Originally Posted by goldenwings
Sorry--but the M16A1 that I carried in two tours of Vietnam did what it was supposed to do--kill and wound the guys I shot at.
The M16A3 and A4 were damn good weapons as is the carbine version being used today. I served from 68 to 98 and saw combat a couple times after Vietnam and the weapon did what it was intended.
The original weapon had problems based on a non-chrome bore and ammo that did not have enough power. Those problems were corrected and the weapon works fine.
I could not agree more, Wings. As you doubtless remember, there was a lot of bitching about the 5.56 NATO round and the M-16 in Vietnam, but much of that was due to the Army's (actually MacNamara's) initial failure to chrome the chamber, and to the mistaken belief that the M-16 didn't need to be cleaned. The powder issue was also an initial problem. During my tour in 1969-70, the problems with it had been solved. I too found the weapon to be an excellent battle rifle, and it served its intended purpose quite well indeed. What I liked most about it, I must admit, was that i t was so light and easy to carry. Anyone who has humped the Green knows just how heavy a rifle can become after carrying it for a few hours in rough country.