User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:02:10 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:12:04 AM EDT
[#1]
First legitimate ARFCOM boating accident?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:24:17 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First legitimate ARFCOM boating accident? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:32:16 AM EDT
[#3]
30 min in a sonic cleaner ought to do it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:49:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Is the carry handle broken or is it a 656?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:57:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is the carry handle broken or is it a 656? Looks as if corrosion has eaten it away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:59:21 AM EDT
[#6]
Funny, in the "weathered receiver" thread, I just mentioned something, wondering how many M16's were lying around Vietnam....
Probably a round in the chamber of that thing too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:14:31 AM EDT
[#7]
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:27:06 AM EDT
[#8]
Ahhh... so which of you plan on replicating that battle field pickup?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:34:41 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:58:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ahhh... so which of you plan on replicating that battle field pickup? I live on the coast of NC. I can donate oyster shells to the project. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:03:40 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Wonder if it still fires? Nah, aint an ak 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:08:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nah, aint an ak Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wonder if it still fires? Nah, aint an ak +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 10:32:12 AM EDT
[#13]
I wonder if some ARVN threw there weapons in the river when the NVA came rolling into town in 75.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 10:40:51 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Ill second the 
Why even lurk in this part if you hate the M16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 10:56:33 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ill second the
Why even lurk in this part if you hate the M16. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Ill second the
Why even lurk in this part if you hate the M16. Indeed. Thirded.
::shrug:: Personally, I'm consistently baffled by the near-legendary reputation of the M14... they didn't impress me as a cadet, and they didn't impress me overseas. Generational differences, maybe. ~Augee |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 11:05:06 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Somebody get a rope! 
He does realize this is "AR15.com" right? 13ers will never stop being 13ers 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 11:15:28 AM EDT
[#17]
I bet there is a edgewater and a chrome BCG in that mess!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 12:08:45 PM EDT
[#18]
I think the pistol grip and buttstock are still servicable, maybe even the handguards. Wonder if it does have a chrome bolt carrier group? Would it be servicable as well? The port door appears to be still present and closed that helps. I don't know the corrosion point of chrome or resistance if thats a better term.
ETA: It's clearly a broken carry handle when you look close and enlarge it, probably broke during a fall or when a fisherman snagged and dragged it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:30:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ill second the
Why even lurk in this part if you hate the M16. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Ill second the
Why even lurk in this part if you hate the M16. I just wish they had issued me any thing I only had 20 F4E's with GE M61A1"s LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:52:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Hey now. I love M16s as much as the next guy, but I make small holes in paper while sitting comfortably at a bench in the shade.
I'll parrot some stuff my dad always told me about it. The early mags they were given had feeding issues. The fiberglass stock might be nice for weight, but was not as useful as a a solid wooden stock up close. He prefered the M14. The main downside to the M14 was it's length. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:21:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey now. I love M16s as much as the next guy, but I make small holes in paper while sitting comfortably at a bench in the shade. I'll parrot some stuff my dad always told me about it. The early mags they were given had feeding issues. The fiberglass stock might be nice for weight, but was not as useful as a a solid wooden stock up close. He prefered the M14. The main downside to the M14 was it's length. And the weight of the rifle, magazines, and ammunition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 4:18:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the weight of the rifle, magazines, and ammunition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hey now. I love M16s as much as the next guy, but I make small holes in paper while sitting comfortably at a bench in the shade. I'll parrot some stuff my dad always told me about it. The early mags they were given had feeding issues. The fiberglass stock might be nice for weight, but was not as useful as a a solid wooden stock up close. He prefered the M14. The main downside to the M14 was it's length. And the weight of the rifle, magazines, and ammunition. Yep, I believe a grunt could carry 3x the ammo for the M16 than M14 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:27:48 PM EDT
[#23]
There have been stories/Urban legends about finding a M2 .50 cal in a European river, changing out the springs, and it was good to go....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:46:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Have used both overseas, and I can't disagree more. M14 is a non-starter, unless you're a DM or Sniper, and get a hand-selected National Match M14 with a solid optics mount, with a solid scope. As a service rifle, it is an abortion of epic proportions and colossal magnitude, only capable of by the government and their Army Ordnance Board. Quoted:
