The current model M-16A2 is an excellent weapon. Why do we need an AK-47 when we have the SAW?
~AJ
~AJ
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Bingo. You point the muzzle in the oppositie direction of the engines and drivetrain. Since on most rotary wing aircraft that hardware is topside, that means buttstock up. If they were slung underneath, you'd do the reverse.
As one of those SF guys you're talking about, i can honestly say i never had a crew chief or any of the other flight crew attempt to give me instructions on how to carry my piece. They generally treated us like we were some weird sort of alien lifeform that they found slightly unsettling to have aboard "their aircraft."
On the fly i generally found it comfortable to set the edge of the reserve chute pack tray on the buttstock of my M4, and catch a corner of the seat webbing with my main chute. That way you could make use of gravity and friction to keep everything in place... you could simply lean forward a bit, get comfy, and catch some zzz's. On the go, i'd rest the edge of the buttstock frame on my LBE, generally around the med pouch or whatever was convienient, and simply palm the stock in between the front of the magazine well and delta ring for the handguards.
Of course a crew chief wouldn't dare tell any of you guys how to carry. He feared for his life! And of course, his immediate sense of dignity.
LOL.I think the best answer to the question "How do you carry an M-16 rifle?" is this:
VERY carefully.
VERY carefully.
A2 then A3 then M4. Next will be some goofy gun that are all plastic (more than the AR series) and will aim themselves so the troops can take "quiet time".
For those who asked, the M16 is a damned fine weapon, but she's like a woman. Treat her WELL. It needs to be very clean. Its more accurate then a AK, but, with that increased accuracy comes a dislike for dirt. The AK on the other hand, well, that thing would shoot if ya dropped it in mud for a week. While not as accurate, the AK will shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot. Same with the SKS, the chinese version of the AK. They are very simple weapons without alot of tight tolerances on the machining, so while their accurate enough to be functional, the two things you dont do is snipe with them and clean them.
For just walking around, wouldn't muzzle up the better position? You won't shoot your foot and less dust gets in the barrel.
I thought that the earliest M16s did not have lined chambers (brass?) which was a big part of their unreliability.
I thought that the earliest M16s did not have lined chambers (brass?) which was a big part of their unreliability.
Scouzer
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2001
- 10,358
- 5
- 0
Originally posted by: Shockwave
For those who asked, the M16 is a damned fine weapon, but she's like a woman. Treat her WELL. It needs to be very clean. Its more accurate then a AK, but, with that increased accuracy comes a dislike for dirt. The AK on the other hand, well, that thing would shoot if ya dropped it in mud for a week. While not as accurate, the AK will shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot. Same with the SKS, the chinese version of the AK. They are very simple weapons without alot of tight tolerances on the machining, so while their accurate enough to be functional, the two things you dont do is snipe with them and clean them.
...and with that comes the greater power of the AK47 over the M16. Typical Russian style, it will be inaccurate, but those shots that do hit do a hell of a lot of damage. Also in jungle warfare, your shot will go a lot further without getting stopped or deflected by brush.
You sure? Muzzle energy of a 62 grain FMJ .223 Remington round is 1225 lb-ft and 735 lb-ft at 200 yds. For a 124 grain FMJ 7.62x39 round, it's 1455 and 875. Wind drift is greater for the 7.62, I guess because of the lower muzzle velocity, and the ammo weighs more. You're right about deflection though. Bottom line is I'd rather have an M16 than some Commie POS that has been used to bring countless billions under totalitarian rule throughout the decades.
im surprised no one has siad this.
you are wearing a fairly loose material around your armpit, the guns butt in squared off, if you sunddenly need to raise it to aim and shoot accurrately - ie not from the hip! - then if its under your armpit then there is a high chance it will get snagged inthe cloth and you will go down, where as if its on the upper arm you can move it to a shoulder lock quick and naturally while concentrating on the target.
the best example is northern ireland, wher youd do a routine patrol, and suddenly from say 100m you would see a target/ be shot at and need to respond quickly. where as in the jungle or houses you would just let rip, and in open battle you would sight the target first.
you are wearing a fairly loose material around your armpit, the guns butt in squared off, if you sunddenly need to raise it to aim and shoot accurrately - ie not from the hip! - then if its under your armpit then there is a high chance it will get snagged inthe cloth and you will go down, where as if its on the upper arm you can move it to a shoulder lock quick and naturally while concentrating on the target.
the best example is northern ireland, wher youd do a routine patrol, and suddenly from say 100m you would see a target/ be shot at and need to respond quickly. where as in the jungle or houses you would just let rip, and in open battle you would sight the target first.
