Forums / Gun Discussion / To the" Haters" of the AR-15/M16

5 years 33 weeks ago, 9:04 PM

SUPERFRYE

SUPERFRYE's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
138
Join Date:
Dec 2008
Location:
North carolina

This my deal, I think the ar-15/ m16 is a great weapon and I'M not scared to say it. As far as take down power goes, well, any well placed bullet can take down "ANY" target. Even if the ar-15/m16 wasn't a auto loading weapon I think it would be up there with the Remmington 700 in .223 that is, and ,let's say no one ever bashes that weapon. As far as as any weapon with stock or open sights, the ar will hang with the best of them.The AR-15/M16 is a very versital weapon from one meter to 300 meters. In well trained hands 300-800 meters.By design this is a shooters rifle there is windage and elivation adjustments, how many other stock rifles have that,and as far you "AK" people go, thanks for keeping our foreign enemies alive!! They will use there profits to one day invade "US", but on the bright side you'll be able to pick up the ammo from their dead bodies to protect your self, that is if they are with in 200 meters or so, other than that you might want to uuummm have an ar or m16.And any way as far as having a dirty weapon, that jams well that's bull shit it does'nt take that long wipe it's ass and roll on. A little training goes a long way, I don't know about you but with my training, and those of you that have been in my boots know, that the ar/m16 is a great weapon!!!!

5 years 33 weeks ago, 9:15 PM

Uriel

Uriel's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
106
Join Date:
Mar 2009
Location:
tucson, arizona

I agree with you all the way ar15 and m16 are great

5 years 33 weeks ago, 9:48 PM

SUPERFRYE

SUPERFRYE's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
138
Join Date:
Dec 2008
Location:
North carolina
Uriel Thanks

I'm glade some one knows what I'm talking about!!!

5 years 33 weeks ago, 9:44 PM

mcliberty

mcliberty's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant Colonel
Points:
90
Join Date:
Sep 2008
Location:
indiana
ar vs. ak

I HAVE HAD OR HAVE SEVERAL OF BOTH ,BOTH ARE GOOD WEAPONS,BOTH HAVE THERE PROS OR CONS. I PREFER THE AR.FOR SEVERAL REASONS 1.ERGONOMICS USER FRIENDLY,MAG CHANGES/SAFETY/ALL CONTROLS.USER FRIENDLY ON ACCESSORIES/AFTER MKT.GEAR. BALLISTIC/ACCURACY CIVILIANS CAN USE SP,HP,BALL.TIP. HELPS WITH STOPPING POWER

5 years 33 weeks ago, 10:03 PM

fordvg

fordvg's picture

Rank:
Points:
5761
Join Date:
Oct 2008
Location:
Fancy Farm, Kentucky, United States
SUPERFRYE

I have no problem with my AR when it is dirty. I clear mine about every 1000 rounds if not more. Shot my in lots of matches with no problem at all. Only problem I ever had with mine was with my reloads at first and then I found out I had my bullets loaded to long. So, after I started loading the bullets deeper in the case I have had no problems since then.

"WAR IS A RACKET, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." Major-General Smedley Darlington Butler USMC Ret. 2 time Medal of Honor winner.
5 years 33 weeks ago, 10:19 PM

DEMO

DEMO's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1268
Join Date:
Oct 2008
Location:
Hamburg, NY
M-16 rules

I never understood the debate. The AR-15 is the best rifle hands down. Never had a problem while serving, never had a problem with any of the AR-15 variants I own. I own a 9mm, 22LR and the .223/556. The 9mm is my favorite, great out to 100 yards, dead on.
I have a few AK's and they are ok. Bought a 5 round mag for hunting this year.
Anyone know if a 223 would take a deer? Federal has a deer cartridge. I want to take out the AR but the AK would be a better deer round...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
5 years 33 weeks ago, 10:21 AM

1hunter

1hunter's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
192
Join Date:
Jan 2009
AR-15

amen, it's a rifle. the AK's and SKS's are machine guns. spray and pray as Jeff Cooper used to say.

