@MrCouchmen because of the military cutting corners an issuing them without chrome lined bore and chamber against stoners recommendation as well as changing the powder in the ammunition. That's why they had problems .
What the hell? it has the most balanced and high score! Why is it not first place instead of the AK?! Is it because the AK is more popular? If that's why, then why didn't they put a "Popularity" score in there?! This is BULLSHIT!!!
If the M16 type weapons are unreliable in sand/dust/dirt/ etc, then so is the
HK416, because they both have the EXACT SAME BOLT-LOCKING MECHANISM.
That is what causes stoppages in sandy conditions, NOT the Direct Gas operating system! Having a piston will NOT make your weapon safe from these elements!
Once you learn just exactly HOW Stoners gas-system works, you will see that....
Still, I used this rifle (Sort of...it was the Canadian C7) for two years and it performed like a rifle should. Shoots straight, fires every time (Unless you`re stupid and decide to put your chewing gum in the chamber), handles like a figure skater and hits like a hammer
But also be advised that there is no such thing as just a M-16 there are different models such as the A-2 or the A-4 these two types of M-16's r the only ones that don't have burst fire (automatic) selection thus makes them more accurate then others. Also each different type of M-16 has a different nature than the rest...but all said and done the M-16 models are the Devils on the battle field-SEMPER FI
@xGODSxMARINEx umm your dumb... A-2 and A-4 were burst and A-1 and A-3 were full auto, Learn your facts before you talk, and honestly the burst fire weapons were and always will be more accurate then a full auto weapon
@xGODSxMARINEx some of u might be thinking what about a pistol/hand gun those wernt really used in battle usually u would see in movies that they would use it when the soldier had no ammo left it's not 100% like that if u run out of ammo u would either ask the soldier next to u for ammo or if u had another gun such as a sub machine gun wich was highly un common but some Marines had them.. I had never used a hand gun in the Marines only when in target practice but that was it
@xGODSxMARINEx and of course we all had a secondary weapon I myself with other Marines of course had M870 12 gauge pump shot guns those who had those as myself only used it in close combat..also those who had those are the ones who usually clear out a small indoor building like a house..-SEMPER FI
Thts the gun I used holy shit but that's what i would call stalk m-16 the guns they gave us when they assigned us to 1st Marine division had smoke discharger or M203's on them some had scopes..but it wasn't the only guns they had we had a machine gun squad with M240B machine guns..those soldiers who had those guns were those soldiers u wanted next to u-SEMPER FI
I've hunted small game with the M4 / 5.56 platform. The 5.56 cartage will kill on site, and leave 4" exit wounds. I've seen it in person. The problem is stopping power at longer ranges. Once the bullet is moving too slow to extensively fragment, it looses that explosive impact it had at shorter ranges. Also, the platform is extremely accurate, and shoots very flat.
Over 1,200 ft. lbs. of delivered energy. The .223 is MORE than enough to stop a human. The mythology of the .308 (7.62 x 51) being "a lot" more powerful is actually overblown. If you are hit with either the .223 or .308 the party's over...
The M14 was a massive failure as a military rifle. It is too heavy, it's ammo is too heavy and no one could fire the thing full-auto and keep it anywhere near point of aim. Only 1.5 million were made during inter-war period. M14 was simply a mistake.
The M14 is a better weapon system. The stopping power of 5.56 is low. Soldiers in Somalia during Gothic Serpent reported shooting targets as many as six times with no effect. The M14 is very reliable, very accurate, and very powerful, and could be modified to be almost as light as an M16.
@Jedibob1steven actually its not a myth. it tumbled in early m16s because it had a wrong twist rate in the barrel which caused instability in the round causing tumbling, but thats fixed in 95% of modern ar15s, m4's, m16's and so on.
First of all the 5.56 has more science to it than the 7.62 thare many more advantages to the 5.56 than the 7.62 plus the biggest reason the M-16 jamed was beacous it was designed for stick powder and the Army supplied them with ball powder also with stick powder it would have Ben conciterd a self cleaning weapon but today's varrents of the M-16 would kick any rifles ass
Its sad that m16 was jamming and it didn´t worked much good in countryside like Vietnam.Ak-47 is universal assault rifle.No problems,very durable,cheap.
Arguing which firearm is best is like arguing which truck is best. An expert with a 1903 Springfield will take out a boot with an M4 any day. As long as you're competent with what you have, concentrate on having enough ammo for when the revolution hits ;)
I like how all of these Call of Duty retards are talking about stopping power of the 5.56, get shot and find out. A 5.56 will put you on your ass no matter what substance you are on, you may get up if your adrenaline level is skyrocket high, but however the amount of velocity will surely stop you.
@MrDip02, a 5.56 would knock them down and cause constant internal bleeding depending on the area, it's most likely it would cause enough damage to alter their body functions even if they can't feel all the pain.
the m16- sucked in vietnam- it would hit a leaf and the bullet would get thrown off target- it shoots a glorified .22 round- so my dad chose- a shotgun, and a .45 cliber grease gun, in vietnam
@matthewVancouver, your comment is complete bullshit. First off the 5.56 can penetrate steel depending on the round, and it isn't a .22 round, it's a .223, a .22 is completely different from a .223. And American Military servicemen in Vietnam didn't choose their weapons, shotguns were rarely issued to anyone besides Military Police and sub machine guns were rarely used and were only issued to mainly the South Vietnamese military.
@matthewVancouver Really!! The military I belonged to doesn't allow you to pick and chose your weapons you get what they give you. Don't like it then throw rocks. I own 2 AR's if you would like to hide behind a leaf while I pop a few (Glorified) 22's at you be my guest.
ETA: If I were fighting with a bunch of friendly troops, M16 would definitely be my personal choice. If I were dropped deep behind enemy's line without any supply, support, I'd go for an ak47.
I would prefer this than an AK. And the problems with the weapon are easily fixed. One being change the direct impingement to a short stroke piston gas system. It has it's ups and downs but the gas doesn't shoot directly into the bolt carrier, meaning a cleaner weapon.
But overall, great weapon no matter what all the little COD turds, who have never fired a real weapon in their life, say about it.
But a short stroke will definitely hinder its accuracy and the reason for designing m16 is for its accuracy. This weapson isn't designed to be used by 3rd woould countries where dirts, bad maintainance, lack of cleaning prevails.
It's designed to be high maintainance, with direct-iimp gas sys, m16 is meant to be used by rich country only, with great deal of maintance backup, such as the U.S.A, the short-come can be easily overcomed, while it's accuracy from direct-imp 2nd to 0.
u probably never know the reality of 3rd world guerrilla warfare,& how it's carried out. total lack of supplies, support, bullets, horrible weather,environment conditions. My grandpa was a geurrila soldier and reliability is the key in determining the outcome of a skirmish. The conflict was usually short-lived, intense, and outnumbered, UNLIKE how U.S marines fighting nowadays, with massive troops, air, ground supports, that's why only U.S can offset reliability for accuracy.
@zhengjdc I'm well aware of the usual conditions of a guerilla war. But the lack of reliability in todays M16/M4 is overstated. Is it as reliable as an AK47, no. But it's by no means an unreliable weapon system. and as long as you have a rag you should be able to clean the weapon well enough. If you are not well trained with weapons then sure, take an AK. But being that i am trained i would take the M16/M4 9 out of 10 times.
typical American thinking, what happened if you have a rag but with no lubricants, not even food-graded oil? or in the worst scenario, no rags at all. I don't understand how direct-imp can have no reliability issue, the carbon deposit and heat over bolt, even a clean m16 after leashing thousands of bullet within an hour would have great potential of jamming. direct-imp isn't a new technique, which has been invented in the early 20th.
@zhengjdc yea, and if i didn't have anything to clean it with then that would be the 1 out of 10 times that i chose an AK. Is that what you want to hear? You're not going to get me to say the M4 is shit and the AK47 is awesome
My grandpa was guerrilla back in WW2 in China against Jap troops. The weapons&foods were scarce, rags were sewed to make clothes. Manpower is limited, skirmishes were always ambushes consists of as little as sometimes 7 men, if one gun jammed, ur entire troops can be dead within few minutes. safe evacuation relies solely on reliability. Imagine warfares without planes, tanks, machineguns, or even grenades. barrel swelling after intense fighting, & it was bolt action type99.
hey little girly boys down there, stop arguing about a rifle you never had any experience firing or taking care of . my dad served in the Marines in the early 90s carrying the m16 and he came back alive and unharmed
@bman4099 that does not mean it was a good rifle it was one of the most piece of shit rifle EVER used plastic components it was jam with the slightest of shit but that's changed
@bman4099 Oh shut up. You and I both know very well thats because the Marines and all the US armed forces dont do shit but patrol and sit around all fucking day, especially in the 90s. Go fight a real war with your M16, and see if you come back with your balls in the same place.
@bman4099 Good point. Had the original M16 (no A1/A2 etc!) and loved it. But I might have been lucky cos mine never jammed while some of my friends' did :(
I don't see why people have to be so caught up with which rifle is the "best". Every weapon featured in this series is pretty damn good in its own right and that's what really matters.
@iwishihad2000feet M16A1 is the original the one issued in Vietnam it was single fire or full auto no 3 round burst ,then A2 replace the A1 no full auto but 3 round burst instead.
