@kloless That's a very in-wards argument to make. The US doesn’t decide if a fight is a war, or otherwise. The UN guided by the Geneva Convention, which outlines what is or isn't a war does. It means very little if the US Congress did or didn't declare war. The fact remains that the fighting in Vietnam was a war.
Just cuz, to the US the fighting wasn't war, doesn't mean it wasn't really a war. The war did require a peace treaty, that’s a clear obvious way of knowing it was a war.
@JimmyG228 Mudslinging is a irrational concept and a logical fallacy for an argument/discussion. The fact of the matter is, as a citizen of the United States of America, it is written that the fighting that had taken place was not a war. Also, look into Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This is the article on SELF DEFENSE. We engaged in a CONFLICT for self defense of another nation, although they weren't under the U.N the U.S.A cited this to protect themselves.
@kloless I am not an American. So I really don't care what the US called the war in Vietnam, it still doesn't change the fact the fighting was a war. The US’s & NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan is not a policing action, nor has the UN officially labelled it one. So you are widely misinformed about your own country's history. How typical of an American, if I be so bold to say.
As I said before, the WAR in Vietnam was a civil war fought between communist north & democratic south from...
@JimmyG228 And on point two. Every action and "war" done by the United States since WWII has been considered a POLICING ACTION... by the United Nations. It is become quiet apparent that you are spouting uninformed slander. Thank you.
@kloless … from1 November 1955 to 30 April 1975 (19 years 180 day). The US only had a direct combat involvement for roughly half that time between 1965 & 1973.
I’ll quote the opening line of the Wikipedia page on the war:
“The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, & Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975.”
Note how it calls the conflict a war.
Assuming your augment is right, based on that, you’d also have to...
@kloless …to infer the years the US didn’t have an active role in the conflict, those years too weren’t really a war. That makes no sense.
Lastly the war in Vietnam was partly supported by SETO which the US used as an excuse for their involvement early on in their combat role. It also was why Australia & others supported the US combat role. It also made a peace treaty required in to end SETO involvement in 1973.
"The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military CONFLICT" please note that the cold war, also wasn't a war, but yet hold the title.... plus it is SEATO, "affirming the rights of Asian and Pacific peoples to equality and self-determination and setting forth goals of economic, social, and cultural cooperation between the member countries" this enforces my point of a policing action, not a war. There is no doubt that there was fighting, but Vietnam is incorrectly labeled a war.
@kloless You’re clearly just an idiot as apposed to naive. You clearly don't know what era means in the form of usage in that sentence. Go back to high school you fool.
I know the facts, I have relied them, yet you still insist on arguing despite being completely wrong.
You Yanks always think that the world should think in an American way. Sorry we are not that dumb, nor are we remotely obligated to think as you do. That's the bases for your lame argument. That’s weak & stupid.
I have a question for Americans and/or anyone who understands the imperial measurement system:
NATO standard is to use meteoric, as a former NATO soldier I understand well meteoric calibers. However the equivalent imperial calibers make no sense to me.
Case in point; 30-06 & .308 are both 7.62mm, why the different numbers if they are the same caliber?
Then .303 to the logic of the number .308 implies the .303 is smaller then .308, however .303 is 7.7mm, which is bigger. How can this be?
@JimmyG228 Well, the 30-06 stands for .30 caliber 1906. the american army started to use the round 1906 therefore, the 06. The difference is wheter you choose to measure the caliber between the grooves or lands in the barrel. depending on the choice, there's roughly a 0.2mm difference. Now, why there's a 0.2mm difference is to ensure a tight fit between the barrel and the bullet.
For example, the 7.62 NATO. 7.82mm bullet, but 7.62mm between the lands in the barrel.
@JimmyG228 i realize this was over a year ago, but i've been out of the loop for awhile MER is maximum effective range. the maximum effective range of a c7 on a point target is only 400 meters, which is 100 less than that of an m4 carbine, and 150 meters less than that of an m16. also to all of the people who claim the m16 jams all of the time, the only major malfunction i've ever experienced are double feeds, which result from shitty magazines... weapons maintenance is your friend
@bajaben777 We use different terms in Her Majesty's Armed Forces then the US does. Info can be misleading if you don't fully understand the differences. According to your term MER, the C7 would rate around 700m but we don't test MER so I'm not 100% sure. We have other weapons to drop targets past 600m, we only care about how it preforms at ranges soldiers are trained to engage with a service rifle. Furthermore given the design differences between the C7 & M16 it's impossible for...
@bajaben777 ...for the M16 to be better then the C7. The C7 has a collapsible stock, C79 optical scope, ambidextrous safety, & a tri-add mount at the end of the stock. All standard for every C7. That all makes it more versatile then the M16. The boar is made from hammer forged steal which makes it stronger & more durable then the M16s. Plus it allows for a faster spin in the rifling, this makes the C7 more accurate & allows it to fire a heavier more effective 5.56 round then the M16.
@JimmyG228 you are thinking of the old vietnam war era m16a1 that fired the m193 ball rounds, while it was a 5.56x45mm it was a lightweight 55 grain round... we dont use that anymore, we use a heavier m855 ball round... less stopping power but more accuracy and penetration at greater ranges. also, the m4 has a 1:7 spin while the original m16a1 had a 1:14.
@JimmyG228 also the m4 has a collapsible stock as well, an acog/aimpoint comp m/or thermal sights, depending on what is issued, a four sided rail system around the barrel and the barrel itself is lined with chrome due to it being harder than the steel the barrel is made out of. it sounds to me as if you were arguing that the c7 is better than the A1 variant of the m16 used in vietnam... and i truely hope it is.
@bajaben777 I was arguing the C7A2 is better then the M16A2. I don't know the name of the round off hand but the round the C7 fires but, it's a 65 grain round. Given the lower quality of the M16's steal & slower rifling spin, the M16 can't take the 65 grain 5.56 round. This was told to me by a Captain in the US Army, I have no reason not to believe since I verified it with a firearms expert in my chain of command. As far as I know the M4 is the exception, but comparing a service...
@JimmyG228 where to start. the m855 5.56x45mm NATO round is a 62 grain round, the m16a2 has a 1:8 barrel twist, and the c7/8 doesn't come with any kind of optic, they are both factory made with a detachable carrying handle just like the m16/m4 and the optics are issued individually by your military. the triad mounts on your c7/8 are built into the barrel and are actually heavier than our picatinny rail system that comes standard on our rifles. the reason you have triad mounts is...
@JimmyG228 ... because your government didnt want to shell out the extra money for the rail systems that we use on our rifles. also, hammer forged barrels have multiple stress marks along the barrel and are very very well known for butchering the accuracy of a rifle due to a high level of inconsistency between one barrel and another. also the c79 optic is a 3.4x28 optic, while our acog's are 3.5x35 optics light via fiber optics (no batteries)...
@bajaben777 ... service rifle to a carbine is a little unfair. They are 2 different classes. I do own a C8, which is equivalent to the M4. That would be a fair comparison. I however have little experience with a M4, so it's hard for me to argue in favour or against the M4 to C8. I don't shoot my mouth off unless it's loaded... so to speak lol. I can say with confidence, the M4 it appears little different then the C8. The C8 has all you listed the M4 has plus hammer forged steal boar.
@bajaben777 A note about my C8 though. It was made by Imperial Defense Services. For some odd reason they made the upper reserver to the C8 standards but the lower reserver is made to M4 standards. As well the bold & bold carrier is made with the same steal the Americans use.
I just read the C8 has a 1:7 twist like the M4 but it features the TRI AD mount, ambidextrous safety, & the C79 ELCAN optical gunsight with 3.4× magnification the C7 has. Things the M4 doesn't have standard.
