User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:25:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
The first M16 was a rush job and Colt really threw our troops under the bus during the early years of Vietnam. Bean counters threw you under the bus. The bores were supposed to be chromed and the powder was changed without informing the engineers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:25:24 PM EDT
[#2]
clearly we should go back to garands
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:25:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Compared with the 308 and 7.62x39 yes.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand your thought process. What "issue" are you trying to solve? Well the m16's shortcomings seemed like they were. 1.Reliability 2. Ammunition power I've talked with some Vietnam vets and the only complaint they had was the M14 was too damn heavy. 
Seriously? .308? You do realize that .308 and 7.62x51, which the M14 fired, are virtually the same, don't you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:27:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: I mean that 5.56 is underpowered by comparison to the bigger calibers. Quoted: Quoted: Compared with the 308 and 7.62x39 yes. Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand your thought process. What "issue" are you trying to solve? Well the m16's shortcomings seemed like they were. 1.Reliability 2. Ammunition power I've talked with some Vietnam vets and the only complaint they had was the M14 was too damn heavy. Seriously? .308? You do realize that .308 and 7.62x51, which the M14 fired, are virtually the same, don't you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:28:34 PM EDT
[#5]
the m-14 was obsolete even before the first one came off the production line, but it happens to be a sacred cow of the american gun culture.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:28:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
All it takes for one to change there opinion on the M16 during Vietnam was if yours failed in a firefight. For my father it was Jan 1968 Can Tho Airfield. Little info about the battle. http://www.moorej.org/discuss-engr/_disc/000000f0.htm His failed in the middle of a firefight. I don't think he's ever thought any differently about the M16 since. Hey, thanks for the link, good read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:29:14 PM EDT
[#7]
The M14 was and is the red-headed step child of modern small arms development.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:30:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Yeah the M14 was heavier but if you had taken the extra weight away would troops in Vietnam been better with the m14? I don't accept your premise. The Military had no problem in VietNam. The Military's problem was Political micromanagement from Washington DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:31:33 PM EDT
[#9]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:31:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Neither, M16A1 or FAL 
I don't think 5.56 has much problem taking down charlie, and imagine trying to lug that fuckin M14 and all your other gear while having 24/7 swamp ass...No thanks And yet our troops in WWII in the Pacific did just fine with the Garand. Who'da thunk it? There was nothing special about the Vietnamese terrain that differentiated it from war in the Pacific in WWII. The weapon the infantryman carried was not the cause of the outcome of the Vietnam War. LC You do have a good point, and I love the Garand, but I personally would rather have a post-teething issue M16 than carry around full battle rattle and a 30 cal. Our guys were up against a lot, especially the coward politicians and the damn hippies at home while just trying to do their jobs. Going to the M16 was the right move IMO, just wasn't introduced how it should have been, ya know, with cleaning kits and better testing of the platform before adaptation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:32:23 PM EDT
[#11]
The M14 was virtually impossible to keep on target under fully automatic fire. Imagine how much more difficult it would be if you made it lighter but kept the same caliber.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:33:43 PM EDT
[#12]
The two biggest factors that led to the M16 having teething troubles was 5.56 was being loaded with ball powder which is very messy because the propellant doesn't burn up well. Think of how dirty your gun gets if you shoot Wolf ammo, but even worse than that. And the fact that there were no cleaning kits initially issued and they said it was a "self cleaning" gun.
The idiots at wanted Ball powder because it gave the gun alittle extra range, but again, gummed it all up cause it was very dirty burning and the fact that people didn't clean it cause no cleaning kits and it was "self cleaning". It had nothing to do with any "inherent" flaws in Stoner's design. It is a extremely reliable gun when taken care of right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:34:08 PM EDT
[#13]
My dad fought in Nam. FWIW, he liked the platform, but felt that it was faulty due to the lack of features mentioned in this thread. I'm glad they got them all worked out in the end.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:34:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: The first M16 was a rush job and Colt really threw our troops under the bus during the early years of Vietnam. Even though I am not a Colt fan, I won't throw them under that bus. Most of the problems were McNamara and the "whiz kids" and ordnance morons enamored with range. The design and the manufacturing were just fine. McNamara would not let Colt take the time to chrome line the barrel or chamber, said it added too much time, etc. So, rather than blame Colt, the blame lies with the Ordnance Dept and the whiz kids. However, in the very early days of the AR-15 (1961-63), Colt did market it as a "self-cleaning" rifle. Someone in the Retro forum posted a magazine article from that era where a Colt rep makes that very claim.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:37:56 PM EDT
[#15]
SOG recon guys had their pick of just about ANY weapon system out there, and guess what - just about ALL of them carried a CAR-15.
