A billion reasons why the AR-15 is a terrible rifle for the US army
1. Power.
The 5.56mm round may be a versitile, low-recoil, and accurate, but it has absolutely no kick to it, hence the low recoil. It cannot penetrate even 18 inches of hardwood (not that there are many trees in Iraq), and light cover will cause the round to deflect badly and deviate from it's intended target. The 5.56 performs well in CQC roles, but poorly in other conditions, oh, say, in situations a soldier would commonly face. Like longer-range combat. It is simply too light and small to do any real damage either. There has been reports that it will take about 10 rounds from an M4 to take out a fanatical soldier. 10 rounds! That's a whole magazine for three people, and knowing the AR-15 design, it will probably jam by then, which brings me to my next point.
2. Reliability.
When I first looked at the schematics of a M-16, I found something veeeerrrryyy sinister. The burning, soot and sulphur-laden gas in the operating tube vent into the reciever. What? Why on earth would you want to do that? Having a high-precision assult rifle fire in sandy conditions is bad enough; it certainly doesn't need a bunch of barrel residue gumming up the carrier. Consider this quote from a soldier in the USMC (name omitted):
"The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the sand over there, which is like talcum powder. The sand is everywhere. You feel filthy two minutes after a shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it also has jamming problems. Marines like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cannot be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use."
And I'm sure many of his comrades will agree with him.
3. That's about it. Two points is enough, especially when they're:
Accuracy, and
Reliability,
pretty much the two things a soldier looks for. Here is a list of firearms I would be content to have with the US soldiers other than the M16/M4:
M14
AR10
G3A3
G36
FAL
CETME
M1 Garand
Party Poppers:
Among many other weapons.
hey thanks for the post mr pink... i remember about 6 years ago living in texas they had those things at the grocery store.. actually bought one and thought they were kinda neat back then, i guess i was 12 but perhaps i will try them again.. seems to me you can get reloads without buying another gun.. hrmm
and dont forget a bbgun or flaregun wonder how well a flaregun could handle a normal 12 guage shotgun shell... messed up wrist anyone?
M14, good call, Flare gun, has anyone seen the short 12 gage shells available? I wonder how long it will take for someone to blow up a flare gun with them and earn the nickname "Lefty."
"Life is too important to be taken seriously."
__________________
Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Well, remember, it was a bunch of college boys with NO combat experience who forced the M-16 on the Army. McNamara's Whizkids, they called them. Bean-counters with PhDs. Looks mighty good on paper, but even Stoner himself knew the AR-18 was the better rifle for combat. The AR-16 (.308 variant of the AR-18) would've been a superb combat rifle. Much more powerful, just as accurate, more so at longer ranges, and far more reliable in adverse conditions. Sealed gas system, looser tolerances between bolt and receiver. Crap just falls out the bottom!
The US military is currently looking into a new round for the M4/M16 package. The 6.8 SPC made by Remington is the round that the boys at R&D are looking into right now. That being said, I've heard about a new 5.56 round made of blended metal technology that is devestating on human tissue. It is supposed to have 100% energy transfer on soft targets, but will punch right through hard targets such as armor or glass.
As far as the M4/M16 package is concerned, I forsee the "Black Rifle" being around for awhile longer. Durning my all expenses paid trip of Iraq compliments of Uncle Sam, I didn't have a single problem with my M4. It went bang everytime that I needed it to, and the only problems that I had was from a magazine that didn't feed the last 2 rounds. The current issue M855 62 gr. SS-109 round has sent many a "Johnny Jihad" to see Allah, and will continue to do so until something better comes along.
Just as a side note, the individuals that we are fighting in Iraq are not enemy combatants. They don't wear a uniform, they don't belong to any type of military unit, and they definetly don't follow the "rules" of warfare. That being said, these are not soldiers we are fighting, they are terrorists. The Geneva convention rule that expanding type ammunition shall not be used in combat should not apply in this situation. That's just my own opinion.