@bajaben777 ... so lets recap. your rail system is heavier than ours, making your rifle more front heavy, your optics dont have as strong of a magnification, your barrels are less accurate. but you have an ambidextrous selector switch... good going hoss
@bajaben777 The M16 has a 1:7 twist according to Wikipedia. Being Wikipedia is know for inaccuracies I'm not too sure of it. I was told, by a credible person the M16 has a 6.5 twist. Either way your are full of crap that the M16 has a 1:8 twist.
It's lame you try to argue the C7/8 doesn't have optics since the CF stopped issuing C7s with iron site in the 80s. Since the mid 80s all C7s come standard with the C79 ELCAN optical gunsight as I stated. Being a former Canadian Soldier...
@JimmyG228 yoru statements about the barrel twist show that you dont really know what you're talking about.... barrel twist is a ratio, 1:7 means the bullet spins 1 time for every 7 inches it travels. the original m16 had a 1:14 twist. if you truely were told that an m16 had a 1:6.5 twist as compared to your c7's 1:7 twist. then you just disproved yourself. also, i challenge you to researh hammer forging, heat treatment can remove a few of the stress marks in the barrel but not all
@JimmyG228 actually they've been putting 1:8 twist barrels on them to shoot heavier rounds. however the 1:7 will handle the 77 grain rounds with no problem...also the 16 never had 6.5
@bajaben777 ... Soldier I would know full well. You said you guys' fiber optic sites don't take batteries. Ok, so, the C79 optical sites don't either. So do yourself a favour & drop that point.
Just like your military, we have the picatinny rail system for our files too. Just like your military they just don't come standard. I was listing just standard features for our C7s to your M16s. The TRI AD mounts may be heavier, but by less then half a kilo. That's a small margin eh.
@bajaben777 Your account of, "hammer forged barrels have multiple stress marks along the barrel and are very very well known for butchering the accuracy of a rifle..." That is pure bull shit. The C7 is known for being slightly more accurate then the M16 & far more durable. The C7/8's hammer forged boars are made that way sacrificially to be more durable & last longer. The reason the US doesn't make the M16 boars that way, is it costs more. We equip our troops with true quality.
@JimmyG228 It is pure bullshit. I've fired many accurate weapons with cold hammer forged barrels. Even as an American, the Canadians probably put better barrels on their C7's then we do on our M16's.
@esh325 Ummm why are you arguing the same point I was making to the other guy?
I know Canada makes better barrels for the C7s then the US makes for its M16s. That was one point of the argument I was making saying the C7 is better then the M16.
BTW colt didn't make hammer forged barrels for the C7, Diemaco did. Over 90% of all C7s were build by Diemaco. Colt Canada only took over production of the C7 a couple years ago.
@bajaben777 At the end of the day this last fact speaks to my opinion the C7 is much better then the M16:
Only 2 developed counties use the M16. Developed countries are rich enough to do lots of research and pick and choose what is better. Despite costing more to make, 6 developed countries have chosen the C7 and C8s over the M16 and M4s. That clear fact supports me fully.
@bajaben777 You did get me on the barrel twist, that was a blond moment. I didn't notice the info was wrong, I shoulda picked up on it, but missed it. I took the info from Wikipedia. As I said before, Wikipedia can't always be relied on.
Along with Canada, of course, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Australia, the UK & rumors have it New Zealand maybe become the 7th developed country to equip their troops with the C7. The US & Greece are the only developed countries using the M16.
@JimmyG228 On an added note: sure compared to the US, Canada has a small influence militarily, however compared to the world has a whole, Canada has a big influence. Canada is rated by the CIA, and many international agencies has being between 14th-10th most influential counties in the world. The CIA rated Canada's military as 10th.
You Americans need to stop thinking so inwards, there is more to our world then just the US. You aren't the greatest country, or the leader of the world.
@bajaben777 It is true the UK uses the SA80, however they also use the C7. The Royal Navy & Britain's special forces command both use the C7. I've personally seen Gurkhas with C7s. As for Australia, they use the C7 over then M16 for their special forces too. I guess it's safe to say we are both right on this one.
But I digress back to my earlier statement; the fact that more developed counties use the C7 over then M16 speaks to my opinion's credibility. The C7 is better.
@JimmyG228 i've already made my points, 1. your weapon is heavier 2. your rail systems cause it to be muzzle heavy 3. hammer forged barrels have more stress marks from being manufactured and can cause inconsistencies between different weapons 3. your optics are inferior to ours. your logic is also flawed to say that more developed countries (with the exception of the UK) whose combined military strength is still inferior to that of the United States' use this weapon doesn't mean that its better
@bajaben777 So the US has a large military, your military lacks professionalism & quality of training compared to the rest of NATO. Just cuz a country has a large military doesn't necessarily mean they are the best & have the best kit.
Drop your stupid American arrogance & wake up to the reality of clear facts.
@flowingwolfpack Best is a an wide, open term. Best how, size no, strength no, professionalism hell no, standards hell no too. As for overall flexibility & capability, yes I'd say clearly the best there.
News flash idiot, there is a lot more to a country's military then just size & strength. My country focuses on high professionalism & high quality of training & equipment.
@JimmyG228 America is the best trained, supplied, equipted, and is the most professional. Your probably from like an unknown worthless liberal communists shit hole of the world
@flowingwolfpack You are a dumb ass if you really believe what you said. I've served overseas with US troops, I've trained & seen them in action, they are the poorest trained in NATO, well equipped but not the best, & least professional.
Just Google, My Lai Massacre, Abu Ghraib, & 5th Stryker Brigade 2nd Division & read how they killed Afghan civilians for sport. The US military is very unprofessional compared to other developed counties.
@MysteryoftheGods Cut the BS attitude, you make yourself look like a total prick & an idiot.
To argue your stupid comment though, the realm (as the former empire is known now) is still ruled by the British monarchy, which rules over 16 countries, & over 150million people. The empire maybe gone by name & practice, it remains in principle & in overall rule of law for 16 countries.
Worth noting, total military strength of the realm is larger then the US's.
@JimmyG228 IM the one that looks like a prick and idiot when you start the name calling? Nice. Anyway, the Brits do have a good army, but you can't really think they could beat the USA, do you? Britain rules over 150million people...that's 1/3rd of America, buddy. And you know what? Americans are allowed to own guns..so..technically we have a 400 million man army..now who is big?
@MysteryoftheGods In my country it not name calling when describing how someone is acting or talking. You were acting like a prick by making a stupid comment. Do like the way I call it how I see it, don't talk to me.
You are clearly misunderstanding what I said last, the realm, not Britain alone has a larger military then the US. Let me enlighten you, the realm includes 16 countries on 3 continents, with over 150million people total. The larger more powerful counties of the...
@MysteryoftheGods ... realm are the UK (of course), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, & Belize. Plus several others around the world.
All commonwealth counties within the realm share Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. Which means in all 16 countries if someone enlist in the military, they must swear an oath to her, her heirs, & officers there by commissioned.
Total, thats a large amount of people swearing to protect the monarchy, more then the US has swearing to the flag.
@MysteryoftheGods We acualty have 3 million fighting soldiers and 400 million civilans with guns and training, and they have no guns, 100 million, a small country, a poor leadership and poor number. they would be massacred
@flowingwolfpack My point exactly. The average American goes to the shooting range around once a month, if not more. At LEAST once a year. that's 400 million Americans. In Britain and the other countries, you'd be hard pressed to find even a celebrity that has fired a gun. He has national pride, but he likes to rub it in where it doesn't deserve rubbing, this JimmyG228 guy.
@flowingwolfpack The US only aided in liberating France once, in 1944 & you didn't do it alone as your comment arrogantly implies. Where did you get twice. Read a history book before you shoot your mouth off.
@flowingwolfpack The Great War was all but over by the time US troops took a significant role & by the end of the war, US involvement was smaller then countries like Australia, Romania, Bulgaria, & Canada. No American can claim you bailed us out in 1918, you didn't really. Also France was invaded, not occupied, so hence no liberation. Vietnam was your war not ours, we had nothing to do with it.