5 years 33 weeks ago, 10:36 AM

Reaper308

Reaper308's picture


Rank:
Secretary of Defense
Points:
6226
Join Date:
Jun 2008
Location:
Airstrip One, Oceania
I agree with

the fact that the M16/AR15 is a good rifle. I also like AK's. Both serve their purpose and both have some functions/abilities that are better than the other one. Hunter, I disagree that AK's and SKS's are machine guns. They are rifles. M249, M240, M60's are machine guns

"Proelium Comminus Auctoritate" "Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a muzzle flash."
5 years 33 weeks ago, 11:10 AM

1hunter

1hunter's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
192
Join Date:
Jan 2009
reaper

to each his own, i base my opinion on the experience i have had with accuracy. i just figure if you can't reliably place your shot (and i couldn't with my AK) your better off throwing a lot more lead at your target. i watched the video someone posted that showed an AK in slow motion. the front of that gun looked like it was alive. that much flex can't be good for accuracy. a friend of mine is a vietnam vet and he had terrible luck with his M-16. he said he had one good one, but gave it to some guy in the infantry who needed it worse than he did. he rode a tank. he bought the AK from me and loves it. apples and oranges i say. i have 2 bushmasters and like them a lot. the AR platform is a rifle capable of extreme accuracy right out of the box. i've yet to see an AK that could compete although iv'e never fired a russian model. the s.k.s is complete junk from what i've seen. i remember when you could get one for 120 bucks. i should have bought a truckload. too soon old, too late smart.

5 years 33 weeks ago, 11:26 AM

Reaper308

Reaper308's picture


Rank:
Secretary of Defense
Points:
6226
Join Date:
Jun 2008
Location:
Airstrip One, Oceania
hunter

you're right... to each his own. I happen to like all of the rifles you've mentioned. I can shoot 1"-2" groups with my AK at 100 yds consistently. I can also consistently hit a torso sized target at 300 yds. thats good enough for me, as I won't be entering any matches with it. my sks's are pretty similar in performance. I only own one AR... and its a M4A3 w/ a 14.5" bbl, which was really made for kicking in door and killing shit, not percision shooting. If I need to go over a few hundred yds, I'll grab the M1A... past that, 700P. Point being... you guys are right, the M16/M4 is a great weapon, but don't count AKs out because of their "inaccuracy". saying that an AK isn't accurate enough is like saying that all AR's jam. If you put a good quality AK in the hands of someone that can shoot, its a very deadly weapon.

AK pros:
ease of use, reliability, hard hitting

AR pros:
light weight, accurate, easily customizable

Of course both will have their cons too. I say this everytime this discussion/argument arises: they are both great rifles that served their purposes. many wars have been won with each. like you said, it's like comparing apples to oranges... I just happen to love all kinds of fruit

"Proelium Comminus Auctoritate" "Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a muzzle flash."
5 years 33 weeks ago, 11:41 AM

1hunter

1hunter's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
192
Join Date:
Jan 2009
reaper

i would love to have an M-1A i have a D.P.M.S. panther in .308 on order. i ordered it in october and probably wont get it before june, ugh.

5 years 33 weeks ago, 11:45 AM

Reaper308

Reaper308's picture


Rank:
Secretary of Defense
Points:
6226
Join Date:
Jun 2008
Location:
Airstrip One, Oceania
hunter

why so long? october was pre-election... you'd think they would get it out to you in 30-60 days. do they give you updates on the status?

"Proelium Comminus Auctoritate" "Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a muzzle flash."
5 years 33 weeks ago, 11:54 AM

1hunter

1hunter's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
192
Join Date:
Jan 2009
reaper

D.P.M.S. is working 3 shifts and is said to have stopped answering the phone. it's located in st. cloud minnesota, good for their economy. the panther was and is a hot seller. i tied to buy a bushmaster in .308, but at the time they weren't making them. the last i heard was 80,000 rifles behind orders. i looked at the armalites too, but settled on the dpms. i hope i get it before the nazi's take over.