Hey now. I love M16s as much as the next guy, but I make small holes in paper while sitting comfortably at a bench in the shade. I'll parrot some stuff my dad always told me about it. The early mags they were given had feeding issues. The fiberglass stock might be nice for weight, but was not as useful as a a solid wooden stock up close. He prefered the M14. The main downside to the M14 was it's length. I can't tell you how many vets I've heard this from, only to repeat it myself, until I had to deal with the thing in the real world. The action is garbage, invites every piece of debris easy access into the most critical parts, like the bolt and the magazine, with the chamber right there. Needs to be maintained like nobody's business, especially in wet environments. Sand will lock it up in a heartbeat, especially beach sand. Safety is inside the trigger guard, gas system is almost as bad as an M60's, recoil system is complicated and connected to the front of the magazine? Length and weight are problematic for smaller soldiers, sucks for close quarters, or any infantry battle drills for that matter. Makes a nostalgic rifle for shooting on sunny days on freshly cut grass ranges in la la land though. Shoots itself out of an accuracy node, meaning a node of parts that were accurate at one time (talking NM guns now, not rack-grade garbage), then needs servicing by a gifted armorer with a lot of training, not some camouflaged welfare recipient marking time until his ETS date. I like the feel of the rifle having grown up on a Model 70 and traditional steel/wood rifles, and I like the sight above bore height on it. Everything else is feces with the design, and should have been aborted at birth by the proper oversight, but was allowed to metastasize into the unholy creature that it is. Other than those few minor details, it's a great rifle!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:48:06 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There have been stories/Urban legends about finding a M2 .50 cal in a European river, changing out the springs, and it was good to go.... Irish bog... wow |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:49:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wonder if it still fires? Nah, aint an ak +1 -2 every steel part of the AK would have been oxidized and irreparably unserviceable. Ever spend any time with an AK in the field in a wet environment? They are pieces of garbage, especially the Chinese Type 56 copies that were so prevalent in SEA. Biggest propaganda campaign ever perpetrated on the West, right next to our "democracy". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 11:48:34 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ill second the
Why even lurk in this part if you hate the M16. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Ill second the
Why even lurk in this part if you hate the M16. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1613277_Are_13_ers_ever_going_to_stop_13_ing_.html&page=3#i46811840 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:07:17 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have used both overseas, and I can't disagree more. M14 is a non-starter, unless you're a DM or Sniper, and get a hand-selected National Match M14 with a solid optics mount, with a solid scope. As a service rifle, it is an abortion of epic proportions and colossal magnitude, only capable of by the government and their Army Ordnance Board. I can't tell you how many vets I've heard this from, only to repeat it myself, until I had to deal with the thing in the real world. The action is garbage, invites every piece of debris easy access into the most critical parts, like the bolt and the magazine, with the chamber right there. Needs to be maintained like nobody's business, especially in wet environments. Sand will lock it up in a heartbeat, especially beach sand. Safety is inside the trigger guard, gas system is almost as bad as an M60's, recoil system is complicated and connected to the front of the magazine? Length and weight are problematic for smaller soldiers, sucks for close quarters, or any infantry battle drills for that matter. Makes a nostalgic rifle for shooting on sunny days on freshly cut grass ranges in la la land though. Shoots itself out of an accuracy node, meaning a node of parts that were accurate at one time (talking NM guns now, not rack-grade garbage), then needs servicing by a gifted armorer with a lot of training, not some camouflaged welfare recipient marking time until his ETS date. I like the feel of the rifle having grown up on a Model 70 and traditional steel/wood rifles, and I like the sight above bore height on it. Everything else is feces with the design, and should have been aborted at birth by the proper oversight, but was allowed to metastasize into the unholy creature that it is. Other than those few minor details, it's a great rifle!
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Have used both overseas, and I can't disagree more. M14 is a non-starter, unless you're a DM or Sniper, and get a hand-selected National Match M14 with a solid optics mount, with a solid scope. As a service rifle, it is an abortion of epic proportions and colossal magnitude, only capable of by the government and their Army Ordnance Board. Quoted:
Hey now. I love M16s as much as the next guy, but I make small holes in paper while sitting comfortably at a bench in the shade. I'll parrot some stuff my dad always told me about it. The early mags they were given had feeding issues. The fiberglass stock might be nice for weight, but was not as useful as a a solid wooden stock up close. He prefered the M14. The main downside to the M14 was it's length. I can't tell you how many vets I've heard this from, only to repeat it myself, until I had to deal with the thing in the real world. The action is garbage, invites every piece of debris easy access into the most critical parts, like the bolt and the magazine, with the chamber right there. Needs to be maintained like nobody's business, especially in wet environments. Sand will lock it up in a heartbeat, especially beach sand. Safety is inside the trigger guard, gas system is almost as bad as an M60's, recoil system is complicated and connected to the front of the magazine? Length and weight are problematic for smaller soldiers, sucks for close quarters, or any infantry battle drills for that matter. Makes a nostalgic rifle for shooting on sunny days on freshly cut grass ranges in la la land though. Shoots itself out of an accuracy node, meaning a node of parts that were accurate at one time (talking NM guns now, not rack-grade garbage), then needs servicing by a gifted armorer with a lot of training, not some camouflaged welfare recipient marking time until his ETS date. I like the feel of the rifle having grown up on a Model 70 and traditional steel/wood rifles, and I like the sight above bore height on it. Everything else is feces with the design, and should have been aborted at birth by the proper oversight, but was allowed to metastasize into the unholy creature that it is. Other than those few minor details, it's a great rifle!