@bman4099 good to hear you dad came back sound and safe but reality is there are much better rifles than the outdated M-16 like H&K 416 ans Sig 556 to name a few also another good choice the G36 that a had the pleasure to fire a few rounds thanks to an Australian fellow soldier i met while deployed.M-16 is somewhat precise but to sensitive to dirt and in an desert environment this is a real issue.
@HellsingFan1000 Also take into consideration that the M16 was the standard service rifle of the US military in Vietnam and they never lost a battle to the NVA/Viet Cong during that war.
I think if they just adjusted the M16s gas system so that the gas doesn't shoot back into the receiver but rather out the side of the weapon (like some modern AR style weapons) it would solve a lot of the reliability issues.
@AfKman101 At first first 5.56x45 that designated as M193 is bad until NATO release new 5.56 call M855 In the 80's and now,the M855a1 that can perform even better than 7.62x51 rounds!
nothing wrong with 5.56, as long as it's not a piercing round, and it's being fired on soft targets. 5.56 rounds do massive internal damage. I don't like AK rounds. The bullet is unproportional to the shell, so less powder for a bigger bullet, so it can lose some of it's power and accuracy at range.
@mrbobyub yea i like the ballistics im just saying to go through covor and stuff like i know it can go through a cinder block but there's usually more than one but its still cool
@biloxipilot im not arguing either. the fmj bullet is not designed to fragment, and the full metal jacket round is stranded for the m16. its that simple.
There are so many bullshits told in this vid about this rifle that it made me sick. In specially the one about how the M16's bullet tumbles inside the flesh. They're actually trying to make it look like this is something typical to the 5.56 bullet... EVERY bullet tumbles inside flesh. That's how bullets behave once they hit flesh... The propaganda that kept this notoriously unreliable rifle in the US' military service is really disgusting.
5.56 FMJ rounds tumble quite a bit more than many other rounds when they hit, and they fragment inside of people, because it's a small, fragile round moving at very high velocities--over 3000fps.
@mrbobyub Like I said, EVERY bullet tumbles once it hits its target, including the .50 caliber ones. This isn't something typical to the 5.56 NATO. As for fragmenting, this is bullshit, really. If the bullets really were fragmenting in Vietnam, that means they used bullets specifically made for this and they invented this bullshit about this wonder round just to cover the fact that they were using prohibited ammo in there.
They were not using prohibited ammo. That's just what the round does. Yes, the rounds did shatter, because they were small, fragile rounds moving at very high speeds, and they tumble much more than many other types of rounds. They did nasty damage to people. They were 5.56x45mm NATO M193 ball (replaced by M855 ball, which is a little heavier and slower, but hits harder and is more accurate) FMJ rounds. Look up the ballistics of 5.56 rounds.
@mrbobyub There's no such thing as "tumbling more"... What does that mean, "tumble more"? A bullet tumbles when it hits its target, in specially flesh. Simple. And the fragmenting bullshit simply doesn't work for me. And even if it does, the fact that it's so fragile makes it worthless on a battlefield where stopping power and cover penetration are essential. The 5.56x45 round is simply not good. They should've went with a 6.6 or 7mm round back in the '60s, not with this round.
Look up the wound ballistics of 5.56 m193 and m855 rounds and compare it to .308, 7.62x39, etc. These rounds are not worthless on a battlefield, unless you're trying to gun down someone behind a steel wall, a tree or sandbags or something like that. These rounds are small and move at high enough speeds so that the round breaks and tumbles more than other rounds. Ask someone who used 5.56 Full Metal Jacket rounds, not 5.56 green-tip piercing rounds: those are worthless.
@mrbobyub OK, so give me the stats for the ballistics of those rounds that you talked about. The explanation you gave here didn't convince me from the first place because I know how bullets behave. Metals doesn't just break when it hits flesh. It tumbles, yes, just like any other bullet, but it doesn't break. So give me the stats for the ballistics of those rounds.
@StiviGun1 The reason why 5.56mm rounds break apart is because they are lightly constructed and cannot survive the torque forces placed upon it when it yaws in a fluid medium. They typically break apart at the cannulre groove. But they only break apart when they hit at velocities above ~2500fps. Out of a 20" M16 barrel, that is out to about 300m. If they don't hit at above 2500fps, they tend not to break apart. Most 7.62mm rounds have thick jackets, which don't allow fragmentation.
The fact that they're lightly constructed also means that they don't have stopping power and cover penetration, which are essential in a war. Maybe they do fragment inside flesh, but the fact that they don't have stopping power makes them not suited for war. That's why the Navy SEALS requested a rifle for both sniping anf CQC that was chambered for the 7.62 NATO round. Because stopping power is the most important thing. The most important thing is to put the enemy down as quickly as possible.
@StiviGun1 You have a confusion of what is "stopping power"....which BTW is a myth. There are many factors of what causes stops and kinetic energy is only one factor. Yes they're a light bullet. But it also means you can carry A LOT more ammo than if you were using 7.62mm. And firepower is MUCH more important than your fascination with stopping power and penetration. If you really need to penetrate cover, you have other weapons at your disposal for that.
OK, so what are the other factors that cause stops? Besides hitting the enemy in the head or heart, of course.
As for what yo say, that firepower is more important than stopping power and cover penetration, I can tell you that MANY soldiers would disagree with you. Other facts also contradict you like the current AR-15s that your army has not having full auto capability. Also, the Navy SEALS, America's best soldiers contradict you as well.
@StiviGun1 Hits to the CNS (brain, brain stem, spinal column) are the ONLY 100% 1 shot stop hits. Even a hit to the heart, the target can still function for about 5-10 seconds until his brain de-oxygenates (which is what bleed out does). Other factors are pain compliance, destruction of motor structures (muscles, long bones), and psychology. BTW having automatic capability is not a matter of firepower. Soldiers never use auto except for certain situations....and yes even your precious SEALS.
@armynurseboy A .22 caliber can stop anyone if it hits him in the head. That doesn't mean it has stopping power. The power if the AK-47 was demonstrated in that show where they compared the M16 with the AK-47. The difference was clear when they shot that block of ciment.
Regarding firepower, if it doesn't have anything to do with full auto, then what do you mean by "firepower"?
@StiviGun1 But isn't that the very definition of stopping power? That's why it's a myth.
Firepower is the amount of bullets you can put downrange and how long you can stay in a firefight. It has nothing to do with full auto. A weapon that has 30 rounds vs 20 rounds has more firepower. A pistol with 15 rounds vs 7 rounds has more firepower. And even when you DO use full auto, you still shoot in burst of 3-5 rounds. Burst setting just does it mechanically for you.
@armynurseboy No, that's not the definition of stopping power, because, under battle conditions, you can't always aim for the enemy's head or heart. You need to stop him, not matter where you hit him, even in the leg or shoulder, or arm. He needs to feel the hit so even even if you don't kill him, you could incapacitate him.
As for what you say about firepower, then the 5.56 round adoption doesn't make any sense, because, at the beginning, they were using only 20 rds magazines. So the AK-47s
@StiviGun1 Yes, they were only using 20 round magazines at first....but were carrying anywhere from 15-20 magazines in their bandoliers. Firepower isn't just what you carry in your gun but the total amount of rounds you have available. A 20 round magazine of 5.56mm is lighter than a 20 round magazine of 7.62mm. You can carry MUCH more ammo of 5.56mm for the same weight of 7.62mm. Weight is important. Also, 5.56mm has less recoil, so it's inherently more accurate, especially on rapid fire.
@StiviGun1 Believe me, someone getting hit in the arm or leg with 5.56mm is going to feel it. I've been to Iraq (twice). I've treated people who've been shot with 5.56mm and people shot with 7.62x39mm. 5.56mm creates more traumatic wounds.
@StiviGun1 Lighter recoil = better accuracy. Lighter round that hits is better than a heavier round that misses. Having a lighter round, but twice as many of them is better than a heavier round, but only half of what you can carry of the lighter round. Again weight is important. People who've never been in combat never seem to understand that.
@armynurseboy Actually, many people who have been in combat talk that they prefer a heavier round that weights more than a lighter round which can be carried in greater quantity but lacks the capacity to stop a an enemy in his tracks. That's why the US SF started looking for a bigger round than the 5.56 and that's how the 6.8 SPC was created. But a shortened 7.62 NATO round would've still been the best solution for a replacement of the M14.
@StiviGun1 And who would those "many people" be? Because most infantry guys I've talked to say 5.56mm is just fine. Heavier bulles would be nice, but not at the expense of having less bullets in your basic load.
@armynurseboy There were plenty of shows with ex soldiers that say the 5.56 is not good enough. I'm not saying that all of them say this, I've seen plenty of soldiers that like the AR-15 and its cartridge. But what I see at those people is that bias that comes from emotional attachment & that's why I don't take them very seriously. People who r more objective clearly say that the 5.56 is not a good round & the AR-15, with its ridiculously huge maintenance needs is not a weapon suited for war.
@StiviGun1 Ah, that's right. Talking heads on a TV are always right. And those who think the weapon is just fine are "emotionally attached". Give me a break. It is obvious to me you have never deployed to a combat zone and are going merely off what you "have heard". The M16 does not need a "ridiculous" amount of maintenance to keep it functioning. In fact it takes less than 10 minutes for a field cleaning. I carried one for a year in Iraq and never had a problem with it.
