| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 GunStriker |
M16/M4 good rifles?... |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 868 07/01/08 16:13:41 |
but only for target shooting in firing range? for years the community have been throwing arguments about how good or how bad is this family of rifle. I've
come to a conclusion that those who says that it's simply not good enough are those who went out there w them in REAL combat situation n the supporters of
M16/M4 seems like they're only "weekend warriors".
the following pdf does support this conclusion... |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Corpius |
#1 | |||
|
Posts: 600 07/01/08 16:29:02 Veles |
GunStriker wrote: No, talk to some vietnam vetrans who were issued the updated version of the M16(A1) (the first issued one was a genuine disaster) Just last week on t.v. I
believe he was a marine corps vet. who just adored the rifle, and lets face it, it's a fine rifle. It has a good design, meaning all the recoil is directed
to the shoulder. Me myself (only 17 at the time..) had the oppertunity to fire a similair weapon, the Diemaco. Even though I had the sun in my face, had never
pulled a trigger on anything, I still made all my single shots hit, and all my bursts would have been deadly. ( I had iron sights, not a scope or anything)
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
toxicseagull |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 12692 07/01/08 18:24:47 |
thats been fixed afaik. i havent heard the balance thing before as supposedly that would affect accuracy and they are pretty accurate rifles.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Werppa |
#3 | |||
|
Posts: 1171 07/01/08 22:20:41 |
Sheesh, we have some warmongers and gunfreaks here eh :P
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
toxicseagull |
#4 | |||
|
Posts: 12692 07/01/08 23:36:09 |
not really. VC hasnt posted yet. then we have a few resident ex-army's hanging about, then of course we have the swiss and the americans.
but none of them have posted yet |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Danilonius |
#5 | |||
|
Posts: 10621 07/02/08 04:24:32 Administrator
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Werppa |
#6 | |||
|
Posts: 1171 07/02/08 04:42:06 |
Well, I'm gonna stay on topic (kinda) this time. Sturmgewehr 44 beats all modern weapons (imo). I like WWII era weapons much more than these fancy modern
era stuff that have flashlights, umbrellas and coke machines attached to them and what not. I say, useless gimmick!
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
The Weaver |
#7 | |||
|
Posts: 301 07/02/08 04:48:52 |
Anyone know anything about the Steyr rifle? Apparantly the New Zealand army is issued with it. There was a story in the paper a while ago - a long while ago
now - about some army officer leaving his (unloaded of course, he wasn't a complete pillock) by the fire and the plastic stock melted.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
ltwass |
#8 | |||
|
Posts: 2525 07/02/08 06:26:34 |
Gunfreak reporting for duty!
I think it's a fine rifle/family of rifles for a conventional engagement, where you're talking about a wounded enemy being more of a burden than a dead one etc. etc. But the stopping power seems severely lacking from what I've read. They (US Army) have a 7.62mm version now, they're fielding it for designated marksmen. IIRC they just switch out the upper half of the receiver. I wonder if they're thinking of going whole-hog with it? |
|||
|
|
||||
 Alexius Commenus |
#9 | |||
|
Posts: 2500 07/02/08 08:54:57 |
It's kinda the polar opposite of the AK-47 - a gun with massive stopping power but terrible accuracy, vs. the M-16 with amazing accuracy and poor stopping power. As for how reliable, it's far more reliable than people make it out to be. The first models had issues, but those issues are fixed. And Ak-47's might still fire after being buried in sand, but they're going to be useless and ruined afterwards. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Aeraaa |
#10 | |||
|
Posts: 2720 07/02/08 10:10:57 Sergeant |
Newer Ak's also have better accuracy than the 1947 model, but still everyone remembers (or knows) just that...
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Aruchu |
#11 | |||
|
Posts: 2469 07/02/08 10:16:58 Samurai |
I have heard tell that the new M-4 models have had the blow back taken out so that the gas tube doesn't pump carbon back into the chamber. In my opinion
which is user based, that was the biggest problem with the M-16 family... way too much carbon buildup. Otherwise a damn good weapon, especially for medium to
long range engagement.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Keen Sword |
#12 | |||
|
Posts: 326 07/02/08 10:41:29 |
AK-47 was created for war, M16 - for Counter-Strike ...joke))
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
GunStriker |
#13 | |||
|
Posts: 868 07/02/08 13:03:57 |
field reports from special forces (heavy users) on the ground says something different about these rifles... they simply jams too much during the actions (when
is needed) n too ineffective against the enemy (it's needed to fire 3-5 rounds to take out the subject).
when portuguese Comandos exchanged impressions w fellow americans in afghanistan, the yankees they were in awe w the HK G3! sure is heavy, sure it has stronger recoil but damn the 7.62x51 does get the job done! proper training n regular practice can easily overcome those couple of issues mentioned before (we did so why so many ppl keep crying about it?). there's other thing too, it also noted that during the exchange of fire w the taliban, the louder bang from 7.62 does has psychological effect on them (they get scared). n there were no report of our G3 w 30 years of service having critical malfunction as M16/M4 did so many times during the action. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Simon Page |
#14 | |||
|
Posts: 1443 07/02/08 13:27:03 Yari Ashigaru
|
GunStriker wrote: Apparently the .50 cal snipers scares the hell out of them. Mind you so would i be 
I'd say that the AK-47 is a great gun. Plus the fact that it's a higher caliber for more power. ( mind you i have no idea what i'm talking about really  )
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Sherasonni |
#15 | |||
|
Posts: 277 07/02/08 13:30:38 |
I heard that the M-16 was very light when compared to other rifles.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Aeraaa |
#16 | |||
|
Posts: 2720 07/02/08 13:38:19 Sergeant |
This is true, Sherasonni. Greek marines, commandos and special forces use M16s/M4s and the main reason for that is that they carry more stuff than the average
infantryman and have longer marches on foot. Regular and mechanized infantry use G3's though...
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Simon Page |
#17 | |||
|
Posts: 1443 07/02/08 13:38:57 Yari Ashigaru
|
Sherasonni wrote: The M16 weights about 3.6 Kg and the AK-47 weights about 3.8 Kg. Not much diffference. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Danilonius |
#18 | |||
|
Posts: 10621 07/02/08 15:01:45 Administrator
|
3.6kg...
That's 3.6 times more than my one-handed sword :P |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Aruchu |
#19 | |||
|
Posts: 2469 07/02/08 16:31:48 Samurai |
Simon Page wrote: Unless you try to fire it prone. I hate to start up an old argument but the two weapons (m-16 and ak-47) were designed for completely different uses. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Taraadur |
#20 | |||
|
Posts: 1091 07/02/08 18:40:45 |
How about a nice HK416? Leave the gun making to the Germans I say.
|
|||
|
|
||||
