Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/15/2001 2:42:28 AM EDT
I would love to have my very own AR-15 in the near future and I'm not in the military yet. When I do serve, my issued M16 likely will be the first rifle I ever used(didnt grew up w/ firearms). I want to research as much about the rifle and 5.56's "wound ballistic". Naturally I utilized my cable modem before putting my pants on and visit the library. I came by this website: [url]http://www.classicfirearms.org/[/url] and found two topic in the forum: [url]http://www.classicfirearms.org/cgi-bin/messageboard/data/7.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.classicfirearms.org/cgi-bin/messageboard/data/46.shtml[/url] The opinions on M16 and 5.56mm NATO posted are generally negative and many seem to suggest the problems M16 had during Vietnam goes beyond "mis-management" and right down to the design. My friend told me "a lot" is the number of times his Army issued M16A2 had jammed on him during training (mainly due to faulty magazine though). I really would hate to feel they issue soldiers a dedicated weapon prone to jam that spit out varmint rounds... Anyway, here're some of my questions: It's widely said the gas system of M16 exhust gas into the bolt and easily foul up the action--which makes M16 a high-maintenance weapon. How much truth is in it? I don't know much about AK-47, but doesn't it have similar gas system w/ M16? The brass of 5.56 is supposedly softer and more prone to ding and dent, which increase the chance of a jam... Is this really a serious issue for 5.56mm? How effective is SS109/M855 on human target compare to M193? Well, those are questions I can think of right now anway. Thanks!
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 4:08:31 AM EDT
There are those who know much more about this subject than me, but this is what I have read. Eugene Stoner, the designer of the AR type rifle, set various specifications forth to the DOD when the rifle was put into service. Somewhere along the line, the Armed forces at that time changed some of those specs, without talking to Eugene Stoner. The fouling problem was caused by a powder that was not what Stoner specified. It was cheaper, but it was dirty burning. This was compounded by the fact that many of the rifles were not equipped with cleaning kits, another specification. The twist rate also was changed, out of intended spec. Eventually, the battlefield worked out these and any other bugs that were present and now you end up with a battle rifle that can be relied on. But, a bad mag is a bad mag, can't blame the rifle there.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 4:10:40 AM EDT
"The M16 is a piece of crap made by Mattel* It jams all the time and uses a tiny .22 caliber mousegun bullet. It was designed to only wound, not kill the ememy..." [@:D] " Back when I was in ...eh...Vietman, we used AK-47's that we picked up off dead gooks.." [):)] Bla Bla Bla
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 4:23:09 AM EDT
I have two AR15's with three uppers. One is a Colt 6601 Match HBAR, the other an Eagle Arms (pre-Armalite) with an Eagle Arms service rifle upper and a Bushmaster HBAR Carbine upper. All of these are exceedingly reliable, even when I "mix-n-match" uppers and lowers. They never jam and are probably the easiest wepaons I know of to strip down and clean. The open ended gas system does blow gas back into the acrion, but it also means no closed cylinder/piston you have to tear down to clean. It may sound evil to some, but these rifles get minimal maintenance, only cayse the don't require more. I bruash out & mop the barrel, pull & wipe down the bolt & carrier, then hose the whole thing down with Ed's Red, WD 40, CLP or whatever is handy. Every few hundred rounds I'll strip the bolt from the carriers and brush things out. That's about it. I also have used my AR's against live targets (pigs) with very good results. It kills them dead. I think you can carry your rifle in confidence that it will do what it is supposed to. And thank you in advance for your planned service to our nation!
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:01:21 AM EDT
The AR's we use where I work are pretty reliable (Colts and Bushys). We have the occasional jam, but I'd guess it comes out to less than 1 per 400 rounds fired. Not bad considering that we need to clean them a lot more often than we do. Hell, we actually have to induce jams to train our guys on how to clear them. As for wound ballistics, I've been told that the sonic wave created by the round will cause all sorts of trauma if it passes by your head. I've heard of people bleeding from the ears, some even dropping from a near miss like that. Can't speak from experience though. I swear by them as an urban weapon and consider them to be one of if not the most versatile weapon on the planet.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:07:40 AM EDT
Yes, it is a .22 caliber varmet round. But it is coming at you at the speed of 2900 feet per second!! Things going that fast have a tendancy to tumble when they strike something,hence a 1/4" hole easily turns into a 3-4" wound. If someone tells you the 5.56 round is useless, then offer to shoot them with it.[:)] sgtar15
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:15:36 AM EDT
It was designed to only wound, not kill the ememy..."