Lee Burkins, RT Vermont, MACV-SOG, CCC, summer 1970. CAR-15 on the left and a Kalashnikov on the right. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:40:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand your thought process. What "issue" are you trying to solve? Well the m16's shortcomings seemed like they were. 1.Reliability 2. Ammunition power I've talked with some Vietnam vets and the only complaint they had was the M14 was too damn heavy.
My dad drove trucks and was a door gunner. He says the same thing. Of course, he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, either. the 5.56 sucked so bad, the russians went to the 5.45 5.45 is 5.56 on steroids.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:40:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Don't forget the forward assit.... Crap feature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:40:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Look at what rifles are in #1 and #2 respectively
The M14 was outdated before issue, we all loved the Garand, and it should have had a detachable magazine to begin with, but trying to make that happen 20 years too late wasn't a solution to the modern fighters needs, as proven by the last 40 years of small arms adaptation by most of the world. Taking 30 cal rifles and popping shots at each other over no mans land from the trenches isn't all that practical anymore with modern highly mobile forces with sophisticated support networks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:41:20 PM EDT
[#19]
In reading The Walking Dead (by Craig Roberts) it seemed, during the very early days (summer of '65) they had a problem keeping enough ammo for the M-14's what with all of the firing into the jungle at an invisible enemy.
Then the M-16 was issued. Initially there were problems with the ammo (powder, I think). In Blood on the Risers (by Leppleman) there are some horror stories of the 173rd taking a lot of casualties and GI's found dead with their M-16's jammed and in various states of being taken apart. Later, once the M-16 was fixed troops seemed to love it for the load of ammo they could carry and its accuracy. I really don't know what my point is. Other than to reference two of my favorite Vietnam books. I always thought it was interesting to see the initial impressions of a force trained for conventional warfare vs. a few years later when LRRP units scared the bejeezus out of the VC and NVA and took the war to them on their own terms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:41:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
It's been proven time and time again that with riflemen, the hit percentages dictate that the side that can throw the most ammo down range the fastest will get the most hits. Utalizing combined arms and maneuver warfare, the side that can keep the other pinned down long enough to flank, or call for fire or CAS, gets more hits. Both scenario's dictate a HIGH ammo expenditure. The M-16 would be FAR superior than the M-14. Read about the advisers and SF guys that used it early in the war. I've ran across references over the years that state the M-16, and AK-47 had double the hit percentage of the M-14. I'll put it to you this way, I've never met a legit SF, Recon, Advisor or otherwise high speed guy from that era that did not like the M-16. I have met a TON of guys that were drafted that thought it was a shitty rifle. I think everyone is well versed with the cleaning kit, and powder change issue. If those would not have been a problem the M-16 would have stomped a mudhole in the M-14's ass, like the M-16A2 can do today. Well said. I once talked to a man who (during that era) first served as a Marine, then went on to become a Ranger and eventually ended up in SF. And I've always remembered how I thought his response to the M14 v. M16 question (which I asked) was so interesting, as he described the point in time when he (they) "graduated" to the M16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:42:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mean that 5.56 is underpowered by comparison to the bigger calibers.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Compared with the 308 and 7.62x39 yes.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand your thought process. What "issue" are you trying to solve? Well the m16's shortcomings seemed like they were. 1.Reliability 2. Ammunition power I've talked with some Vietnam vets and the only complaint they had was the M14 was too damn heavy.
Seriously? .308? You do realize that .308 and 7.62x51, which the M14 fired, are virtually the same, don't you? I misunderstood. Sorry. 
But I would still rather have had the M16 than the M14, even back then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:42:58 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: We would have been better off with the FAL. In .270! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:45:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The first M16 was a rush job and Colt really threw our troops under the bus during the early years of Vietnam. Even though I am not a Colt fan, I won't throw them under that bus. Most of the problems were McNamara and the "whiz kids" and ordnance morons enamored with range. The design and the manufacturing were just fine. McNamara would not let Colt take the time to chrome line the barrel or chamber, said it added too much time, etc. So, rather than blame Colt, the blame lies with the Ordnance Dept and the whiz kids. However, in the very early days of the AR-15 (1961-63), Colt did market it as a "self-cleaning" rifle. Someone in the Retro forum posted a magazine article from that era where a Colt rep makes that very claim.