Tell me, how is the US government help Canada out? Oh wait you back stab us on NAFTA.
Name one time Canada required military or economical aid form the US. Canada, today has one of the strongest economies in the world, far stronger then the US's. There is simply no comparison. So please tell me, when did Canada need the US's military help? I can think of several times the US asked Canada for military aid, we didn't always give it. Nevertheless the US needs Canada far more then Canada need the US.
@flowingwolfpack But the North American continent was invaded/colonised. Principally by white Europeans. As for winning all your wars? When is Vietnam Victory Day celebrated? There is also a war being fought now that will never be won.
@kloless It was officially a civil war. So you say it wasn't a war, does that mean the US Civil War or the English Civil War weren't really wars too? Come one, of course it was a war you fool.
Here's some facts about the WAR:
It was fought between 1 November 1955 & 30 April 1975, US combat involvement was between early 1965 & 15 August 1973.
South Vietnam was supported by the US, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand & Laos.
The North had in a very limited role China & the USSR.
@JimmyG228 FOR THE U.S.A, congress never declared war. congress has to declare war for it to be written in as one. We sent troops over under orders of our president, commander in chief. If congress doesn't declare war, but we engage, it is then a CONFLICT. "However, officially in the eyes of the United States government, it was a conflict, because Congress never declared war on Vietnam. In fact, Congress hasn't declared war since 1941"... Thank You.
@kloless The same idea is echoed in Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan or Gulf War. All those wars the US didn't declare war officially, yet they were all wars in their own right. UN mandates often limit how wars are fought & always mandate level of involvement but it doesn't decide if a fight is a war or not. Nor does the US Congress, you idiot. The Congress has no international authority. The ICC & Geneva Convention are the only bodies that have world wide authority to judge a fight a war or not.
@JimmyG228 the c7 is a copy of the m16. it doesnt make it better just because diemaico made them. without colt there would be no c7. as far as accuracy, thats on the shooter. BUT if the c7 has the copy of the m16a1sights, the m16 wins.
@danthman114 I made a typo mistake when copying & pasting info on the M16 when I said it had a 1:6.5 twist, oooops.
The M16 is designed to fire the 55 grain 5.56 round, but can fire the 62 grain, not a 77grian. The C7 however was always designed to fire the 62 grain round. The C7 has more standard features & is built to a higher quality with stronger steal & stronger composite plastic then the M16. That's way the C7 is more common among developed countries then the M16, its better.
@bajaben777 No, not a troll. The P90 is superior to the majority of assault rifles for rate-of-fire-to-recoil, and can be fired more accurately while moving. Of course I will accept that assault rifles have a significantly higher caliber and can do a lot more damage if aimed correctly, but in a combat situation you don't have long to aim.
@SuperSmashyfication the p90 is a 9x19mm sub machine gun, the majority of engagements in Afghan right now come from outside of the maximum effective range of an m4 which is 500 meters. how useful do you think a fn p90 would be at those distances?
@bajaben777 Oops, I didn't mean it like that. I was talking of a more offensive/special ops context. In skirmishes assault rifles are the right choice, but sub machine guns are more effective in woods or urban areas.
A direct impingement gas weapon that never needs cleaning, if you can build one of those, you will probably become the richest person on earth. Because it isn't possible.
"that makes sense, you realize that the m16 and m4 are identical internally right?"
I own a few AR-15s, I know the internal operations of the M16. The M4 and the M16 are NOT identical. The M4 has a shorter barrel and, thus, has more gas in the action and has a shorter time between firing and the unlocking of the action. This causes more fouling in the BCG, which means feeding and extraction are harder.
This is why the M16 is only slightly less reliable than a SCAR, where the m4 is much less.
@Rm21122012 So you're saying that the K98 and the 1903 are better? I don't think this vid is strictly about combat effectiveness. If it were, the 1903 and the K98 would be tied on this list.
@xEpicBeatles M4A1 is a Carbine, it does not fit on this list, and the M16 was alot more important in the Vietnam war than the M4 that wasnt invented yet :P but you are right, M4A1 is better.
@TheVanezi hey man you seem to know what you're talking about lol can you explain to me the difference between a carbine, and other types of rifles? :)
this piece of shit shouldnt be in this video, it should be on top 1000 list. the hk g3 is a overall better rifle. more reliable, more powerful and accurate
Fir all of the people who don't like the M16, screw you, M16 is a great rifle and is way better than the M14. I'm not trying to say the M14 is bad but M16 is better.
@mfunguy10 If the M16 was totally better then the M14, then it would not be issued in wide numbers like it is today with the US military. Both rifles serve different roles. The M16 is a better infantry rifle, while the M14 is a better sniper/marksman rifle.
@bassharmonica1 u do know that the difference between the M16 and AR15 is that the m16 is the military designation and has full auto/3 rd burst capabilities right?? ar-15 is only semi-auto. you can take parts and swap them around like nothing. I believe the M4 is a shorter barrel normally with a collapsible stock.
M16 used to jam because of gun powder related issues back in the vietnam war. the gun's producer advised a different type of powder suitable for jungle humidity but the US Army said otherwise. that was the main reason why it jammed so much and gained an awful reputation!
M16 used to jam because of gun powder related issues back in the vietnam war. the gun's producer advised a different type of powder suitable for junge humidity but the US Army said otherwise. that was the main reason why it jammed so much and gained an awful reputation!
@81Kain That's true. But when you think about it, rifles had been using only ball powder prior to the M16 for almost hundreds of years and worked fine. The whole idea about ball powder is that it's cheap. When your resources are constrained by war time pressures, it's nice to have a weapon that can digest cheaper dirtier propellents. A good rifle should be able to feed many different ammo types regardless of quality in my opinion.
@esh325 i tottaly agree with you. fortunately nowadays most weapon producers consider that as a "most have" when they design a new rifle. a true example is the h&k m416, witch i think should be the next US Army's main weapon system (if not already)
@xEpicBeatles no shit, not to mention that the m16 vietnam rifle was issued with dirt cheap bullet powder that the rifle was not designed for, costing american lives, and maybe even turned the tide of the war against USA
@600trillion I read Eugene Stoner was aware that ball powder was a requirement, but failed to design his rifle to use it. It didn't cause us to loose the war at all. We got the issues of the M16 fixed during the war. Politics made us loose. Not rifles.
xEpicBeatles o yeah the m4 is a nice improvement but most off the guns in this thing are a little older i think they should have put old guns in this episode and new ones in another because this missed the russian mosin nagant and my favorite th m1 carbine.
m16 is terrible even the new improved models, put the m14 as no.2 and get rid of this weapon completely put the sks as number ten that way both number 10 and 9 combine to make number 1. again look at both guns and try to piece together how they make a ak47.
Enough about fucking CoD already! And to those who think the AR15/M16 family is junk, stop buying junk rifles (Bushmaster, DPMS, Olympic, RRA, etc) and buy something made to the actual TDP specs or similar quality (Colt, LMT, Daniel Defense, BCM, etc).
@MrPancakes211 M16A1 - smooth grip, full/semi-auto M16A2 - A2 ribbed grip, burst/semi M16A3 - A2 grip with full auto, M16A4 - burst/semi with railed handguard and upper receiver... black ops have the A4
@jakkree2099 I m-4 for customization options, but I dislike short barrel. in the military can you buy your own gun parts and use them as long as you keep the old ones?
@motlencore89 it was a cut off of my last comment, I no minimal recoil is a good thing, and seeing as the M-16 isnt going anywhere anytime soon, chances are I will encounter it or some other variant when I join either the Marines or army.