You mad bro? With that all said, lets face it....the M16 isn't the picture of perfect health of a battle rifle either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:08:51 AM EDT
[#29]
And control ability under full auto
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the weight of the rifle, magazines, and ammunition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hey now. I love M16s as much as the next guy, but I make small holes in paper while sitting comfortably at a bench in the shade. I'll parrot some stuff my dad always told me about it. The early mags they were given had feeding issues. The fiberglass stock might be nice for weight, but was not as useful as a a solid wooden stock up close. He prefered the M14. The main downside to the M14 was it's length. And the weight of the rifle, magazines, and ammunition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:47:41 AM EDT
[#30]
By the looks of it, my guess is it was found in an area of the Huong that's close to the coast and affected by saltwater intrusion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:10:04 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By the looks of it, my guess is it was found in an area of the Huong that's close to the coast and affected by saltwater intrusion. If only it could talk..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:36:40 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mad bro? With that all said, lets face it....the M16 isn't the picture of perfect health of a battle rifle either. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip You mad bro? With that all said, lets face it....the M16 isn't the picture of perfect health of a battle rifle either. Also, your second line. The M-16 is a culmination of the study of the failure of "battle rifles" over two world wars. It is designed around minimizing shortcomings and maximizing what is useful. The irony of "Battle rifles" is that it's been shown that low capacity, heavy, large round rifles are actually shitty for use in battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:03:06 AM EDT
[#33]
When I was working in Cambodia clearing land mines in the early to mid-90s, we put together an AK47 out of parts we turned-up with the metal detectors in the minefields. Looked like hell - rusty, no hand guard or butt stock, but it did fire (tied to a tree and with a long string, mind you). Of course the Khmer Rouge were still fighting the government at that time, so no way to tell how long (or short) some of those parts had been in the ground.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:32:23 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, he knows what he's talking about. Also, your second line. The M-16 is a culmination of the study of the failure of "battle rifles" over two world wars. It is designed around minimizing shortcomings and maximizing what is useful. The irony of "Battle rifles" is that it's been shown that low capacity, heavy, large round rifles are actually shitty for use in battle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip You mad bro? With that all said, lets face it....the M16 isn't the picture of perfect health of a battle rifle either. Also, your second line. The M-16 is a culmination of the study of the failure of "battle rifles" over two world wars. It is designed around minimizing shortcomings and maximizing what is useful. The irony of "Battle rifles" is that it's been shown that low capacity, heavy, large round rifles are actually shitty for use in battle. Did I say he was wrong? Did I say the M14 was any better? Easy guys it's not my first rodeo. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:36:49 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did I say he was wrong? Did I say the M14 was any better? Easy guys it's not my first rodeo. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: snip You mad bro? With that all said, lets face it....the M16 isn't the picture of perfect health of a battle rifle either. Also, your second line. The M-16 is a culmination of the study of the failure of "battle rifles" over two world wars. It is designed around minimizing shortcomings and maximizing what is useful. The irony of "Battle rifles" is that it's been shown that low capacity, heavy, large round rifles are actually shitty for use in battle. Did I say he was wrong? Did I say the M14 was any better? Easy guys it's not my first rodeo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:39:48 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You heavily implied it, then attempted to add justification by denigrating a rifle that was designed around all the shortcomings of the M-14. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
