I started shooting the M-16A1 in 1976. I have owned three high end AR's and one walmart "Cheep-O" They are all the same. They jam the same. Lack any hint of "knock down power" past 200 yards. You need a truck load of mag's as replacements. In short, IMO it was the worst "gun "F" up I ever made and I'll never have another in my house. Another IMO: ANYONE that thinks that the 5.56 is a "long range battle rifle" has NEVER tried to kill anything with the 5.56 at ranges above 200 yards. The day I had EXACTY the same failure in all four of my freshly detail cleaned, brand new magged, LSA lubed AR's. I sold them ALL,[ The day that 77gr. Black hills went thru the heart and both lungs of a 100lb white tail at 300 yards and just made a pin hole, I stopped hunting with them. My brother killed him with a 6.5X55 ] and will never ever pick up another worthless POS AR anything ever ever EVER.
I can find no fault with Stoner's design, as it was basically lifted from the Swedish Ljungman rifle.
My recollection is that ammunition powder manufacturing problems caused the majority of M-16 jams in Vietnam, through calcium fouling.
Fire control is an often overlooked skill. One who "sprays and prays" is unlikely to hit other than an accidental target.
The 5.56 round, properly used, does its intended job. Vietnam veterans tell me that a rubberized, fixed 3x or 3.5x scope was often available, and it conveniently attached to the "handle" on top of the M16.
An AR15 style rifle, with proper accoutrements, would be, and is currently a very useful piece of kit for a variety of reasons.
The services I was in used .308 rifles. They could only be used effectively in semi-auto mode.
@ag42b: "Fire control is an often overlooked skill. One who 'sprays and prays' is unlikely to hit other than an accidental target." ... "The services I was in used .308 rifles. They could only be used effectively in semi-auto mode."
That sounds like you're condemning those who use full-auto due to its inaccuracy, then complaining that your service rifle couldn't be used effectively in full auto because it was too large a caliber.
O/T, I like some of Herschel Smith's writings, other than he totally buys the .gov line about why we have troops all over MENA, and well, ever other point of US aggression. BTW, the AR platform is an engineering marvel. Love it. Never the less, AKs are more reliable, always will be. Just the way it is. IMO, the AR, even though not as reliable, is still a much more effective weapon in most cases.
Sad. Army needs to get back to the fundamentals of ground combat, and stop trying to get cute because we have better gear with "US" stenciled on it. The enemy is never going to be as impressed with us as we are with ourselves.
IMHO I find the absolute biggest pain-in-the-ass with AR's is the cleaning. Being a bit of a clean freak, and not wanting a potential jam in an emergency, i try to make sure every bit of that bolt is spotless. This causes cleaning to take me about 3 - 4 hours. An M-14 seems to need a quick wipe over the bolt face and the grooves the mechanism rides in and then it's off to be lubed. Plus I need a couple of specialty cleaning things, like extra long pipe cleaners for the gas tube and anything your imagination can think of to clean the depths of the bolt carrier. Again, with the M-14 it's just the gas block that needs a good cleaning. On the upside of the AR, separating the upper and lower won't change the zero of the weapon, but removing the stock from an M-14 (the wood stock variety) might just throw everything out of whack if it's scoped, especially if it was glass bedded. And the 14 is definitely harder to reacquire a target after firing due to recoil. I've even had them "bump-fire" on me due to the very light trigger squeeze i have and the amount of recoil it has, with that second shot going Lord knows where downrange. An AR practically doesn't even move off target after firing, and won't bump-fire unless I want it to. Also, the ammo DOES mean everything in an AR. Anyone who has experienced a jam due to the lacquer coating of cheapo "Bear" ammo knows it's almost impossible to clear the round from the chamber. It's a hard way to learn to use only quality ammo, but I had to learn it the hard way. Truth be told: if I was being rushed by 10 guys under 100 yards I'd take the AR. If I had to pick-off a couple of combatants at well over 100 yds. I'd want the 14...
I'll preface this by saying I am a vet, but NOT a combat vet...
It seems to me, that if a situation occurs where I'm being rushed in-close by a team of "bad guys," whether .gov or otherwise, that my choice of weapons won't really matter; I'm probably toast. If >100 yards and a small group, it'll matter so long as I control my fire and stay calm... in which case, I'll take the M1A hands down.
Yes, it's heavier and clumsy for clearing rooms, but then again I'm no soldier that's going to do such things. It trades portability, power and ease of maintenance for rate of fire and controlled recoil. In short, an M1A/M-14 is more effective as a standoff weapon.
For tight quarters, a pistol is much less clumsy than an AR/M-16, and so I'll go with a .45ACP if it comes to that. If it does, though, it means I screwed up... and AM screwed...
I am a combat vet and currently serving. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the AR series of rifles. The ammo we currently use is not the greatest and I am not entirely sold on the M-855 A1 either. The MK 318 SOST round on the other hand looks quite promising.