@armynurseboy OK, so I'm asking you, how many times were you involved in firefights? Or even better, how long were the firefights you got involved in? And if you go involved in firefights often, how many times/day did you have to clean your weapon? And of course, if you never got involved into a firefight, since you said your were a doctor, then of course, your claim cannot be taken seriously so yeah, I'll believe those "heads on TV" who really were involved in heavy firefights in Iraq & Vietnam
@StiviGun1 I've been involved with one and that's one more than you. When we were doing combat convoy operations during the invasion phase of OIF, I cleaned my weapon daily. But it was mostly just blowing out the dust. And again, I personally know REAL PEOPLE who've been involved in firefights. I'll take their words over talking heads any day of the week.
Yeah, well ask those people who were involved in heavy firefights how many times did they have to clean their weapons. & ask them how they were feeling about having to clean their weapon after a long, tiring day of fights just to make sure it'll work the next day. There's no other assault rifle in the world that needs so much maintenance just to make sure it'll not fail on you.
@StiviGun1 I have. Numerous times. The M16 does not need anywhere near as much maintenance as you seem to believe it does. That is a holdover myth from Vietnam. The issues that caused maintenance problems were resolved almost 40 years ago. You DO NOT need to clean it every day. You want proof? Google the October 2010 article of SWAT and look for "Filthy 14". This is in line with my personal experience with AR type rifles.
@armynurseboy Hmm... You said that u don't have to clean it every day. Maybe, if you don't use it every day. But if you fire it, you definitely need to clean it to make sure the next time, it won't fail on you. You say that the reliability problem was solved 40 ago? How? The weapon still uses the same DI system that is the cause of its reliability issues? So how was this problem solved?
BTW, give me the link of that article you talked about.
@StiviGun1 I just talked to a classmate of mine who served 2 tours in Iraq as an infantry officer in the 101st Abn Div. The PCCI included wiping down the bolt carrier and a little bit of lube. THAT WAS IT. Cleaning it invovled the same and running a patch down the barrel. THAT WAS IT. You don't need to scrape every bit of carbon off of it to make sure it fucntioned. BTW, you still have to clean AKs too. Dirty AK's jam up just like any other dirty rifle.
@StiviGun1 The issues that were causing the jams were unexpected switch to ball powder (and no cleaning gear issued), cheap magazines and a non-chrome lined barrel and chamber. Once they started chrome-lining the barrel and chamber to prevent pitting and corrosion, the failure rates dropped dramatically. Once you started using better quality magazines, feed issues drop dramatically. Once you tell troops that the guns are not "self-cleaning" failure rates drop dramatically.
Look, you simply can't tell me that a weapon that uses those hot, dirty gases to cycle is a reliable weapon. The bolt carrier is much more subjected to heat stresses and carbon fouling than the other systems. I don't know who told you what, like I said before, there are many biased people when it comes to this rifle, but the DI systems doesn't provide a reliable design. That's why nobody else adopted it.
@StiviGun1 What I am telling you that it is MUCH more reliable than you give it credit for. Properly maintained, the M16 is VERY reliable. And proper maintainence does not mean a white glove cleaning after every firefight. Is it the perfect system? No it is not. But no system is perfect. Every system has it's relative advantages and disadvantages. You want to see bias? Look in the mirror.
BTW, the M16 was not the first DI weapon. It was based off very relaible earlier designs.
"Properly maintained, the M16 is VERY reliable"... It seems like you don't know what reliable means... Reliable is a systems that works when IT'S NOT properly maintained and when it's abused. That is what reliable means. So if this is what "reliable" is for you, then I can pretty much say that everything you said about the AR-15's maintenance needs is flawed.
And I never said the M16 was 1st weapon to use the DI system, I said nobody else acquired it. If that guy wanted to make a system with
@StiviGun1 "I" don't know what reliable means? A reliable system does what it is supposed to do when I ask it to do it, the majority of the time I ask it. And that is what an M16 does. What you are describing is a maintenance free system....which doesn't exist. Not even in the much overrated AK. Abuse it enough, ANY rifle is going to fail on you. Reliable and tolerant of abuse are not the same thing.
@armynurseboy Actually, that's exactly what reliable means. A weapon that can work in any conditions, not just in perfect ones. So if your M16 only works in perfect conditions when it's carefully maintained, that doesn't make it reliable at all. Reliable means that you should be able to depend on it in any conditions, in specially those less than ideals. So if the M16 only works when it's properly maintained, that's not reliable.
@StiviGun1 Never said it must be "carefully maintained". I've outlined the minimal maintenance it needs to function properly. I have provided you with literature giving a real and recent example of how much abuse it can take and still keep functioning. You can believe whatever you want. I'm done trying to convince someone who's probably never even held the weapon, and definately has never carried one in a combat zone, that it's a reliable, effective weapon.
You can't convince me because I know some certain facts. Once, I saw an episode with that former SAS guy that makes a show abt police forces around the world. I think he went to Srilanka & those guys use the M4. One of the weapons jammed after the 1st 2 shots. That guy tried 2 save the image of that rifle saying that every rifle jams in high temperatures....
Also, in an episode of the The Deadliest Warrior show, where they pitted Al Qaida vs IRA, they tested the M16, which was used by the IRA
& the AK-47 in reliability tests. They put them in mud. The AK-47 rand flawlessly, the M16 jammed after several shots. Even the guy that shot it was surprised. I can send you the URL with that episode if you want. So the reason why you can't convince me the M16 is a reliable weapon is because everything I've seen and read about it shows me the opposite.
@StiviGun1 And yet again, you are using "well I once saw on TV" or "I read it here once" and have yet to tell me you've actually ever held or shot the weapon in question. I have. Many times, to include in the dirt and mud. The only times I've had issues were with worn out magazines.
BTW, you do know that the SAS use M4's. As do most Spec Ops units in the world. I wonder why...?
@armynurseboy Well, I guess I have to trust your word on what you say, that you fired the M16 from the mud. Like I said, I can send you the URL that shows just the opposite. You, on the other hand, can't show me any proofs of what you say.
As for SAS, no they don't use M4s anymore, they use the L85 rifle, which is an excellent rifle. They USED the M4 before they had he SA80.
@armynurseboy I asked you for the URL. Give me the link. I tried to find what you said, but I couldn't. Anyway, footage has more value than an article. And the footage I saw with the M16 says it's not a reliable weapon. Like, I said, I can send the link of that The Deadliest Warrior episode. The guys put the AK-47 as a better weapon than than the M16 as a result of the reliability test.
@StiviGun1 OMFG! Are you fucking serious?!? TV is more valuable than an article in a legitimate WEAPONS JOURNAL?!?! I get it now. So if it's not on TV then its not real. Give me a fucking break. Now I KNOW you have NO IDEA what the hell you are talking about. This is the addy to the article: slip2000.com/art-swat2.html. (add a in front). Read it and learn something from professionals kid. And "Deadliest Warrior" is NOT a reliable source for anything other than pure entertainment.
@armynurseboy It's not about TV, it's about what I see. Articles can be written by biased people and it is a known fact that the Pentagon forged the soldiers' reports on how this weapon performed in Iraq. In that show, they put an AK-47 in mud & it worked flawlessly. When they repeated the same test with the M16, it jammed. Now, that's what I believe. What I SEE. Get it now? So you can bet your ass I trust what I saw in that show more than I trust in an article. & BTW, I saw that show on the net
@StiviGun1 Ever consider that what you're watching on TV is biased too? Or that it may be rigged? Or not showing you the whole truth? But, of course since it's on TV it MUST be real....
@armynurseboy Like I said before, I didn't see that on TV. And why would that show be biased about that, ha? They simply tested both weapons in the same circumstances. The AK-47 passed the test, the M16 failed. Here is the link. You tell me if they were biased and more importantly WHY would they be biased? This argument doesn't make any sense...
mega video . com / ? v = RJKTKMP1. I guess you know what to do to access the link.
@StiviGun1 They would be biased for the same reasons you think that magazine articles would be biased. Sources (even TV) are like statistics: you can manipulate them to show anything you want them to prove. But of course, in your world, only articles are biased and TV (or the internet) never is. Pull your head out of your ass. When you limit your sources you limit the point of your point of view. An educated person considers all of the evidence. Keep drinking your kool-aid.
@armynurseboy And why the hell would those guys that make that show want to make people believe the M16 is more unreliable than it really is, ha? This is a dumb statement, really... On the other hand, magazines can be biased because they're affiliated with all sorts of government agencies. Besides, it's much more difficult to forge a video than it is to simply say lie in a magazine, so yea, I trust that show more than your magazine.
@StiviGun1 Oh, I don't know....maybe the manufacturers of a weapon is sponsoring the show to portray their weapon in a better light? Raise ratings? Any one of a dozen reasons. Again, you call me biased but that is the pot calling the kettle black. For you to sit there and call one source biased yet procalim another only tells the truth because it supports your arguement is intellectual dishonesty. I bet you believe magicians actually do magic because you see them perform magic tricks...