@ryanraymond321 I know buddy but many people don't like the M4 for many reason but for me I prefer the M16a4 because when I hold It I feel like " Woah this feel good! " and for a long range It's better than M4's
but you gotta know that the most disgusting thing about AR family Is you must kept It clean!
the 5.56 has almost as much stopping power as the 7.62 because of the hyper-velocity round. if you make something go faster with less weight, then it still has the same kinetic energy as an object which is heavier and travels slower
@shadowkiller860 True. The argument behind the 7.62's greater perceived stopping power is that it retains it mass through various mediums, where as the higher velocity/lighter round has a tendency to yaw and break up upon impact with its targets. They claim the current green-tip has sort of the opposite problem where its steel tip punches clean through soft tissue and leaves a narrow wound channel without disrupting too much tissue.
@shadowkiller860 It's all depends really. Some times the 5.56x45 can fail to fragment because of insufficient velocity. When it does fragment, it is certainly more lethal.
Though is a good looking weapon, and definitely a classic, it´s only real pro is his accuracy (it has a good bullet guide system) anything else are mostly cons, and it tends to jamming or miss-function with humidity, sand, water, snow, mud, and the conditions of almost any place the USA goes fighting, Definitely doesn't deserves a second place (I personally like the M-16, but i wouldn't put it in THE TOP 10, i maybe would put the M-4 instead)
@SmervinMervin24 mmm if you say so, i haven't shot the m-4 enough to know how much does it jams. What i can tell you is that the AUG among others definitively deserves a better place, i don't know how an "american toy" such this one can be better than many other good machines. I would call this an historic oriented ranking more than a actual combat one (except for the first place, of course), thanks for your opinion!!
@SmervinMervin24 the m4 does jam a little more because the m16 was not designed to be such a small package. but as long as you keep the bolt carrier lubricated well itll run clean or dirty.
I don't doubt that they could carry 1500 rounds, but is that in magazines or bandolier form? Because obviously the M16 doesn't feed bandoliers but that's 20/1500 = 75 magazines. That's alot of magazines for 1 person to be somehow carrying on them unless his entire alice pack was filled with them. Bandoliers standard about 100 rounds? and someone has 15 of those draped around their torso? A modern M249 gunner only carries like 300 rounds. The guy is full of shit.
@kloless That's a very in-wards argument to make. The US doesn’t decide if a fight is a war, or otherwise. The UN guided by the Geneva Convention, which outlines what is or isn't a war does. It means very little if the US Congress did or didn't declare war. The fact remains that the fighting in Vietnam was a war.
Just cuz, to the US the fighting wasn't war, doesn't mean it wasn't really a war. The war did require a peace treaty, that’s a clear obvious way of knowing it was a war.
You're naive.
JimmyG228 1 day ago
@JimmyG228 Mudslinging is a irrational concept and a logical fallacy for an argument/discussion. The fact of the matter is, as a citizen of the United States of America, it is written that the fighting that had taken place was not a war. Also, look into Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This is the article on SELF DEFENSE. We engaged in a CONFLICT for self defense of another nation, although they weren't under the U.N the U.S.A cited this to protect themselves.
kloless 1 day ago
@kloless I am not an American. So I really don't care what the US called the war in Vietnam, it still doesn't change the fact the fighting was a war. The US’s & NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan is not a policing action, nor has the UN officially labelled it one. So you are widely misinformed about your own country's history. How typical of an American, if I be so bold to say.
As I said before, the WAR in Vietnam was a civil war fought between communist north & democratic south from...
JimmyG228 1 day ago
@JimmyG228 And on point two. Every action and "war" done by the United States since WWII has been considered a POLICING ACTION... by the United Nations. It is become quiet apparent that you are spouting uninformed slander. Thank you.
kloless 1 day ago
@kloless … from1 November 1955 to 30 April 1975 (19 years 180 day). The US only had a direct combat involvement for roughly half that time between 1965 & 1973.
I’ll quote the opening line of the Wikipedia page on the war:
“The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, & Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975.”
Note how it calls the conflict a war.
Assuming your augment is right, based on that, you’d also have to...
JimmyG228 1 day ago
@kloless …to infer the years the US didn’t have an active role in the conflict, those years too weren’t really a war. That makes no sense.
Lastly the war in Vietnam was partly supported by SETO which the US used as an excuse for their involvement early on in their combat role. It also was why Australia & others supported the US combat role. It also made a peace treaty required in to end SETO involvement in 1973.
JimmyG228 1 day ago
"The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military CONFLICT" please note that the cold war, also wasn't a war, but yet hold the title.... plus it is SEATO, "affirming the rights of Asian and Pacific peoples to equality and self-determination and setting forth goals of economic, social, and cultural cooperation between the member countries" this enforces my point of a policing action, not a war. There is no doubt that there was fighting, but Vietnam is incorrectly labeled a war.
kloless 22 hours ago
@kloless You’re clearly just an idiot as apposed to naive. You clearly don't know what era means in the form of usage in that sentence. Go back to high school you fool.
I know the facts, I have relied them, yet you still insist on arguing despite being completely wrong.
You Yanks always think that the world should think in an American way. Sorry we are not that dumb, nor are we remotely obligated to think as you do. That's the bases for your lame argument. That’s weak & stupid.
JimmyG228 18 hours ago
this looks of this gun is just so cute that i wanna sleep with it.
MrHeyobitch 3 days ago
some kid in your unit carrying 1500 rounds of ammo? thats 500 clip right there. please explain how he do that
F22Raptorific 5 days ago
@F22Raptorific your clips hold 3 rounds each?
TubeUser333 5 days ago
@TubeUser333 typo, i was gonna say 50.
F22Raptorific 5 days ago
Is it just me or is the M16 a damn sexy rifle? :)
Iskall91 6 days ago in playlist AR15/M16
I have a question for Americans and/or anyone who understands the imperial measurement system:
NATO standard is to use meteoric, as a former NATO soldier I understand well meteoric calibers. However the equivalent imperial calibers make no sense to me.
Case in point; 30-06 & .308 are both 7.62mm, why the different numbers if they are the same caliber?
Then .303 to the logic of the number .308 implies the .303 is smaller then .308, however .303 is 7.7mm, which is bigger. How can this be?
JimmyG228 1 week ago
@JimmyG228 Well, the 30-06 stands for .30 caliber 1906. the american army started to use the round 1906 therefore, the 06. The difference is wheter you choose to measure the caliber between the grooves or lands in the barrel. depending on the choice, there's roughly a 0.2mm difference. Now, why there's a 0.2mm difference is to ensure a tight fit between the barrel and the bullet.
For example, the 7.62 NATO. 7.82mm bullet, but 7.62mm between the lands in the barrel.
Iskall91 6 days ago in playlist AR15/M16
@JimmyG228 Better example:
7.62 NATO: 7.82mm bullet, 7.62mm (.300 inches) between the lands, 7.82mm (.308 inches) between grooves.
.303 british: 7.9mm bullet. 7.7mm (.303 inches) between the lands and 7.9mm (.311 inches) between the grooves
Iskall91 6 days ago in playlist AR15/M16
@Iskall91 Ok cool, thanks. That was well explained.
JimmyG228 6 days ago
@JimmyG228 No problem :)
Iskall91 6 days ago
IT KEEPED PEACE IN BOSNIA , really and whay are there so many Bosnians DEAD ?!?!?!
MrBenjo01 2 weeks ago
M14 is still my fave U.S. rifle in my book.
99thJediWarrior 4 weeks ago 2
ak 47 the best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1964alovestory 4 weeks ago
Canada, number 10, yeah!! I wonder when we're going to update our national anthem to reflect our new position of power in the world.
Shalashaska2099 4 weeks ago
so then why'd we lose Nam?
sicky1226 1 month ago
@sicky1226 Are you joking?
