M16 / M4 Reviews

[GunnyF]

Just got through reading an article on the Defense Review site. It brought up a few issues with the M16 and the M4.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1081

Specifically of note was the issues of the gas operation of the bolt and how inefficient it is. In my time in the sand, my M16 never failed me.

Comments? Thoughts?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

They hate us cuz they ain't us.

After half a centuy, the AR-15/M16 platform is still one of the most widely sought after rifles on the market.

This is not because it sucks.

 

[CavalryJim]

These reviews compare a rifle that needs cleaning after a few thousand rounds to rifles that can go 10k+ rounds between cleaning....the reviewers are already biased.

To me, using a rifle that requires a reasonable PMCS isn't a problem. My M16/M4/ARs have never let me down to include a deployment in Iraq. Of course, I included weapons cleaning as part of my daily routine.

 

[GunnyF]

sources...

I often wonder about the source's biases as far as contractors of specific gear goes. If the writer works for the companies that sell gear that competes with the M16 or M4, that makes all the difference in the world. (and I don't know anything about the specific author in question....)

Now, as for stopping power goes, the .223 is notably lacking when it comes to stopping humans. The author notes it right off the bat. I have personally seen cases where it takes 3 rounds to put a man down in a CQB environment (Fallujah II) and then the combatant is still shooting from the ground even after the "tripple-tap" from an M4.

We agree, cleaning ANY weapon should be daily SOP, but effectiveness should be paramount. When I hit my target, I want him/her/it to die.

 

[GunnyF]

They hate us cuz they ain't us.

After half a centuy, the AR-15/M16 platform is still one of the most widely sought after rifles on the market.

This is not because it sucks.

Thanks for the welcome... I hope to become a regular.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Thankfully, I have never shot anyone with my AR, so I cannot speak about whether it dropped anyone.

Naturally, I would rather hit a target with a .308 (+) than a 22, but I would rather pack 300 rds of .223 with the rest of my gear than 300 rds of .308.

This sounds tired, and I am not trying to minimize the fact that a larger round, all else being equal, is better when considering terminal ballistics, but shot placement does, of course, always matter. You can get hit with a .400 and keep fighting, depending on shot placement. I am just reminding anyone reading that everything is a trade-off.

You factor:
cartridge/weapon weight- heavier/more powerful vs. lighter/ability to pack more ammo & use less energy to maneuver

barrel length- velocity/maneuverability

bullet design- conical/wadcutter/round-nose/flat-nose & jhp/jsp/fmj/etc. some are more accurate, some pierce barriers better, etc.

manufacturing tolerances- tighter/more accurate vs looser/more reliable (generally speaking)

Accessories- more w/ added versatility & added need for training vs. less- more simple, light and reliable, but with less features at your disposal

Ability to exceed in special applications vs. more generalized use/compromised function in special situations

High end weaponry- excels in its field, but with added parts cost / gunsmithing knowledge / possibility of inferior parts logistics/availability

And the list goes on all day.

The point is, there is no platform or round that is great at everything. We each need to weigh our own needs & likely encounters & decide what compromises are right for us.

For me, I am the type that wants fewer weapons that I am highly familiar with inside and out, and have time to use regularly, rather than a gun room full of safe queens. That said, I may have other weapons laying around, but my Glock 30 and my Stag AR-15 go with me everywhere, every day, year round. There is a world of variables out there, and I have determined, for myself, that the positives and negatives of those systems meet my needs and desires best. Naturally, if I need a weapon, I would prefer to be in an armored vehicle with a roof mounted automatic weapon. My point is, you carry what you can, while still living your life. No matter what I have, I may easily find myself in a situation where something else would have been better. Not knowing the future, though, I feel I am as equipped as I feel I need to be for life in general. Were I to find myself with more specialized goals (medium/large game hunting, sniping, whatever), then I would equip myself for that.

Well, I reckon I have already typed more than most folks will read, so I will give it a rest. You asked for thoughts, so there are a few of mine.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Let me try to say that again in less words.

When its time to shoot someone, you wish you were holding a M82A1/M107.

When its time to pack a weapon on foot for long distances, you wish you were holding a Ruger Mark III.

The M4/M16/AR15 is the middle ground many people feel comfortable with.

Plus when it comes time to find parts, my AR and my Glock parts are easy/cheap/numerous, which is a notable concern.

 

[jayd]

I have personally seen cases where it takes 3 rounds to put a man down in a CQB environment (Fallujah II) and then the combatant is still shooting from the ground even after the "tripple-tap" from an M4.

Gunny,
If you guys were allowed a good expanding softpoint how much better would the .223 do?

Only reason I ask is I've taken deer and seals with neck shots using a .222 Sako (w/ softpoints) and noted good expansion/tissue damage
I would assume a .223 would perform the same
Your opinion?

 

[Nomad.2nd]

Just got through reading an article on the Defense Review site. It brought up a few issues with the M16 and the M4.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1081

Specifically of note was the issues of the gas operation of the bolt and how inefficient it is. In my time in the sand, my M16 never failed me.

Comments? Thoughts?

Seen MANY M16's, M4's and Ar's fail.

Their tollerances are too tight for a fighting rifle, and while I can only talk about SS109... they take 5-7 shots in the chest to put someone down.


I spent most of my time in Iraq with a SAW, (Another POS weapon) and IT never failed on me. But I was cleaning it at EVERY opportunity.


I Despise the $hitty things.

La Carry: They are highly sought after cause that's what everyone knows, and they are military issue (Ether they used them there, or are wantabees)
Most people don't know Squat about guns.
One of the Marines in my unit told me that he was gonna buy a S&W 22Magnum for self defense when we got back. He thought that it would be more than adequate cause it was a MAGNUM!

 

[LACamper]

Question for the guys that went over there... how often are ya'll switching to softpoints/hollow points? I've read on other forums and in magazine articles about our guys acquiring AK's, pistols, and shotguns in country (not to take home, but to use there). I have a hard time believing that someone isn't sneaking a few boxes over!

I know there are rules against hollow points in war. This isn't a traditional war. Plus we never actually signed the geneva convention, even though we abide by it. Issue whatever works!

 

[Request Dust Off]

I think that is covered by the Hague not the Geneva.
I've heard the you can get in big trouble just for say scoring a FMJ to make it frag more easily. So probably not something most guys would risk.

Once in a while during a caliber debate someone will bring up a we should be having a bullet technology debate rather than caliber debate. Which obviously most folk here get.

 

[penguin]

Like some others said, they are not powerful enough. There is that fine balance of power and rounds on target at a decent distance (along with cost of maintanence, replacement, etc) that have to be factored. We just haven't found that right balance yet. There is a reason why most DMs are given M-14DMs or HBARs.