Which is why they didn't issue cleaning kits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:45:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I mean that 5.56 is underpowered by comparison to the bigger calibers.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Compared with the 308 and 7.62x39 yes.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand your thought process. What "issue" are you trying to solve? Well the m16's shortcomings seemed like they were. 1.Reliability 2. Ammunition power I've talked with some Vietnam vets and the only complaint they had was the M14 was too damn heavy.
Seriously? .308? You do realize that .308 and 7.62x51, which the M14 fired, are virtually the same, don't you? Kinetic energy =/= wounding potential. M193 out of the M-16 tended to penetrate a few inches, yaw, and fragment causing large permament cavities. M43 and similar 7.62x39mm penetrates and tumbles, but doesn't fragment in soft tissue, so you get smaller permanent cavities. M80 ball in the 7.62x51mm also penetrates and tumbles without fragmenting. M193 performs better than M80, particularly in targets with not very much body mass. There are some good reasons the Soviets developed the 5.45x39mm after seeing what 5.56x45mm did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:45:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The first M16 was a rush job and Colt really threw our troops under the bus during the early years of Vietnam. Even though I am not a Colt fan, I won't throw them under that bus. Most of the problems were McNamara and the "whiz kids" and ordnance morons enamored with range. The design and the manufacturing were just fine. McNamara would not let Colt take the time to chrome line the barrel or chamber, said it added too much time, etc. So, rather than blame Colt, the blame lies with the Ordnance Dept and the whiz kids. However, in the very early days of the AR-15 (1961-63), Colt did market it as a "self-cleaning" rifle. Someone in the Retro forum posted a magazine article from that era where a Colt rep makes that very claim.
Regardless, the Army should have known better and not fallen for that shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:46:25 PM EDT
[#26]
I think the M16 was fine for the type of war we were fighting. Suppressive fire and recon by fire were aided by a higher round count per loadout ratio. On top of that the recoil issue for those kinds of things is reduced as well with the 5.56.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:47:24 PM EDT
[#27]
If you had to carry 300 rounds ammo. 300rds of 7.62 is pretty heavy, 300rds of 5.56 is doable. That is on top of everything else you have to carry.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:47:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Look at what rifles are in #1 and #2 respectively The M14 was outdated before issue, we all loved the Garand, and it should have had a detachable magazine to begin with, but trying to make that happen 20 years too late wasn't a solution to the modern fighters needs, as proven by the last 40 years of small arms adaptation by most of the world. Taking 30 cal rifles and popping shots at each other over no mans land from the trenches isn't all that practical anymore with modern highly mobile forces with sophisticated support networks. Just for the record, those "Top Ten" videos that the Discovery/Military Channel Produces are often full of inaccurate info, regardless of the topic. Not saying that their choices in this case are wrong, but I would never point to one of their videos to back up my argument. The people who produce those usually have little to no interest or knowledge of military history and are simply cranking out another video to pay the bills. (Ask me how I know...) Just sayin'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:50:36 PM EDT
[#29]
IMHO the M-16, issued as designed with a chrome barrel, the correct powder, 30 round mags, and a slowed down cyclic rate for full auto would have been pretty damn good to go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:51:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
We would have been better off with the FAL. Well ur dream almost came true.