5 years 33 weeks ago, 2:18 PM

clintlebo

clintlebo's picture


Rank:
General
Points:
2309
Join Date:
Aug 2008
Location:
land, of confusion, United States

I will add to this everlasting and interesting debate. The AR family is a platform weapon. By changing the upper, you can have .22, 5.56, 9mm, 6.5, 6.8, 300 win, That is all I can come up with at the moment. I am not familiar enough with the "enemies" rifle to know if it is a platform, or a rifle. Reaper or GP, can you change out uppers or lowers with these weapons? Or asked a different way in case the technology is different, can you "re-chamber" the AK-47 to shoot different rounds in a matter of minutes depending on the mission?

thank you
clint

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." (Calvin & Hobbes)
5 years 33 weeks ago, 2:23 PM

1hunter

1hunter's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
192
Join Date:
Jan 2009
AR platform

bushmaster has a .405 thumper? also. i don't know anything about it.

5 years 33 weeks ago, 2:40 PM

Reaper308

Reaper308's picture


Rank:
Secretary of Defense
Points:
6226
Join Date:
Jun 2008
Location:
Airstrip One, Oceania
you can also shoot

.50 beowulf from the AR platfrom. that looks fun!

I don't think you can convert an AK. I looked into conversions to take my AK47 (7.62x39) to an AK74 (5.45x39) a while back. I don't think its possible, somebody correct me if im wrong... but the AK47's gas system, mag well, and barrel are all set up for 7.62, so you would have to replace all of the major parts. it would make more sense to buy a new rifle in the caliber you wanted. its not like swaping out an upper on an AR, thats for sure. Conversions are a definate plus for the AR... thats why I find the SCAR and Masada/ACR so interesting

"Proelium Comminus Auctoritate" "Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a muzzle flash."
5 years 33 weeks ago, 6:25 PM

Nitris

Nitris's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1913
Join Date:
Nov 2008
Location:
I love my AR's

even have the Olympic K23 pistol, it's a bad A$$ weapon

Ron Paul 2012 III
5 years 33 weeks ago, 10:38 PM

Reaper308

Reaper308's picture


Rank:
Secretary of Defense
Points:
6226
Join Date:
Jun 2008
Location:
Airstrip One, Oceania
Nitris

don't you have 1,000 Aks too? or is that someone else?

"Proelium Comminus Auctoritate" "Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a muzzle flash."
5 years 33 weeks ago, 5:13 PM

Nitris

Nitris's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1913
Join Date:
Nov 2008
Location:
Reaper308

Reaper308 wrote:
don't you have 1,000 Aks too? or is that someone else?

I own a BB gun and pellet pistol and thats all the feds need to know lol.

No Samd have not tried them yet still building AK's ....er...........I mean BB guns.

Ron Paul 2012 III
5 years 33 weeks ago, 6:35 PM

samD

samD's picture

Rank:
President
Points:
15597
Join Date:
Aug 2008
Location:
Green Valley, Free State of Arizona, United States
Welcome back Nitris

Have you tried the Cammengo Magazines for the AR, the easy loaders?

5 years 33 weeks ago, 7:46 PM

runawaygun762

runawaygun762's picture

Rank:
Vice President
Points:
8929
Join Date:
Nov 2008
Location:
Richland, MO, United States
AK vs AR

Look, for the last (probably not) goddamned time, get off the debate. The AK is dead nuts reliable (not the Iraqi made copies) and able to be operated and maintained by a trained monkey. The entire point behind the AK's design is that it can be put into the hands of an uneducated farm boy and after 15 minutes' instruction time, he can take that gun and run toward the enemy, laying down fire. The M16 was a ridiculous weapon that got people killed when it first came into use by combat troops, but that was not entirely the fault of the weapon or its design. It was first advertised as a weapon that did not need to be cleaned. We all know this is not true. Modern versions of the rifle are very reliable and their almost modular design make them very versatile. I have carried the M4 for 6 months in Kuwait and 39 months in Iraq, and have used it on more than one occasion. Superfrye's point of "wiping its ass" is a very good one. They do not require phase 3, inspection-ready cleaning. A quick wipedown and relube prior to rolling out each day on mission is all you need with a good scrubdown every month or so.

"I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life. The calling of arms, I have followed from boyhood. I have never sought another." From The Virtues of War, by Steven Pressfield.
3 years 42 weeks ago, 5:31 AM

Ishootdaily

Ishootdaily's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
4375
Join Date:
Feb 2009
Location:
Saint Petersburg, Florida, United States

[quote. It was first advertised as a weapon that did not need to be cleaned [/quote]

The Stoner (origional design) was a Gas Piston operated weapon. The Colt M16 took a weapon before it's time and fuged it up and labeled it the M16 and went from Clean powder to Ball powder made it the same claims as the Stoner would hold up to, then got a bunch of guys killed.

