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

I used both an M16A1 and an M14 in Vietnam and preferred the M14. The 16 was a lot more maintenance intensive and there were days when the festivities didn't give much time for a cleaning. The real advantage I'd give the M14 is that it doesn't require trick ammo to hit a scumbag. I could shoot a guy through a tree with it and if I needed more better I'd cozy up to a tanker and have him souvenier me some of his co-ax ammo. Blacktip. Oddly enough I found that 7.62 Nato AP is a pretty decent sub for match ammo. Surprisingly accurate and already in the pipeline. I can't profess experience in a desert environ but jungle conditions make the gas blowing into the receiver a real mess that needed to be cleaned as fast as one could get it done. Maybe the humidity was the culprit to making the M16 a bit cranky.

Fireball,

The guys I hear from and hear reports from ain't having problems.

Must be that thing, about using those funny bumps on the top half of the thing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Then again, those guys wouldn't complain if they were given a Hatchett and a loin cloth.

Mind the media and the marketing garbage.

It's still the same.

Semper Fi!
E4E

I have a M1A and a couple of AR's and they are both fine weapons for what they were designed for. I have a lot of experience with M16/AR rifles, military and civilian. These rifles have a good proven record since the the Vietnam war, I would not hesitate to defend myself and loved ones with my AR's. Why does this man have such a chip on his shoulder? I also laughed out loud about they smoked a lot of pot back in the 60's. Development for these rifle began in the 50's, not 60's. Anyone whom thinks Mini 14's are better than Ar's is seriously deluded.

It's a mistake to compare .308 to .223 round for round in efectiveness. Instead compare an M14 with a certain number of rounds with an M16 and the number of rounds that WEIGHS THE SAME. You will end up with far more .223 rounds carried than .308 rounds. Collectively, they will be more effective.

Vietnam vets should know that the current M16 is highly modified from the old rifles issued in the 1960s. In many ways these modifications are as significant as the difference between an M1 Garand from the 1930s and an M14. The M14, after all, is nothing more than an M1 adapted to use a box magazine and a shorter operating rod.

The current M16, BTW, is far more tolerant of differences in powder burning rates, pressures, and bullet weights than the M14.

I currently have a Bushmaster loweer with about 7000 rounds through it. My oldest upper has 5500. I have NEVER had a jam. Yes I know I'm only paper punching, but all that "carbon" (wish it would turn to diamonds like the man said) still ends up in the action. I only disassemble the bolt assembly every 200 or so rounds and clean it with a dry patch. I never clean some of the other things the man said and specifically have been told to NEVER clean the gas tube with a pipecleaner or anything else.

45Govt: The shortcomings of the M16/AR platform is well documented and unfortunately, lives were lost because of it. True, the design for the AR was designed by Stoner in the fifties. Pot was, is smoked by bored, counterculture misfits. So Sir, I think your response is mixed up with another forum. Nobody has a chip on their shoulders. Have a good day and thanks for your input.

Fireball, my response is not mixed up with another forum, I believe my response was right on the money, in regards to the author of why the rifle sucks in his opinion. The M16/AR15 rifles are fine weapons. I have used the M16 in the Southern hemisphere in jungle type environments and in Alaska while serving in the Army. All these weapons were M16A1's, I can truly say that I like the little rifle. It performed well in both locations, and I'm talking lots of field duty(Infantry). I also use two Bushmaster AR's now and I really like them. I certainly do not feel under gunned with them. I also was a rifle instructor at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. In those basic trainees hands I saw every make of M16 the Army had in it's inventory. The amount of rounds fired in these weapons over the many years through so many trainees hands would boggle the mind, yet they just kept on shooting. After seeing the abuse these rifles took, I knew that a brand new AR would last most people a life time of trouble free service. That M16A1 is a lot better rifle than the M16, that was first issued in Vietnam. There was not enough R&D work on the M16 before being dubbed ready for field use, if the M16A1 had been issued first, there would not have been so many problems. The M16A2/M4/ARA2's is a lot better weapon than the old M16. All that being said, I have to say I prefer the M14/M1A, but only for it's down range performance and power. By the way, I do not believe I was infering that you have a chip on your shoulder. Have a good day yourself.

I served in Afghanistan and I did see problems with the M4, pretty consistent with what Ive seen thruout my military service (24 years in two Armies..). During Operation Anaconda, the first 2 guys on the ground were immediately engaged with the enemey and both immediately had FTF failures with their M4 carbines. The gun's rep in the US and foreign Special Ops communities is less than sterling. It is a workable weapons platform and some of its benefits do weigh against its shortcomings. Typical US Army inertia keeps it in service (how long did we hang on to the 1873 Trapdoor?). I served 2 tours with Bundeswehr FJ troops, including Afghanistan. They do not seem to have issues with the HK G36 and I cannot recall an instance of one jamming. Not that Im a major fan of plastic rifles. I mean, after using a G3 and then picking up a new G36 for the first time..I thought, "You've got to be kidding!" The other weapon system Ive used is the AUG, its wierd looking but it is extremely reliable and accurate and I like the trigger controlled selector.

Nothing like experience. The M16/AR rifles have their good points and bad points. I have used one so long, and trained at immediate action drills so much that the weapon feels like a part of me. Up until I got the internet, and read about various opinions about this rifle, I thought, who would'nt want one of these rifles? Oh well, to each his own.

Montana Steve,

Grunts know what they want, and know what works.


It's a universal, and Damn shame, all of those Mothers sons have a voice smaller, than those who's kids are being protected.