Ah yes, the old M16 vs. AK47 debate. Here is my two cents.
Yes, I've fired both but only carried one on live missions. This debate has been going on for decades in both the military and the media. I had the good fortune (I say this proudly) of being trained by a number of Vietnam vets. All were infantrymen during the conflict. One comment by a crusty old NCO in 1981 comes to mind:
"You know, when I was over in 'Nam operating in VC country ..... when Charlie found an M16, he would throw that old AK47 as far as he could and keep the 16."
That old NCO didn't tell me this while we were out training. He conveyed this to me while fishing and drinking a beer. Not all of the vets I spoke with shared his particular opinion. However about 3/4 of them felt as such.
Shockwave and Scipionix think like I do on this subject. The first revision of the M16 model wasn't ready when issued to the troops back during the 60s. There were a number of inherent flaws in the design. Hence the A1 revision. Even then, M16A1s were a very picky weapon. I've carried versions made by Colt, General Motors and Harrington Richardson. The Colts and H-Rs were extremely reliable if kept clean. On the other hand, the GMs were a nightmare. I think there was an issue with the machining of the magazine well and the fit of the magazines on the GMs, or so I told in Armorer school.
Anyway, when comparing the AK47 and M16A1, I've found the M16A1 much more accurate with a flatter trajectory. Also found the M16A1 easier to control when firing on auto (3 round bursts). On the other hand, the AK47 has a greater tolerance for dirt and shoots a more potent, close-range round. Eastern European-made versions of the AK47 and it's cousin, the SKS, do indeed make for decent, close range deer rifles in brush country. IMO, the Chinese versions, although lethal, are substandard in quality and accuracy compared to the European versions.
The A2 deployment was a dream for us down in the line units and are damn fine weapons, IMO. Heh, I loved 'em so much that I purchased an HB match grade version for me own self back in 1990 for $740. She's sweet! Only problem is because of the 1:7 twist in the barrel, I need surplus A071 Ball which I find at gun shows. 55 gr. Remington or PMC is much too erratic for pin point accuracy.
The M4s were deployed during my last couple of years in. They shoot well, although not as accurate as the A2s out past 300M. There is a bit of a learning curve when switching from an A2 to an M4 as well.
Yes, I've fired both but only carried one on live missions. This debate has been going on for decades in both the military and the media. I had the good fortune (I say this proudly) of being trained by a number of Vietnam vets. All were infantrymen during the conflict. One comment by a crusty old NCO in 1981 comes to mind:
"You know, when I was over in 'Nam operating in VC country ..... when Charlie found an M16, he would throw that old AK47 as far as he could and keep the 16."
That old NCO didn't tell me this while we were out training. He conveyed this to me while fishing and drinking a beer. Not all of the vets I spoke with shared his particular opinion. However about 3/4 of them felt as such.
Shockwave and Scipionix think like I do on this subject. The first revision of the M16 model wasn't ready when issued to the troops back during the 60s. There were a number of inherent flaws in the design. Hence the A1 revision. Even then, M16A1s were a very picky weapon. I've carried versions made by Colt, General Motors and Harrington Richardson. The Colts and H-Rs were extremely reliable if kept clean. On the other hand, the GMs were a nightmare. I think there was an issue with the machining of the magazine well and the fit of the magazines on the GMs, or so I told in Armorer school.
Anyway, when comparing the AK47 and M16A1, I've found the M16A1 much more accurate with a flatter trajectory. Also found the M16A1 easier to control when firing on auto (3 round bursts). On the other hand, the AK47 has a greater tolerance for dirt and shoots a more potent, close-range round. Eastern European-made versions of the AK47 and it's cousin, the SKS, do indeed make for decent, close range deer rifles in brush country. IMO, the Chinese versions, although lethal, are substandard in quality and accuracy compared to the European versions.
