M16 Revisited.....( 2)

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

  1. inplanotx

    inplanotx New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Messages:
    8,889
    Location:
    Texas
    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LTS,

    I have to disagree, the current M-4 is outstanding!
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 1826
    (3/9/02 7:58:03 pm)
    Reply

    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single state in the United States that will allow the 5.56mm NATO round to be used as a hunting cartridge for a deer sized animal (a good sized deer will go up to 150+ pounds, or roughly human sized). Why in their remotest dreams the military feels that a cartridge that is acknowledged to be suitable only for varmints is a viable anti-personnel round, is beyond my
    comprehension.

    Answer:

    Animal tissue is much tougher than human tissue, humans are
    many times easier to kill, even easier than varmints!

    Penetration was not the long suit of the 5.56mm either. The common "Grunt" soon became aware that the "mousegun round" often ricocheted off of bamboo thickets, and had little effect on earthwork emplacements. The U.S. Ordnance manuals list the penetration of the .30-'06 as M2 ball as 36" of oak at 200 yds. Since the ballistics of the ball 7.62mm round are essentially the same, I can only assume that the 7.62 will do the same although I have never tried this personally. I DO know that a .30-'06 AP round will punch a power transmission pole at 200 yards like Swiss Cheese. I've been waiting for some bad guy to hide behind a telephone pole for years! The initial demonstrating teams for the 5.56mm loved to show the effect of the "mouse gun round" on a concrete block wall at 25 yards when the rifle was fired in the full automatic mode. The effect was truly awesome! I asked the demonstrating ordnance folks to try the same stunt at 200 yards. They grinned and said that such a demonstration would not give the desired impression of power. In other words they had the demonstrations rigged in favor of the 5.56mm! I wonder how many feet of oak the 5.56mm will penetrate at 200 yds?

    Show me a 3006 ball round that will go through 3-feet of oak at
    200yds. and I'll buy every last damn one of those rounds, and as
    far as deflection off of minor twigs/bamboo goes I say bullshit,
    the 5.56 is and was known for it's non-deflection. As far as will
    a 5.56 take a deer or what it will penetrate I say this, take a
    M-4 or AR-15 and shoot it at something you consider equivelent
    at the same distance as the above mentioned and you tell me if
    it will kill a deer or penetrate lol!

    Sorry but this guy has a beef with past issues and in my opinion
    the AR is his outlet for striking back, our Special Forces and
    Troops are and have been using the current M-4 and I own one
    myself and I can tell you that if these men didn't feel comfortable
    with this weapon protecting their lives there would be a stink to
    high hell in this day and age, speaking from a personal view point
    I can tell you that I have 100% confidence in my M-4 and I've fired
    it in all conditions and rates of fire
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    LIKTOSHOOT
    *VMBB Staff*
    Posts: 107
    (3/9/02 8:43:47 pm)
    Reply Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I fail to see him stating, himself, that it would go through 36" of oak......ya missed what he said there....buddy. Ok!, it`s a "Ratgun"....happy now????

    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 1829
    (3/9/02 11:28:33 pm)
    Reply

    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Show me an AP that will do that then too!

    Sorry my friend but you missed the point, it takes very
    little to kill a human as far as the human body goes,
    animals are much tougher to kill, in most cases it's
    the shock to the human tissue/body that kills.
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 1830
    (3/9/02 11:42:06 pm)
    Reply

    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Course I still love my M-14 as one of the best!
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    LIKTOSHOOT
    *VMBB Staff*
    Posts: 109
    (3/10/02 1:57:37 pm)
    Reply Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ok, Buddy! I`m gonna wipe the floor now.....with you! I make no claim on how well the new upgraded M16 is, my point and the articals point is simply this, this is a 300 yard gun at best and it retains less energy than the 7.62x39 at that distance. That is the reason they changed to the 62rgn vs the 55grn. Sure humans are weak targets, but we have seen many bodies as of late soak up many rounds before being stopped (Mog. & Sam.) We are now in the mountains and range counts. When you cut to the meat of the argument, it`s bullet weight, down range that kills......not speed. Down range energy is retained by weight, not speed. Then consider what it must penetrate at extended ranges, like winter clothing and hardware....."Oh yea, stand out the and let me test it." I might not do that.....because, first I`d be a stationary target for your pleasure (not real world) but a .308 scares me more.....you? Remember some of the Ahfgans are using Enfields in .303 and that round has proven itself out to 1,000 yards in combat, they also have the fordable 7.62x54 and that too has combat 1,000 yard records......the "Ratgun" does not. Close range yes, mountains ain`t close range and we are not in the jungle either. As far as deflection of the .22 round, it is deflected easily.....as data shows that "high speed" light weight rounds are much easier to deflect....because the upset the lightweight bullets spin. Your Serve.......LTS