The M16/M4 platform is what we got for now.
They took the FAL, the G3 and the M-14 from us.

A universal wish is now being heard, or the 6.8SPC would not have happened.

Obviously, the grunts have a voice, and things are changing slowly in their favor.

Us old farts would be happy with the M-14 or a FAL. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I am heartened by the efforts currently underway.
Even if I likely will HATE whatever it is produced.

Momentum is finally here.
It's been too damn LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The M4 as is, ain't bad.
But it's no better than what Grandpa fought with back in the 70's, when cloning sheep was science fiction.

Our grunts deserve better.
And it's about Damn time things were shifting towards their interest!



Per mare Per Terrum, and
Semper FI!!!!!!!
E4E

Another old Fart's opinion born of 2.5 years in Nam, the -16 of the iteration used at the time was a rugged reliable weapon. So too the CAR-15, its wee brother. The -14, a clunky heavy thing I gladly left in Basic. First tour unit sniper ditched the -14 ASAP, turning to a bolt gun, Wincherter maybe, not sure...really tired of lugging that heavy -14 thing around.

Problems that made the -16 notorious in early days were logistical, not a design fault of the weapon. No cleaning kits, no lube, and a change over to ball powder for which the gun was never tested. Clogged up the gas tube something fierce. OTOH, I toted the -16/CAR around for all that time, and fired it more than most of you would believe...never had a single malfunction, and frankly know nobody that did. My thoughts are moot on the newer versions and their ammo as I have no experience with them. I don't know how much of the chatter in internet legend or how much is real...do know that I never saw anybody survive a torso hit from the Black Rifle back in those days...the bullets did indeed tumble, they left vicious wounds. I do recall one fella taking a full zip from a minigun, 19 hits as I recall....he made it to the evac hospital still kicking, not much further though. My time was May '69 thru Dec. '72, your mileage may have varied. Gimme that gun and I'll go back to war, gimme a -14 or some other heavy clunky piece of white collar design work...likely to shoot you first, but let's not find out, hey?

Dan:

I've never been shot at, nor have I ever shot at anybody else. I'm not an expert on anything, much, except I know from heavy and clunky.

However, I've owned an M-1 Garand. Handled and shot the M-1-A or whatever the civilian version of the M-14 is called. Handled and shot an FAL. All three are pretty heavy, but for clunkiness, or just plain awkwardness, the M-14 would have to be the champ, in my opinion.

I can see putting a bipod on it and using it as a light-weight BAR, (which I have also handled and shot) but, damn, except for the extra rounds, it's nowhere near as handy as a Garand.

- TJM

If you've handled them all enough, they all become second nature and clunky will not fit anymore. Of course I'm biased as the only one of the bunch that feels right to me is the 14. I'll shoot the garand but am never impressed. I win everything with an AR and carry versions of the AR for hunting where legal because I almost sleep with ARs and am familiar to all ends with them. Yet when the 14s come out of the safe, I feel like I'm holding THE gun.

Of course its only an opinion, mine at that, and worth whatever ya'll pay for it.

Jeff

Just a guess.

Was issued the M-16A2 before the Army ever recognized the need.

Was previously comfy as a bumpkin running around with a 10-22 and an 870.

At first the M16A2 was heavy.

Some 400 hours of COD later, the thing was weightless, and calluses had formed for a lifetime.

I cannot accept that the same did not happen with previous shoulder arms, and the Garand being the revelation, I accept that it started there that Grunts began to love a rifle.

It's a matter of time and exposure.

The crusty old Salt up the road, handles an '03 like it was a pocket knife.

He thinks the Garand wasn't needed on Guadal canal.

Framiliarity.

Todays M4 ain't no different.

E4E

I've owned, been signed for, or was issued nearly every version of the M16, M-14 and the AK series of rifle. M16 series is pure operator friendly. M14 looks cool and appears to have punch, but it and the AK are seriously not operator friendly. Changing a mag in the M14 and AKs, especially under duress is NOT an easy proposition.

On reliability, I've seen more major malfunctions on AKs than on M16s. Nearly EVERY M16 malfunction I've ever seen was operator error, or easily fixed using SPORTS. On the other hand, I've seen AKs blow up, trunnions break, gas pistons freeze and/or just freakin' fall apart. I've set the forward handgrip on fire with both Aks and M-14s when shooting a lot of rounds at one time.

As far as m16 long range lethality, that's what your M240/M249 and even M2 is for. Just like the Romans took over the world with a weapon as pathetic (for it's time) as the spatha, in reality, it is the SYSTEM of warfare that wins the battle, not an individual weapon.

That got me laughing!

I was issued various M-14's, I was OK with them but I didn't shoot especially accurately with them. Two failed in fairly odd ways (extractor and ejector). I was issued one M-16: I liked it a lot: it stayed zeroed and I shot well with it; it was 100% reliable with only basic cleaning and maintenance. If I knew I was going to be in a fire fight I would take an M-60 with plenty of ammo over any rifle or submachinegun. Ammo was the main advantage of the M-16 for an infantryman; you can carry a LOT more 5.56 compared to 7.62 ammo.

the internet is a wonderful thing anybody can say anything and claim anything. Funny how the civilian rifles just seem to work and work...guess they just don't see the abuse.. A bonded 75 grain bullet with BC .41 started at 2600 FPS would be your huckleberry on out there. I bet it might even raise a welt on you.

This author isn't prone to exaggeration. Nope. Not at all.

So if I shoot fast enough my AR will make diamonds?!?!?

Anyone notice this was a 7 year old post????