View Quote
It takes two guys to carry one wounded. Bodies can be bagged and tagged later. I think the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) mentions something about wounding. Could be wrong; it's been a while. Eddie
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:21:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2001 5:17:22 AM EDT by Torf]
Check out this thread (external) [url]dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Eq3t/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=439&forum=2&25[/url] that gives some pretty good information about History and Ballistics of the 5.56 round. The overall discussion is about whether the AK47 is better than the M16. People in the know largely agree that the modern M16 is the best all around combat rifle in existence. Edited for spelling
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:29:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:35:05 AM EDT
Hmmm... Lets see: 1. The M16/AR15 is the most versatile small arms weapons system in world. It is available in more configurations with more options to fit more situations than any other small Arm. 2. The American military has used it as the centerpiece issue weapon for over 30 years. 3. The 5.56nato bullet is so effective, our chief enemy gave up their standard round and adopted a bullet with similar characteristics. 4. AR15s not dominate service rifle competitions. IMO, The resistance by some "old schoolers" in the military to rifles without wooden stocks along with the mismanagement of the original issuance of the M16 has perpetuated the misinformation about the black rifle. I think you'll find the M16 to be an excellent side arm.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 6:07:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2001 8:55:15 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
[blue]edited for clarity[/blue] Follow me for a minute.... I like cars. I like Corvette. I really don't like how people try to slam a pushrod motor as "old technology", while promoting overhead [blue]*cams*[/blue] as the only way to make power. The high tech Northstar motor started at 300 HP and is still at 300 HP. In the same time from, GM took their pushrod V8 from 300 HP to 405 HP. [blue]405 HP is the same as the handbuilt LT-5 Lotus motor that came in a $25k package called ZR-1. Not bad for dinosaur technology, eh?[/blue] My point? A particular technology isn't "better" just because some people say it is. Now, onto guns. [blue]If you believe that moving a heavy pushrod is ancient technology and doesn't work as well, why would anyone support the gas piston design? [/blue]Isn't the AK system akin to a pushrod motor? You are moving a long, heavy rod to actuate the system. The M-16 gas system is akin to an OHV design, where you use a system to transfer the power to another location. Wouldn't that make the AK system the old dinosaur? Reliability - Troy ran over 7,000 rounds WITHOUT CLEANING his AR-15. Just shot some lube now and then. How reliable do you need it to be? The military's problems with the M-16 - long since worked out. Their was the chrome lined bore and chamber issue, the lack of an issued cleaning kit and substitution of ball powder which was dirty. Unfortunately, the Military did these changes without properly testing the weapon, and GI's DIED. Their deaths prompted a lot of activity that caused the M-16 to be scrutinized probably more than any other weapon. It's a proven system now. Kind of like flying an airline after it's had a crash. They have FAA inspectors crawling up every orifice they have. At that point, they are probably the safest airline in the world. I'm trusting my life to the AR-15.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 6:23:41 AM EDT
The AR has progressed to the point it is better than you. What I mean is the more you practice the more leatal you will be. You won't out grow your weapon. It is that good.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 7:06:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 7:09:41 AM EDT
On one but the USA bothers with their Wounding any of our recent enemies didn't cause two or even one more enemy soldier to become ineffective caring for the hit soldier. They just leave them where they fall.
