at point blank range with a NATO .223 round from an M16. This occured during an ND by one of his barracks mates who was goofing off with his rifle.
The round entered his neck on the right side, bounced off of his left ribs, and lodged in his right pelvis. He is no longer in the barracks at Ft. Lewis, but he did live, and the wound was not cavernous enough to kill him.
I daresay that had he been shot the same way with a .308 or even a .243, he would not have survived.

Varmint calibers are for varmints.
Gophers and the like.
More lead is needed for adequate ventialtion of medium sized, thin skinned game.

Other: I have made no comments on the .505 Gibbs.

Dude:
There are a lot of countries out there that are as stupid as, or as ignorant as, the US.
They are prone to making the same military mistakes that the US makes simply because it is less expensive for them to use the same crap that we do. Stupid is, as stupid does. Its a fad, if you will.
That does not mean that they have any sane reason for doing what they do.
Been to the "Third World" lately?
I have. In Namibia, they think Bill Clinton is a hero of Democracy, belive it or not. They could certainly be led to believe that the .223 is an effective "Insult rifle" round. Some people will believe anything.



[This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited November 08, 2000).]

[George Hill]

MAD DOG,
I agree 100%.
I was a big Bushmaster Booster. And then it happened. The failures. Each one sumthin different. Always a new reason. Always an excuse.

Then one day I was struck.
Realization hit me full force.
The AR-15/M-16 series SUCKS by design.

Many like it for various reasons and thats fine. But for ME - I had to get sumthin proven. My options were AK/Uzi/FAL... I got a FAL type. Full .308. No second guessing.

If you MUST have a .223 rifle. There are other options if you can buy new.
1. M-96
2. SL-8
3. AK Variant such as the .223 Veper
4. Mini-14

Any AR variant? Nope.

[Battler]

I'm not vehemently knocking the AR15/M16 - the ergonomics leave all the other guns for dead. . . . .

But I believe that, for many, is what makes them overlook other potential shortcomings.

People are using 223 because the mission of soldiers has changed. Other than real third world countries, when troops are deployed they are fully supported by aircraft and artillery in a position where they start off in a superior position. They don't have to rain fire hundreds of yards away; but the 223, still WAY better than pistol rounds in submachine guns, can be used to shoot people up close but still cause a menace at some range through the cartridge's power and the ease of aiming.

As for soldiers who can choose their own rifle - what are you doing with your rifle 99.999% of the time? You're lugging it around and punching paper I guess. For punching paper, a 223 is just as good as 50bmg. And since you'll be carrying the gun around mostly, a lighter one makes life easier.

And it recoils less than a rifle round. Of COURSE this makes it more comfortable to shoot. It might not hit as hard either; but with all the shooting you do considering that a good soldier probably is shooting someone for 1 shot out of thousands he trains or misses with, maybe you'll balance the lower recoil into the equation. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, though - this lighter recoil IS a big deal I would imagine when you want to full-auto-fire at some enemies and have the shots land near them for good suppression.

I have never used an AR in combat - just plinked with friend's ARs. Just thought though I'd throw in some guesses as to how someone may choose the AR through some of its big advantages wrt. the majority of troops who never shoot rifles in major combat (remember, no serious troop war in quite some time).

Still, given that I have FALs, AKs, and an M1A on the way, it's fairly obvious that I haven't bought into the whole AR15 thing myself yet though.

Battler.

[This message has been edited by Battler (edited November 08, 2000).]

[MAD DOG]

I just popped over to "WWII Online".

WOW! Totally amazing, in a weird, turbozoom dweeby sort of way.
I must admit that I have now found the one place where the AR15/M16 could be perceived as a useful battle tool, as an ASSAULT RIFLE even....
Cyberspace role playing games.
Evidently, nearly anything is possible once one has immersed himself in the Matrix.

Guffaw!



[This message has been edited by MAD DOG (edited November 08, 2000).]

[DUDE]

a Soldier's life is 99% down time 1% Combat and in that 99% down time would you like to carry a M14 with 100-rounds of ammo in mags for a weigth of 16.2lbs or carry a M16 with 240-rounds of ammo in mag for the same weight

------------------
Technical Sergeant Andrew Robert Smith
CO LRRP Team
of the Second Ranger Battalion Charlie Company in WW2 Online.

[Zorro]

5.56X45MM

You KNOW the objective is to VERY seriously wound you Enemy? but not kill him right?

A dead man is EASY to care for.
A WOUNDED man requires a LOT of resources and medical care!

Anyone else take Miltary Science 101?


Anyone?

[DUDE]

i was going to sat that

------------------
Technical Sergeant Andrew Robert Smith
CO LRRP Team
of the Second Ranger Battalion Charlie Company in WW2 Online.

[STLRN]

1) 70 plus percent of causalities on the battlefield this century have not been caused by small arms. In some areas like the Russian front during certain phases in the W.W.II 82 percent of causalities where caused by artillery.

2) The majority of small arms casualties are not caused by rifles, but rather machine guns.