@ Anon 3:20, your rifle issues were of your own making. All of those "jammed the same" because you cleaned and lubed them the same. After cumulative years in the Mid East deserts, I can honestly say I had ZERO FTFs related to my rifle. That old "run it dry in dry environments" was dumped many years ago yet some still cling to it. One of the few things the Army really got right is the G-96 CLP (not the same as BreakFree). Use it very liberally. When its time for clean up, wipe all parts down, punch the bore with it and reapply to all moving parts until it oozes out cracks and holes. Done. Oh, and that deer you lost? Why were you using match ammo NEVER intended for hunting in the first place? Good job, YOU caused that through faulty thinking and ammo selection for hunting. Even the engineers at Sierra who makes the 77 grain SMK bullet you used say NOT to use that bullet for hunting. Do you think there was a reason why? There are too many bullets that WILL work well.
@ ag42b, I LOVE my Ljungman. Mr Eklund's grandson was very excited when I got mine. Its pretty cool owning the first DMR ever issued by any nation, eh? Mine is still a shooter at 70+ years old.
For you AR owners, especially former military used to keeping them parade clean, you really don't need to. In fact, it causes accelerated wear doing so and as mentioned above, running dry is bad leading to dry carbon build up which in turn leads to FTF, FTE and FTC. Baptize those babies!
Ok, I cant hold back... a 100 pound white tail ROFL! That's smaller than a pronghorn. Stop shooting pups! That pointy nose is a clue! LOL. At 300 yards, in its tiny little heart heart, complete with autopsy findings... bwahahahahahaha!
All I was trying to say, perhaps not clearly, is that there are many personal preferences involved in choosing a battle rifle, Stoner's design was not inherently bad, and that fire discipline is the most important aspect of most combat, where one is using a rifle.
To clear a room, where there is a chance of friendlies. I would prefer a shotgun, then a pistol.
I appreciate the input from the recent and current veterans, as my last active service was in the early 1970s.
I prefer not to fire anything full auto, unless it is a proper automatic weapon from the proper mount. Perhaps the way I was trained in the old days is now obsolete. Often, we must use what we have, sometimes not in the best of circumstances. I am not perfect, and far be it from me to criticize anyone else for their preferences. Please accept my express apology if you feel I have offended you personally. Many people do not post with a "handle", so I do not know to whom I should address comments.
My preference is for a .308, and an inch-based FAL is what I own and would use in a perfect world.
With age and infirmity taking its toll, I would probably grab the AR and a suitable pistol if the SHTF.
Thanks to Liberty or Death for his astute observations. The Ljungman would be my first choice, except for lack of spare magazines. Loading from strippers has become difficult for this old fellow.
10 comments:
I started shooting the M-16A1 in 1976. I have owned three high end AR's and one walmart "Cheep-O" They are all the same. They jam the same. Lack any hint of "knock down power" past 200 yards. You need a truck load of mag's as replacements. In short, IMO it was the worst "gun "F" up I ever made and I'll never have another in my house. Another IMO: ANYONE that thinks that the 5.56 is a "long range battle rifle" has NEVER tried to kill anything with the 5.56 at ranges above 200 yards. The day I had EXACTY the same failure in all four of my freshly detail cleaned, brand new magged, LSA lubed AR's. I sold them ALL,[ The day that 77gr. Black hills went thru the heart and both lungs of a 100lb white tail at 300 yards and just made a pin hole, I stopped hunting with them. My brother killed him with a 6.5X55 ] and will never ever pick up another worthless POS AR anything ever ever EVER.
I can find no fault with Stoner's design, as it was basically lifted from the Swedish Ljungman rifle.
My recollection is that ammunition powder manufacturing problems caused the majority of M-16 jams in Vietnam, through calcium fouling.
Fire control is an often overlooked skill. One who "sprays and prays" is unlikely to hit other than an accidental target.
The 5.56 round, properly used, does its intended job. Vietnam veterans tell me that a rubberized, fixed 3x or 3.5x scope was often available, and it conveniently attached to the "handle" on top of the M16.
An AR15 style rifle, with proper accoutrements, would be, and is currently a very useful piece of kit for a variety of reasons.
The services I was in used .308 rifles. They could only be used effectively in semi-auto mode.
@ag42b: "Fire control is an often overlooked skill. One who 'sprays and prays' is unlikely to hit other than an accidental target." ... "The services I was in used .308 rifles. They could only be used effectively in semi-auto mode."
That sounds like you're condemning those who use full-auto due to its inaccuracy, then complaining that your service rifle couldn't be used effectively in full auto because it was too large a caliber.
Me, I'm happy with my non-AR battle rifle.
O/T, I like some of Herschel Smith's writings, other than he totally buys the .gov line about why we have troops all over MENA, and well, ever other point of US aggression.
BTW, the AR platform is an engineering marvel. Love it. Never the less, AKs are more reliable, always will be. Just the way it is. IMO, the AR, even though not as reliable, is still a much more effective weapon in most cases.
Sad. Army needs to get back to the fundamentals of ground combat, and stop trying to get cute because we have better gear with "US" stenciled on it. The enemy is never going to be as impressed with us as we are with ourselves.