No sir, he fell into that bullet... Never argue with a stupid person. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!!
5 years 33 weeks ago, 7:50 PM

runawaygun762

runawaygun762's picture

Rank:
Vice President
Points:
8929
Join Date:
Nov 2008
Location:
Richland, MO, United States

Iraqis love our M4s and want the accuracy of our rifles, yet very few of them use the sights on the AKs and many of them actually remove the buttstocks of their rifles. Funny shit. And these people think their religion will rule the world some day. The Iraqi police get issued Glock 19s with nightsights (Thanks, taxpayers) and think they suck and would rather have the Berettas because that's what we carry.

"I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life. The calling of arms, I have followed from boyhood. I have never sought another." From The Virtues of War, by Steven Pressfield.
5 years 33 weeks ago, 8:10 PM

Uriel

Uriel's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
106
Join Date:
Mar 2009
Location:
tucson, arizona

I dont even know how someone could pick an ak over an m16 or m4

5 years 33 weeks ago, 8:18 PM

runawaygun762

runawaygun762's picture

Rank:
Vice President
Points:
8929
Join Date:
Nov 2008
Location:
Richland, MO, United States
It's very easy, Uriel

If you are trying to arm a small group of people, most of whom are unable to read and have the attention span of a retarded gnat, and you have a choice between paying 250 dollars a rifle versus 700 or more, it's easy. What makes it even easier is when the makers of the AK are willing to give you 5000 of them for starters when the makers of the M16 will only give you political advice and M1 carbines. That was the biggest appeal of the AK. It wasn't quality, it was availability.

"I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life. The calling of arms, I have followed from boyhood. I have never sought another." From The Virtues of War, by Steven Pressfield.
5 years 33 weeks ago, 8:27 PM

Uriel

Uriel's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
106
Join Date:
Mar 2009
Location:
tucson, arizona

Oh ok sorry about that. I dont have as much information than you do. I just started guns and want to learn about them. So give me a break.

5 years 33 weeks ago, 8:33 PM

runawaygun762

runawaygun762's picture

Rank:
Vice President
Points:
8929
Join Date:
Nov 2008
Location:
Richland, MO, United States
NO BREAKS HERE!!!

IF YOU CAN'T RUN WITH THE BIG DOGS - ah hell, I'm kidding. Sorry if I offended you. I meant no harm. Please don't shoot.

"I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life. The calling of arms, I have followed from boyhood. I have never sought another." From The Virtues of War, by Steven Pressfield.
3 years 42 weeks ago, 12:04 PM

bulldog136

bulldog136's picture

Rank:
Brigadier General
Points:
269
Join Date:
Oct 2010
Location:
Ft Benning, Georgia
Bad rap from the past

A lot of the Vietnam vets will tell you that the M16 was a terrible weapon and for good reason, at the time. The M16 was designed to shoot the 5.56 with a certain powder (can't remember which now) and when the government bought them they loaded a different type powder which didn't allow the bolt to function properly. In addition the original M16s didn't have a forward assist and when the bolt didn't go forward it was difficult to get it to function without being able to force it forward like other rifles in the past. Even the M14 would not go forward at times and you just had to tap the bolt handle.
Since then there have been numerous upgrades and changes that have now led to the current M4 series.
My only argument about the well placed rounds is that is great on a range but when you are taking fire, in an awkward position, at night, wearing 50lbs of gear etc etc you can't always get that perfect shot you did on the range.

3 years 42 weeks ago, 10:00 AM

kronz1

kronz1's picture

Rank:
Sergeant Major of the Army
Points:
21
Join Date:
Dec 2010
Location:
Henderson , NV, United States
AR15/M16

After thirty plus years of upgrades and improvements, I think the AR15/M16 is a great weapon. I carried the M16 and its varients for twenty + years and it never failed to deliver what was needed when it was needed. Im hoping in the near futre to buy an AR, just got to get the old lady on board.