LordWellington15 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 i realize this was over a year ago, but i've been out of the loop for awhile MER is maximum effective range. the maximum effective range of a c7 on a point target is only 400 meters, which is 100 less than that of an m4 carbine, and 150 meters less than that of an m16. also to all of the people who claim the m16 jams all of the time, the only major malfunction i've ever experienced are double feeds, which result from shitty magazines... weapons maintenance is your friend
bajaben777 1 month ago
@bajaben777 We use different terms in Her Majesty's Armed Forces then the US does. Info can be misleading if you don't fully understand the differences. According to your term MER, the C7 would rate around 700m but we don't test MER so I'm not 100% sure. We have other weapons to drop targets past 600m, we only care about how it preforms at ranges soldiers are trained to engage with a service rifle. Furthermore given the design differences between the C7 & M16 it's impossible for...
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@bajaben777 ...for the M16 to be better then the C7. The C7 has a collapsible stock, C79 optical scope, ambidextrous safety, & a tri-add mount at the end of the stock. All standard for every C7. That all makes it more versatile then the M16. The boar is made from hammer forged steal which makes it stronger & more durable then the M16s. Plus it allows for a faster spin in the rifling, this makes the C7 more accurate & allows it to fire a heavier more effective 5.56 round then the M16.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 you are thinking of the old vietnam war era m16a1 that fired the m193 ball rounds, while it was a 5.56x45mm it was a lightweight 55 grain round... we dont use that anymore, we use a heavier m855 ball round... less stopping power but more accuracy and penetration at greater ranges. also, the m4 has a 1:7 spin while the original m16a1 had a 1:14.
bajaben777 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 also the m4 has a collapsible stock as well, an acog/aimpoint comp m/or thermal sights, depending on what is issued, a four sided rail system around the barrel and the barrel itself is lined with chrome due to it being harder than the steel the barrel is made out of. it sounds to me as if you were arguing that the c7 is better than the A1 variant of the m16 used in vietnam... and i truely hope it is.
bajaben777 1 month ago
@bajaben777 I was arguing the C7A2 is better then the M16A2. I don't know the name of the round off hand but the round the C7 fires but, it's a 65 grain round. Given the lower quality of the M16's steal & slower rifling spin, the M16 can't take the 65 grain 5.56 round. This was told to me by a Captain in the US Army, I have no reason not to believe since I verified it with a firearms expert in my chain of command. As far as I know the M4 is the exception, but comparing a service...
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 where to start. the m855 5.56x45mm NATO round is a 62 grain round, the m16a2 has a 1:8 barrel twist, and the c7/8 doesn't come with any kind of optic, they are both factory made with a detachable carrying handle just like the m16/m4 and the optics are issued individually by your military. the triad mounts on your c7/8 are built into the barrel and are actually heavier than our picatinny rail system that comes standard on our rifles. the reason you have triad mounts is...
bajaben777 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 ... because your government didnt want to shell out the extra money for the rail systems that we use on our rifles. also, hammer forged barrels have multiple stress marks along the barrel and are very very well known for butchering the accuracy of a rifle due to a high level of inconsistency between one barrel and another. also the c79 optic is a 3.4x28 optic, while our acog's are 3.5x35 optics light via fiber optics (no batteries)...
bajaben777 1 month ago
@bajaben777 ... service rifle to a carbine is a little unfair. They are 2 different classes. I do own a C8, which is equivalent to the M4. That would be a fair comparison. I however have little experience with a M4, so it's hard for me to argue in favour or against the M4 to C8. I don't shoot my mouth off unless it's loaded... so to speak lol. I can say with confidence, the M4 it appears little different then the C8. The C8 has all you listed the M4 has plus hammer forged steal boar.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@bajaben777 A note about my C8 though. It was made by Imperial Defense Services. For some odd reason they made the upper reserver to the C8 standards but the lower reserver is made to M4 standards. As well the bold & bold carrier is made with the same steal the Americans use.
I just read the C8 has a 1:7 twist like the M4 but it features the TRI AD mount, ambidextrous safety, & the C79 ELCAN optical gunsight with 3.4× magnification the C7 has. Things the M4 doesn't have standard.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@bajaben777 ... so lets recap. your rail system is heavier than ours, making your rifle more front heavy, your optics dont have as strong of a magnification, your barrels are less accurate. but you have an ambidextrous selector switch... good going hoss
bajaben777 1 month ago
@bajaben777 The M16 has a 1:7 twist according to Wikipedia. Being Wikipedia is know for inaccuracies I'm not too sure of it. I was told, by a credible person the M16 has a 6.5 twist. Either way your are full of crap that the M16 has a 1:8 twist.
It's lame you try to argue the C7/8 doesn't have optics since the CF stopped issuing C7s with iron site in the 80s. Since the mid 80s all C7s come standard with the C79 ELCAN optical gunsight as I stated. Being a former Canadian Soldier...
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 yoru statements about the barrel twist show that you dont really know what you're talking about.... barrel twist is a ratio, 1:7 means the bullet spins 1 time for every 7 inches it travels. the original m16 had a 1:14 twist. if you truely were told that an m16 had a 1:6.5 twist as compared to your c7's 1:7 twist. then you just disproved yourself. also, i challenge you to researh hammer forging, heat treatment can remove a few of the stress marks in the barrel but not all
bajaben777 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 actually they've been putting 1:8 twist barrels on them to shoot heavier rounds. however the 1:7 will handle the 77 grain rounds with no problem...also the 16 never had 6.5
danthman114 1 month ago
@bajaben777 ... Soldier I would know full well. You said you guys' fiber optic sites don't take batteries. Ok, so, the C79 optical sites don't either. So do yourself a favour & drop that point.
Just like your military, we have the picatinny rail system for our files too. Just like your military they just don't come standard. I was listing just standard features for our C7s to your M16s. The TRI AD mounts may be heavier, but by less then half a kilo. That's a small margin eh.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@bajaben777 Your account of, "hammer forged barrels have multiple stress marks along the barrel and are very very well known for butchering the accuracy of a rifle..." That is pure bull shit. The C7 is known for being slightly more accurate then the M16 & far more durable. The C7/8's hammer forged boars are made that way sacrificially to be more durable & last longer. The reason the US doesn't make the M16 boars that way, is it costs more. We equip our troops with true quality.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 It is pure bullshit. I've fired many accurate weapons with cold hammer forged barrels. Even as an American, the Canadians probably put better barrels on their C7's then we do on our M16's.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 Ummm why are you arguing the same point I was making to the other guy?
I know Canada makes better barrels for the C7s then the US makes for its M16s. That was one point of the argument I was making saying the C7 is better then the M16.
BTW colt didn't make hammer forged barrels for the C7, Diemaco did. Over 90% of all C7s were build by Diemaco. Colt Canada only took over production of the C7 a couple years ago.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@bajaben777 At the end of the day this last fact speaks to my opinion the C7 is much better then the M16:
Only 2 developed counties use the M16. Developed countries are rich enough to do lots of research and pick and choose what is better. Despite costing more to make, 6 developed countries have chosen the C7 and C8s over the M16 and M4s. That clear fact supports me fully.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 also, name one world power that uses the c7... canada and the netherlands aren't considered a powerful military presence by any means.
bajaben777 1 month ago
@bajaben777 You did get me on the barrel twist, that was a blond moment. I didn't notice the info was wrong, I shoulda picked up on it, but missed it. I took the info from Wikipedia. As I said before, Wikipedia can't always be relied on.
Along with Canada, of course, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Australia, the UK & rumors have it New Zealand maybe become the 7th developed country to equip their troops with the C7. The US & Greece are the only developed countries using the M16.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 On an added note: sure compared to the US, Canada has a small influence militarily, however compared to the world has a whole, Canada has a big influence. Canada is rated by the CIA, and many international agencies has being between 14th-10th most influential counties in the world. The CIA rated Canada's military as 10th.
You Americans need to stop thinking so inwards, there is more to our world then just the US. You aren't the greatest country, or the leader of the world.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 UK uses the SA80, and australia uses the m-16, not the c7
bajaben777 1 month ago
@bajaben777 It is true the UK uses the SA80, however they also use the C7. The Royal Navy & Britain's special forces command both use the C7. I've personally seen Gurkhas with C7s. As for Australia, they use the C7 over then M16 for their special forces too. I guess it's safe to say we are both right on this one.