IMHO I find the absolute biggest pain-in-the-ass with AR's is the cleaning. Being a bit of a clean freak, and not wanting a potential jam in an emergency, i try to make sure every bit of that bolt is spotless. This causes cleaning to take me about 3 - 4 hours. An M-14 seems to need a quick wipe over the bolt face and the grooves the mechanism rides in and then it's off to be lubed. Plus I need a couple of specialty cleaning things, like extra long pipe cleaners for the gas tube and anything your imagination can think of to clean the depths of the bolt carrier. Again, with the M-14 it's just the gas block that needs a good cleaning. On the upside of the AR, separating the upper and lower won't change the zero of the weapon, but removing the stock from an M-14 (the wood stock variety) might just throw everything out of whack if it's scoped, especially if it was glass bedded. And the 14 is definitely harder to reacquire a target after firing due to recoil. I've even had them "bump-fire" on me due to the very light trigger squeeze i have and the amount of recoil it has, with that second shot going Lord knows where downrange. An AR practically doesn't even move off target after firing, and won't bump-fire unless I want it to. Also, the ammo DOES mean everything in an AR. Anyone who has experienced a jam due to the lacquer coating of cheapo "Bear" ammo knows it's almost impossible to clear the round from the chamber. It's a hard way to learn to use only quality ammo, but I had to learn it the hard way. Truth be told: if I was being rushed by 10 guys under 100 yards I'd take the AR. If I had to pick-off a couple of combatants at well over 100 yds. I'd want the 14...
People are forgetting that the US Army never wanted the AR15 platform in the first place.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html
I'll preface this by saying I am a vet, but NOT a combat vet...
It seems to me, that if a situation occurs where I'm being rushed in-close by a team of "bad guys," whether .gov or otherwise, that my choice of weapons won't really matter; I'm probably toast. If >100 yards and a small group, it'll matter so long as I control my fire and stay calm... in which case, I'll take the M1A hands down.
Yes, it's heavier and clumsy for clearing rooms, but then again I'm no soldier that's going to do such things. It trades portability, power and ease of maintenance for rate of fire and controlled recoil. In short, an M1A/M-14 is more effective as a standoff weapon.
For tight quarters, a pistol is much less clumsy than an AR/M-16, and so I'll go with a .45ACP if it comes to that. If it does, though, it means I screwed up... and AM screwed...
I am a combat vet and currently serving. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the AR series of rifles. The ammo we currently use is not the greatest and I am not entirely sold on the M-855 A1 either. The MK 318 SOST round on the other hand looks quite promising.
@ Anon 3:20, your rifle issues were of your own making. All of those "jammed the same" because you cleaned and lubed them the same. After cumulative years in the Mid East deserts, I can honestly say I had ZERO FTFs related to my rifle. That old "run it dry in dry environments" was dumped many years ago yet some still cling to it. One of the few things the Army really got right is the G-96 CLP (not the same as BreakFree). Use it very liberally. When its time for clean up, wipe all parts down, punch the bore with it and reapply to all moving parts until it oozes out cracks and holes. Done. Oh, and that deer you lost? Why were you using match ammo NEVER intended for hunting in the first place? Good job, YOU caused that through faulty thinking and ammo selection for hunting. Even the engineers at Sierra who makes the 77 grain SMK bullet you used say NOT to use that bullet for hunting. Do you think there was a reason why? There are too many bullets that WILL work well.
@ ag42b, I LOVE my Ljungman. Mr Eklund's grandson was very excited when I got mine. Its pretty cool owning the first DMR ever issued by any nation, eh? Mine is still a shooter at 70+ years old.
For you AR owners, especially former military used to keeping them parade clean, you really don't need to. In fact, it causes accelerated wear doing so and as mentioned above, running dry is bad leading to dry carbon build up which in turn leads to FTF, FTE and FTC. Baptize those babies!
Ok, I cant hold back... a 100 pound white tail ROFL! That's smaller than a pronghorn. Stop shooting pups! That pointy nose is a clue! LOL. At 300 yards, in its tiny little heart heart, complete with autopsy findings... bwahahahahahaha!
Ok, better now.
All I was trying to say, perhaps not clearly, is that there are many personal preferences involved in choosing a battle rifle, Stoner's design was not inherently bad, and that fire discipline is the most important aspect of most combat, where one is using a rifle.
To clear a room, where there is a chance of friendlies. I would prefer a shotgun, then a pistol.
I appreciate the input from the recent and current veterans, as my last active service was in the early 1970s.
I prefer not to fire anything full auto, unless it is a proper automatic weapon from the proper mount. Perhaps the way I was trained in the old days is now obsolete. Often, we must use what we have, sometimes not in the best of circumstances. I am not perfect, and far be it from me to criticize anyone else for their preferences. Please accept my express apology if you feel I have offended you personally. Many people do not post with a "handle", so I do not know to whom I should address comments.
My preference is for a .308, and an inch-based FAL is what I own and would use in a perfect world.
With age and infirmity taking its toll, I would probably grab the AR and a suitable pistol if
the SHTF.
Thanks to Liberty or Death for his astute observations. The Ljungman would be my first choice, except for lack of spare magazines. Loading from strippers has become difficult for this old fellow.
Post a Comment