Sarcastic people are just misunderstood.
3 years 42 weeks ago, 5:13 AM

Ishootdaily

Ishootdaily's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
4375
Join Date:
Feb 2009
Location:
Saint Petersburg, Florida, United States

Read the new issue of Tactical Weapons and a Russian Spetsnaz soilder explains how he could not get better than a 6.5 inch rapid fire group out of his issue AK 47 at 100 yards, 300 yrds and if he hit paper he felt lucky, 400 and it was kicking up dirt all over the place.

AK 47 against the AR/M4 is like Minor League Baseball player against a Pro. Now the AK 74 is something totally different...

No sir, he fell into that bullet... Never argue with a stupid person. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!!
3 years 42 weeks ago, 11:42 AM

CelticArmory

CelticArmory's picture

Rank:
Major
Points:
58
Join Date:
Dec 2010
Location:
Port Orchard, Washington, United States
Well...

I will tell you this. I have both an AR and an AK. While my AR is a bit more accurate than my AK and the sights are easier to adjust, guess which one is my EDC go to gun. My AK. The 5.56 is a kick butt round, but doesn't quite have the hard target penetration that the 7.62x39 has. I love both. Both are easy to care for, both are easy to shoot. The big thing with BOTH is who made them. There are shitty ARs out there and there are awesome AKs out there. Both of mine required some "adjusting" to make them kick ass machines.

As far as accuracy goes; most small arms combat takes place in under 300 yards and more in under 100 than 300. I can hit man size targets at 200 with my AK with no problem. I don't rapid fire unless it's close range (less than 50). Any rapid fire beyond that is a waste of ammo. But between the two, if I were to try and snipe with it in an irons config, I would definitely take the ... AR over the AK.

"Guard well the words you use for they can be the keys to your freedom or the manacles of your slavery."
3 years 42 weeks ago, 10:23 PM

Ishootdaily

Ishootdaily's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
4375
Join Date:
Feb 2009
Location:
Saint Petersburg, Florida, United States

But I think it really wouldn't even be a question to be asked if the Armed Services have not ditched the AR10(Stoner) for the M16. Armalite was making and selling the AR10 to foreign Nations the whole time the M16 was being humped around the Republic Of..

I wonder how long it is going to take the SCAR to be fully integrated into the services? I also wonder why they do not have any plans to pass out the 6.8 SPC uppers so the troops can effectively fight close quarters and at distances up to 500 yards away when needed..

No sir, he fell into that bullet... Never argue with a stupid person. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!!
3 years 35 weeks ago, 11:20 AM

sspurgeon

sspurgeon's picture

Rank:
Corporal
Points:
8
Join Date:
Jan 2011
the m16

the m16 has two major problems 1st the mechanics of the weapon this weapon fouls its own chamber the very part of any weapon you want the cleanest the m16 makes dirtest this is why it jams the foward assist is a bandaid to fix the simptom not the problem now add water you got a real mess in your chamber 2nd the space between parts is to tight dirt cant fall out and the metal has no where to go when it get hot and i mean real hot like staying alive in a fire fight this means the weapon will seize you can like this weapon and its flaws if you want i choose not to

3 years 35 weeks ago, 7:30 AM

runawaygun762

runawaygun762's picture

Rank:
Vice President
Points:
8929
Join Date:
Nov 2008
Location:
Richland, MO, United States

The only fouling you get in the chamber of the M16 is the same thing you get with all firearms. Backpressure from the gas pushing the bullet down the bore fouls the chamber in all firearms. The DGI system directs gases into the upper and lower receiver, where the tolerances are much looser than in the expansion chamber of the GP system.

If you lube your weapon properly, it will work just fine. I have yet to see an M4 or AR-type weapon that has these ultra-tight tolerances that don't allow hot gas and dirt to escape. They may be out there, but I've never seen one in 15 years in the army.

"I have always been a soldier. I have known no other life. The calling of arms, I have followed from boyhood. I have never sought another." From The Virtues of War, by Steven Pressfield.
3 years 35 weeks ago, 10:12 AM

clintlebo

clintlebo's picture


Rank:
General
Points:
2309
Join Date:
Aug 2008
Location:
land, of confusion, United States

Please remember how liberal this publication is while reading the narrative. There have been many accusations concerning the loathing of America's military from this paper and yet here is the story.

clint

07 July 2010
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/examining-the-complaints-about...

Since late last year, At War has looked at issues surrounding small-arms choices and performance in the Afghan war, by American units and insurgents alike. We’ll continue this theme with two quick posts in the next few days: one serving as a follow-up to the continuing conversation about American rifle reliability, the other a closer look at the small arms that Afghan fighters have been wielding against Marines and government forces in Marja.

First, that perennial subject: the reliability of modern American infantry rifles. Throughout the Afghan and Iraq wars, questions have circulated about the performance of the principal rifles issued to American troops. The arms in question – both M-16 assault rifles and their shorter offspring, the M-4 carbines — are descendants of rifles first introduced to American service in Vietnam. They are the longest-serving general-issue rifles in American military history, and yet they have not quite fully shed some of the poor reputation that the original M-16 earned during its bungled introduction in the 1960s.

Are latter-day concerns about the rifles warranted?

It depends on what you mean about concerns. We previously examined complaints about M-16 and M-4 performance that had circulated on blogs, in news stories and in government reports, as well as in an independent survey of veterans (See “How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?” and “The M-16 Argument Heats Up Again”). And we visited Colt Defense L.L.C. (See “The Making of the Military’s Standard Arms,” Part I and Part II), the world’s principal manufacturer of the M-16 line, and watched the rifles being made. The complaints about Colt’s rifles have been varied. Some covered reliability (accounts of a tendency of the rifles to jam or overheat during extended firing), others covered range (concerns that the rifles are not effective at the longer distances between combatants in rural desert fighting), and others criticized the weapon’s lethality (the so-called stopping power of the rifles’ bullets, as in, their ability to incapacitate a struck man).
The Reliability Question

The reliability questions interest me most, for two reasons. First, a rifle’s range and lethality are moot points if the rifle will not fire when a soldier needs it to fire. And second, effective range and lethality are related in part to allied cartridge choice for all NATO forces and to bullet composition — two decisions that are beyond a manufacturer’s purview.

So far this year, the photographer Tyler Hicks and I have spent roughly three months in the field in Afghanistan with American troops, many of whom are engaged in some of the most regular and intensive fighting of the war. As part of our work, we have been observing rifle performance and querying soldiers and Marines about their experiences in combat with what is arguably the most important piece of equipment they carry.

The question before us was simple: How do the reliability complaints about M-4s and M-16s we hear in the States line up against what we see and hear in the field, where the war is being fought? Put another way, could we verify the troops’ reported dislike of the rifle because of its reliability, and demonstrate the nature of any problems behind the reported disaffection?

The answer was a surprise: The M-4 and M-16 were not seen to be suffering from reliability problems, at least not among people whose paths have crossed ours.

Simply put, in observations in many firefights in harsh conditions, and in the experiences of Army and Marine grunts queried this year, the issue of rifle reliability seems much less pressing than it has appeared in accounts of widespread worries about or dislike of the M-4 and M-16.
An Informal Survey

Are there limits to such an informal survey?

Of course. I queried not quite 100 infantrymen in conversations over many months, and we witnessed intensive small-arms engagements on perhaps a dozen different days. For a war fought in varied conditions and terrain, and with more than 90,000 American service members now on the ground, any slice of that size has its limits. But it still bears consideration. The ground covered included some of Afghanistan’s worst for firearms: the agricultural areas of Helmand Province, where weapons are often coated in a fine powdered sand (the troops call it “moon dust”), and where many firefights result in Marines jumping into irrigation canals. This means that rifles are dusty, then often wet and covered in mud. Moreover, some of the firefights lasted a few hours, resulting in several expended magazines for each grunt. I found only one report of a jammed rifle — a mud-coated M-16 that failed to fire one time after a sergeant climbed out of a canal midfight. The sergeant cleared the weapon and chambered a fresh round, and the rifle resumed firing without further hitch.

Given these conditions, while we can’t draw definitive conclusions about the current performance of the M-4 and M-16 lines, it is nonetheless a jolt to find no accounts of significant weapons failures and then to read blog posts that declare that the weapons are either a disaster or at least widely loathed.

This is more so given the account of Chief Warrant Officer Joshua S. Smith, the Marine responsible for weapons training and performance in the Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, which is engaged in daily fighting in Marja. “We’ve had nil in the way of problems; we’ve had no issues,” he said of the M-4s and M-16s. The battalion has about 350 M-16s and 700 M-4s, he said.

To be clear, any weapon that does fail in combat because of the normal strains of infantry use — the heat that builds up in extended firing; the intrusion of water, mud, dust or sand; or any other reason — can be a disaster to the grunt and the unit involved. History offers a guide: The experiences of the troops with early M-16s that failed them in Vietnam are some of the most harrowing tales of American war.

To be equally clear, no sample of 100 or so grunts is enough to settle any longstanding argument. But after years of carrying an M-16 (the A2 version, in the 1980s and 1990s) and years of observing them in the field, often in firefights, I have yet to see a modern M-16 or M-4 fail in the ways described in others’ reports, and I have not found significant reliability complaints from troops using the rifles in trying environments. (Interestingly, two Web sites that closely follow military equipment decisions, www.military.com and www.defensereview.com, reported late last month that the special operations community had dropped its program to replace M-4s with a rifle colloquially known as the SCAR, in part because the SCAR was not living up to its early billing – a common trait among rifles in development – and because it was not regarded as offering an upgrade on the M-4 that was worth the investment.)

Does that mean that M-4s and M-16s have not failed in combat, and are not still failing?

No. But it is curious that the Army’s examination of the battle of Wanat, which was part of the fuel on the latest controversy, did not find systematic problems with weapons. And it is hard not to notice, as we have tried to examine the issues, that many of the complaints about M-4 and M-16 reliability are almost impossible to trace because they are either anonymous or do not include essential information, including the unit’s name, and the date and location of the failure. This makes the complaints of the last few years much different from the complaints of the mid-1960s, when the din from the field was such that a near deluge of angry veterans spoke openly of the problems, and the rifle was overhauled, as the early M-16 needed to be. If there are widespread problems with the rifles, then they should be detectable in units in heavy fighting.

At War, for now, will draw no larger conclusions than this: Whatever the merits of the concerns about the M-4 and the M-16, on the matter of latter-day reliability, the complaints that have boomed on the Web feel out of proportion to what can be documented in the field, and may well be overstated, even hyped. If we’ve got this wrong, or have been looking in the wrong places, help us out (my e-mail address is chivers@nytimes.com). But from what we’ve seen and heard, the energy behind the worries about rifle reliability and the urge to swap out M-4s and M-16s for another rifle might be better expended in finding ways to counter improvised explosive devices, or other actual and readily discernible dangers and disaffections in the Afghan war.

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." (Calvin & Hobbes)
3 years 35 weeks ago, 4:38 PM

luckybychoice

luckybychoice's picture


Rank:
Secretary of the Treasury
Points:
6781
Join Date:
May 2009
Location:
United States
good read

worthwhile

i tried being reasonable,i didn't like it, NRA LIFE MEMBER,USMC VETERAN
3 years 12 weeks ago, 6:27 PM

traderjac

traderjac's picture

Rank:
Major General
Points:
545
Join Date:
Jan 2010
Location:
Va, United States
sks vs ar

I read all of the post here and enjoyed the difference in opinion. I carried a M16 in Nam (actually 2) during my 2 tours. (70 and 71). I never had a jam or misfire. Of course, this was after the dudes in Washington changed the powder and chrome lined the barrels. The early 16's weren't even chromed! I now have a Bushmaster Ar2 with full stock and 20 " barrel and love it. I also have a SKS that I love as well, both are VERY functional . I would feel comfrontable going in to combat with either one, because I KNOW them and take care of them.
If I lost my weapon in combat and came across an ar4 or sks and not knowing who had taken care of them ,I woud pick up the sks and use it, cause no matter how dirty or mistreated it is, it will function. There is a lot to be said about lose tolerance is a semi auto.

If a man can make you mad just by talking, then he is far brighter than you.

Who's Online

Guns Lot Activity
Users
Currently Active Users: 926 (0 members and 926 guests)

Users Active within the last 24 hours
captmax, tallguy007, Caber, nobile157, gomer, jpdental, presslerms, teko52
Guns Lot Statistics
Stats Topics: 8,654, Comments: 161,088, Members: 23,517
Welcome our newest member: Hank6046

Recent Activity