But I digress back to my earlier statement; the fact that more developed counties use the C7 over then M16 speaks to my opinion's credibility. The C7 is better.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 i've already made my points, 1. your weapon is heavier 2. your rail systems cause it to be muzzle heavy 3. hammer forged barrels have more stress marks from being manufactured and can cause inconsistencies between different weapons 3. your optics are inferior to ours. your logic is also flawed to say that more developed countries (with the exception of the UK) whose combined military strength is still inferior to that of the United States' use this weapon doesn't mean that its better
bajaben777 1 month ago
@bajaben777 So the US has a large military, your military lacks professionalism & quality of training compared to the rest of NATO. Just cuz a country has a large military doesn't necessarily mean they are the best & have the best kit.
Drop your stupid American arrogance & wake up to the reality of clear facts.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
@JimmyG228 Hey what are you talking about. We are the best Military. I'd like to see your country even compare
flowingwolfpack 1 month ago
@flowingwolfpack Best is a an wide, open term. Best how, size no, strength no, professionalism hell no, standards hell no too. As for overall flexibility & capability, yes I'd say clearly the best there.
News flash idiot, there is a lot more to a country's military then just size & strength. My country focuses on high professionalism & high quality of training & equipment.
JimmyG228 3 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 America is the best trained, supplied, equipted, and is the most professional. Your probably from like an unknown worthless liberal communists shit hole of the world
flowingwolfpack 3 weeks ago
@flowingwolfpack You are a dumb ass if you really believe what you said. I've served overseas with US troops, I've trained & seen them in action, they are the poorest trained in NATO, well equipped but not the best, & least professional.
Just Google, My Lai Massacre, Abu Ghraib, & 5th Stryker Brigade 2nd Division & read how they killed Afghan civilians for sport. The US military is very unprofessional compared to other developed counties.
BTW I'm not from a communist shit hole!
JimmyG228 3 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 Right, that's why Britain has SUCH a large empire these days..
MysteryoftheGods 3 weeks ago
@MysteryoftheGods Cut the BS attitude, you make yourself look like a total prick & an idiot.
To argue your stupid comment though, the realm (as the former empire is known now) is still ruled by the British monarchy, which rules over 16 countries, & over 150million people. The empire maybe gone by name & practice, it remains in principle & in overall rule of law for 16 countries.
Worth noting, total military strength of the realm is larger then the US's.
JimmyG228 3 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 IM the one that looks like a prick and idiot when you start the name calling? Nice. Anyway, the Brits do have a good army, but you can't really think they could beat the USA, do you? Britain rules over 150million people...that's 1/3rd of America, buddy. And you know what? Americans are allowed to own guns..so..technically we have a 400 million man army..now who is big?
MysteryoftheGods 3 weeks ago
@MysteryoftheGods In my country it not name calling when describing how someone is acting or talking. You were acting like a prick by making a stupid comment. Do like the way I call it how I see it, don't talk to me.
You are clearly misunderstanding what I said last, the realm, not Britain alone has a larger military then the US. Let me enlighten you, the realm includes 16 countries on 3 continents, with over 150million people total. The larger more powerful counties of the...
JimmyG228 3 weeks ago
@MysteryoftheGods ... realm are the UK (of course), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, & Belize. Plus several others around the world.
All commonwealth counties within the realm share Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. Which means in all 16 countries if someone enlist in the military, they must swear an oath to her, her heirs, & officers there by commissioned.
Total, thats a large amount of people swearing to protect the monarchy, more then the US has swearing to the flag.
JimmyG228 3 weeks ago
@MysteryoftheGods We acualty have 3 million fighting soldiers and 400 million civilans with guns and training, and they have no guns, 100 million, a small country, a poor leadership and poor number. they would be massacred
flowingwolfpack 3 weeks ago
@flowingwolfpack My point exactly. The average American goes to the shooting range around once a month, if not more. At LEAST once a year. that's 400 million Americans. In Britain and the other countries, you'd be hard pressed to find even a celebrity that has fired a gun. He has national pride, but he likes to rub it in where it doesn't deserve rubbing, this JimmyG228 guy.
MysteryoftheGods 3 weeks ago
@flowingwolfpack Same thing would happen to other countries if they had a budget of 33.6 billion dollars on military spending.
theTicklemehellmo 2 weeks ago
@theTicklemehellmo Notice how we win all our wars and havent been invaded
flowingwolfpack 2 weeks ago
@flowingwolfpack Again, I will refer to my previous statement- the US has a military spending budget of 33.6 billion dollars.
Also, the US is less than 200 years old : whereas Europe has a much deeper history, and has experienced more wars.
theTicklemehellmo 2 weeks ago
@theTicklemehellmo Yes Europe knows how to surrender, and learn how to act when being opressed. Just act France, we've only liberated them twice
flowingwolfpack 2 weeks ago
@flowingwolfpack I would agree with you on France, their military now is decent, but they're still using the shitty FAMAS.
theTicklemehellmo 2 weeks ago
@flowingwolfpack The US only aided in liberating France once, in 1944 & you didn't do it alone as your comment arrogantly implies. Where did you get twice. Read a history book before you shoot your mouth off.
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 WW1, WW2, we bailed you out of Vietnam, and are currently helping your goverment right now.
flowingwolfpack 2 weeks ago
@flowingwolfpack The Great War was all but over by the time US troops took a significant role & by the end of the war, US involvement was smaller then countries like Australia, Romania, Bulgaria, & Canada. No American can claim you bailed us out in 1918, you didn't really. Also France was invaded, not occupied, so hence no liberation. Vietnam was your war not ours, we had nothing to do with it.
Tell me, how is the US government help Canada out? Oh wait you back stab us on NAFTA.
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 Learn your facts, we've saved you militarily and economically so many times its not even funny
flowingwolfpack 2 weeks ago
@flowingwolfpack What are you smoking???
Name one time Canada required military or economical aid form the US. Canada, today has one of the strongest economies in the world, far stronger then the US's. There is simply no comparison. So please tell me, when did Canada need the US's military help? I can think of several times the US asked Canada for military aid, we didn't always give it. Nevertheless the US needs Canada far more then Canada need the US.
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@flowingwolfpack But the North American continent was invaded/colonised. Principally by white Europeans. As for winning all your wars? When is Vietnam Victory Day celebrated? There is also a war being fought now that will never be won.
taffwob 2 weeks ago
@taffwob Vietnam was never a war, it was a conflict. Big difference there.
kloless 1 week ago
@kloless It was officially a civil war. So you say it wasn't a war, does that mean the US Civil War or the English Civil War weren't really wars too? Come one, of course it was a war you fool.
Here's some facts about the WAR:
It was fought between 1 November 1955 & 30 April 1975, US combat involvement was between early 1965 & 15 August 1973.
South Vietnam was supported by the US, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand & Laos.
The North had in a very limited role China & the USSR.
JimmyG228 1 week ago
@JimmyG228 FOR THE U.S.A, congress never declared war. congress has to declare war for it to be written in as one. We sent troops over under orders of our president, commander in chief. If congress doesn't declare war, but we engage, it is then a CONFLICT. "However, officially in the eyes of the United States government, it was a conflict, because Congress never declared war on Vietnam. In fact, Congress hasn't declared war since 1941"... Thank You.
kloless 2 days ago
@kloless The same idea is echoed in Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan or Gulf War. All those wars the US didn't declare war officially, yet they were all wars in their own right. UN mandates often limit how wars are fought & always mandate level of involvement but it doesn't decide if a fight is a war or not. Nor does the US Congress, you idiot. The Congress has no international authority. The ICC & Geneva Convention are the only bodies that have world wide authority to judge a fight a war or not.
