After reading a lot of these posts I think this is a two fold problem...One is the gun does not funtion well unless it is maintained to a high degree. And, the tactics used in the battlefield with it are not conducive with the firearms operation...

I'm curious (for the sake of discussion) does anyone have any information on what happends if you operate an AK in full auto for three or four mags? Does it suffer from the same overheating issues?

And for the record, I'm not an advocate of "full auto" use on the battlefield. I recognize its use as a tool in certain situations, but in general think full auto usage is definately something seen primarily in movies...fake movies with bad tactics being displayed that is...

My father said that he didn't know a single soldier that would chose an M16 over an M1/M2 Carbine during the Vietnam War. Those who were given standard issue M16s later in the war would drop them for an M1/M2 seized from the enemy.

The reason being that the M16 is a fearsome looking weapon. It sounds fearsome. It is able to rapidly lay down a suppressing fire that will make anyone take cover. However, it is not as accurate as the M1/M2 (at close ranges anyway, as the M1/M2 has too much muzzle drop for longer ranges). The M16 wastes ammunition which is a luxury during War-times (apparently it was not uncommon for US Troops in Vietnam to be forced to carry empty clips in their M16...and even those with an M1/M2 were lucky if they scrounged up 6 rounds of ammunition). Most of all, it chokes and misfires under heat, dirt, dust, and stress, even if you do clean and maintain it after every firing (it is perhaps one of the most "needy", high-maintenance firearms we have ever had in our arsenal).

The M16 has never been revised to deal with these issues. When the M4 was chosen from numerous other bids, it carried the same issues even though many of the competing bids for an M16 replacement specifically were designed to be accurate, reliable, and low maintenance. It was chosen because of its similarities to the M16, as well as using interchangeable modular parts. It is a fact that both the M16 and the M4 suffer far more stoppages than any other battlefield carbine.

However, at least they do function under some conditions. The same can't be said of other equipment we have given our Troops to do their duty and protect them while they are in harm's way. Our DoD is renown for spending billions developing weapons that look fearsome on paper, but don't actually function as advertised. M1A1 Abrams anyone?

Shooting lead projectiles is such a primitive way to kill. The death ray guns are in full production, i am sure. Otherwise we would have heard about them.

I just had a long talk with my father about this very issue, he said he hated the m-16 because of the expansion you get from the aluminum receiver from heat. He told me in "Nam" he would put a few drops of lsa lube into the holes on the bolt carrier to keep it lubed up. From past conversations he told me quite a bit about the problems w/ the m-16 from his time in the service, 40 years later the same issues keep popping up? It shows what happens when you let special interests dictate a soldiers life.

Just to cause havoc and maybe get flamed a bit, what if we started to train soldiers to see what they are shooting at first. 30-06 bolt actions, iron sights, see that you are going hit your target. Sure have a few S.A.W's maybe a mini-gun, some close-air support A-10's to keep enemies' head down. The military has to do something, kids today are brought up on video games, there is a endless supply of ammo, just hold down the button. I think there is a term for it. Spray and Pray. I wonder where I heard that..oh yeah.. it was on the range in Pendleton.

The issue of 5.56 vs 7.62 has been done to death and there are plenty of discussions on it elsewhere on this site. My experience is that sometimes 5.56mm kills, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes 7.62mm kills, sometimes it doesn't. It's all about who you hit, where you hit them and their mental state when you hit them. The most important factor is that you do hit them.

The fundamental problem with the M16/M4 is the gas system. It is extremely prone to carbon fouling ('clogging') as well as over heating. Combine this with continued rapid fire and high ambient temperatures and you're going to get stoppages.

You'll get stoppages with any weapon if you abuse it, even the much-vaunted AK47s. (As an aside, I have encountered some AKs in the middle east that were of such shoddy construction you were lucky if one round in ten actually fired).

It's been said before but i'll say it again. Refit the weapon with a gas piston and you'll reduce many of these problems. You'll still have a weapon that is essentially the same functionally but with increased reliability. Just make sure that it's a decent gas system! Look at the state of the one on our SA80s before H&K go hold of them.

yes i agree, it is true

yes i agree, it is true

but i dont agree that is why

Originally posted by PaddyInf


You'll get stoppages with any weapon if you abuse it, even the much-vaunted AK47s. (As an aside, I have encountered some AKs in the middle east that were of such shoddy construction you were lucky if one round in ten actually fired).

Thats what happens when you try to repair Russian weapons with Chinese parts they captured all those AK 47s and the Russians weren't willing to give them parts so they bought then from China.Iwill say one thing though Ive seen some AK 47s with severely bent barrels and worn cylinders still able to fire from that stand point it is an amazing weapon.

It boggles the mind that the U.S.A. spends some 400-600 billion a year on defense, yet can't develop a kick ass, dependable, reliable, assault rifle.

What's wrong with this picture?

Without a doubt they should be retired. Yes a more reliable platform is needed but also a larger bullet is needed. The .223 just doesn't cut it in my book. I know there have been many threads and discussions all over the place about the advantages and disadvantages of the .223.

Yes you can hit something accurately from a long distance but your weapon has to fire and also the energy from that small bullet may not be enough to prevent your enemy from firing back or escaping to fight another day.

Why do you think the AK has been around for so long? Yes it's not as accurate but that setup will fire all day long through all types of environments. It has been chambered in different rounds but the 7.62x39 has endured. For short range <300 yards engagements it's hard to beat. If you need to reach out farther you should have a rifle designed for that purpose in your squad. 7.62x54 or 7.62x51. There are many other types out there but these are just examples.

The light weight of the M16/M4 family and the smaller rounds reduce felt recoil and allow more ammuniton to be carried. M1's and BAR's worked but would beat you up firing prone and the ammo got heavier if you were humping ruck any distance. What do the posters think of semi auto only, gas piston mod to the M4, and necking up the 5.56 to 6 or 6.5 mm. This would reduce bullet velocity but allow better ballistic performance at longer ranges. Hits would be more effective and long range accuracy and barrier penetration improvements would have the troops shoot less and hit more. This would mainly involve barrel change out to minimize costs and maybe some buffer mods. Mags would still work and additional weight would be minimal.
Lowest cost, more bang, less prone to overheat.

The problem here is the government is too cheap. The Army canceled the XM8 and the Dragon armor supposedly because of "performance". But really, its because they cost too much. They would rather have state-of-the art fighting vehicles and precision guided bombs more then they want to protect the people on the ground.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Arbalest]