@armynurseboy And what company that produces the AK-47 would sponsor that show, ha? I mean, saying that they somehow, made that M16 jam intentionally, just because some AK-47 manufacturing company sponsors the show (although I don't think this is the case) is hilarious, really. On the other hand, a military magazine can definitely be affiliate with certain government organizations so it can be biased.
@StiviGun1 like that makes a difference? The net is even worse. Like I said, keep drinking you kool-aid and believe what you want. I'm done trying to educate someone who refuses to be educated.
@armynurseboy "Educated"? Educated in what? You're trying to convince me of your biased beliefs. I read numerous statements from ex US soldiers on guns forums that were looking for a rifle and when somebody (like you) suggested them the AR-15, they all said that they spent too much time behind that gun to also carry it at home. Also, many soldiers speak about how they were told what to write in their reports on how this rifle performs. There's nothing to educate me on, you're simply biased.
@StiviGun1 You don't know your history. The SA80/L85 was a far worse POS than the M16. It was so bad that there was a scandal in Parliament about the development and acquisition of the weapon. So bad that units in Desert Storm pulled old L1A1s out of storage to replace the SA80s that were breaking left and right in the desert (had a MUCH higher failure rate than M16s). It's a "good" rifle now because H&K had to go back and do a total re-do of the weapon.
@armynurseboy What I do know is that NOW, the SAS uses the SA80 family of assault rifle, not the M4 as you claimed. The M4 is probably the most unreliable rifle. Because of that shorter gas system that you've mentioned, it thrown even more debris in the cycling mechanism of the weapon & it makes it jam even more than the M16.
@StiviGun1 Shorter gas system has a slightly negative effect true...but not the effect you think it is. It has nothing to do with "more debris" because the amount of debris has nothing to do with the length of the tube. It DOES have to do with the increased velocity of rearward gas causing an increased cyclic rate and increased wear on the weapon.
@armynurseboy It has nothing to do with the length of the tube? How can't you even understand such a simple thing? Of course it has to do with the length of the tube. I honestly don't know how to explain this for you to understand...
@StiviGun1 Let me repeat myself: the length of the gas tube has NOTHING to do with how much carbon is shot back into the bolt. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. The length of the gas tube DOES have an effect on the velocity of the rearward gas. The shorter the gas tube, the higher the velocity of the gas. It also tends to run a bit hotter due to the shorter cycling time. Have you ever HELD an M4? Ever shoot one? Until then, don't tell me how the weapon operates. I am intimately familiar with it.
@armynurseboy From what I know, the gas speed is controlled by a gas regulator, it's not conditioned by the length of the tube. But even if what you say is true, you prove my point. The higher the velocity of that gas, the more of it gets into the cycling mechanism. There you go, you provided me with a way of explaining it to you.
@armynurseboy less moving parts to keep its accuracy high, I don't understand why didn't he use a blowback system. That systems keeps the weapons much cleaner than the DI system and it also maintains it very accurate because there are fewer moving parts inside the weapon.
@StiviGun1 Blowback system is not optimal either. Because it has to withstand very high chamber pressures, the bolt carrier and recoil spring have to be relatively heavy, which increases the weight of the weapon. And because the bolt is moving rearward at a much greater velocity, felt recoil is also increased. The G3 kicks a heck of a lot more than an FAL or a M14.
Saying that the bolt carrier & recoil spring have to be heavier because of the high pressures inside the chamber doesn't really make sense. Also, regarding the movement of the bolt relative the bolt head's movement, the carrier doesn't move faster, what happens is that the bolt head is being delayed. The bolt carrier speed is not higher than in other systems. So what you say about the recoil being increased is not true. The blowback is the perfect operating systems for an assault rifle.
@StiviGun1 Direct recoil systems use the energy of the recoil to push the bolt back. Generally, these systems do not use locking lugs to lock the bolt into the barrel extension like gas weapons do. They use the mass of the bolt/bolt carrier and stiff recoil springs to resist rearward motion of the bolt until the peak pressure inside the chamber has dropped . Some designs also use rollers to keep the bolt closed. If it moves too soon, you will get a case rupture and maybe an exploded rifle.
@armynurseboy Gas and long stroke/short stroke systems are generally softer recoiling because they only require a fraction of the force that a direct blowback uses to unlock and cycle the action. They are also timed to cycle after the chamber pressure has dropped to safe levels. Incidentally, M4s kick harder than M16s because they have a shorter gas system, thus the rearward gas is moving at a much faster velocity than one out of a longer barrel/gas tube.
@armynurseboy Somehow, it doesn't seem logical to me to say that the blowback systems need more force to cycle the weapon than the other gas operated systems. Why would they? Why would they need more power 2 push against the bold than they need to push against the operating rod which in turn needs to have enough momentum to push against the bold assembly? It doesn't sound logical to me.
@StiviGun1 Let me explain again: a straight blowback bolt is not generally not locekd. Therefore you need a heavy bolt and spring to keep the bolt face and chamber closed or else you risk case rupture becaues the pressure is still too high in th chamber. And BTW they take the full force of the recoil. The gas system uses locked bolts. Their bolts are much lighter, and require less force because they are not overocming a heavy carrier. And they only tap a portion of the rearward gas.
@armynurseboy Maybe. The fact still remains that the AR-15 with its DI system is a very unreliable weapon. The fact that it uses those dirty, hot gases to cycle, makes it unreliable. You have to clean it all the time to make sure it works. And no, this is not the same with the AK-47 or any other rifle that uses a different system. The AK-47, the G-3, the G-36, the FN FAL, all these can fire even when they're not properly maintained. The M16, however doesn't.
@masterDevis the ak worked better in vietnam because of the less moving parts that is why they did that its based on facts
sas21773 4 hours ago
i choose neither, go with a MODERN RIFLE. both are outdated.
examples of modern assault rifles: SCAR, ACR, G36, CZ-805, SG550,Tavor, F-2000, L85, hk-416,
driveby14000 3 days ago
@MrCouchmen because of the military cutting corners an issuing them without chrome lined bore and chamber against stoners recommendation as well as changing the powder in the ammunition. That's why they had problems .
elox02 5 days ago
Too bad that m16 had a problem in the jungle.
MrCouchmen 5 days ago
What the hell? it has the most balanced and high score! Why is it not first place instead of the AK?! Is it because the AK is more popular? If that's why, then why didn't they put a "Popularity" score in there?! This is BULLSHIT!!!
Thumbs up if you agree.
masterDevis 1 week ago 3
5.56 and 7.62x39 killed millions people both are designed to kill not wound. Both are good rounds.
MrBsct 1 week ago
If the M16 type weapons are unreliable in sand/dust/dirt/ etc, then so is the
HK416, because they both have the EXACT SAME BOLT-LOCKING MECHANISM.
That is what causes stoppages in sandy conditions, NOT the Direct Gas operating system! Having a piston will NOT make your weapon safe from these elements!
Once you learn just exactly HOW Stoners gas-system works, you will see that....
elox02 1 week ago
should be number 1!!!
22Swedishpride 2 weeks ago
Still, I used this rifle (Sort of...it was the Canadian C7) for two years and it performed like a rifle should. Shoots straight, fires every time (Unless you`re stupid and decide to put your chewing gum in the chamber), handles like a figure skater and hits like a hammer
grindorblackout1986 3 weeks ago
@grindorblackout1986 Why was there chewing gum in a gun?
wille8353 2 weeks ago
@wille8353 It was a hypothetical situation. I don`t want to meet the man that puts gum in his weapon.
grindorblackout1986 2 weeks ago
@grindorblackout1986 I second that.
wille8353 2 weeks ago
I do call shenanigans. The tumbling of the round was only devastating with certain rounds like the M193 and MK262.
grindorblackout1986 3 weeks ago
But also be advised that there is no such thing as just a M-16 there are different models such as the A-2 or the A-4 these two types of M-16's r the only ones that don't have burst fire (automatic) selection thus makes them more accurate then others. Also each different type of M-16 has a different nature than the rest...but all said and done the M-16 models are the Devils on the battle field-SEMPER FI
xGODSxMARINEx 1 month ago
@xGODSxMARINEx umm your dumb... A-2 and A-4 were burst and A-1 and A-3 were full auto, Learn your facts before you talk, and honestly the burst fire weapons were and always will be more accurate then a full auto weapon
AODcommander 3 weeks ago
@xGODSxMARINEx some of u might be thinking what about a pistol/hand gun those wernt really used in battle usually u would see in movies that they would use it when the soldier had no ammo left it's not 100% like that if u run out of ammo u would either ask the soldier next to u for ammo or if u had another gun such as a sub machine gun wich was highly un common but some Marines had them.. I had never used a hand gun in the Marines only when in target practice but that was it
xGODSxMARINEx 1 month ago
@xGODSxMARINEx and of course we all had a secondary weapon I myself with other Marines of course had M870 12 gauge pump shot guns those who had those as myself only used it in close combat..also those who had those are the ones who usually clear out a small indoor building like a house..-SEMPER FI
xGODSxMARINEx 1 month ago
Thts the gun I used holy shit but that's what i would call stalk m-16 the guns they gave us when they assigned us to 1st Marine division had smoke discharger or M203's on them some had scopes..but it wasn't the only guns they had we had a machine gun squad with M240B machine guns..those soldiers who had those guns were those soldiers u wanted next to u-SEMPER FI
xGODSxMARINEx 1 month ago
AK-47 is for Reliability
M-16 is for Accuracy
brianthao102 1 month ago
I've hunted small game with the M4 / 5.56 platform. The 5.56 cartage will kill on site, and leave 4" exit wounds. I've seen it in person. The problem is stopping power at longer ranges. Once the bullet is moving too slow to extensively fragment, it looses that explosive impact it had at shorter ranges. Also, the platform is extremely accurate, and shoots very flat.
jnd771 1 month ago
Over 1,200 ft. lbs. of delivered energy. The .223 is MORE than enough to stop a human. The mythology of the .308 (7.62 x 51) being "a lot" more powerful is actually overblown. If you are hit with either the .223 or .308 the party's over...