JimmyG228 1 day ago
@JimmyG228 the c7 is a copy of the m16. it doesnt make it better just because diemaico made them. without colt there would be no c7. as far as accuracy, thats on the shooter. BUT if the c7 has the copy of the m16a1sights, the m16 wins.
danthman114 1 month ago
@danthman114 I made a typo mistake when copying & pasting info on the M16 when I said it had a 1:6.5 twist, oooops.
The M16 is designed to fire the 55 grain 5.56 round, but can fire the 62 grain, not a 77grian. The C7 however was always designed to fire the 62 grain round. The C7 has more standard features & is built to a higher quality with stronger steal & stronger composite plastic then the M16. That's way the C7 is more common among developed countries then the M16, its better.
JimmyG228 1 month ago
this gun was a toy, they nicknamed it the mattel and not even charlie would pick it up
D3AD5PAC3L0V3R 2 months ago
It is very durable but someone put the wrong powder in the guns bullet causing it to jam
WACstudios187 2 months ago
M4A1 is a carbine
SeitProductions 2 months ago
@SeitProductions So was the Mauser K98 but that still made the list.
mauiboynokaoi 2 months ago
Visit Deagel website to vote which next assault rifle should replace M4 & M16 in US Army and Marines.
So far HK 416 / 416 seem to be favor weapons choice for US Army and Marine in the voting.
SilentEagles 3 months ago
M- 4 is better
paranoidwaffle65 3 months ago
Assault Rifles are all very nice but the FN P90 rules these days.
SuperSmashyfication 3 months ago
@SuperSmashyfication you're joking right? please tell me this is a troll
bajaben777 1 month ago
@bajaben777 No, not a troll. The P90 is superior to the majority of assault rifles for rate-of-fire-to-recoil, and can be fired more accurately while moving. Of course I will accept that assault rifles have a significantly higher caliber and can do a lot more damage if aimed correctly, but in a combat situation you don't have long to aim.
SuperSmashyfication 1 month ago
@SuperSmashyfication the p90 is a 9x19mm sub machine gun, the majority of engagements in Afghan right now come from outside of the maximum effective range of an m4 which is 500 meters. how useful do you think a fn p90 would be at those distances?
bajaben777 1 month ago
@bajaben777 Oops, I didn't mean it like that. I was talking of a more offensive/special ops context. In skirmishes assault rifles are the right choice, but sub machine guns are more effective in woods or urban areas.
SuperSmashyfication 1 month ago
A direct impingement gas weapon that never needs cleaning, if you can build one of those, you will probably become the richest person on earth. Because it isn't possible.
m0nkEz 3 months ago
i preffer the SCAR H :3
CamoteMaster 3 months ago
@CamoteMaster STOP playing call of duty or battlefield!
GunMaker91 3 months ago
@GunMaker91 i hate CoD and the another one, really
CamoteMaster 3 months ago
@CamoteMaster oh, k
GunMaker91 3 months ago
my dad hates and loves this rifle
1: he used it in Vietnam which he said it was awesome!
but hates it because of..
2: it jams a lot, my dad calls it a jamming piece of shit
jesse17ful 3 months ago
i don't like m16 but i like m4.and my favourite rifle is tar 21 and hk416
lkj2626lll 3 months ago
@xEpicBeatles According to every piece of available evidence, the m16a1, a2, and a4 are far more reliable than the m4a1.
migkillertwo 3 months ago
@migkillertwo is that why the m16 is being phased out for the m4? that makes sense, you realize that the m16 and m4 are identical internally right?
bajaben777 1 month ago
"that makes sense, you realize that the m16 and m4 are identical internally right?"
I own a few AR-15s, I know the internal operations of the M16. The M4 and the M16 are NOT identical. The M4 has a shorter barrel and, thus, has more gas in the action and has a shorter time between firing and the unlocking of the action. This causes more fouling in the BCG, which means feeding and extraction are harder.
This is why the M16 is only slightly less reliable than a SCAR, where the m4 is much less.
migkillertwo 1 month ago
This rifle shouldn't be this high on the list it may have been good in Vietnam but time has passed there are a lot better rifles than this.
Rm21122012 3 months ago
@Rm21122012 So you're saying that the K98 and the 1903 are better? I don't think this vid is strictly about combat effectiveness. If it were, the 1903 and the K98 would be tied on this list.
mauiboynokaoi 2 months ago
@xEpicBeatles M4A1 is a Carbine, it does not fit on this list, and the M16 was alot more important in the Vietnam war than the M4 that wasnt invented yet :P but you are right, M4A1 is better.
TheVanezi 4 months ago 8
@TheVanezi untrue... the M4 lacks the cabality of using the full potentiel of the 5.56 cartridge
omgiTsmeJon 3 months ago
@TheVanezi hey man you seem to know what you're talking about lol can you explain to me the difference between a carbine, and other types of rifles? :)
stix471 3 months ago
@TheVanezi
The M4A1 is developed from CAR-15 Commando which is use by US Navy Seals and Green Beret during Vietnam War.
SilentEagles 3 months ago
this piece of shit shouldnt be in this video, it should be on top 1000 list. the hk g3 is a overall better rifle. more reliable, more powerful and accurate
NWA90s 4 months ago in playlist top 10 rifles
"the soldiers loved it"
so thats why soldiers threw the m16 and picked up an ak-47 instead???
kungenchrille 4 months ago
Fir all of the people who don't like the M16, screw you, M16 is a great rifle and is way better than the M14. I'm not trying to say the M14 is bad but M16 is better.
mfunguy10 4 months ago
@mfunguy10 If the M16 was totally better then the M14, then it would not be issued in wide numbers like it is today with the US military. Both rifles serve different roles. The M16 is a better infantry rifle, while the M14 is a better sniper/marksman rifle.
esh325 4 months ago
Hey, I know someone who says a Kar98k is better than an Enfield No 4 and a M1 Garand. I think it's bullshit, but what do you guys think.
bassharmonica1 4 months ago
@xEpicBeatles M4 s jam, the M16A1 jammed, but the AR15 dont jam.
bassharmonica1 4 months ago
@bassharmonica1 u do know that the difference between the M16 and AR15 is that the m16 is the military designation and has full auto/3 rd burst capabilities right?? ar-15 is only semi-auto. you can take parts and swap them around like nothing. I believe the M4 is a shorter barrel normally with a collapsible stock.
thestrokeds10 4 months ago
@bassharmonica1 The same construction... It's still jams !
valiosubaru 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
M16 used to jam because of gun powder related issues back in the vietnam war. the gun's producer advised a different type of powder suitable for jungle humidity but the US Army said otherwise. that was the main reason why it jammed so much and gained an awful reputation!
81Kain 4 months ago
M16 used to jam because of gun powder related issues back in the vietnam war. the gun's producer advised a different type of powder suitable for junge humidity but the US Army said otherwise. that was the main reason why it jammed so much and gained an awful reputation!
81Kain 4 months ago
@81Kain That's true. But when you think about it, rifles had been using only ball powder prior to the M16 for almost hundreds of years and worked fine. The whole idea about ball powder is that it's cheap. When your resources are constrained by war time pressures, it's nice to have a weapon that can digest cheaper dirtier propellents. A good rifle should be able to feed many different ammo types regardless of quality in my opinion.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 i tottaly agree with you. fortunately nowadays most weapon producers consider that as a "most have" when they design a new rifle. a true example is the h&k m416, witch i think should be the next US Army's main weapon system (if not already)
81Kain 4 months ago
@81Kain The Marines recently adopted the M27 IAR (support version of the HK416)
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 wasn't aware of that. good choice
81Kain 4 months ago
@xEpicBeatles m16 is awesome
coolcatevan9 4 months ago
3:11 it sure sounds that way
beeman434 4 months ago
@xEpicBeatles well at least we all agree with number 1 right?? =D
SukoSeiti 4 months ago
@xEpicBeatles no shit, not to mention that the m16 vietnam rifle was issued with dirt cheap bullet powder that the rifle was not designed for, costing american lives, and maybe even turned the tide of the war against USA
600trillion 4 months ago
@600trillion I read Eugene Stoner was aware that ball powder was a requirement, but failed to design his rifle to use it. It didn't cause us to loose the war at all. We got the issues of the M16 fixed during the war. Politics made us loose. Not rifles.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 Good to know. I'll do some research into it.
