suitability of M16 for Afghanistan
- Thread starter haven
- Start date
Mamontof
Explorer
Accuracy
How to aim correctly with the M16
There is an argument that the shorter distance between the sights on an AK-47 affects its accuracy, this is however very limited as the distance between sights is very close to the AR-15, having the foresight at the end of the barrel whilst the AR-15 has its foresight further back from the barrel muzzle.[citation needed] The greater perceived recoil of the 7.62x39mm cartridge may also be detrimental to the untrained soldier (or novice civilian shooter), requiring more skill and training to adjust to.[20]
Both AK-47 and M16 rounds would qualify as low-power hunting rounds in the U.S. and neither has as much recoil force as even a moderate U.S. hunting rifle (e.g. a rifle chambered in .270 Winchester). Accordingly, the difference in recoil forces is relative and recoil should not be an issue of comfort or accuracy for an average adult male with either the AK-47 or the M16. Even with the lighter recoil and higher velocity of the 5.56x45mm round, the original M16 and M16A1 did not offer the accuracy achieved with the later M16A2 using the SS109 bullet in semi-automatic mode. The M16 came from the factory capable of 3–4 MOA accuracy, allowing reliable hits on targets at up to 300 meters.[citation needed]
The aperture sights of the later M16A2 are superior to those used on most earlier M16 assault rifles.[21] The rifle is fitted with an aperture rear sight and a small hole to center the front sight post. The M16A2's rear sight features two aperture settings: a larger aperture to enable faster sighting in poor lighting conditions and a smaller aperture to permit more precise aiming for long-distance targets. However due to a narrow field of view and diffraction blurring, the aperture sight is not ideal for target acquisition, especially if the target is camouflaged or rapidly moving. Additionally, it is easy to misalign the front post against the rear aperture's center, as there is no mark that indicates the center of the rear aperture, and any alignment error between the front and rear sights repeats itself for every 1/2 meter the bullet travels. If an M16 sight is misaligned by 1/10 inch (2.5 mm), it causes a target at 300 meters to be missed by 5 feet (1.52 meters).[22] The aperture sight also requires the shooter to close one of his eyes,[citation needed] decreasing battlefield awareness. The aperture sight does not allow enough light to pass through to be used effectively at night, therefore on some M16s there is an intermediate setting which turns the aperture sight into a crude open sight. Modern versions of the M16 have given up the aperture sight altogether replacing it with various scopes and red dot sighting devices.
The AK-47's sights are of a more traditional open style. The rear sight is a simple V-notch in which the front post is to be centered. Some argue this requires more concentration to use,[citation needed] as both the front and rear sight must be kept in alignment, and must be placed further away from the eye to decrease blurring, however AK-47 sights allow the shooter to quickly acquire moving targets at medium range and to shoot with both eyes open. Another advantage to the AK-47s sights is that they are easier and faster to adjust to different ranges, this requires simply sliding the rear notch forward and backward. Modern and special older versions of the AK have a side rail for mounting a variety of scopes and red dot sighting devices.
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
As someone who has fired a M-4 in combat, I will say its major drawbacks are a lack of range and a lack of knock down power. As for the jamming, if the ammo and weapon are spotless and lightly lubed, it will work fine... now try to keep those two conditions while on patrol...lol
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
Actually, from what I have seen, in the hands of a good marksman they are every bit as accurate as the m-4
A few comments from a civvie that shoots a fair bit and reads a lot...
An AK can be shot well, but its not as easy to shoot well as an AR. The sights are not great. The dust cover is not a good place to mount a scope or dot sight.
Part of the problem with the m4 is the barrel length. It takes a certain velocity to get a .223 to tumble. Cutting the barrel down from 20" to 14.5" reduces velocity. OTOH, its much better for searching buildings. We need to expand the designated marksman idea if we're going to stay with a short barreled .223.
6.8 vs 6.5. The 6.5 was meant as a long range round. 6.8 was meant for increased lethality at close range (under 300m). Neither is better, they have different purposes.
The US military really should be using US made weapons...
