"The M-16" on The History Channel tonight at 10:00
- Thread starter Hoppy
- Start date
I just watched it. It was a skeletal outline following pretty much Stevens' "The Black Rifle". Of course, the ditz showing the weapon called the handguards "handgrips" and other boners that shouldn't be expected from the Curator of the US Small Arms Museum, but what the hey? Still, for television I have to give them "A" for effort. Beats network.
Still, get "The Black Rifle." See more here" http://www.epinions.com/otdr-review-6700-167C05F-39F0A0D2-prod1
Still, get "The Black Rifle." See more here" http://www.epinions.com/otdr-review-6700-167C05F-39F0A0D2-prod1
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
Looked to me a pretty much cut-and-paste Tales of the Gun with just a bit more tossed in. I'm glad the history channel runs stuff like that for those new to firearms/military equipment, but I do wish somebody would come out with something more detailed for those of us who would like to know more than generalities.
It's hard, so hard, to keep the faith. Just when you're beginning to have a little faith in a knowledge channel, such as The History Channel (or Discovery or whatever), they put a bonehead "factoid" on the screen, like, "The Colt Peacemaker cost $17 to buy in 1865". 1865???? What else are they full of poop about, that I'm not spotting?
We've got to come up with a sniglet to describe a factoid-in-error. Hmmmmm.... How about that as an acronym? FIE, rhymes with pie. Okay.
We've got to come up with a sniglet to describe a factoid-in-error. Hmmmmm.... How about that as an acronym? FIE, rhymes with pie. Okay.
Hutch,
What's the problem with that? Colt swiped the moniker for its Model 1873 from common usage. Users of Colt revolvers affectionately used it before that.
Colt made revolvers for the Texas Rangers (and the Army) that were used in the mid 1840s against Indians. Later, he made the Walker revolvers used in the Mexican War.
It's like the name "Jeep". Willys Overland didn't coin it. GI's did. How else were they to pronounce "GP" as tagged in the official designation of the "truck, 1/4 ton, GP" (GP=General Purpose).
All Model 1873s are Peacemakers, but not all Peacemakers are Model 1873s.
Of course, my history may be as bad as the History Channel's, but then again....
What's the problem with that? Colt swiped the moniker for its Model 1873 from common usage. Users of Colt revolvers affectionately used it before that.
Colt made revolvers for the Texas Rangers (and the Army) that were used in the mid 1840s against Indians. Later, he made the Walker revolvers used in the Mexican War.
It's like the name "Jeep". Willys Overland didn't coin it. GI's did. How else were they to pronounce "GP" as tagged in the official designation of the "truck, 1/4 ton, GP" (GP=General Purpose).
All Model 1873s are Peacemakers, but not all Peacemakers are Model 1873s.
Of course, my history may be as bad as the History Channel's, but then again....
About the FIE, I heard it too and can't remember if they called it by its real name "Colt Single Action Army Model of 1873," which would be a most obvious FIE, but I think they may have said just Peacemaker, which Blackhawk gave a good explanation for.
But: The part that blew my socks off was that $17 was two months pay back in 1865!!
Incidentally, economically speaking we must be doing pretty good today because by those standards a new pistol equivalent to a SAA would cost about $12,000.
But: The part that blew my socks off was that $17 was two months pay back in 1865!!
Incidentally, economically speaking we must be doing pretty good today because by those standards a new pistol equivalent to a SAA would cost about $12,000.
Blackhawk, didn't mean to touch a nerve.
I was assuming "powerful" referred to the cartridge being fired. 7.62 NATO and .30-06 are more powerful than 5.56.
OTOH, since the definition of "assault rifle" includes a moderate cartridge and FA, the phrase may be accurate.
Many consider the FAL, M-14/M1A and its cousins to be assault rifles, in which case, they are more powerful than the M-16.
I was assuming "powerful" referred to the cartridge being fired. 7.62 NATO and .30-06 are more powerful than 5.56.
OTOH, since the definition of "assault rifle" includes a moderate cartridge and FA, the phrase may be accurate.
Many consider the FAL, M-14/M1A and its cousins to be assault rifles, in which case, they are more powerful than the M-16.
Dave,
No nerve touched! I just wondered what assault rifle used in combat was the most powerful in your opinion.
Now I see you're mixing apples and oranges. You're referring to the cartridge! A .50 BMG backs those you mentioned completely off the board.