I concur on the AR-16. I really think we, America, could have done a lot better. The M14 was configured for semi-auto fire and for buttstroking, which is what won WWII, and when the FAL came out and combined the best features of the assault rifle with the full power of the NATO round, NIH killed its prospects with us. The AR-10 was neat, but we really could have done better, something FNC or SIGish, and if in a lighter caliber, then one akin to the 276 Pederson or 6.5 Grendel.
__________________
Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf
Just as a side note, the individuals that we are fighting in Iraq are not enemy combatants. They don't wear a uniform, they don't belong to any type of military unit, and they definetly don't follow the "rules" of warfare. That being said, these are not soldiers we are fighting, they are terrorists. The Geneva convention rule that expanding type ammunition shall not be used in combat should not apply in this situation. That's just my own opinion.
I concur absolutely. The Hague convention mandating FMJ bullets presumably had the understanding that men were not on drugs and would go down peacably when wounded, expecting care from their comrades and quarter from the enemy. Sort of like a "Tag!" "Ok, I'm out." "You ok?" "I think I got hurt." "Oh no! Time out, get a grown up!"
__________________
Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf
I'm all for throwing out the Geneva convention on this one. Lets just drop nukes and napalm for a couple months straight and wait for them to crawl out of there caves.
could always do what they did in days of 'ol... im thinking fireworks as weapons.. a mortar ball and those 100 shot saturn missiles would at least keep people down enough to move to better places, or get the bad'ns out of their hiding places.. a 3 burst mortar shot should do it i would think. heck, ive got a case of 72 shots of mortar for the cause right now.
When i was over there, we had a few problems with jamming. The gas system dumping into the action didnt help. CLP, being liquid, didnt help either as it attracts dust. Dry lubes helped some, but it was a temporary fix. Caliber wise, we had other things available, like all the AKs lying around, and some people aquired FALs, Galils, etc, etc. But since the M-16 was what was issued, we all used it as ordered .
I'm all for throwing out the Geneva convention on this one. Lets just drop nukes and napalm for a couple months straight and wait for them to crawl out of there caves.
Totally agree. If they had our recources, we wouldnt have a New York City, Chicago, or LA. If they are not exercising Geneva convention rules against us, why the heck would we go all out and be nice guys in the eyes of other countries. NO wonder recruting is down for the military!!!
Because if we did throw out the Geneva Convention and wipe all our enemies off the face of the earth in one fell swoop we'd have every liberal and hippy in the country rioting, half the countries in the world would start panicking thinking they'd be next if they pissed us off, they would probably attempt a preemptive strike on us forcing us to retaliate and start World War 3. Which in principal I'm all for, but in reality it probably wouldn't end well.
Hmm, would the libs and rest of the world use FMJ bullets? BTW, it was the Hague convention that mandated FMJ, not the Geneva.
Actually, I had another thought. I do not believe these conventions apply to insurgents. We could make the rest of the civilized world feel much safer by not rejecting these conventions, but upping production of these bullets for insurgent fighting. The other countries could feel safe knowing that we weren't preparing to fight them.
__________________
Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf
Last edited by BattleRifleG3; 11-25-2005 at 04:06 PM.
Because if we did throw out the Geneva Convention and wipe all our enemies off the face of the earth in one fell swoop we'd have every liberal and hippy in the country rioting, half the countries in the world would start panicking thinking they'd be next if they pissed us off, they would probably attempt a preemptive strike on us forcing us to retaliate and start World War 3. Which in principal I'm all for, but in reality it probably wouldn't end well.
Very true, BUT if they arent using Geneva convention rules against us, why should we put our boys in more danger than needed be? I think its time for us to start kicking some butt :gangster: :gangster: :gangster:
Also, BRG3, why are we applying the rules to them, if they are insurgents?? I think that it should not apply to only uniformed enemies, but anyone in a war with another country. Because then the question rises, who should we apply the rules to? Well, it SHOULD be anyone in a war with another country. Afterall, they are the ones sawing the heads off of some of the captured American people.
wonder how well a flaregun could handle a normal 12 guage shotgun shell... messed up wrist anyone? 