The M14 was a massive failure as a military rifle. It is too heavy, it's ammo is too heavy and no one could fire the thing full-auto and keep it anywhere near point of aim. Only 1.5 million were made during inter-war period. M14 was simply a mistake.
randy95023 1 month ago
your here for call of duty right?......
Supergear100 1 month ago
The M14 is a better weapon system. The stopping power of 5.56 is low. Soldiers in Somalia during Gothic Serpent reported shooting targets as many as six times with no effect. The M14 is very reliable, very accurate, and very powerful, and could be modified to be almost as light as an M16.
usaf4ever1824 1 month ago
Note to everyone: The bullet does not tumble. This is a myth.
Jedibob1steven 1 month ago
@Jedibob1steven actually its not a myth. it tumbled in early m16s because it had a wrong twist rate in the barrel which caused instability in the round causing tumbling, but thats fixed in 95% of modern ar15s, m4's, m16's and so on.
Grunt922 1 month ago
PEOPLE. Stop arguing about the ''AR15 platform vs AK series''
It's called Horses for Courses.
They were designed by two VERY different military doctrines.
The Soviet union needed a rifle that was easy to produce, easy to train conscript soldiers on. Simple=Reliable
The USA military doctrine focused on less soldiers that were trained to a higher standard, so Accuracy came over reliablity.
Technology=Accuracy
They are both awesome rifles, I would chose to have Both!
CroatianCommando 2 months ago 3
So beacous of the fact with stick powder making it a self cleaning weapon the army didn't supply any cleaning kits
M16503 2 months ago
First of all the 5.56 has more science to it than the 7.62 thare many more advantages to the 5.56 than the 7.62 plus the biggest reason the M-16 jamed was beacous it was designed for stick powder and the Army supplied them with ball powder also with stick powder it would have Ben conciterd a self cleaning weapon but today's varrents of the M-16 would kick any rifles ass
M16503 2 months ago
@M16503 and had some plastic components
MrDip02 2 months ago
Its sad that m16 was jamming and it didn´t worked much good in countryside like Vietnam.Ak-47 is universal assault rifle.No problems,very durable,cheap.
MrCouchmen 2 months ago
He says sexy at 3:13 for all of you wondering
DreamState01 2 months ago
Arguing which firearm is best is like arguing which truck is best. An expert with a 1903 Springfield will take out a boot with an M4 any day. As long as you're competent with what you have, concentrate on having enough ammo for when the revolution hits ;)
mabroussardii 2 months ago
what really pisses me off about people who argue about the m-16 or ak-4 is when they never fired a fucking gun when they say the ak-47 is inaccurate
MrDip02 2 months ago
We use 5.56 NATO now.
Pearlharbor350 2 months ago
I LOVE IRAQ ! AMERICA SUCKS !
DiePartyEnte 2 months ago
I like how all of these Call of Duty retards are talking about stopping power of the 5.56, get shot and find out. A 5.56 will put you on your ass no matter what substance you are on, you may get up if your adrenaline level is skyrocket high, but however the amount of velocity will surely stop you.
AstroWaldo 3 months ago
@AstroWaldo people who are on crack still won't be able to feel that much with a 5.56
MrDip02 2 months ago
@MrDip02, a 5.56 would knock them down and cause constant internal bleeding depending on the area, it's most likely it would cause enough damage to alter their body functions even if they can't feel all the pain.
AstroWaldo 2 months ago
@AstroWaldo wel the 7.62 will do the same
MrDip02 2 months ago
the m16- sucked in vietnam- it would hit a leaf and the bullet would get thrown off target- it shoots a glorified .22 round- so my dad chose- a shotgun, and a .45 cliber grease gun, in vietnam
matthewVancouver 3 months ago
@matthewVancouver, your comment is complete bullshit. First off the 5.56 can penetrate steel depending on the round, and it isn't a .22 round, it's a .223, a .22 is completely different from a .223. And American Military servicemen in Vietnam didn't choose their weapons, shotguns were rarely issued to anyone besides Military Police and sub machine guns were rarely used and were only issued to mainly the South Vietnamese military.
AstroWaldo 3 months ago
@matthewVancouver Really!! The military I belonged to doesn't allow you to pick and chose your weapons you get what they give you. Don't like it then throw rocks. I own 2 AR's if you would like to hide behind a leaf while I pop a few (Glorified) 22's at you be my guest.
talon55130 2 months ago
Thats the Classic m16--- the m16 a4 isthe best assault rifle in the world it is better than the ak47-103 and it is better than all ak classes :)
nilsie1000 3 months ago
Fail zero bolt #1rifle
mazdaturbo7 3 months ago
2:57 for some reason i hate that guy
alekzander2010 3 months ago
A grain of sand - the biggest enemy of the M 16
hardware199 3 months ago
At the number 2 in our top 10 comes the rifle that has equip with our american soldier and almost the whole world, the M16 which is epic.
Azhari1998 3 months ago
Man, the M16 is nice and all, but I would take the AK. Better stopping power and reliability.
NinjaMoose234 3 months ago
@NinjaMoose234 I would take the m16, more accuracy.
magykm 3 months ago
@magykm And I'd be happy with either one if I had to use a gun.
ChaosBahamut 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hell there is no such thing as a 'better gun' if it kills someone, its a good gun!
bman4099 4 months ago
I enjoyed this video until nerd boy said sexy.
89silverbullet 4 months ago 29
@89silverbullet yeah, why couldn't he just say "cool" or something like that?
masterDevis 1 week ago
ETA: If I were fighting with a bunch of friendly troops, M16 would definitely be my personal choice. If I were dropped deep behind enemy's line without any supply, support, I'd go for an ak47.
zhengjdc 4 months ago
I would prefer this than an AK. And the problems with the weapon are easily fixed. One being change the direct impingement to a short stroke piston gas system. It has it's ups and downs but the gas doesn't shoot directly into the bolt carrier, meaning a cleaner weapon.
But overall, great weapon no matter what all the little COD turds, who have never fired a real weapon in their life, say about it.
BigChiefMike 4 months ago
@BigChiefMike
But a short stroke will definitely hinder its accuracy and the reason for designing m16 is for its accuracy. This weapson isn't designed to be used by 3rd woould countries where dirts, bad maintainance, lack of cleaning prevails.
It's designed to be high maintainance, with direct-iimp gas sys, m16 is meant to be used by rich country only, with great deal of maintance backup, such as the U.S.A, the short-come can be easily overcomed, while it's accuracy from direct-imp 2nd to 0.
zhengjdc 4 months ago
@zhengjdc If you know how to maintain it, it will be a reliable weapon. All weapons have their problems.
BigChiefMike 4 months ago
@BigChiefMike
u probably never know the reality of 3rd world guerrilla warfare,& how it's carried out. total lack of supplies, support, bullets, horrible weather,environment conditions. My grandpa was a geurrila soldier and reliability is the key in determining the outcome of a skirmish. The conflict was usually short-lived, intense, and outnumbered, UNLIKE how U.S marines fighting nowadays, with massive troops, air, ground supports, that's why only U.S can offset reliability for accuracy.
zhengjdc 4 months ago
@zhengjdc I'm well aware of the usual conditions of a guerilla war. But the lack of reliability in todays M16/M4 is overstated. Is it as reliable as an AK47, no. But it's by no means an unreliable weapon system. and as long as you have a rag you should be able to clean the weapon well enough. If you are not well trained with weapons then sure, take an AK. But being that i am trained i would take the M16/M4 9 out of 10 times.
BigChiefMike 4 months ago
@BigChiefMike
typical American thinking, what happened if you have a rag but with no lubricants, not even food-graded oil? or in the worst scenario, no rags at all. I don't understand how direct-imp can have no reliability issue, the carbon deposit and heat over bolt, even a clean m16 after leashing thousands of bullet within an hour would have great potential of jamming. direct-imp isn't a new technique, which has been invented in the early 20th.
zhengjdc 4 months ago
@zhengjdc yea, and if i didn't have anything to clean it with then that would be the 1 out of 10 times that i chose an AK. Is that what you want to hear? You're not going to get me to say the M4 is shit and the AK47 is awesome
BigChiefMike 4 months ago
@BigChiefMike
My grandpa was guerrilla back in WW2 in China against Jap troops. The weapons&foods were scarce, rags were sewed to make clothes. Manpower is limited, skirmishes were always ambushes consists of as little as sometimes 7 men, if one gun jammed, ur entire troops can be dead within few minutes. safe evacuation relies solely on reliability. Imagine warfares without planes, tanks, machineguns, or even grenades. barrel swelling after intense fighting, & it was bolt action type99.
zhengjdc 4 months ago
Should've been number 1. The only think the fucking ak has is durability and reliability. And the m16 is reliable enough with proper care
Bishopx97 4 months ago
The first real gun I ever held...