The A2 deployment was a dream for us down in the line units and are damn fine weapons, IMO. Heh, I loved 'em so much that I purchased an HB match grade version for me own self back in 1990 for $740. She's sweet! Only problem is because of the 1:7 twist in the barrel, I need surplus A071 Ball which I find at gun shows. 55 gr. Remington or PMC is much too erratic for pin point accuracy.
The M4s were deployed during my last couple of years in. They shoot well, although not as accurate as the A2s out past 300M. There is a bit of a learning curve when switching from an A2 to an M4 as well.
Its funny reading the people who are informed about reliability and effectiveness of weapons from Counter Strike and Hollywood in this post. I see there a few in here who try to introduce facts, but they are instantly ignored. I don?t know about this A3 variant of the M-16, but the A2 is still the current issue to the Marine Corps when I got out a few years ago. The M4 is the compact version used in special situations, has the telescoping stock and shorter barrel. And as for what they did to the chamber of the M16 was chrome lined it not brass. For the comment of the AK-7 sucking, I don?t know where to begin, and the SAW is not a equal to it, it is a Squad weapon not a infantry rifle. Oh yea, how to carry, we typically carried under armpit in patrol, you held the barrel down on weapons for safety and if it was fired in burst or full auto as in the A1, to accommodate muzzle rise, easier to guide up then pull down.
The M16 is there because of politics. The AK series is there because it works!
As far as the story of throwing away an AK to pickup a M16....bull! The enemy in Vietnam didn't throw away a thing! It may have been discarded or passed down to another soldier but it was not thrown away. It most likely had more to do with how it looked to fellow soldiers rather than anything to do with function.
I've shot extensively many versions of both....
The M16 is lighter and more accurate. Breaks more often and even the new variants will jam if dirty. No real problem here as soldiers are intimate with their arms and parts are easy to come buy as. No chrome bore makes it prone to rust.
The AK will never fail if even moderate care is taken. It is easy to hit a mansized target at 300 yards and it's accuracy is hindered more by it's lack of a decent site than anything in it's design. One needs not be an expert with the weapon or now how it works to be a threat to the enemy. That is it real reason it is widely used.
The AK74 first seen in Afganistan during Soviet occupation is easily the equal of any M16 as far as accuracy or bullet trajectory as it used a new bullet design. The 'Muj' called it the 'poison bullet,' which described it's lethality.
Which is better? The one I'm carrying when the sheet hits the fan!
Current Russian developments in arms far out perform those of the west. With the end of the Cold War recent developments might never see wide use.
Btw, the AK and SKS weapons are completely different designs and have nothing in common at all save the round they fire.
Back to the reason a weapon is pointed down in an aircraft.....Most of the electronics and flight systems are at the top of the airframe. An accidental misfire and it could easily take down said aircraft.
Besides, the enemy is down there and not up wonder!
My brother was a Crew Chief on a Blackhawk during the 90s. He said all soldiers are taught to point the weapon down and not doing so was never an issue. If it had become an issue he says he would personally have thrown the SOB out the door....regardless of altitude!
In a military aircraft the pilot flys the aircraft but the 'Cheif' is the real boss.......
As far as the story of throwing away an AK to pickup a M16....bull! The enemy in Vietnam didn't throw away a thing! It may have been discarded or passed down to another soldier but it was not thrown away. It most likely had more to do with how it looked to fellow soldiers rather than anything to do with function.
I've shot extensively many versions of both....
The M16 is lighter and more accurate. Breaks more often and even the new variants will jam if dirty. No real problem here as soldiers are intimate with their arms and parts are easy to come buy as. No chrome bore makes it prone to rust.
The AK will never fail if even moderate care is taken. It is easy to hit a mansized target at 300 yards and it's accuracy is hindered more by it's lack of a decent site than anything in it's design. One needs not be an expert with the weapon or now how it works to be a threat to the enemy. That is it real reason it is widely used.