An AK can be shot well, but its not as easy to shoot well as an AR. The sights are not great. The dust cover is not a good place to mount a scope or dot sight.
Part of the problem with the m4 is the barrel length. It takes a certain velocity to get a .223 to tumble. Cutting the barrel down from 20" to 14.5" reduces velocity. OTOH, its much better for searching buildings. We need to expand the designated marksman idea if we're going to stay with a short barreled .223.
6.8 vs 6.5. The 6.5 was meant as a long range round. 6.8 was meant for increased lethality at close range (under 300m). Neither is better, they have different purposes.
The US military really should be using US made weapons...
Dave Bennett
Adventurist
I agree, but we shouldn't avoid giving our guys the best just because it was designed or made somewhere else...
The M240 (FN GPMG) comes to mind :costumed-smiley-007
Newtac11
Observer
I'll way in on this, but keep in mind I only read part of this thread before it got ridiculous.
FNH is a foreign company... They also make weapons in Fredricksburg Va. Honestly I could give a rats *** who makes my weapon, as long as it is the best out there. (On a side note, who owns the maker of YOUR car? http://carscarscars.blogs.com/index/2004/03/who_owns_who.html and does it really matter?)
I have fired a lot of Weapons, and carried many in 2 tours in Baghdad. I have carried AK-47 and 74, MP5, M16, M4, M9, and a 45 in combat amongst many crew serve weapons. I (and many others in my Group) have also tested the SCAR in both 5.56 and 7.62, the MK-23, HK 9mm, and Sig 228. I personally like the SCAR 7.62 for its stopping power, versatility(reg and CQB barrel)and ability to keep carbon buildup off the bolt.
As for addressing the issue of fowling of the M16/M4...I agree that it fouls and jams to frequently. (Once per tour is too frequently in combat)The AK is a better designed system for that environment. The M16/M4 is fine for a jungle warfare environment, but the sand and carbon buildup to rapidly on a long mission. When a sandstorm hits during an operation...I can't call time out to clean a weapon. Everyday Maintenance of the M16/M4 is required in over there, but sometimes even that isn't enough...and that is unacceptable to me. This has been remedied by someone who figured how to put a piston rod system to replace the gas blow-back drastically reducing the carbon build-up. I have tested these and stand by them completely.
The double tap is a standard practice with EVERY weapon in a close quarters environment.(minus sniper) You don't have time to evaluate if the first round dropped a target. If you haven't learned how to do it, you need to be trained by someone who knows.
Finally...5 minutes is an eternity in a firefight. 20 minutes is hell. I still have never blown through all my basic load (8 mags on me, 1 in the weapon, and a go bag of essentials with 6 more) There is never a reason to have your cyclic rate of fire that high (you are now worthless on the battlefield other than the fact that if I'm lucky...they will target you and not me)...use your crew serve for mass/target suppression (spray and pray)
Rant over...to sum up...give me the HK 9mm, and the 7.62 SCAR....for most situations.
Thank-you,
Not a Fobbit
FNH is a foreign company... They also make weapons in Fredricksburg Va. Honestly I could give a rats *** who makes my weapon, as long as it is the best out there. (On a side note, who owns the maker of YOUR car? http://carscarscars.blogs.com/index/2004/03/who_owns_who.html and does it really matter?)
I have fired a lot of Weapons, and carried many in 2 tours in Baghdad. I have carried AK-47 and 74, MP5, M16, M4, M9, and a 45 in combat amongst many crew serve weapons. I (and many others in my Group) have also tested the SCAR in both 5.56 and 7.62, the MK-23, HK 9mm, and Sig 228. I personally like the SCAR 7.62 for its stopping power, versatility(reg and CQB barrel)and ability to keep carbon buildup off the bolt.
As for addressing the issue of fowling of the M16/M4...I agree that it fouls and jams to frequently. (Once per tour is too frequently in combat)The AK is a better designed system for that environment. The M16/M4 is fine for a jungle warfare environment, but the sand and carbon buildup to rapidly on a long mission. When a sandstorm hits during an operation...I can't call time out to clean a weapon. Everyday Maintenance of the M16/M4 is required in over there, but sometimes even that isn't enough...and that is unacceptable to me. This has been remedied by someone who figured how to put a piston rod system to replace the gas blow-back drastically reducing the carbon build-up. I have tested these and stand by them completely.
