The M-16

[bteague2]

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/PBS_Guns_of_US_Soldiers_in_0924.html

This is clearly as anti as they come, but I'm gonna through this one out to Joe and a few others: does putting things on your sight rail really lesson the accuracy of the gun?

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Ok....

"A walking man can't use sight very well. So, shoot from the hip in full automatic"

Who taught him to shoot? He's obviously never used a $1000 parallax-free holographic sight before. The anti-gun lobby eats this stuff up. I'd like to see how long he would actually last in a fire fight.

"The more extraneous stuff you hang on the gun, the more likely it is to jam"

I fail to see how the external accessories have anything to do with the mechanics of the gun. Aside from making it heavier.

Why did this dude sell his gun if it is so horrible? I like the AK, but how is the '74 any better than the '47 other than is uses a different cartridge? And it still uses iron sights.......

[Guest ETS_Inc]

I just wrote a very lengthy diatribe on the piece. Hopefully it'll be published soon.

Mr. Sullivan is an idiot. I've carried an M-4 into two different war zones, and would gladly carry another one into another war zone. As long as the operator takes care of the weapon, it will function properly. (I miss Nora Jean. She was my M-4, serial # W016312. She kept me company on many a cold, dark night.)

[molonlabetn]

I've never had an issue with any AR15 or M16 I've owned or fired, other than the occasional failure to strip the first round from the magazine. There is nothing wrong with the weapon's design in the least, the direct-impingement system simply compromises resistance to fouling with lower reciprocating mass (thus higher sustained accuracy). It's simply foolish to state that mounting something externally would affect the reliability of the gun, unless we're talking about an inertia-operated gun, like a Benelli M1.

I've got an AK-74 now, not that I think they are generally any higher quality than AK-47s, but because the ammo is cheaper... actually, in most cases, the guns are the same except for the bolt, magazine and size of the bore. The 5.45x39 round is superior to the 7.62x39 when it comes to longer range shooting (flatter trajectory, similar to 5.56 nato), and I've found it to be more accurate and easier to hit with.

I would have no qualms with going back to an AR platform someday...

[Smith]

I think the old boy is trying to sell his new rifle and got shut out of the process!

There were some good points about procurement, however.

Think about just changing out uppers and magazines to adopt, say the 6.8 SPC. Then what to do about the old stuff. What a massive overhaul. Not to mention the fact that 6.8 and .223 are going to get confused and used in the wrong guns if they are mixed. It does make for a bureaucratic nightmare.

However, to say the AR is outdated and the AK is modern.... is a horrible comparison. They are both old designs that have similar histories of reincarnations.

My AR is good, but I like the less stress of my AK,\. Either will do the job equally well when used and maintained the way they are supposed to.

[Marswolf]

Good comments here; mostly idiotic comments at PBS.

I've never had any problems with the M16, my AR-15 or mt AK-47. All work just fine. In a pinch, I'd grab the M16 unless I was doing a bunch of "brush shots" when accuracy wouldn't matter but bullet mass might.

In Iraq, Marines have been known to clean their M16s up to four times a day before they changed to a dryer lube. Nothing wrong with the rifle as long as you take care of it.