600trillion 4 months ago
Jeez, you'd think a real Stoner came up with the M16...
Oh.
ParadigmShiftr 4 months ago
That is why black ops is bullshit, the M16A1 is burst in Black ops and an M16A1 has no burst setting.
1169Timothy 4 months ago
id take a ka-bar in a slingshot over this piece of crap
NewbieDrumming 4 months ago
xEpicBeatles o yeah the m4 is a nice improvement but most off the guns in this thing are a little older i think they should have put old guns in this episode and new ones in another because this missed the russian mosin nagant and my favorite th m1 carbine.
brucetravers16 4 months ago
@xEpicBeatles lol
joevick12345 5 months ago
@xEpicBeatles its the same design just shorter.....
DrChrispocalypse 5 months ago
m16 is terrible even the new improved models, put the m14 as no.2 and get rid of this weapon completely put the sks as number ten that way both number 10 and 9 combine to make number 1. again look at both guns and try to piece together how they make a ak47.
brucetravers16 5 months ago
@brucetravers16 If it's such a terrible weapon, then why does the most powerful army on earth use it and many armies around the world?
esh325 5 months ago
the M-14 should be No. 2
badassninja33 5 months ago
american bull shit documentary, i might have known they would have put the most famous unreliable piece of shit ever as no2
MrGetsomebaby 5 months ago
@MrGetsomebaby At least they got no1 right.
Keichwoud357 4 months ago
I am living the new tradition today, meaning I need to own a real authentic Vietnam war era M16... sexiest rifle ever!
flamezealous 5 months ago
@xEpicBeatles Mmm, have you ever had a weapon jam on you? In bed most probably... haha hay hey ha!!
flamezealous 5 months ago
@xEpicBeatles the M4 has had a shorter service length
insertnamehere001 5 months ago
the Grendle is better
MjrDario 5 months ago
CoD noob: "FULLY AUTOMATIC!?"
insertnamehere001 5 months ago 41
Black rifle sounds sexy!
NgJackal1990 5 months ago
Enough about fucking CoD already! And to those who think the AR15/M16 family is junk, stop buying junk rifles (Bushmaster, DPMS, Olympic, RRA, etc) and buy something made to the actual TDP specs or similar quality (Colt, LMT, Daniel Defense, BCM, etc).
RaderizDorret 5 months ago
@MrPancakes211 M16A1 - smooth grip, full/semi-auto M16A2 - A2 ribbed grip, burst/semi M16A3 - A2 grip with full auto, M16A4 - burst/semi with railed handguard and upper receiver... black ops have the A4
sometaaw 5 months ago
@MrPancakes211 lol
TheXboxSmartass 5 months ago
@jakkree2099 I m-4 for customization options, but I dislike short barrel. in the military can you buy your own gun parts and use them as long as you keep the old ones?
motlencore89 5 months ago
I hate how CoD nerds think the Vietnam-era M16 is burst fire.
truongkahp 5 months ago
@truongkahp I hate how CoD nerds comment on how other CoD nerds think.
TheXboxSmartass 5 months ago
the range is incorrect since being a Marine we qualled with it at 500 meters.
MarDetgrunt 5 months ago
@MarDetgrunt effective not maximum
iceberg931 5 months ago
be good to your rifle and your rifle will be good to you
bman4099 5 months ago
minimal recoil. not exactly my idea of a combat weapon, but I better get use to it and learn to like it for when I join the Army.
motlencore89 5 months ago
@motlencore89 Minimal recoil is a good thing.
esh325 5 months ago
@motlencore89 it was a cut off of my last comment, I no minimal recoil is a good thing, and seeing as the M-16 isnt going anywhere anytime soon, chances are I will encounter it or some other variant when I join either the Marines or army.
motlencore89 5 months ago
@motlencore89 So you decide to join the army? what about marine you will receive the M16a4 but army mostly M4a1.
jakkree2029 5 months ago
@jakkree2029 virtually the exact same thing. 80% of their parts are identical and interchangeable.
ryanraymond321 5 months ago
@ryanraymond321 I know buddy but many people don't like the M4 for many reason but for me I prefer the M16a4 because when I hold It I feel like " Woah this feel good! " and for a long range It's better than M4's
but you gotta know that the most disgusting thing about AR family Is you must kept It clean!
jakkree2029 5 months ago
beautiful rifle, feel great when firing, good sight picture, minimal reil
motlencore89 5 months ago
the 5.56 has almost as much stopping power as the 7.62 because of the hyper-velocity round. if you make something go faster with less weight, then it still has the same kinetic energy as an object which is heavier and travels slower
shadowkiller860 6 months ago
@shadowkiller860 True. The argument behind the 7.62's greater perceived stopping power is that it retains it mass through various mediums, where as the higher velocity/lighter round has a tendency to yaw and break up upon impact with its targets. They claim the current green-tip has sort of the opposite problem where its steel tip punches clean through soft tissue and leaves a narrow wound channel without disrupting too much tissue.
Garuda1337 6 months ago
@shadowkiller860 It's all depends really. Some times the 5.56x45 can fail to fragment because of insufficient velocity. When it does fragment, it is certainly more lethal.
esh325 6 months ago
It JUST got beatan by the Terrorrists' very own AK-47!
Techcom13 6 months ago
Though is a good looking weapon, and definitely a classic, it´s only real pro is his accuracy (it has a good bullet guide system) anything else are mostly cons, and it tends to jamming or miss-function with humidity, sand, water, snow, mud, and the conditions of almost any place the USA goes fighting, Definitely doesn't deserves a second place (I personally like the M-16, but i wouldn't put it in THE TOP 10, i maybe would put the M-4 instead)
a8a92 6 months ago in playlist top ten assault rifles
@a8a92 I think the M4 jams more often. But it's more compact and it's got great accuracy.
SmervinMervin24 6 months ago
@SmervinMervin24 mmm if you say so, i haven't shot the m-4 enough to know how much does it jams. What i can tell you is that the AUG among others definitively deserves a better place, i don't know how an "american toy" such this one can be better than many other good machines. I would call this an historic oriented ranking more than a actual combat one (except for the first place, of course), thanks for your opinion!!
a8a92 6 months ago
@SmervinMervin24 the m4 does jam a little more because the m16 was not designed to be such a small package. but as long as you keep the bolt carrier lubricated well itll run clean or dirty.
joshkkv 6 months ago
i'm more of a fan of the m4 than the m16
godzilla1463 6 months ago
Nice Subtitles
TimmyTurner1306 6 months ago
The M14 is better. The M16 fires a weak, underpowered bullet and jams a lot. The M14 fires a round that will stop someone in one shot and never jams.
usaf4ever1824 6 months ago
@usaf4ever1824 another amateur opinion spewed by someone who has no idea of his own, at least no good idea
Alexn1067 6 months ago
@usaf4ever1824 It jams a lot because you probably never bother to clean it. The M16s I fire don't jam a whole lot, and it's accuracy is great.
SmervinMervin24 6 months ago
@DrmrGuy1979
I don't doubt that they could carry 1500 rounds, but is that in magazines or bandolier form? Because obviously the M16 doesn't feed bandoliers but that's 20/1500 = 75 magazines. That's alot of magazines for 1 person to be somehow carrying on them unless his entire alice pack was filled with them. Bandoliers standard about 100 rounds? and someone has 15 of those draped around their torso? A modern M249 gunner only carries like 300 rounds. The guy is full of shit.
WunderDoob 6 months ago
The original History Channel program I saw discussing the checkered history of the M16 detailed that it's first incarnation shipped to Vietnam