More on the AR-15 and it supposedly sucking
The force was simply too small (platoon size versus virtual battalion size Taliban force), and they were simply outgunned. It’s remarkable that they didn’t have even more casualties.
3 Responses to “More on the AR-15 and it supposedly sucking”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 7th, 2015 at 7:25 pm
The M16 and its varients have been standard issue infantry weapons for a half century now. That’s nearly a historic record for an infantry rifle. In another couple of years, it will surpass the Russian Mosin-Nagant.
January 8th, 2015 at 11:25 am
The M16 may have lasted longer than the Mosin Nagant, but I doubt I will ever be able to buy an M16 surplus for $89, complete with bayonet, strap, tools and diesel-filled cleaning kit.
January 8th, 2015 at 11:31 am
My understanding is that the main faults included a change to dirtier burning powder in the ammunition, poor operator maintenance training, minimal marksmanship training and the myth that the rifle was self-cleaning.
While I prefer something chambered for 7.62mm NATO (M14, G3/HK91), the M16 of 2015 is a different weapon from the M16 fielded in the mid-1960’s. Proper maintenance, proper operator training, and proper ammunition make the M16 family of weapons effective for most situations.