View Quote
Which explains the high numbers of VC and NVA bodies found after firefights. Sorry, gotta disagree. Eddie
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 7:36:25 AM EDT
"On one but the USA bothers with their wounded. Wounding any of our recent enemies didn't cause two or even one more enemy soldier to become ineffective caring for the hit soldier. They just leave them where they fall." thats the most retarded thing ive ever heard. nothing personal to you bud, BUT no matter what army I was in, if my best friend was wounded i would drag him out with me...and im sure there are MANY MANY people like me in this world, not only in the US. As i recall, the Vietnamese would rarely leave a live man behind, if not only because it is one of their men, but its bad tactics (only live me can talk) on the other note, I went through 3 M-16's in basic. YES 3 different ones! finally on the 3rd try i got one that wasnt "bolt action" i currently own 2 preban Colts that work perfectly, only problems i have had are the magazines...WHICH ARE TOO WEAK!! just my opinion though
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 7:52:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2001 7:48:53 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
Question for all the detractors of the M-16/AR-15 rifle system - WHY DO YOU OWN ONE? Sell it and get an AK. Be happy. Enjoy life. If you are so convinced the gas operated system is poor, don't own a rifle with one. I wouldn't own any weapon that I don't trust with my life, unless it's just for collectable purposes, like my K98 Mauser.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 8:07:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 8:20:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: Follow me for a minute.... I like cars. I like Corvette. I really don't like how people try to slam a pushrod motor as "old technology", while promoting overhead valves as the only way to make power. The high tech Northstar motor started at 300 HP and is still at 300 HP. In the same time from, GM took their pushrod V8 from 300 HP to 405 HP.
View Quote
First, it is pushrod versus overhead CAM, not overhead valves, as pushrods actuate overhead valves and are synonymous with such and is old technology. Second, it is an engine, not a motor. The Northstar is still at 300 HP simply because they choose it to be. You can get more HP and more RPM's from an OHC engine than you can an OHV engine of the same size, as the OHV pushrod engine is a good 1.0 liter larger than the Northstar. On the one hand you defend the outdated pushrod technology on cars, but then you put it down on the rifles as it refers to the AK47. Given all that, I will take an AR over an AK any day.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 8:32:07 AM EDT
You can go here to see what the Israeli army thinks of the M-16: http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault.htm Note: they are buying M-4s (short M-16s) from Colt to replace the rest of the Galils in service. The Galil is an Israeli design based upon the AK-47. On the gas system: yes, the M-16/AR-15 puts residue from firing back into the action. It isn't clear to me why this is worse than keeping it confined to the gas tube like other designs do, from a reliability perspective (no doubt keeping it confined can make it easier to clean if you have easy access to the tube). The AR-18 uses a standard gas system, and it is the basis for the horrible and unreliable British bullpup. I'd much rather have an AR-15/M-16. On terminal ballistics: Both M193 and M855/SS109 have good terminal ballistics when they have sufficient muzzle velocity. This means that barrels shorter than 14.5" have poor terminal ballistics even at close range. The standard 20" barrel has good terminal ballistics out to about 200 yards. And the bullet will kill much, much farther.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 9:19:48 AM EDT
It was designed to only wound, not kill the ememy..."
View Quote
The round was not designed to only wound it's target. The round was designed for optimal [b]tissue disruption.[/b] Optimal tissue disruption leads to a greater killing potential. It was designed to impart more kinetic energy [b]on/in[/b]the target instead of wasting KE by going through the target as do some of the larger, older and harder rounds out there. The benefit of a 5.56 or 5.54 round is that what would have been a simple entry/ exit wound with a 7.62mm is now a horrific, multi-channel wound. What may have been a wound with a 7.62 could now be a kill because of the increased amount of tissue disrupted/destroyed. No one designs a bullet that is meant to wear kid gloves when it hits you, unless your going for some type of less than lethal angle. That's a whole new ball o'wax
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 9:51:53 AM EDT
4R77: Good to see a young man (<18?) with a serious interest in firearms, the seriousness of their use and service to our country. The only education most kids receive growing up in our "PC paradise" regarding firearms and their use is what they are "taught" by Hollywood and video games. I hope your getting information and opinions you can use, and I hope you keep asking the questions.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 10:23:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2001 10:22:23 AM EDT by JacRyan]