The AK74 first seen in Afganistan during Soviet occupation is easily the equal of any M16 as far as accuracy or bullet trajectory as it used a new bullet design. The 'Muj' called it the 'poison bullet,' which described it's lethality.
Which is better? The one I'm carrying when the sheet hits the fan!
Current Russian developments in arms far out perform those of the west. With the end of the Cold War recent developments might never see wide use.
Btw, the AK and SKS weapons are completely different designs and have nothing in common at all save the round they fire.
Back to the reason a weapon is pointed down in an aircraft.....Most of the electronics and flight systems are at the top of the airframe. An accidental misfire and it could easily take down said aircraft.
Besides, the enemy is down there and not up wonder!
My brother was a Crew Chief on a Blackhawk during the 90s. He said all soldiers are taught to point the weapon down and not doing so was never an issue. If it had become an issue he says he would personally have thrown the SOB out the door....regardless of altitude!
In a military aircraft the pilot flys the aircraft but the 'Cheif' is the real boss.......
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
Funny, when I was stationed in ND I was on a Air Force Airborne Fireteam for nuclear movements. The pilots would not let us hold our M-16A2's with the muzzle pointing to the floor of the Huey. Their reason was that we were sitting on the gas tank and if we had a hard landinging they didnt what the muzzle punching a hole through the thin sheetmetal and into the fuel bladder. so we sat witht he muzzle pointing up.
as far as how the M-16 is being carried in that picture all i can say is i have never seen anybody in a hostile situation carry a weapon like that. We carried the weapon like schmedy said for the same reasons.
... instead of all of the accidental discharge crap, wouldnt it have been normal NOT to have chambered a round until the landing site is close? if you get fired at you have time to chamber then.
Accuracy will depend on caliber for the M16. The older ones I believe were 7.62, later they changed to the 223 (5.56). the 7.62 I believe was deemed to difficult to control on mutli round burst (be it 3 rnd or full auto). Now, I've heard the 5.56 round tends to tumble in flight, making it less accurate then a 7.62 round. Also, as far as damage to target, 5.56 will do far more damage. The 7.62 round ends up being too hot, and literally punches right through the target (Assuming its human) whereas the 5.56 round, being smaller with less punch, will not pass sraight through and will tumble and do more damage.
As far as whats better, I dont want to hear anyone say one is better then the other. Why? Anyone worth their salt knows, a soldiers ability is not dependant upon his firearm, because he understands the limitations, and doesnt push beyond those. In other words, a good soldier can do far better with a bad rifle then a bad soldier with a good rifle.
As far as whats better, I dont want to hear anyone say one is better then the other. Why? Anyone worth their salt knows, a soldiers ability is not dependant upon his firearm, because he understands the limitations, and doesnt push beyond those. In other words, a good soldier can do far better with a bad rifle then a bad soldier with a good rifle.
in the falklands the soliders did hand to hand combat some carried the onld 7.62 slrs and some the m16 5.56. at close range noone got up from a 7.62 where as some guys took three 5.56s and although downed were still able to raise a rifle at the british soliders.
Shockwave WHERE do you get your information???????? You are so far out in left field it hurts. The reason the M16A2 was given only a 3 round burst compared to the full auto select of the A1 was do to the fact that ammo was being wasted, and it was not intended for the normal soldier to have a machine gun. Also there were other inprovements sucha s as the sights. Like it was said earlier the MAIN reason for switching to the M16(.223) from the M14(.308) was totally POLITICAL. The M14 is by far a more accurate rifle, more durable, and had superior knock down power, if you even remotely doubt that the .223 round is better, what do most snipers use, military and SWAT, it sure isn't a varmit size .223 round. Yes the .223 can take down a man, but it is not near the .308's ability. [/Rant] Anyway use this wonderous INTERNET thing here and look up some stuff (not on a game site) and maybe listen to the few people in here who were/are in the military and are beyond puberty.[/Rant]
Shockwave: The 7.62 version of the M16 you mention was the AR-10. Never fired one. Understand it is a helluva weapon.
schmedy: Undoubtedly, the 7.62 is a superior round. Fondly remember my old M21 too. And <sigh> I liked that one so much I purchased a Springfield Armory M1A while home on leave in the late 80s. The really bizarre thing about the US Army Sniper program during the early 80s was that line units in Germany were still using M1 Garands for their snipers. But hey, they were very effective also.