3) A sniper with a precision scoped rifle and a riflemen with either a CCO or iron sights are not the same thing, to compare them or to think they are makes one wonder.

4) Zorro: in a way a military urban legend, the AR15/M16 was not designed to wound or kill, but to produce a causality and to paraphrase when the infantry board original proposed a smaller round they said: "a smaller caliber round traveling at blistering velocity equals the lethality of larger rounds up to around 400 m."

5) Have also seen effects of the 5.56 in the one conflict that I have been to, and it seemed to leave those people awful dead. And they seem to function. Look at the detest most show for "spray and pray" in Vietnam. Amazingly the M16 seem to be able to spray a lot of fire, all this with a weapon that according to some cannot even fire two round in a row.

[Nukem]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MAD DOG:
I only have three of the damned things, does that mean that I was 40% less gullible than you were?
[/quote]

Listen, you're allowed to not like them, just as I'm allowed to like them. I'm not going to try to change your mind. I'm not like the Glock cultists.
Just to make you happy, I DO have a real HK91, but for any real serious rifle work I built this-
BOLTGUN

[DUDE]

quote:

On 16 June 1962, one platoon from the 340 Ranger Company was on an operation...and contacted three armed Viet Cong in heavily forested jungle. Two VC had carbines, grenads, mines and one had a sub-machinegun. At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one Viet Cong with three rounds in the first burst. One round in the head took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter...it can be assumed that any one of the wounds would have caused death. the Rifle was one of 1000 use in a Research Project that was put in to the hands of Ranger and Green Berets in South Vietnamese

------------------
Technical Sergeant Andrew Robert Smith
CO LRRP Team
of the Second Ranger Battalion Charlie Company in WW2 Online.

[Flaim]

I think the problems with the AR15/M16 is behind the sites. If you actually take care of the weapon in the most basic ways then you will have no problem. The M16 is one of the best combat arms out there right now. WHy do you think Isreal and numerous other countries use them even when they have other choices. It is because they are not hung up on old outdated ideas. If some people had their way we would still be using the 45-70 or some other over the top calliber.

Give it up people.

------------------
"Knowledge is a destination. Truth, the journey."

[Christopher II]

DUDE,

Source? That story sounds a bit, um, far-fetched. I cannot imagine a 5.56mm FMJ round taking somebody's head completley off.

All,

I don't own an AR, but I've shot quite a few of them. They're not bad. Very accurate, pretty good ergonomics, etc. They're great target rifles. But I've had ARs lock up on me, and I've seen it happen to others. The design of the AR, from an engineering standpoint, is totally FUBAR.

So how would you make it better?

I'd add a couple of strengthening ribs to the lower reciever, replace the gas system with the Z-M Weapons parts, add a DR200-style rotary gas regulator, and make the magazines all steel with full-length feed lips. An ambidextrous bolt latch would be nice, too.

Or I'd grab by FAL.

Later,
Chris



------------------
"TV what do I see, tell me who to believe, what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all??" - Incubus, Idiot Box

[Christopher II]

Flaim,

Israel uses the M16 family because the US gives them to Israel for free. No other reason.

Later,
Chris

[This message has been edited by Christopher II (edited November 08, 2000).]

[EchoFiveMike]

I've never had real problems with my M16A2 that weren't caused by abuse. 500rds in less than 15 minutes counts as abuse. While I would like a larger caliber, 5.56 is adequate. I have not bent any barrels in CQC in 8 years of service in the USMC. I have seen bent barrels with the A1's, and I 've seen bent barrels on M14's. It happens. The SAS uses M16A2's and M4's by choice, of course compared to the SA80, a Lorcin looks good. For average grunt use, the M14 is a bad deal. Wood stocks require too much maintainence, the GI fiberglass is nice. The 308 is too much caliber in that design for the troops we have now. There is no good way to mount an optical sight on it. All of these problems could be solved by better training. Getting away from ball powders wouldn't hurt. Of course, that's not a popular answer. Semper Fi...Ken

[Correia]

I hate the spring loaded ejector. I know for a fact that brass shavings about 1/16th of an inch can weasel their way in there under the roll pin and jam the heck out of it. Notice that pretty much every other combat gun on earth uses a fixed ejector of some kind. FAL, AK, FNC, M-96 etc.

Also with the AR you can jam the gun up in such a way that the round doesn't go all the way into the chamber, the bolt is far enough one way that the forward assist can't engage it, and far enough the other way that you can't open the gun to get the bolt out. So what do you do, you bang the stock on the ground until it bounce out.

I own a Bushmaster, I've shot it alot, and I've jammed it quite a bit. And this is from pretty informal shooting out in the boonies. I originally bought it to be my end of the world gun, but I quickly lost confidence in it. It works great about 99.9% of the time, its that other part that sucks.

I'm not selling mine, I don't believe in selling guns, but it has gone from being my main go to gun to being just another fun gun to have.

So do I hate them, no, not really. But it wouldn't be my first choice by any means.

[Art Eatman]

Well, I guess you guys have beat around the Bush long enough. If you ain't gonna tell it like it *really* is...

Part Deux time--as in bandwidth.

, Art