RenerDeCastro 4 months ago
M16 shuld have been #1
MegaJacklinks 4 months ago
hey little girly boys down there, stop arguing about a rifle you never had any experience firing or taking care of . my dad served in the Marines in the early 90s carrying the m16 and he came back alive and unharmed
bman4099 4 months ago 22
@bman4099 he was lucky that the m16 didnt jam and some vietnameese cockhound didnt jump out of a shithole with an ak.
SyScript 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SyScript
He said early 90s, not early 60s.
Ragitsu 2 months ago
@bman4099 Who cares? Do you want any special treatment only because your dad was a marine in the 90s??
M16 is a good weapon and we are allowed to talk about it as much as we want. If you don't like it, gtfo.
VictumRoManius 2 months ago
@bman4099 that does not mean it was a good rifle it was one of the most piece of shit rifle EVER used plastic components it was jam with the slightest of shit but that's changed
MrDip02 2 months ago
@bman4099 so if he was in the Vietnamese war he would be dead most likely
MrDip02 2 months ago
@bman4099 hey its better have them argue about rifles then arguing about Video games.....
alekzander2010 1 month ago
@alekzander2010 true
bman4099 1 month ago
@bman4099 Oh shut up. You and I both know very well thats because the Marines and all the US armed forces dont do shit but patrol and sit around all fucking day, especially in the 90s. Go fight a real war with your M16, and see if you come back with your balls in the same place.
WaRLocK2204 1 month ago
@bman4099 He probably never had to fire his weapon in combat. Unless he was a bomber pilot, then he didn't kill anybody in Gulf War 1.
Friedstuffsable 1 month ago
@bman4099 Good point. Had the original M16 (no A1/A2 etc!) and loved it. But I might have been lucky cos mine never jammed while some of my friends' did :(
I don't see why people have to be so caught up with which rifle is the "best". Every weapon featured in this series is pretty damn good in its own right and that's what really matters.
iwishihad2000feet 2 weeks ago
@iwishihad2000feet M16A1 is the original the one issued in Vietnam it was single fire or full auto no 3 round burst ,then A2 replace the A1 no full auto but 3 round burst instead.
maximusprr 1 week ago
@bman4099 good to hear you dad came back sound and safe but reality is there are much better rifles than the outdated M-16 like H&K 416 ans Sig 556 to name a few also another good choice the G36 that a had the pleasure to fire a few rounds thanks to an Australian fellow soldier i met while deployed.M-16 is somewhat precise but to sensitive to dirt and in an desert environment this is a real issue.
maximusprr 1 week ago
This rifle is definitely not number 1 but A DAMN GOOD RIFLE nonetheless.
MRcalibrecincuenta 5 months ago
@MRcalibrecincuenta well said
edhardy369 4 months ago
god dammit girls stop arguing, this gun is rightfully in 2nd place. for me its #1 and thats MY opinion. shut up and watch the video.
Grunt922 5 months ago
Haha!! My dumb friends don't think bullets can tumble! Hopefully this will convince them
ILuVmYShReDStIcK 5 months ago
Link to the article: slip2000.com/art-swat2.html
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@HellsingFan1000 Also take into consideration that the M16 was the standard service rifle of the US military in Vietnam and they never lost a battle to the NVA/Viet Cong during that war.
Icarusdecending82 5 months ago
@HellsingFan1000 Not good in Vietnam, but what about modern times?
NatedogJr 5 months ago
I think if they just adjusted the M16s gas system so that the gas doesn't shoot back into the receiver but rather out the side of the weapon (like some modern AR style weapons) it would solve a lot of the reliability issues.
BigChiefMike 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the AN 94 assault rifle operating mechanism
youtube.com/watch?v=3JxedhGg7z0
youtube.com/watch?v=Tfw4KIge_y0
If this link is not working, search for "AN 94 operating mechanism of two round burst" and click on the first and second results.
imalchanaka 6 months ago
to bad it was the 5.56 not the AK round or 6.8
AfKman101 6 months ago
@AfKman101 At first first 5.56x45 that designated as M193 is bad until NATO release new 5.56 call M855 In the 80's and now,the M855a1 that can perform even better than 7.62x51 rounds!
jakkree2029 6 months ago
@AfKman101
nothing wrong with 5.56, as long as it's not a piercing round, and it's being fired on soft targets. 5.56 rounds do massive internal damage. I don't like AK rounds. The bullet is unproportional to the shell, so less powder for a bigger bullet, so it can lose some of it's power and accuracy at range.
mrbobyub 5 months ago
@mrbobyub yea i like the ballistics im just saying to go through covor and stuff like i know it can go through a cinder block but there's usually more than one but its still cool
AfKman101 5 months ago
burst is to stop soldiers and marines from dumping whole mags on one target
NukaCola777 6 months ago 7
Bullet doesn't tumble. It fragments.
biloxipilot 6 months ago
@biloxipilot no, the fmj round that comes out of the m16/m4 does not fragment when it hits flesh.
LooksLegitBro 6 months ago
@LooksLegitBro Go look it up. Not going to argue over the internet.
biloxipilot 6 months ago
@biloxipilot im not arguing either. the fmj bullet is not designed to fragment, and the full metal jacket round is stranded for the m16. its that simple.
LooksLegitBro 6 months ago
@biloxipilot What your refering to is a hallow-point. Thats against the Geneva Convention. Have a nice day!
Lysanderfication 6 months ago
There are so many bullshits told in this vid about this rifle that it made me sick. In specially the one about how the M16's bullet tumbles inside the flesh. They're actually trying to make it look like this is something typical to the 5.56 bullet... EVERY bullet tumbles inside flesh. That's how bullets behave once they hit flesh... The propaganda that kept this notoriously unreliable rifle in the US' military service is really disgusting.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1
5.56 FMJ rounds tumble quite a bit more than many other rounds when they hit, and they fragment inside of people, because it's a small, fragile round moving at very high velocities--over 3000fps.
mrbobyub 5 months ago
@mrbobyub Like I said, EVERY bullet tumbles once it hits its target, including the .50 caliber ones. This isn't something typical to the 5.56 NATO. As for fragmenting, this is bullshit, really. If the bullets really were fragmenting in Vietnam, that means they used bullets specifically made for this and they invented this bullshit about this wonder round just to cover the fact that they were using prohibited ammo in there.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1
They were not using prohibited ammo. That's just what the round does. Yes, the rounds did shatter, because they were small, fragile rounds moving at very high speeds, and they tumble much more than many other types of rounds. They did nasty damage to people. They were 5.56x45mm NATO M193 ball (replaced by M855 ball, which is a little heavier and slower, but hits harder and is more accurate) FMJ rounds. Look up the ballistics of 5.56 rounds.
mrbobyub 5 months ago
@mrbobyub There's no such thing as "tumbling more"... What does that mean, "tumble more"? A bullet tumbles when it hits its target, in specially flesh. Simple. And the fragmenting bullshit simply doesn't work for me. And even if it does, the fact that it's so fragile makes it worthless on a battlefield where stopping power and cover penetration are essential. The 5.56x45 round is simply not good. They should've went with a 6.6 or 7mm round back in the '60s, not with this round.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1
Look up the wound ballistics of 5.56 m193 and m855 rounds and compare it to .308, 7.62x39, etc. These rounds are not worthless on a battlefield, unless you're trying to gun down someone behind a steel wall, a tree or sandbags or something like that. These rounds are small and move at high enough speeds so that the round breaks and tumbles more than other rounds. Ask someone who used 5.56 Full Metal Jacket rounds, not 5.56 green-tip piercing rounds: those are worthless.
mrbobyub 5 months ago
@mrbobyub OK, so give me the stats for the ballistics of those rounds that you talked about. The explanation you gave here didn't convince me from the first place because I know how bullets behave. Metals doesn't just break when it hits flesh. It tumbles, yes, just like any other bullet, but it doesn't break. So give me the stats for the ballistics of those rounds.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 The reason why 5.56mm rounds break apart is because they are lightly constructed and cannot survive the torque forces placed upon it when it yaws in a fluid medium. They typically break apart at the cannulre groove. But they only break apart when they hit at velocities above ~2500fps. Out of a 20" M16 barrel, that is out to about 300m. If they don't hit at above 2500fps, they tend not to break apart. Most 7.62mm rounds have thick jackets, which don't allow fragmentation.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
The fact that they're lightly constructed also means that they don't have stopping power and cover penetration, which are essential in a war. Maybe they do fragment inside flesh, but the fact that they don't have stopping power makes them not suited for war. That's why the Navy SEALS requested a rifle for both sniping anf CQC that was chambered for the 7.62 NATO round. Because stopping power is the most important thing. The most important thing is to put the enemy down as quickly as possible.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 You have a confusion of what is "stopping power"....which BTW is a myth. There are many factors of what causes stops and kinetic energy is only one factor. Yes they're a light bullet. But it also means you can carry A LOT more ammo than if you were using 7.62mm. And firepower is MUCH more important than your fascination with stopping power and penetration. If you really need to penetrate cover, you have other weapons at your disposal for that.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
OK, so what are the other factors that cause stops? Besides hitting the enemy in the head or heart, of course.
