M16 Revisited..... ( 1 )

Discussion in 'VMBB General Discussion' started by inplanotx, Mar 8, 2003.

  1. goldenwings

    goldenwings New Member

    May 11, 2009
    Tampa, FL
    Sorry guys--but as a combat infantry and recon Marine who saw heavy combat in my two tours in Vietnam, plus combat in Beirut, the Gulf, Somalia--the M16A1, A2, A3 and A4 did the job it was designed to do--kill and wound the bad guys I fired at.

    Anything else is unimportant in regards to this or that---iThe A4 and M4 did the same for my son and his Marines in Iraq and Afgahistan--

    Again, all else is unimportant in regards to the weapon and what it was designed for.
  2. Gun enthusiasts, like most people on this forum, often forget one very important consideration when talking about military weapons, Wings. A battle rifle is precisely that, a weapon designed to be used by soldiers in combat, and thus the only true gage of its worth is whether or not it does that effectively. All weapons are compromises to one extent or another; we sacrifice one advantage in order to get another. I too found the M-16 very effective for its designed function, i.e., shooting at enemy soldiers at normal combat ranges. Would I choose it for competitive shooting at 1000 yard targets? Not hardly! But I would be happy to have it were I (God forbid!) in the Vietnam environment again. ;)

  3. You are exactly right Pistol. The KD range may be the testbed, where a rifle's initial bugs are worked out and its strengths and limitations are first tested, but the real proof is in the pudding, so to speak. If a rifle brings you home, then its mission is accomplished and well worth the it's weight in gold.

    I've never tried it myself, but I've been on the firing line next to some who have, and it works. The M16/AR doesn't work well at that range but it will do it. The performance of the 5.56 is also highly underrated, often dismissed as strictly a varmint caliber, but with the right bullet and rifle package, capable of exceptional accuracy and terminal performance.
  4. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    Something that always confused me was that my Guidebook for Marines back then listed the maximum effective range of the M14 and M16 as the same...I believe it was 550 meters. Wish I still had that book.

    Anyway, clearly that was not correct. We used to save our tracers for fam fire and I can remember when we were shooting both weapons at the same time watching the difference in the trajectory. The drop off is much more drastic with the M16 where as the M14 rd trajectory stayed relatively flat much farther out.
  5. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    Now I have a question. The M16's I was issued in Nam had a tapered type flash suppressor with an open end..kind of like three prongs. The Army had M16's with a closed end untapered flash suppressor. Anyone know what the difference was?
  6. goldenwings

    goldenwings New Member

    May 11, 2009
    Tampa, FL
    The flash supressor with the three prong was the M16 was the initial M16 and then an updated version had the newer flash suppressor--of course the Army had the updated version.

    When the M16A2 came around in 86/87, the Corps got it first as they did the later A3 and A4.

    We, the Corps, also received the Beretta before the Army.

    One of my many MOSs included 2111 -Small Arms Repairmen
  7. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
  8. goldenwings

    goldenwings New Member

    May 11, 2009
    Tampa, FL
    The max effective range of the M14 is 460 meters

    The M16A2 rifle--Max effective range point target 550 meters
    Max range for area targets 800 meters
    max range--3600 meters
  9. rooter

    rooter *VMBB Senior Chief Of Staff* Supporting Member

    Jan 31, 2001
    Glendale Arizona
    I recall the 3-prong suppressor being modified by the closed 'pipe coupling' looking device so it wouldn't catch in the brush (bush)...I have heard remarks from troops using the Beretta side arm that it not having the 'knock-down' power of the replaced, .45 1911...I remember the story about the .45 having replaced the military .38 for that same reason----I think it was in the Philippines and hassling with the Morro tribesman...anyone recall that part of history??? Chief
    John M. Browning designed the M1911 in response to the Army's need for a pistol with greater stopping-power following the Army's experience with close-in combat during the Philippine Insurrection (1899-1901). The M1911A1 model recoil semi-automatic adopted in 1926, was the standard personal defense weapon carried by officers and team leaders of all services during World War I, World War II, and Korea. Production was ended in 1945. The M1911 has a rich military heritage, was very reliable, and the weapon of choice for use in close quarters. It was used up until 1984, when it began to be replaced by the more modern M9 9mm Pistol. The M1911A1 .45 cal. pistol is a magazine-fed semi-automatic recoil-operated single-action hand gun. It uses a .45 cal. rimless cartridge in a seven-round magazine. It fires one round each time the trigger is squeezed, once the hammer is cocked by prior action of the slide or thumb. This design is referred to as "single-action". The thumb safety may only be activated once the pistol is cocked.
  10. goldenwings