The double tap is a standard practice with EVERY weapon in a close quarters environment.(minus sniper) You don't have time to evaluate if the first round dropped a target. If you haven't learned how to do it, you need to be trained by someone who knows.
Finally...5 minutes is an eternity in a firefight. 20 minutes is hell. I still have never blown through all my basic load (8 mags on me, 1 in the weapon, and a go bag of essentials with 6 more) There is never a reason to have your cyclic rate of fire that high (you are now worthless on the battlefield other than the fact that if I'm lucky...they will target you and not me)...use your crew serve for mass/target suppression (spray and pray)
Rant over...to sum up...give me the HK 9mm, and the 7.62 SCAR....for most situations.
Thank-you,
Not a Fobbit
A couple years back a guy in Wyoming was watching TV in his house when a truck left the freeway and crashed into his fence. One of the 4x4 fence posts came through the wall, through the couch and halfway through him. He lived with only moderate internal damage IIRC. (supposedly the blunt end of the board impacted is back below the rib cage and the force pushed most of the vitals out of the way before it penetrated......
Not a bad plan, but there is something to be said about everybody carrying the same ammo while on patrol....
I agree that the M16 is a decent tool, but I don't think you could fire a direct gas impingment m16 for 10k regardless of your level of lube. There would be too much carbon on the bolt for it to rotate without the help of the forward assist.
Agree, the 240 is an excellent weapon.
My .02:
I am a Marine with only one combat tour in Iraq. I found that the M16 worked OK, and "most" of the malfunctions could be cleared very quickly. I also agree that the M16 workes well when properly cleaned. I also have a problem with that trait. It is not always practical or feasible to spend so much time cleaning a weapon. Weapons maintenance is very important, but there are other things that are just as important that get neglected due to the excessive amount of time that it takes to make the M16/M4 happy.
I think the SKS with a lightweight stock would be my choice for a standard rifle--shorten the barrel a bit and add a collapsable stock for the carbine.(or just use the AK.... The SKS has the ability to have hi cap mags or be fed by stripper clips (faster and lighter IMO) it shoots well at distance and has a good bit of knockdown power..... Maybe not the fanciest weapon out there, but reliable, sturdy, and cheap......
Mamontof
Explorer
It a good words : be American Buy American
My question why so many like cheap jeans , boots ..you named made in why hell know where ?
Why drive Japan car , eat Mexican food , but post patriotic words ?
Simple use the best and be patriot by act not by words
skysix
Adventurer
Hence the increasing use of Bullpup designs - not really very practicle with the AR platform due to the recoil buffer design
x2 on decent marksmanship training - but also need to change the leadership and other areas of training so the hole combat package is designed around the concept of getting the trained shooter to the appropriate distance with the appropriate support so that he has the protection and time to be able to aim more often
x2 on purpose - and the real advantage of the M16 platform. Barrel and cartridge/bullet flexibility. However makes logistics job a nightmare if multiple configurations have to be supported in theatre - let alone within a platoon...
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
Considering they have stripped us of all of our force multipliers.. good luck with that.
The problem with bullpups is that you end up with a horrrible trigger.
on logistics: Not really. we have thousands of parts in the system, what's a few more? We're already issuing to infantry .223, 9mm, .45, 7.62 (belted and loose), grenades, 40mm grenades (in various types) , flares, smoke grenades, and more and that's just ammo consumables. Then there's beans and gas (probably should rephrase that one...). Not to mention parts for all those weapons. Then there are vehicle parts and supplies. What's one more caliber of ammo?
Training is critical. Leadership starts at the top and comes down. We've got too many leaders (what's the general/admiral to troop ratio now compared to WWII?). I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of the leadership in particular, but just looking at the ROE its pretty screwed up. The purpose of the military is to destroy the enemy. Not replace the peace corps! The Army is not a humanitarian organization.