As for what yo say, that firepower is more important than stopping power and cover penetration, I can tell you that MANY soldiers would disagree with you. Other facts also contradict you like the current AR-15s that your army has not having full auto capability. Also, the Navy SEALS, America's best soldiers contradict you as well.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Hits to the CNS (brain, brain stem, spinal column) are the ONLY 100% 1 shot stop hits. Even a hit to the heart, the target can still function for about 5-10 seconds until his brain de-oxygenates (which is what bleed out does). Other factors are pain compliance, destruction of motor structures (muscles, long bones), and psychology. BTW having automatic capability is not a matter of firepower. Soldiers never use auto except for certain situations....and yes even your precious SEALS.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy A .22 caliber can stop anyone if it hits him in the head. That doesn't mean it has stopping power. The power if the AK-47 was demonstrated in that show where they compared the M16 with the AK-47. The difference was clear when they shot that block of ciment.
Regarding firepower, if it doesn't have anything to do with full auto, then what do you mean by "firepower"?
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 But isn't that the very definition of stopping power? That's why it's a myth.
Firepower is the amount of bullets you can put downrange and how long you can stay in a firefight. It has nothing to do with full auto. A weapon that has 30 rounds vs 20 rounds has more firepower. A pistol with 15 rounds vs 7 rounds has more firepower. And even when you DO use full auto, you still shoot in burst of 3-5 rounds. Burst setting just does it mechanically for you.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy No, that's not the definition of stopping power, because, under battle conditions, you can't always aim for the enemy's head or heart. You need to stop him, not matter where you hit him, even in the leg or shoulder, or arm. He needs to feel the hit so even even if you don't kill him, you could incapacitate him.
As for what you say about firepower, then the 5.56 round adoption doesn't make any sense, because, at the beginning, they were using only 20 rds magazines. So the AK-47s
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Yes, they were only using 20 round magazines at first....but were carrying anywhere from 15-20 magazines in their bandoliers. Firepower isn't just what you carry in your gun but the total amount of rounds you have available. A 20 round magazine of 5.56mm is lighter than a 20 round magazine of 7.62mm. You can carry MUCH more ammo of 5.56mm for the same weight of 7.62mm. Weight is important. Also, 5.56mm has less recoil, so it's inherently more accurate, especially on rapid fire.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Believe me, someone getting hit in the arm or leg with 5.56mm is going to feel it. I've been to Iraq (twice). I've treated people who've been shot with 5.56mm and people shot with 7.62x39mm. 5.56mm creates more traumatic wounds.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Lighter recoil = better accuracy. Lighter round that hits is better than a heavier round that misses. Having a lighter round, but twice as many of them is better than a heavier round, but only half of what you can carry of the lighter round. Again weight is important. People who've never been in combat never seem to understand that.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy Actually, many people who have been in combat talk that they prefer a heavier round that weights more than a lighter round which can be carried in greater quantity but lacks the capacity to stop a an enemy in his tracks. That's why the US SF started looking for a bigger round than the 5.56 and that's how the 6.8 SPC was created. But a shortened 7.62 NATO round would've still been the best solution for a replacement of the M14.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 And who would those "many people" be? Because most infantry guys I've talked to say 5.56mm is just fine. Heavier bulles would be nice, but not at the expense of having less bullets in your basic load.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy There were plenty of shows with ex soldiers that say the 5.56 is not good enough. I'm not saying that all of them say this, I've seen plenty of soldiers that like the AR-15 and its cartridge. But what I see at those people is that bias that comes from emotional attachment & that's why I don't take them very seriously. People who r more objective clearly say that the 5.56 is not a good round & the AR-15, with its ridiculously huge maintenance needs is not a weapon suited for war.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Ah, that's right. Talking heads on a TV are always right. And those who think the weapon is just fine are "emotionally attached". Give me a break. It is obvious to me you have never deployed to a combat zone and are going merely off what you "have heard". The M16 does not need a "ridiculous" amount of maintenance to keep it functioning. In fact it takes less than 10 minutes for a field cleaning. I carried one for a year in Iraq and never had a problem with it.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy OK, so I'm asking you, how many times were you involved in firefights? Or even better, how long were the firefights you got involved in? And if you go involved in firefights often, how many times/day did you have to clean your weapon? And of course, if you never got involved into a firefight, since you said your were a doctor, then of course, your claim cannot be taken seriously so yeah, I'll believe those "heads on TV" who really were involved in heavy firefights in Iraq & Vietnam
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 I've been involved with one and that's one more than you. When we were doing combat convoy operations during the invasion phase of OIF, I cleaned my weapon daily. But it was mostly just blowing out the dust. And again, I personally know REAL PEOPLE who've been involved in firefights. I'll take their words over talking heads any day of the week.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
Yeah, well ask those people who were involved in heavy firefights how many times did they have to clean their weapons. & ask them how they were feeling about having to clean their weapon after a long, tiring day of fights just to make sure it'll work the next day. There's no other assault rifle in the world that needs so much maintenance just to make sure it'll not fail on you.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 I have. Numerous times. The M16 does not need anywhere near as much maintenance as you seem to believe it does. That is a holdover myth from Vietnam. The issues that caused maintenance problems were resolved almost 40 years ago. You DO NOT need to clean it every day. You want proof? Google the October 2010 article of SWAT and look for "Filthy 14". This is in line with my personal experience with AR type rifles.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy Hmm... You said that u don't have to clean it every day. Maybe, if you don't use it every day. But if you fire it, you definitely need to clean it to make sure the next time, it won't fail on you. You say that the reliability problem was solved 40 ago? How? The weapon still uses the same DI system that is the cause of its reliability issues? So how was this problem solved?
BTW, give me the link of that article you talked about.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 I just talked to a classmate of mine who served 2 tours in Iraq as an infantry officer in the 101st Abn Div. The PCCI included wiping down the bolt carrier and a little bit of lube. THAT WAS IT. Cleaning it invovled the same and running a patch down the barrel. THAT WAS IT. You don't need to scrape every bit of carbon off of it to make sure it fucntioned. BTW, you still have to clean AKs too. Dirty AK's jam up just like any other dirty rifle.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 The issues that were causing the jams were unexpected switch to ball powder (and no cleaning gear issued), cheap magazines and a non-chrome lined barrel and chamber. Once they started chrome-lining the barrel and chamber to prevent pitting and corrosion, the failure rates dropped dramatically. Once you started using better quality magazines, feed issues drop dramatically. Once you tell troops that the guns are not "self-cleaning" failure rates drop dramatically.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
Look, you simply can't tell me that a weapon that uses those hot, dirty gases to cycle is a reliable weapon. The bolt carrier is much more subjected to heat stresses and carbon fouling than the other systems. I don't know who told you what, like I said before, there are many biased people when it comes to this rifle, but the DI systems doesn't provide a reliable design. That's why nobody else adopted it.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 What I am telling you that it is MUCH more reliable than you give it credit for. Properly maintained, the M16 is VERY reliable. And proper maintainence does not mean a white glove cleaning after every firefight. Is it the perfect system? No it is not. But no system is perfect. Every system has it's relative advantages and disadvantages. You want to see bias? Look in the mirror.
BTW, the M16 was not the first DI weapon. It was based off very relaible earlier designs.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
"Properly maintained, the M16 is VERY reliable"... It seems like you don't know what reliable means... Reliable is a systems that works when IT'S NOT properly maintained and when it's abused. That is what reliable means. So if this is what "reliable" is for you, then I can pretty much say that everything you said about the AR-15's maintenance needs is flawed.
And I never said the M16 was 1st weapon to use the DI system, I said nobody else acquired it. If that guy wanted to make a system with
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 "I" don't know what reliable means? A reliable system does what it is supposed to do when I ask it to do it, the majority of the time I ask it. And that is what an M16 does. What you are describing is a maintenance free system....which doesn't exist. Not even in the much overrated AK. Abuse it enough, ANY rifle is going to fail on you. Reliable and tolerant of abuse are not the same thing.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy Actually, that's exactly what reliable means. A weapon that can work in any conditions, not just in perfect ones. So if your M16 only works in perfect conditions when it's carefully maintained, that doesn't make it reliable at all. Reliable means that you should be able to depend on it in any conditions, in specially those less than ideals. So if the M16 only works when it's properly maintained, that's not reliable.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Never said it must be "carefully maintained". I've outlined the minimal maintenance it needs to function properly. I have provided you with literature giving a real and recent example of how much abuse it can take and still keep functioning. You can believe whatever you want. I'm done trying to convince someone who's probably never even held the weapon, and definately has never carried one in a combat zone, that it's a reliable, effective weapon.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
You can't convince me because I know some certain facts. Once, I saw an episode with that former SAS guy that makes a show abt police forces around the world. I think he went to Srilanka & those guys use the M4. One of the weapons jammed after the 1st 2 shots. That guy tried 2 save the image of that rifle saying that every rifle jams in high temperatures....