    high2fly
    *Senior Chief Of Staff*
    Posts: 764
    (3/10/02 2:06:11 pm)
    Reply Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is not going to take many words from me here men for you to ascertain I don't know much about the weapons of which you speak. I do know the M-14, as I had one issued to me in 1963 on Okinawa. Had a beautiful burlwood maple stock on it---spoke recently about it to T.----I left it in the armory all the time and carried a M1911 Colt .45 around in the jeep or weapons carrier. Late in 1965 I think it was, our unit had demonstrations by the Marines with the M-16 at Camp Pendleton---I recall them firing it at 55 gallon drums filled with water to show the striking force of the round---many times, not always, but many times the seams of the barrel would split---we all thought that was pretty 'striking'---pun intended.
    Our 'dozer operators in country carried the 30 caliber M-1 carbine as often as they could, due to the cleaning problems associated with the M-16. You remember JD that I was talking to you about that little weapon recently---always kinda tied it in with the Seabee's---that and the BAR were all we had in the battalion the 50's down in the Philippines---of course, we always had the .45 for the Officers and Chiefs-- our crew served stuff was the 81 mike-mike mortars---the 3.5 rocket launcher---and the recoiless rifle--can't recall the size of it. Oh yes JD, we spoke recently of that M-1 carbine with the folding stock---you recognized it right off and said they were still available--I was afraid I couldn't afford one if I had to ask the price---. Wilborn

    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 1832
    (3/10/02 5:13:55 pm)
    Reply

    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mike,

    You can't be serious when you say the hevier round
    will deflect less? I'm not gonna argue as the info is
    out there and also it has been stated many times
    by our troops that the 5.56 was able to hit the
    enemy while at the same distance the 7.62 X 39
    AK round of the enemy firing back was not. Now
    don't get me wrong I'm not saying the 5.56 is a
    1000yd. weapon at all, I'd say max range is 600
    meters and the 308-round of couse is bigger and
    carries more punch but it's too damn heavy and
    bulky to be carrying for close quarter fighting
    whereas, the M-4 is compact, lightweight,
    more fire power and at under 600-meters it
    has a devastating effect and is highly accurate
    which is it's purpouse.

    BITE ME!


    John,

    Yes I do remember the M-1 Carbine conversation we had,
    sorry I forgot to get back to you on that, I'll send you an
    email about that in the A.M.
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    LIKTOSHOOT
    *VMBB Staff*
    Posts: 110
    (3/10/02 5:41:14 pm)
    Reply Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gave up, Huh? Sissy......

    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 1834
    (3/10/02 11:27:48 pm)
    Reply

    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Too tired ya old fart!
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    LIKTOSHOOT
    *VMBB Staff*
    Posts: 111
    (3/11/02 10:05:28 am)
    Reply Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Who you callin a old fart, your two weeks older than the dust on the moon, take that! You "real old fart" Ratgun Lover! LTS

    berto64
    *VMBB Staff*
    Posts: 323
    (3/11/02 7:13:29 pm)
    Reply

    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 68 I trained stateside with the M-14, arrived in-country
    Jan 69 and received my black rifle. Just holding it did nothing to inspire confidence in the 'thing'. I guess the best thing is that they had at least fixed them good enough
    so they would fire dependably. Once I got settled in my pltn, I rounded up any 'surplus weapons I could trade for and left my issue weapon in the platoon arms room. That way I wouldn't have to pay for a 'lost' or broken rifle when I
    came home.
    Think I ended up with about 3 M16's, 1 M3 grease gun, & various styles of handguns. One of which was a chrome 38 special derringer, and one real nice 1911A1, property of USA. I did manage to bring one SKS home out of a cache the MACV guys found just of of a canal in My Tho province.
    It was stolen when I took a trip to Wyoming in the 70's.
    I currently own a Springfield Armory M1A and NO blackguns.

    berto




    Endeaver to Persevere

    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 1836
    (3/11/02 7:44:50 pm)
    Reply

    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Boo freakin hoo!

    Well, to each weapon serves a purpouse therefore,
    I have at least one of most all including one registered
    Sub-machinegun, all serve for different things!