    goldenwings New Member

    May 11, 2009
    Tampa, FL
    Put rounds in the head or in vital areas (center mass) and that solves your problem--also--sidearms should not be your primary weapon on the battlefield.

    I did, however, in a situation in Somalia, use my 9mm to shoot a bad guy--he went down with two rounds in his right chest and liver area--he died a few minutes later. No, he did not go immediately down and stumbled about 10 yards, but he was not shooting at us any more.
  11. 450NE

    450NE New Member

    Jun 30, 2008
    Well, Major, good luck on your career as an author.

    I remember things a bit differently. My first tour was '68/'69. When we turned in our M14's for the M16's I was a bit pecimistic. I was not alone. There were indeed, quite a few Marines who were convinced that the gun's plastic parts were produced by Mattel.

    You can blame the M16 all you want but the truth of the matter is that the problems were caused by:
    a.) Dirty powder fouling the tube &
    b.) Marines somehow being given the impression that cleaning wasn't as important for some reason.

    The combination was deadly. When I carried an M14 I never had any expectation that I should be less than completely thorough in my cleaning. Why would I assume it would be different with any rifle. I mean if there was one thing I came out of boot camp with was that my rifle was my friend and I took care of it.

    A lot of people want to get on the bandwagon and cry about the early problems with the M16's. Well you know what? It did suck. But if you want to cry about something, why not cry about the way our government prosecuted the whole war. The problem with the M16 was real but only temporary. Yeah, people died as a result. They also died from friendly fire and gettin' fragged.

    As a Major, I am sure you were issued a 1911 .45 acp. Well, let me tell you, I played with an awful lot of guns while in country and I never found one 1911 .45 being carried by Staff NCO's and above that was capable of firing a complete clip (7 rounds) without jamming. Usually more than once.

    It wasn't until later that I found out that it was due to the shi**y magazines that were issued.

    I personally own four M16's. From early model 3 pronged flash suppressor to an A2.

    That early M16 Rocks and Rolls all day. With modern ammo (and I use surplus going back as far as the '70's) I have no issues with cleaning. I have no issues with emptying big C mags flawlessly.

    There's no difference in that gun and the one that I was issued in 1968.

    Yeah, the dirty ammo sucked and should never have happened. But it was just in tune with everything else about that war.

    By the way. Keep in mind that the M16 replaced, not just the M14, but a host of other weapons. The Thompson M1A1 (tommy gun), the grease gun, the BAR, the M1 Carbine and I'm not sure that list is complete.

    We had all of those weapons in Viet Nam. The M16 simplified things greatly.

    I joined when I turned 17. I was afraid they'd end it before I could get there. Ha !

    When people used to try to give me crap about going over there I would usually respond by telling them "it was the only war I had".

    I've always loved my M16's and I wouldn't trade them for any AK made.

    I gotta agree with GoldenWings, above.
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
  12. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    I can so relate to this. I too joined the Marine Corps at 17 in 1966 fearing I'd miss my chance to be a hero. Guess thats why they say "young and dumb".:eek::eek::rolleyes:
  13. I was almost 20, and it was the Army, but otherwise the same basic story, ROMT. When we were that age we were immortal, right? ;)
  14. ronnzz

    ronnzz New Member

    May 30, 2009
  15. TranterUK

    TranterUK Guest

Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
VMBB General Discussion Wake Up! Revisited! Mar 8, 2003
VMBB General Discussion M16 Revisited.....( 2) Mar 8, 2003