Also, in an episode of the The Deadliest Warrior show, where they pitted Al Qaida vs IRA, they tested the M16, which was used by the IRA
StiviGun1 5 months ago
& the AK-47 in reliability tests. They put them in mud. The AK-47 rand flawlessly, the M16 jammed after several shots. Even the guy that shot it was surprised. I can send you the URL with that episode if you want. So the reason why you can't convince me the M16 is a reliable weapon is because everything I've seen and read about it shows me the opposite.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 And yet again, you are using "well I once saw on TV" or "I read it here once" and have yet to tell me you've actually ever held or shot the weapon in question. I have. Many times, to include in the dirt and mud. The only times I've had issues were with worn out magazines.
BTW, you do know that the SAS use M4's. As do most Spec Ops units in the world. I wonder why...?
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy Well, I guess I have to trust your word on what you say, that you fired the M16 from the mud. Like I said, I can send you the URL that shows just the opposite. You, on the other hand, can't show me any proofs of what you say.
As for SAS, no they don't use M4s anymore, they use the L85 rifle, which is an excellent rifle. They USED the M4 before they had he SA80.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 That's because you didn't bother to read that article, did you? Thought not.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy I asked you for the URL. Give me the link. I tried to find what you said, but I couldn't. Anyway, footage has more value than an article. And the footage I saw with the M16 says it's not a reliable weapon. Like, I said, I can send the link of that The Deadliest Warrior episode. The guys put the AK-47 as a better weapon than than the M16 as a result of the reliability test.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 OMFG! Are you fucking serious?!? TV is more valuable than an article in a legitimate WEAPONS JOURNAL?!?! I get it now. So if it's not on TV then its not real. Give me a fucking break. Now I KNOW you have NO IDEA what the hell you are talking about. This is the addy to the article: slip2000.com/art-swat2.html. (add a in front). Read it and learn something from professionals kid. And "Deadliest Warrior" is NOT a reliable source for anything other than pure entertainment.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy It's not about TV, it's about what I see. Articles can be written by biased people and it is a known fact that the Pentagon forged the soldiers' reports on how this weapon performed in Iraq. In that show, they put an AK-47 in mud & it worked flawlessly. When they repeated the same test with the M16, it jammed. Now, that's what I believe. What I SEE. Get it now? So you can bet your ass I trust what I saw in that show more than I trust in an article. & BTW, I saw that show on the net
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Ever consider that what you're watching on TV is biased too? Or that it may be rigged? Or not showing you the whole truth? But, of course since it's on TV it MUST be real....
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy Like I said before, I didn't see that on TV. And why would that show be biased about that, ha? They simply tested both weapons in the same circumstances. The AK-47 passed the test, the M16 failed. Here is the link. You tell me if they were biased and more importantly WHY would they be biased? This argument doesn't make any sense...
mega video . com / ? v = RJKTKMP1. I guess you know what to do to access the link.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 They would be biased for the same reasons you think that magazine articles would be biased. Sources (even TV) are like statistics: you can manipulate them to show anything you want them to prove. But of course, in your world, only articles are biased and TV (or the internet) never is. Pull your head out of your ass. When you limit your sources you limit the point of your point of view. An educated person considers all of the evidence. Keep drinking your kool-aid.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy And why the hell would those guys that make that show want to make people believe the M16 is more unreliable than it really is, ha? This is a dumb statement, really... On the other hand, magazines can be biased because they're affiliated with all sorts of government agencies. Besides, it's much more difficult to forge a video than it is to simply say lie in a magazine, so yea, I trust that show more than your magazine.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Oh, I don't know....maybe the manufacturers of a weapon is sponsoring the show to portray their weapon in a better light? Raise ratings? Any one of a dozen reasons. Again, you call me biased but that is the pot calling the kettle black. For you to sit there and call one source biased yet procalim another only tells the truth because it supports your arguement is intellectual dishonesty. I bet you believe magicians actually do magic because you see them perform magic tricks...
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy And what company that produces the AK-47 would sponsor that show, ha? I mean, saying that they somehow, made that M16 jam intentionally, just because some AK-47 manufacturing company sponsors the show (although I don't think this is the case) is hilarious, really. On the other hand, a military magazine can definitely be affiliate with certain government organizations so it can be biased.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@armynurseboy not on TV.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 like that makes a difference? The net is even worse. Like I said, keep drinking you kool-aid and believe what you want. I'm done trying to educate someone who refuses to be educated.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy "Educated"? Educated in what? You're trying to convince me of your biased beliefs. I read numerous statements from ex US soldiers on guns forums that were looking for a rifle and when somebody (like you) suggested them the AR-15, they all said that they spent too much time behind that gun to also carry it at home. Also, many soldiers speak about how they were told what to write in their reports on how this rifle performs. There's nothing to educate me on, you're simply biased.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 You don't know your history. The SA80/L85 was a far worse POS than the M16. It was so bad that there was a scandal in Parliament about the development and acquisition of the weapon. So bad that units in Desert Storm pulled old L1A1s out of storage to replace the SA80s that were breaking left and right in the desert (had a MUCH higher failure rate than M16s). It's a "good" rifle now because H&K had to go back and do a total re-do of the weapon.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy What I do know is that NOW, the SAS uses the SA80 family of assault rifle, not the M4 as you claimed. The M4 is probably the most unreliable rifle. Because of that shorter gas system that you've mentioned, it thrown even more debris in the cycling mechanism of the weapon & it makes it jam even more than the M16.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Shorter gas system has a slightly negative effect true...but not the effect you think it is. It has nothing to do with "more debris" because the amount of debris has nothing to do with the length of the tube. It DOES have to do with the increased velocity of rearward gas causing an increased cyclic rate and increased wear on the weapon.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy It has nothing to do with the length of the tube? How can't you even understand such a simple thing? Of course it has to do with the length of the tube. I honestly don't know how to explain this for you to understand...
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Let me repeat myself: the length of the gas tube has NOTHING to do with how much carbon is shot back into the bolt. NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. The length of the gas tube DOES have an effect on the velocity of the rearward gas. The shorter the gas tube, the higher the velocity of the gas. It also tends to run a bit hotter due to the shorter cycling time. Have you ever HELD an M4? Ever shoot one? Until then, don't tell me how the weapon operates. I am intimately familiar with it.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy From what I know, the gas speed is controlled by a gas regulator, it's not conditioned by the length of the tube. But even if what you say is true, you prove my point. The higher the velocity of that gas, the more of it gets into the cycling mechanism. There you go, you provided me with a way of explaining it to you.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@armynurseboy less moving parts to keep its accuracy high, I don't understand why didn't he use a blowback system. That systems keeps the weapons much cleaner than the DI system and it also maintains it very accurate because there are fewer moving parts inside the weapon.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Blowback system is not optimal either. Because it has to withstand very high chamber pressures, the bolt carrier and recoil spring have to be relatively heavy, which increases the weight of the weapon. And because the bolt is moving rearward at a much greater velocity, felt recoil is also increased. The G3 kicks a heck of a lot more than an FAL or a M14.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
Saying that the bolt carrier & recoil spring have to be heavier because of the high pressures inside the chamber doesn't really make sense. Also, regarding the movement of the bolt relative the bolt head's movement, the carrier doesn't move faster, what happens is that the bolt head is being delayed. The bolt carrier speed is not higher than in other systems. So what you say about the recoil being increased is not true. The blowback is the perfect operating systems for an assault rifle.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Direct recoil systems use the energy of the recoil to push the bolt back. Generally, these systems do not use locking lugs to lock the bolt into the barrel extension like gas weapons do. They use the mass of the bolt/bolt carrier and stiff recoil springs to resist rearward motion of the bolt until the peak pressure inside the chamber has dropped . Some designs also use rollers to keep the bolt closed. If it moves too soon, you will get a case rupture and maybe an exploded rifle.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy Gas and long stroke/short stroke systems are generally softer recoiling because they only require a fraction of the force that a direct blowback uses to unlock and cycle the action. They are also timed to cycle after the chamber pressure has dropped to safe levels. Incidentally, M4s kick harder than M16s because they have a shorter gas system, thus the rearward gas is moving at a much faster velocity than one out of a longer barrel/gas tube.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy Somehow, it doesn't seem logical to me to say that the blowback systems need more force to cycle the weapon than the other gas operated systems. Why would they? Why would they need more power 2 push against the bold than they need to push against the operating rod which in turn needs to have enough momentum to push against the bold assembly? It doesn't sound logical to me.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 Let me explain again: a straight blowback bolt is not generally not locekd. Therefore you need a heavy bolt and spring to keep the bolt face and chamber closed or else you risk case rupture becaues the pressure is still too high in th chamber. And BTW they take the full force of the recoil. The gas system uses locked bolts. Their bolts are much lighter, and require less force because they are not overocming a heavy carrier. And they only tap a portion of the rearward gas.
armynurseboy 5 months ago
@armynurseboy Maybe. The fact still remains that the AR-15 with its DI system is a very unreliable weapon. The fact that it uses those dirty, hot gases to cycle, makes it unreliable. You have to clean it all the time to make sure it works. And no, this is not the same with the AK-47 or any other rifle that uses a different system. The AK-47, the G-3, the G-36, the FN FAL, all these can fire even when they're not properly maintained. The M16, however doesn't.
StiviGun1 5 months ago