Here is the story I got about the adaptation of the 5.56 (M16) to replace the 7.62x51 NATO (M14) I'm going off of memory, so do correct me if I'm wrong:
During the <sarcasm>illustrious tenure</sarcasm> of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara (former Ford exec, analyst and bean counter), the decision was made to adapt the M16 for ground forces for a number of reasons. 1) A soldier could carry more rounds. 2) The weapon easier to train on (more on that in a moment) 3) It was decided that the battle doctrine at the time determined that infantry would not engage targets at ranges beyond 400 m because of indirect fire and air support. 4.) Because McNamara was into the "one size fits all" frame of mind (remember F4s for USAF and USN?), the M16 was adapted by all services.
At any rate, regarding the trainability piece of the puzzle. I attended a conference in 1985 regarding the subject of BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) and ARM (Advanced Rifle Marksmanship). The single most common denominator regarding marksmanship was that soldiers were no longer "pre-trained" when they entered military service. This was because of a demographic shift since the end of WWII. During the earlier wars of the 20th century, a great number of inductees came from rural environments and were therefore already familiar with rifles. Another factor was that it was observed that female soldiers had problems handling the M1 Garand/M14.
Again, I'm going off memory on this one so somebody out there may have more accurate info.
Now, regarding the subject of weapons carry in birds. Yes, I'm quite sure USAF and USMC have their own SOPs for weapons carry in aircraft. I'll still stick by Army doctrine and in fact, reference it here:
(3) Weapons with blank firing adapters are pointed muzzles up.
(4) Weapons loaded with live ammunition are muzzles down.
Source: Ranger Handbook from benning.army.mil
Look at paragraph f., "Safety" at the bottom of the page.
Nevertheless, "back in the day", we traveled with muzzles down in birds whether we had BFAs (and filthy blanks) or live rounds.
schmedy: Undoubtedly, the 7.62 is a superior round. Fondly remember my old M21 too.
And <sigh> I liked that one so much I purchased a Springfield Armory M1A while home on leave in the late 80s. The really bizarre thing about the US Army Sniper program during the early 80s was that line units in Germany were still using M1 Garands for their snipers. But hey, they were very effective also.Here is the story I got about the adaptation of the 5.56 (M16) to replace the 7.62x51 NATO (M14) I'm going off of memory, so do correct me if I'm wrong:
During the <sarcasm>illustrious tenure</sarcasm> of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara (former Ford exec, analyst and bean counter), the decision was made to adapt the M16 for ground forces for a number of reasons. 1) A soldier could carry more rounds. 2) The weapon easier to train on (more on that in a moment) 3) It was decided that the battle doctrine at the time determined that infantry would not engage targets at ranges beyond 400 m because of indirect fire and air support. 4.) Because McNamara was into the "one size fits all" frame of mind (remember F4s for USAF and USN?), the M16 was adapted by all services.
At any rate, regarding the trainability piece of the puzzle. I attended a conference in 1985 regarding the subject of BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) and ARM (Advanced Rifle Marksmanship). The single most common denominator regarding marksmanship was that soldiers were no longer "pre-trained" when they entered military service. This was because of a demographic shift since the end of WWII. During the earlier wars of the 20th century, a great number of inductees came from rural environments and were therefore already familiar with rifles. Another factor was that it was observed that female soldiers had problems handling the M1 Garand/M14.
Again, I'm going off memory on this one so somebody out there may have more accurate info.
Now, regarding the subject of weapons carry in birds. Yes, I'm quite sure USAF and USMC have their own SOPs for weapons carry in aircraft. I'll still stick by Army doctrine and in fact, reference it here:
(3) Weapons with blank firing adapters are pointed muzzles up.
(4) Weapons loaded with live ammunition are muzzles down.
Source: Ranger Handbook from benning.army.mil
Look at paragraph f., "Safety" at the bottom of the page.
Nevertheless, "back in the day", we traveled with muzzles down in birds whether we had BFAs (and filthy blanks) or live rounds.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter