Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 9/23/2001 5:39:46 PM EST
Forgive me... I really enjoy the M96. I have been a proponent of the rifle for a little while now. Don't get me wrong, I still love my AR's, but I read an review on another forum that had an interesting and different perspecitve than most who have replied on past threads. Though I would share it with you... http://www.biggerhammer.net/m96/wwwboard/index.cgi?read=2196
Link Posted: 9/23/2001 5:51:08 PM EST
"I purchased an M96 early last year. I got a great deal on a new rifle cause the shop owner couldn't move it. (the M96 was too unfamiliar to his customers) I was in the shop cause the owner is a full auto collector with alot of interesting s***. I had seen them in the gunrags but had never handled one. I immediatly fell in love with it! I was in the Marines for six years, 0311 and 0331. I have carried in the field and shot extensively the M16A2 series, the FN M249SAW. When I went to the Machine gun section of my company, (we were short on 0331's and had to fill our crew serves to TO&E first, so I lucked out and moved over), I had the "pleasure" to carry and employ the M60E3 and when they were replaced the FN M240G (basically the FN MAG). I consider myself very well versed in infantry weapons. The M96 is a superb weapon... when you pick it up it feels like a shooters weapon, a little barrel heavy, thats good for control in rapid fire shooting, it feels good in the shoulder, low recoil (plus the adjustable gas system, like the FN weapons). It has a quickly replced barrel(nice feeling of familiarity to a machine gunner), good adjustable front sights for a BZO (more later), overall very robust. Now for all you who complain about the lack of a bolt release (only the M16 has a bolt release), the M249, M60, M240 are all open bolt weapons, it seems the M96 tends to float more naturally to the open bolt family of weapon even though it is not one. The reciever construction materials and finish are in line with a SAW, the take down pins are damn near exactly the same style as in the M240. The barrel lacks a carry handle to change it without gloves, no biggie just kick the red hot barrel free :), if anyone has noticed the new Special Ops SAW has no handle either, the Army is expecting them guys to just drop the barrel and leave it! The M249 functioned like shit with magazines, yet it is still loved by many, the M60E3's barrel was too light for sustained fire, it chewed up sears, broke operating rods, broke charging handles, shook parts loose, lost trigger housing retaing springs all the time, broke firing pins, lost feed tray cover parts that wore constantly as well, jammed like a b****, ran away in full auto, was prone to fouling, etc, etc. The M249 was hell to clean properly, the bipods sucked, you could lose the gas regulator off it, it too would jam if not cared for professionaly. Both the M60 and the M249 have rocketed barrels downrange on myself and my fellow Marines (all quick change barrels have this potential if you aren't well trained or careful). The M16A2 takes hours to clean, was tempermental in adverse enviornments, has a weak magazine system (sorry M96), oh and all you guys who love em for accuracy, the burst cam mechanism made the military model have a quirky trigger with three different pulls just to f*** with you on qualification day (the AR15 is blessed by not having this problem). Oh and that front sling swivel should be outlawed it makes to much noise (the M96 is rather quiet to carry, doesn't rattle too much). The M60 sucked but it had a good rate of fire 600RPM or so, where the M240 fired 1000RPM (translate that into more ammo to hump for the same combat time). The M240 was too heavy, the bipod sucked, shot great but the short bursts required for accurate fire and sustainment caused the sears to wear too quickly and the guns would run away. What all this is getting too is that no weapons system is perfect..."
Link Posted: 9/23/2001 5:53:37 PM EST
"...The M96 is no M16 yet it can suppliment it well due it the SAW nature of its heritage. It screams to be an open bolt full auto, oh and yes definitaly belt fed. The BREN looks interesting though. I like the different barrel configs, maybe I'll buy the recon kit and aquire a modified galil stock for it. You might consider a HK drum style rear sight, though I long for the "DIAL A DEATH A2" style rear sight, maybe a rear sight like on the FN SAW or M240, that would be accepable also. (guess you see I'm not too terribly fond of the rear sight) quickly adjustable rear sight ranging (M1 garand, M1 carbine, M14/M1A, M16A2, M240/M249, HK93) is crucial to field employment, optics are OK but not the be all end all. If you do the belt feed, and for the bren, you should do a buttstock with a offhand notch or hook like the M249 and with the flip up metal shoulder rest (M249) to better employ off a bipod. If and when you do a belt feed make sure you have a soft ammo case to go witht the weapon, saw boxes are loud and they can fall off at bad moments. Maybe a round knurled charging handle would be cool but thats not important just cosmetic. I have fired mine with 55gr and 63 gr SS109 and have just purchased 1000 rds of Wolf steel cased non-corrosive russian manufactured 62gr 5.56 (185$ not bad)if this ammo is a good shooter I might employ it alot due to the price and storage potential. I have not experienced any probs with this weapon but am interested in the op rod upgrade? In my opinion this is a weapon well worth the cost due to its high intrinsic value (just in its manufactured quality alone). This weapon is not a match rifle or a hunting arm, it fills a niche that is very military in nature due to its lineage to the 63A. I suspect that this weapon will be around as a cult weapon for a very long time..." Sorry for the many posts, but just wanted to share the interesting viewpoint. fuatos
Top Top