Go traditional arfcom, and get both !! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:56:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
M16 > M14 M16 was pretty much THE PERFECT rifle for Vietnam. Close enough for the times. Chrome lining helped. AND - had they used the ammo that Stoner specified, there would have been far fewer complaints. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:57:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We would have been better off with the FAL. Well ur dream almost came true. Go traditional arfcom, and get both !! http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c110/young-kiwi/BANG/Vietnam-8.jpg http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c110/young-kiwi/BANG/Vietnam-5.jpg http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c110/young-kiwi/BANG/soldiers-bananas.jpg http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c110/young-kiwi/BANG/officers-v4.jpg http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c110/young-kiwi/BANG/Vietnam-2.jpg http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c110/young-kiwi/BANG/Vietnam-1.jpg More Aussie M16/FAL goodness (SAS in this case):    |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 4:58:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Major Dick Culver's CSP website has an article jeweler about the initial issue of M-16's to the Maine Corp in 66-67. They (2nd Marines, IIRC) were issued a slick side M-16, no forward assist, no chrome chamber. Each soldier got one cleaning rod and TWO twenty round magazines. There were NO spare magazines or cleaning rods. The Marines were issued 240 additional rounds of ammunition to reload their magazines, but the ammo came in 20-Rd boxes, no stripper clips. Major Culver said that so many marines were killed, that the surviving troops quickly scavenged addition mags from fallen comrades, and used loops of 100-mph tape to secure cleaning rods to the sides of their rifles to punch out FTE brass casings from the un-chromed rifle chambers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 5:02:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Yeah the M14 was heavier but if you had taken the extra weight away would troops in Vietnam been better with the m14? No. We'd have been better off without the military messing with the ammo and properly training soldiers and Marines on the M16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 5:06:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Yeah the M14 was heavier but if you had taken the extra weight away would troops in Vietnam been better with the m14? no they would not over 10 million Ar15s/M16s made, in use in over 90 countries, in combat since at least 65?? and the m14 is ..... still an over weight, obsolete, not that accurate, turd best left for the KD range and parade grounds |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 6:43:43 PM EDT
[#36]
My buddy Bruce was in Nam in 68, he liked his M16. Said it never failed to work when he needed to.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 6:46:27 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
M16 > M14 M16 was pretty much THE PERFECT rifle for Vietnam. I gotta agree with this, big time...especially the M16A1. I just wish adequate cleaning supplies/training/ammo was issued with them from the very beginning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 6:49:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: And yet they brought it out of mothballs so what does that tell you?Quoted: Yeah the M14 was heavier but if you had taken the extra weight away would troops in Vietnam been better with the m14? no they would not over 10 million Ar15s/M16s made, in use in over 90 countries, in combat since at least 65?? and the m14 is ..... still an over weight, obsolete, not that accurate, turd best left for the KD range and parade grounds I still prefer the AK over the M16.......Yup I like dirty commie weapons.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 6:55:18 PM EDT
[#39]
For fun...gunny's take on the issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:04:45 PM EDT
[#40]
I cant believe noone mentioned the el-cheapo magazines that big army issued (and which led to many many feed jams) to save money vs Colt mags.
I cant believe the Army was (until very recently) doing the same damn thing with our guys M9 sidearms. 1) No cleaning 2) Cheap Magazines 3) Ball Powder 4) Non chrome lined barrels 5) Conscript soldiers All these combined with the hot, humid environment to create a perfect storm of unreliability that had very very little do with the rifle itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:07:39 PM EDT
[#41]
We would have been better off if Nixon had bombed all the way up to Beijing!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:07:46 PM EDT
[#42]
;
Quoted: I don't understand your thought process. What "issue" are you trying to solve? My old man was quite happy with his M16 in Vietnam. The only negative he had with it is the same one I have; he's lefty and so am I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:09:06 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet they brought it out of mothballs so what does that tell you?
Quoted:
Yeah the M14 was heavier but if you had taken the extra weight away would troops in Vietnam been better with the m14? no they would not over 10 million Ar15s/M16s made, in use in over 90 countries, in combat since at least 65?? and the m14 is ..... still an over weight, obsolete, not that accurate, turd best left for the KD range and parade grounds I still prefer the AK over the M16.......Yup I like dirty commie weapons.
It tells me that they had a shitload of 7.62x51 rifles in storage, so they dusted them off and made them into DMR rifles, mainly for the heavier caliber. They already had them, did not have to buy them or wait to get them. And you last sentence should just flat out DQ you from further comment in your own thread. You real agenda rears its ugly head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:11:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Well that was...entertaining. It was also 30 minutes of absolute bullshit in a 5 minute video :p |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:11:29 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
I cant believe noone mentioned the el-cheapo magazines that big army issued (and which led to many many feed jams) to save money vs Colt mags. I cant believe the Army was (until very recently) doing the same damn thing with our guys M9 sidearms. 1) No cleaning 2) Cheap Magazines 3) Ball Powder 4) Non chrome lined barrels 5) Conscript soldiers All these combined with the hot, humid environment to create a perfect storm of unreliability that had very very little do with the rifle itself. The "conscript soldiers" didn't have shit to do with it. Still better trained than the other guys. Seems that a lot of people on here like to take potshots as those who served in 'nam. Still being treated like shit after all these years. It seems that people never use "conscript soldiers" to describe WWII vets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:11:29 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And yet they brought it out of mothballs so what does that tell you?Quoted: Yeah the M14 was heavier but if you had taken the extra weight away would troops in Vietnam been better with the m14? no they would not over 10 million Ar15s/M16s made, in use in over 90 countries, in combat since at least 65?? and the m14 is ..... still an over weight, obsolete, not that accurate, turd best left for the KD range and parade grounds I still prefer the AK over the M16.......Yup I like dirty commie weapons. It tells me that they had a shitload of 7.62x51 rifles in storage, so they dusted them off and made them into DMR rifles, mainly for the heavier caliber. They already had them, did not have to buy them or wait to get them. And you last sentence should just flat out DQ you from further comment in your own thread. You real agenda rears its ugly head. I said I preferred it over the m16 I didn't say I hated it. A M16a1 build is on the list down the line after the FAL is built. For god sake mate my screen name has the word Saiga in it! I figured that would be a hint I like AK'S |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:13:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet they brought it out of mothballs so what does that tell you?
