[url]
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html
[/url]

I read the above article.
The author bash continuosly the M16 asserting:

-The rifle was ureliable
-The ammo IS underpowered and is not suitable to do the job as military ammo.
-The concept of the Assault rifle in itself is wrong (intermediate caliber)
-Even the "new" M16A2 is doubtfully suitable as military weapon, mainly because the flaws of the M16 concept are still all there...
-Only the M4 has a reason to exist, since the moment it must be effectively used under 500 mt., range the 5.56 ammo can still express acceptable energy and adequate lethality.
-Pratically, the M16s (and following versions) are still operating only for political reasons and not for their effectiveness.

Is that sooooo bad???

I need opinion, especially of people that used it IN ACTION, pre-during-post Vietnam era... Thanks

linkie no funciona senor

Link is screwy, everybody go here:

[url]http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html[/url]

De Nada,
Jewbroni~

His rationale is based on old field data done back in the late 60's during his service.  Because of his inexperience in the rifle (how to clean, use, etc) as well as many other soldiers because of the new design without proper maintenance documentation, he is biased towards his "scientific" data and thus is not a reliable source on the M16, especially not the M16A2.

Piss on him, you can't appease a prejudice person - just smile, nod, and keep shooting those X's.

Jewbroni~

Gotta remember and respect where he is coming from. The M16 was not ready to be put into action, it needed a bit of tweaking to get to the level it's at now.

Training was inadequate and cleaning was not stressed as being as important as it really is with this design.

Also, CSP(Culvers Shooting Page) is one of the best sources out there for M1 Garand info, so the MBR (main battle rifle) guys might just be a little biased.

As much as I love the AR15/M16 design, it is not without it's flaws,but then neither is the M14. The bugs have largely been addressed, but you can't blame him for not likeing a rifle that was rushed into service. Knowing what I know now about the modern M16's, I wouldn't hesitate going into combat(boy, you do not want me going into combat, what a joke)with one. Back then though, I'd probably be hesitant to. Something along the lines of "ZM Weapons or the HK G36" adress the imperfect gas system problems. Strengthining the buttstock/lower reciever union would greatly improve its field ruggedness also. Another area that could be improved is the magwell area. Even Stoner admitted it protruded to far, necessitating a compromise solution in the the design of the 30 round mags (a problem he did not repeat in the design of the SR-25).

In spite of all the above, I'm sticking with my ARs until something significantly better comes along, and I haven't seen or heard of it so far ( including the OICW).