snip You mad bro? With that all said, lets face it....the M16 isn't the picture of perfect health of a battle rifle either. Also, your second line. The M-16 is a culmination of the study of the failure of "battle rifles" over two world wars. It is designed around minimizing shortcomings and maximizing what is useful. The irony of "Battle rifles" is that it's been shown that low capacity, heavy, large round rifles are actually shitty for use in battle. Did I say he was wrong? Did I say the M14 was any better? Easy guys it's not my first rodeo. I think you need to reread what I wrote. I simply implied the M16 isn't perfect as well. Is any battle rifle truly perfect? Sounds like it's getting personal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:52:45 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think you need to reread what I wrote. I simply implied the M16 isn't perfect as well. Is any battle rifle truly perfect? Sounds like it's getting personal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:snip I think you need to reread what I wrote. I simply implied the M16 isn't perfect as well. Is any battle rifle truly perfect? Sounds like it's getting personal. Why would you think that's personal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:01:07 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or you made an offhand comment not based in fact and were not prepared for anyone to point that out. Why would you think that's personal? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:snip
I think you need to reread what I wrote. I simply implied the M16 isn't perfect as well. Is any battle rifle truly perfect? Sounds like it's getting personal. Why would you think that's personal? You sir are taking this way out context. No hidden meanings, no cryptic offhand comments. My comment is based on the fact that is any battle rifle truly perfect? While the M16 was developed with improvements over the M14, it in itself isn't perfect. Personal? The way your implying your comments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:35:45 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have used both overseas, and I can't disagree more. M14 is a non-starter, unless you're a DM or Sniper, and get a hand-selected National Match M14 with a solid optics mount, with a solid scope. As a service rifle, it is an abortion of epic proportions and colossal magnitude, only capable of by the government and their Army Ordnance Board. I can't tell you how many vets I've heard this from, only to repeat it myself, until I had to deal with the thing in the real world. The action is garbage, invites every piece of debris easy access into the most critical parts, like the bolt and the magazine, with the chamber right there. Needs to be maintained like nobody's business, especially in wet environments. Sand will lock it up in a heartbeat, especially beach sand. Safety is inside the trigger guard, gas system is almost as bad as an M60's, recoil system is complicated and connected to the front of the magazine? Length and weight are problematic for smaller soldiers, sucks for close quarters, or any infantry battle drills for that matter. Makes a nostalgic rifle for shooting on sunny days on freshly cut grass ranges in la la land though. Shoots itself out of an accuracy node, meaning a node of parts that were accurate at one time (talking NM guns now, not rack-grade garbage), then needs servicing by a gifted armorer with a lot of training, not some camouflaged welfare recipient marking time until his ETS date. I like the feel of the rifle having grown up on a Model 70 and traditional steel/wood rifles, and I like the sight above bore height on it. Everything else is feces with the design, and should have been aborted at birth by the proper oversight, but was allowed to metastasize into the unholy creature that it is. Other than those few minor details, it's a great rifle!
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Have used both overseas, and I can't disagree more. M14 is a non-starter, unless you're a DM or Sniper, and get a hand-selected National Match M14 with a solid optics mount, with a solid scope. As a service rifle, it is an abortion of epic proportions and colossal magnitude, only capable of by the government and their Army Ordnance Board. Quoted:
Hey now. I love M16s as much as the next guy, but I make small holes in paper while sitting comfortably at a bench in the shade. I'll parrot some stuff my dad always told me about it. The early mags they were given had feeding issues. The fiberglass stock might be nice for weight, but was not as useful as a a solid wooden stock up close. He prefered the M14. The main downside to the M14 was it's length. I can't tell you how many vets I've heard this from, only to repeat it myself, until I had to deal with the thing in the real world. The action is garbage, invites every piece of debris easy access into the most critical parts, like the bolt and the magazine, with the chamber right there. Needs to be maintained like nobody's business, especially in wet environments. Sand will lock it up in a heartbeat, especially beach sand. Safety is inside the trigger guard, gas system is almost as bad as an M60's, recoil system is complicated and connected to the front of the magazine? Length and weight are problematic for smaller soldiers, sucks for close quarters, or any infantry battle drills for that matter. Makes a nostalgic rifle for shooting on sunny days on freshly cut grass ranges in la la land though. Shoots itself out of an accuracy node, meaning a node of parts that were accurate at one time (talking NM guns now, not rack-grade garbage), then needs servicing by a gifted armorer with a lot of training, not some camouflaged welfare recipient marking time until his ETS date. I like the feel of the rifle having grown up on a Model 70 and traditional steel/wood rifles, and I like the sight above bore height on it. Everything else is feces with the design, and should have been aborted at birth by the proper oversight, but was allowed to metastasize into the unholy creature that it is. Other than those few minor details, it's a great rifle!
That's the facts of things, might as well make them the theory of things, too. One of the things I took away from my little bit was how few combat veterans who had used M14's at the start of Viet Nam and M16's during the middle or end of it, had any great burning desire to effect a retrograde movement back to the M14. Even after all the celebrated failures of the M16 early on. That speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 4:56:11 AM EDT
[#40]
Ya gotta love how the simplest threads turn into a chest thumping contest around here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:01:16 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ya gotta love how the simplest threads turn into a chest thumping contest around here. My apologies if my comments are regarded as chest thumping. Never was the intention. I will bow out of the thread. Never intended to engage in a thread pissing match. I've always felt that doing so was like pissing on and electric fence with a head wind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:09:41 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" But you didn't. And chances are you haven't gone anywhere else either, troll. I carried an M14 for a good part of a year. Definitely not on my list of something I want to do again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 6:55:04 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Ill second the
Why even lurk in this part if you hate the M16. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1613277_Are_13_ers_ever_going_to_stop_13_ing_.html&page=3#i46811840 After a few years here some of the more colorful personalities get banned from GD. That includes me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 7:00:39 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After a few years here some of the more colorful personalities get banned from GD. That includes me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
that's where my m16 wouldve been found if i'd gone to VN, "give me my m14 back please" Ill second the
Why even lurk in this part if you hate the M16. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1613277_Are_13_ers_ever_going_to_stop_13_ing_.html&page=3#i46811840 After a few years here some of the more colorful personalities get banned from GD. That includes me. Guess it depends if someone public announces its their intention to troll. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 9:01:41 AM EDT
[#45]
The M-14 would have well suited to fight WW2.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:06:18 PM EDT
[#46]
I still want an M1A1 - no matter what you guys say. Olgunner has both M1A1 and AR10 and needless to say prefers the AR10. It's taken me awhile to come around to the DI school of thought, but the AR really is a good design. Regardless, if I had the coin, I'd buy an LRB M25 'Tanker' in a red hot minute. It's not the instrument guys - it's the musician.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 1:01:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Wow this thread went of course quickly...i'll just throw in my 2 cents. I've never carried either in combat but every M16/AR variant i've ever used has never let me down. All modern rifles seem to go through a period of transition from prototypes with issues to fully fledged weapons. The M16 was one of the first and most high profile of the modern era.
The FAMAS, G36 and even the venerable FAL all had teething issues and the first two still continue to have them. The M16 gets a bum deal on being finnicky and unreliable but i've yet to have any issues and other than reading some material i have yet to meet someone who has used one in combat and has complained about it. MY FINAL NOTE: Just be glad you didn't have to carry an L85A1 like i did! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 1:27:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Never had the M16A2 fail me in combat in OIF. Went bang everytime. If your smart you clean it everyday and after every mission outside the wire. Your life may depend on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 1:31:40 PM EDT
[#49]
The US Rifle Cal30M1 was, in it's time, the epitome of technology and arguably the best infantry weapon fielded in WWII. But it had it's limitations.
The M14 was an attempt to improve that weapon system but had it's limitations as well. The M16 was another attempt to field the "perfect weapon system". The M1 was in service from 1936 (limited production) to 1957 as the standard service rifle. 21 years. The M14 was in service from 1959 to 1964 as the standard service rifle. 5 years. The M16 "weapon system" has been the standard service rifle in one form or another from 1964 to present. 50 years. FIFTY YEARS with only minor changes to make it more useful in different roles. The heart of a M4 is the same as the heart of a Mean Green 601. FIFTY YEARS! I LOVE my M1 Garand (and M1 Carbines) and I would LOVE to one day have an M1A and one of EVERY small arm ever fielded by the United States Military but NEVER in the history of the United States Military has there been a service rifle that has remained on the front lines for FIFTY FUGGIN YEARS! The system may not be without flaws but I proffer it has shown that it is in fact a far superior weapon than those that came before it. That being said I STILL love wood and steel weapons! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 1:56:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You sir are taking this way out context. No hidden meanings, no cryptic offhand comments. My comment is based on the fact that is any battle rifle truly perfect? While the M16 was developed with improvements over the M14, it in itself isn't perfect. Personal? The way your implying your comments. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:snip I think you need to reread what I wrote. I simply implied the M16 isn't perfect as well. Is any battle rifle truly perfect? Sounds like it's getting personal. Why would you think that's personal? You sir are taking this way out context. No hidden meanings, no cryptic offhand comments. My comment is based on the fact that is any battle rifle truly perfect? While the M16 was developed with improvements over the M14, it in itself isn't perfect. Personal? The way your implying your comments. The M-16 might not be perfect, but it's been the dominant rifle for 50 years around the globe. |
|
|
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.