However, what makes the M-16 more powerful is its rate of fire, accuracy and combat load. Two 30 round clips taped together made for an awesome amount of firepower not counting the taped clips in reserve. The biggest advantage of the M-16 is that it can deliver automatic fire accurately. Neither the M1 nor the M14 could do that! Firing an M-16 on full auto is like holding a garden hose nozzle on something compared to holding the hose 6 feet back from the nozzle with an M-14.
In a duel, an M-16 shooter could get his whole clip on target by the time the others could get their second shot fired. Since he wouldn't really need to aim an M-16 in such a duel because he could just hose his target down, the other guy would never even get an aimed shot off.
If you've never fired an M16 on full auto, you should see if you can arrange it. The newer ones only allow a 3 shot burst, but even then you'll be tickled!
In an infantry company, every man with an M-16 is like a walking WWII machine gun but with a higher rate of fire.
The most powerful combat assault rifle is the most effective one, not the one with the biggest cartridge.
The .223 bullet has a habit of tumbling when it hits something, like flesh. Consequently, all of its energy ended up in the target instead of going clean through. Even hitting an enemy in the upper shoulder put them down. "They" told us it was due to "hydraulic shock" of all that energy being dissipated at once. Whatever....
The M-16 is extremely effective in semi mode because it's a very accurate weapon that can reach what you can see. When a wave of enemy comes at you with AKs rattling, the M-16 is very effective in auto mode because it's still a very accurate weapon for every shot.
Finally, it inspired the Soviets to redesign the AK-47 to fire 5.56mm rounds. Why? They were jealous of the M-16 and its performance in Vietnam. Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery....
No nerve touched! I just wondered what assault rifle used in combat was the most powerful in your opinion.
Now I see you're mixing apples and oranges. You're referring to the cartridge! A .50 BMG backs those you mentioned completely off the board.
However, what makes the M-16 more powerful is its rate of fire, accuracy and combat load. Two 30 round clips taped together made for an awesome amount of firepower not counting the taped clips in reserve. The biggest advantage of the M-16 is that it can deliver automatic fire accurately. Neither the M1 nor the M14 could do that! Firing an M-16 on full auto is like holding a garden hose nozzle on something compared to holding the hose 6 feet back from the nozzle with an M-14.
In a duel, an M-16 shooter could get his whole clip on target by the time the others could get their second shot fired. Since he wouldn't really need to aim an M-16 in such a duel because he could just hose his target down, the other guy would never even get an aimed shot off.
If you've never fired an M16 on full auto, you should see if you can arrange it. The newer ones only allow a 3 shot burst, but even then you'll be tickled!
In an infantry company, every man with an M-16 is like a walking WWII machine gun but with a higher rate of fire.
The most powerful combat assault rifle is the most effective one, not the one with the biggest cartridge.
The .223 bullet has a habit of tumbling when it hits something, like flesh. Consequently, all of its energy ended up in the target instead of going clean through. Even hitting an enemy in the upper shoulder put them down. "They" told us it was due to "hydraulic shock" of all that energy being dissipated at once. Whatever....
The M-16 is extremely effective in semi mode because it's a very accurate weapon that can reach what you can see. When a wave of enemy comes at you with AKs rattling, the M-16 is very effective in auto mode because it's still a very accurate weapon for every shot.
Finally, it inspired the Soviets to redesign the AK-47 to fire 5.56mm rounds. Why? They were jealous of the M-16 and its performance in Vietnam. Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery....
Last edited:
Vladimir_Berkov
New member
First off, do you have any experience with the Kalashnikov? The AK isn't any less effective full auto than the M16, and in semi-auto mode the AK is still just as effective. No, it isn't MOA accurate, but it will easily hit a man center-mass at 300 yards.
Also, the Russians didn't redesign the AK-47 to fire 5.56mm rounds. It was modified to fire 5.45x39mm rounds. The AK was only produced in 5.56 in Russia during the 1990's as they sought to move into the export market. Russian military AK-74's still are chambered in 5.45x39.
Also, the M16 was designed because the US was jealous of the AK's performance. Not only that, but the Russians and other Warsaw Pact countries had AK-47's and AKM's before the M16 was a sketch on Eugene Stoner's notepad.
Anyone who thinks the M16 is more "powerful" than a AKM with a 75-round drum is smoking dope.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
For one thing, the Army hasn't fielded a full auto M-16 in quite a while-the last one was the M-16A1 which is pretty much gone from inventory with notable exceptions.
Vladimir, a 75 round drum does not make the AK a more or less "powerful" weapon. So far as firing rates, the older M-16 had a much higher rate of fire, and was reduced on the M16A1 because it was really too fast. I carried an M-16A1, and saw several instances where GI's standing up could fire so fast that the last empty case was clearing the ejection port before the first fired case hit the ground. Not so on an AK. Does it make a difference? It could if your soldier empties their weapon in a couple of seconds-he then becomes an unarmed target.
Humping the boonies with drum magazines(weight and complexity) does not make it more convienient for the soldier. The 7.62x39 was retired because the 5.45 is a more effective round, not to mention more rounds per pound can be carried.
Each of these weapons has pluses and minuses. The safety on the AK is so damned loud that a deaf person can hear it. The 16 has a clean fetish going because it does dump burnt powder into the action, which has been somewhat improved by chrome plating the chamber and bore, plus teaching proper maintenience. I would say the M16A2 is the better long range weapon, while the AK would be a good choice where the ranges are short, provided the soldier knows better than to spray and pray.
Vladimir, a 75 round drum does not make the AK a more or less "powerful" weapon. So far as firing rates, the older M-16 had a much higher rate of fire, and was reduced on the M16A1 because it was really too fast. I carried an M-16A1, and saw several instances where GI's standing up could fire so fast that the last empty case was clearing the ejection port before the first fired case hit the ground. Not so on an AK. Does it make a difference? It could if your soldier empties their weapon in a couple of seconds-he then becomes an unarmed target.
Humping the boonies with drum magazines(weight and complexity) does not make it more convienient for the soldier. The 7.62x39 was retired because the 5.45 is a more effective round, not to mention more rounds per pound can be carried.
Each of these weapons has pluses and minuses. The safety on the AK is so damned loud that a deaf person can hear it. The 16 has a clean fetish going because it does dump burnt powder into the action, which has been somewhat improved by chrome plating the chamber and bore, plus teaching proper maintenience. I would say the M16A2 is the better long range weapon, while the AK would be a good choice where the ranges are short, provided the soldier knows better than to spray and pray.
Vladimir_Berkov
New member
I understand that the drum itself isn't very useful unless you are humping an RPK or the like. I mentioned the drum because the above poster implied that the M16 could empty a mag full auto into the target making it more "powerful." An AK with a drum will shoot a long time without reloading, especially on semi-auto. And the lower ROF makes for greater controlability.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
I understand that well, Vladimir. RPK is really nothing more than a heavy barrelled AK, and heat that fixed barrel up and you have few alternatives. Have known people to pour water on them or cool them off with "bodily fluids". Hell for strong actions-actually overbuilt for the cartridge, and I agree you need the reliability above all else, but you can have accuracy along with it. Valmet made or might still make some beautifully machined AK clones which were very accurate, and made me think it was the manufacturing process and not the design which caused to to spray bullets. The M-16 was still the most accurate issue rifle that I was ever issued-pretty much an MOA rifle with young eyes if it wasn't worn out, and that with M193 ball ammo. We were trained how to correctly maintain the M-16 and I never had a problem with mine. It fired everything I ever put in it, and believe me, if the sand in El Paso or the cold in Colorado won't kill it, I think only neglect will. Don't have a clue about the A2's although I have heard good things about them. The 2 good things about the A1 have gone away. The darned thing is within a pound or so of weighing as much as an M-14, and full auto is down to 3 rounds which is probably good for the average grunt, but I knew a few GI's who could really tear up the field on a rock and roll A1!
Vladimir_Berkov
New member
I don't have a problem with the AR-15/M16. I mainly hang out at AK-47.net and often rush to defend the Kalashnikov as it is my main area of interest.
Interesting you should mention El Paso. That is where I live, and my AR-15 has never had a problem in the sand. I still prefer the AK in sand though. I went through a duststorm with an AK and it functioned like it was supposed to be full of sand.
Interesting you should mention El Paso. That is where I live, and my AR-15 has never had a problem in the sand. I still prefer the AK in sand though. I went through a duststorm with an AK and it functioned like it was supposed to be full of sand.