Click on this link and follow it to Troy's ammo FAQ's: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/announcement.html?id=69[/url] Troy has a tremendous amount of knowledge about the AR15/M16 weapons system, particularly in the areas of ammo and magazines. When I was in basic (in sandy, dusty Ft. Sill, OK) I had ZERO malfunctions with my issued M16A1. I had no problems with subsequent issue M16A1's during my USAR career. Learn how to take care of your rifle and treat it like a weapon. Some people can get a hammer to malfunction if they don't operate it properly. I currently have two Colt AR15's, one preban and one postban. Out of many thousands of rounds fired, I have had ONE malfunction that was caused by a primer falling out of a spend casing and getting stuck between the bolt and locking lugs. This is attributable to the ammo -- I was using cheap blasting ammo, certainly not the stuff that I would store away for a rainy day. Otherwise it chews through ammo like there's no tomorrow. Even when I'm cruel to it and haven't cleaned it in a few hundred rounds. The key is to keeping it moderately lubed with CLP. My AR15's are NEVER as clean as they use to be in basic during inspections. But, then again, I don't spend every other evening after dinner cleaning it like I did in basic (you'll soon know what I mean). Go to the Maintenance and Cleaning forum here and do a search on CLP and cleaning/maintenance. Here's are some good threads to get you started: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=43738[/url] [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=37407[/url] Good luck with your service. I second the "thank you." It would be beneficial for our country if more young people would volunteer for service. Hopefully your service will land you in a state that is not as hostile to firearms (especially AR15) ownership as CA. EDITED to add URL code.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 10:42:46 AM EDT
Thanks for the informative replies... I also visited the two threads on Truecombat forum--very educational! :D Im not exactly a fan of pushrod engines..., but that's another topic. About the 5.56 designed to "wound" instead of kill, I'm quite skeptic about that. I will look it up. I think a high power BB gun would do a much better job at "wounding"--I sure as hell don't want to be "wounded" by a M16. It's quite encouraging that two of my friends (Marine and Army ROTC) recieved marksmanship in basic. Not bad for guys who werent familiar w/ firearms before they join. :)
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 4:13:31 PM EDT
I don't mean to be picky fight4yourrights but the ZR-1 does not use a pushrod engine to achive its horsepower. A special engine was designed specifically for the ZR-1 that uses a 4 cam setup. http://www.ranchochevy.com/chevrolet_zr1_lt5.html Other than that, I too will stick to my AR-15 over any AK variant. Of the two AR-15s I have had, I have only had a malfunction once with my first batch of handloads through my pre Armalite Eagle Arms rifle and that was my own fault. I didn't crimp the round and a bullet worked its way out of the case spilling both the bullet and powder into my action and failing the chamber the empty case.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 4:43:47 PM EDT
THose threads on truecombat.com were something. The reasoning some people use escapes me. They refuse to listen to fact or reason. I was starting to get aggitated towards the end, wanted to throttle that guy. It did seem to generate alot of interest, had the most posts and reviews of all the topics there. [:D] BrenLover AKA Bryan
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:04:37 PM EDT
The notion that the M16 is designed to wound not kill, is a military urban legend. To paraphrase the original report on high velocity weapons to the US Army, under 400 m light projectiles pushed to high velocities have equal lethality to larger slower rounds.
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:24:44 PM EDT
"The notion that the M16 is designed to wound not kill" If I had a dollar........well this is what a bunch of guys think but I will tell you what I tell every one on this, like STLRN said it is a legend and a poor one at that. Any one that thinks this to be true should take a milk fill it with water and shoot the damn thing then come back and tell me what it did[}:D] That ask your self, how much of me is made of water?[:\] It's really cool if you get hit in a bone like a leg bone. LOL! you will need a GPS to find your leg[>(] PS:I just meet a guy that tells me thew mil-spec. M-16 will jam cuz it's 1-7 twist, you get gunck backed up some about how it can't push out the junk. But me and I bet every one in here has a 1-9 twist barrle[<]:)]
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:30:48 PM EDT
4R77- Take it from me....if you ever find yourself in a combat situation, the stopping power of your weapon is the last thing on your mind. You will be more concerned with the size of the rounds coming AT You! The M16A2 service weapon will serve you well. It can and will make you a better marksmen( which is what really counts), capable of torso shots at 500yards. And don't worry about "stopping power", it has plenty.....
Link Posted: 8/15/2001 5:41:30 PM EDT
I once saw a comparison picture of the effects of 7.62x39mm, and 5.56x45mm on hits at exactly the same spot on 2 different guys' lower abdomens, both at close (100m) range. The 7.62 round caused an entry wound about the size of a nickle, exit wound the same, not a whole lot of tissue damage. The 5.56 caused an entry wound about the size of a dime, exit wound about the size of a baseball, MASSIVE tissue damage. BTW, the M16A1 I had was made by the Singer company (they make sewing machines, too) and it worked every time.
Top Top