    ........................................................................
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    106RR196LIB
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 216
    (3/17/02 11:48:11 pm)
    Reply Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I trained in Basic with an M14. When I got to AIT at the Jungle School in charming Ft Polk I had to use the M16. we knew there were reliability problems. When the Heavy (11H)Weapons MOS guys (me) had to qualify, they used one rifle per firing point at the range. You did not get to zero your weapon. They had found several M16's that worked and we all used the same weapons. We were all given high scores.
    When I got to the196th LIB in Chu Lai (I Corps) I was given a choice of an M16 with one magazine or an M79. I was told openly by the Company Armorer that the M16s didn't work.
    I took the M79 on the basis that a weapon that works is always better than one that doesn't.
    Our ordinance expert was right about the attempt to use gasoline and motor oil. We had no choice. There was no powder solvent and no gun oil at that time. This was May/ June of 67 on the peninsula south of Chu Lai. He was also right about the Dri Slide. It was some kind of molybdenum disulphide carrier. It resulted in jammed and rusting guns. our 106 RR started to rust out. We had cleaning rods for the 106mm and the 7.62 NATO, no 5.56 NATO at all. We used pull throughs with gasoline and handcut patches. No bore brushes in 5.56 either.
    Our city boy draftees tried oiling the ammo! No Kidding! It jammed worse as you might have guessed. Some guys would dribble some oil down into the top of the loaded mags. The more sophisticated wiped the rounds with an oily rag.
    There was a human side to the crappy rifle as well. Men were maimed, killed and captured. American teenagers were often left helpless for the Viet Cong. We were told that all outgoing mail would be censored and any one caught writing to their congressman would be caught and punished. The specific threat was the old "You'll be on a one man LP in North Vietnam."
    I'll write more later -- Mike
    PS --re-registration was tough


    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 1847
    (3/18/02 11:59:46 am)
    Reply

    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Good info Mike, would like to hear more and sorry
    bout the reg stuff, I'm gonna try and finish the
    work in here today!

    Regards, Tac
    TFF VMBB Contact Admin

    106RR196LIB
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 217
    (3/19/02 3:34:01 am)
    Reply Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I had a whole case of Dri Slide (whatever) sent from the states. it was supposed to be a free sample. They sent me a bill -- I refused to pay. I had given the stuff for free to everyone who asked for it. They all hated it, some even cussed me out.
    Cleaning rods;
    Not available in 5.56. one guy had a relative ship him a rod. Unfortunately, it was for a 22LR, a little plastic handled job that fell apart. We all used it to scrub our bores until the rod fell apart. We did not see another rod until Nov/Dec of 67. One of the guys got a letter thru to home with a coded message to his congressman. The IG showed up on Hill 445. This was a miracle. He asked our CO if all the men had rods and he was told that we did. He then asked our platoon leader the same question and was given the same answer. He came around to the grunts and we had no rods at all. He Article 15nd both officers for lying to a superior. We finally got cleaning rods.
    At some point they gave us all new bolts and then new buffers. Finally,they gave us new rifles without the three prong flash reducer that we used to open C rat cases. Until then, every heartbreaking death meant stripping the cadavers for a better rifle and better mags. Your friends protected you in life and in death.
    Lubrication;
    I could get one pint cans of gun oil for my 106 RR by the fall of 67. The 106 RR takes a lot of oil as it weighs 480 lb and it has to be uncovered most of the time. By late winter of 68, we were given a lubricant called LSA for the M16s. It was a white gooey material in a tube. I remember some damn fool getting it mixed up with an experimental foot treatment. They gave us a clear fluid in a larger tube to put on our feet during the monsoon. It was supposed to allow unlimited exposure to extreme hardship without giving us jungle rot. They could leave us in the jungle longer. The stuff caused trench foot which was much worse. I saw some illiterate bozo putting the LSA on his foot.
    Someone finally realized that a lot of the grunts couldn't or wouldn't read instructions. They sent us little comic books with a cartoon like blonde babe showing how to clean an M16. I remember that she had cartoon type oversize hooters.
    Hooters is of course a medical term and is not intended to -- Oh nevermind!
    I can't remember her name, but she said cleaning your M16 five (5) times a day would be OK for combat troops. We all wondered where we would get time. I suggested that they give the cartoons to the NVA ask them to wait while we cleaned the M16s.
    Mags;
    They were intended to be disposable. We had to recycle them. Our basic load was 400 rds for I Corps -- 20 mags. We couldn't put twenty in any one mag so they were downloaded to 19 for many and the oldest ones were down to 17. (I understand that 3rd MAF mandated a 17 rd load for our USMC brothers in I Corps.) We tried to use our best mags first in a fight. An ambush is usually decided in the first 3 to 5 seconds. So things were quick. We heard about the new 30 rd nylon mags. The guys asked me to write a letter to Colt requesting the new mags. Charlie had thirty round mags for the 7.62x39. Colt answered the letter politely and said the new mags were only authorized for Israel. We thought Americans should have first dibs. Oh Well! Mike


    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 1851
    (3/20/02 9:10:15 am)
    Reply

    Re: M16 Revisited.....
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Good read Mike, keep'em comming!

    I tend to load even the new mags with 17 & 27 if
    I'm going to have them loaded for any lengthy
    period of time, as of late I picked up some 30rd.
    mags that are polymer I believe and made in Canada
    for their Military & LE, they seem to function without
    a hitch!

    Good info Mike, write'm if ya got'em!

Share This Page