Quoted:
Yeah the M14 was heavier but if you had taken the extra weight away would troops in Vietnam been better with the m14? no they would not over 10 million Ar15s/M16s made, in use in over 90 countries, in combat since at least 65?? and the m14 is ..... still an over weight, obsolete, not that accurate, turd best left for the KD range and parade grounds I still prefer the AK over the M16.......Yup I like dirty commie weapons.
It tells me that they had a shitload of 7.62x51 rifles in storage, so they dusted them off and made them into DMR rifles, mainly for the heavier caliber. They already had them, did not have to buy them or wait to get them. And you last sentence should just flat out DQ you from further comment in your own thread. You real agenda rears its ugly head. I said I preferred it over the m16 I didn't say I hated it. A M16a1 build is on the list down the line after the FAL is built. For god sake mate my screen name has the word Saiga in it! I figured that would be a hint I like AK'S You didn't address my response to "what does that tell you". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:16:34 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And yet they brought it out of mothballs so what does that tell you?Quoted: Yeah the M14 was heavier but if you had taken the extra weight away would troops in Vietnam been better with the m14? no they would not over 10 million Ar15s/M16s made, in use in over 90 countries, in combat since at least 65?? and the m14 is ..... still an over weight, obsolete, not that accurate, turd best left for the KD range and parade grounds I still prefer the AK over the M16.......Yup I like dirty commie weapons. It tells me that they had a shitload of 7.62x51 rifles in storage, so they dusted them off and made them into DMR rifles, mainly for the heavier caliber. They already had them, did not have to buy them or wait to get them. And you last sentence should just flat out DQ you from further comment in your own thread. You real agenda rears its ugly head. I said I preferred it over the m16 I didn't say I hated it. A M16a1 build is on the list down the line after the FAL is built. For god sake mate my screen name has the word Saiga in it! I figured that would be a hint I like AK'S You didn't address my response to "what does that tell you". They make it seem like a lot of em went to special forces? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:17:51 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And yet they brought it out of mothballs so what does that tell you?
Quoted:
Yeah the M14 was heavier but if you had taken the extra weight away would troops in Vietnam been better with the m14? no they would not over 10 million Ar15s/M16s made, in use in over 90 countries, in combat since at least 65?? and the m14 is ..... still an over weight, obsolete, not that accurate, turd best left for the KD range and parade grounds I still prefer the AK over the M16.......Yup I like dirty commie weapons.
It tells me that they had a shitload of 7.62x51 rifles in storage, so they dusted them off and made them into DMR rifles, mainly for the heavier caliber. They already had them, did not have to buy them or wait to get them. And you last sentence should just flat out DQ you from further comment in your own thread. You real agenda rears its ugly head. I said I preferred it over the m16 I didn't say I hated it. A M16a1 build is on the list down the line after the FAL is built. For god sake mate my screen name has the word Saiga in it! I figured that would be a hint I like AK'S You didn't address my response to "what does that tell you". They make it seem like a lot of em went to special forces?
Some did, again as DMR rifles simply because of the heavier caliber. Again though, they were already paid for long ago, the only reason they brought them out of mothballs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:19:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey never bothered the Rhodesians or the Aussies. Quoted:
We would have been better off with the FAL.  
The Aussies acquired M-16s in pretty significant numbers during Vietnam. My guess is they simply stole a lot of them. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
