Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles One man's opinion - Why the M16/AR15 sucks

Uh oh. A Zombie thread!

I read that one simple solution to dust and sand getting into rifle. The just carry a roll of black electricians tape. Tape up the crack between the upper and lower. Tape over the muzzle and keep the dust cover closed. This was in Iraq. After a firefight or so, just clean and retape. Something to think about for preppers with AR-15's. I always clean every weapon I shoot afterwards. Never had a problem with jambs, except occational bad ammo.

I reload now and have had no problems. I've had Mini's, AK's, SKS's, and AR's. Also have a FAL. I kept the AR's, SKS's and FAL. Mini's and AK's were awful on accuracy. I hunt with mine and don't like to wound or miss because of inaccuracy. FAL isn't too accurate, but is rugged and reliable. I like the adjustable gas system. Only 308 platform I have except a bolt gun in 308. I don't like the C3 or HK-91 platforms because of damage to the brass. I would like an AR-10 platform when my ship comes in, or an M1A. The AR platforms are more modular and easier to accessorize.

Allow me to off this as a counter to this debate: http://shootersjournal.net/the-great-ar15-vs-ak47-debate/

Some people read too much and actually do too little.

Not directed at you Kevin.

All semi-auto rifle require maintenance to keep working , some just require it more often than others

...get both if your inclined to argue with yourself.

Agree 100%. This platform has been working for years and has only gotten better with time. With the rifles coming out now, I would not feel handicapped at all. The AR can take a beaten and run dirty and they are much more accurate than most other options.

I've been throwing away a lot of money. Wish someone would have made me aware of this sooner.

I'm no combat veteran and I have never shot at or been shot at. I see the only issues with the M-4 as losing velocity because of the shorter barrel, especially if you are shooting longer range. As I recall the M-4 has a 14.5 inch barrel and the carbine (short) gas system. The other issue is the lack of cross section of a .22 bullet.

I think the 6x45 would have been a better option and I don't see it as a huge impediment to the military to make the switch.

My evaluation is for a full 16 inch barrel and a mid length gas recycling system to regain velocity and a larger cross section bullet. Very little additional weight and more knock down capability. That's the "in between" an M-14 and the M-4 that was previously mentioned in this thread.

Just my opinion, yes I see it's a 7 year old thread that keeps popping back up. kwg

6x45 wouldn't have been a bad idea at all. But 5.56mm still gets it done.

But, does it get it done at more than across the width of a room? Or 100 yards? 200 yards?

The M-4 makes for a nice compact shooter and kept cleaned and serviced it's completely dependable, but there is a price to be paid for that short barrel and skinny bullet. JMHO kwg

Yes. It gets it done. At well more than "across the room." Take a look at the ranges we qualify at. Even back in the early 90s when I was in, it "got it done."

Old, silly argument.

Personally I like the Ruger mini 14 ranch rifle in stainless steel. More accurate, more durable, cleaner, and easier to carry.

opinions are like butt holes. Everyone has one. Most stink.

I have yet to see a mini that will out shoot an AR-15.

They've been tested more than once against the AR and have never proven more durable or accurate but people still want to believe its a plastic mouse gun.

I had a SS ranch rifle 4-5moa was the best it was capable of. The first carbine class I attended had a father/son in attendance. Dad had an M1 carbine and the son had a Mini. They worked about half the time.

Pretty much has been my experience.

I happen to like and own both. I've had a very innaccurate Mini 14 and I've owned a couple of very innaccurate AR-15's. I've shot thousands of rounds through both platforms and found both to be reasonably reliable under real world (non-Ninja school) conditions.

My current Mini-14 (custom) will out shoot my current most accurate AR-15 (also custom.) That said, there is no doubt the AR-15 is a more inherently accurate platform.

I don't believe the Mini-14 is a better platform nor do I believe the majority of the internet B/S horror stories associated with it. The new 580+ series rifles are not 5 MOA guns.

I can understand why some people would feel more comfortable carrying a Mini-14 over an AR-15 and why others wouldn't. While the Mini-14 has never been a military weapon, it has successfully served many police and prison institutions for many years.

Don't get me wrong, over all I think the AR-15 is a lot better weapon by far but, I do understand why some would prefer and are more comfortable with a Mini-14.

Just a few random thoughts here.

The AR15 or M-16 was originally designed with a 1 in 14" twist firing a 55 grain bullet at 3200 or 3250 fps, using stick powder - IMR4198 or a factory equivalent.

That slow twist stabilized the bullet enough in air to keep it accurate to useful battlefield ranges but that marginal stabilization is what caused it to tumble so much when it hit a denser medium, such as flesh. The extremely high velocity and propensity for the bullet to tumble in flesh is what gave the "black rifle" its original reputation for ferocious wounding power in Viet Nam. The stick powder did not foul the gas tube and the rifle was very reliable.

Then the Army decided that the 1 in 14 twist did not keep the bullet accurate enough for 600 yard shooting in denser Arctic air, so it was tightened to 1 in 12, which is/was the factory standard for the .223 up until just the past few years. As noted above, when it was actually deployed they changed to ball powder, IIRC something like Win 748 or H335 which is extremely dirty. That fouled the gas tube and bolt carrier area something fierce. Plus the fact that they did not issue proper cleaning gear and basically told the troops that the rifle "cleaned itself". It wasn't until later, late 60's or early 70's that they started issuing the little comic books with the big titted chick (Connie?) explaining how to maintain the thing.

Then later on after VN the Army decided that the M16 needed to be able to penetrate a battle helmet at 600 yards, so they made the bullet heavier, added a steel penetrator to it and tightened the twist to handle the heavier, longer bullet.

That slower MV and tighter twist made it a penetrator but not a tumbler. They also issued the M4 with the shorter barrel which further reduced muzzle velocity.

After that I lost interest and haven't kept up with the latest and greatest but that's how I remember the development.

This is all just from memory so if I've made some factual errors I will certainly not mind them being corrected.