Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: M16s Nam. Now Iraq. ??

  1. #31
    White Cracker 4thIDvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Swamp Florida
    Posts
    12,441
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)

    Post

    A Platoon from our company went on patrol "68 and spotted about a dozen V.C. taking a swim. They were about 200yds away and they opened up on them. When the V.C. came out of the water they were all buck naked.
    The guys were trying to hit them but they started laughing at the site of naked men runnning every which way but loose. They left everything they owned behind. No hits but plenty of weapons and maps, uniforms etc.
    Can you imagine what the V.C. commander said when they got back stark naked.
    They brought us back AKs, uniforms, helmets etc. I grabbed a complete uniform, pack, helmet and was able to get it back and mailed home. We had a great C.O. and he asked if anyone wanted the AKs. Couple of guys grabbed a few and were able to get them mailed home. I didn't want the damn full auto Russian?? junk AK.
    Within reason, mailing was easy then. Everyone was mailing stuff home. As long as you didn't get too stupid you could send stuff. Just mark helmets, dolls etc. on the package and it made it through.
    So I just made contact with my sister after 15 years. Going to Connecticut and she says she has all my old Nam pictures. I'll see what is left, but I am sure I will have pictures for you guys of the weapons from over there.
    Old junk Russian and Chinese AKs. Who the hell would want to save those damn old things.
    "Man needs but two things to survive alone in the woods. A blow up female doll and his trusty old AK-47" - Thomas Jefferson 1781


  2. #32
    Gunco Member ironhead7544's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SW GA
    Posts
    205
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    I was a Small Arms Repairman for the Army 69-72. Worked in a depot shop with 100 guys. I ran the testfire range. The early M16 problems were due to no cleaning equipment issues and ammo with too much preservative in it. Crudded up the rifle quickly. These problems were quickly solved. The original guns had standard steel barrels and the throat wore out quickly on full auto. The worn barrels tipped bullets badly and I think the legend of the "tumbling bullets" came from that. Clear sideways hits could be seen at 25 yard paper target. To correct this they added a stellite liner to the chamber that extended up into the barrel a ways. Around 1970 they came out with the chrome lined barrel. We always replaced the plain steel barrel when we found one. Magazines must be checked and replaced often. They are a bit fragile. Properly cleaned and lubed M16s worked well in the jungle. I dont know about dusty/sandy conditions.
    The military went with the M16 for a number of reasons. One was that the troops did poorly with the M14 on the range. Out of some 220 guys in my basic trainning unit, fully half of them failed to get the 30 hits out of 84 targets required to qualify. They were afraid of the recoil. These same guys did a whole lot better with the M16. Another was weight. You could carry a whole lot more ammo with a lighter rifle and ammo. Cost was another factor. The Gov was paying 117.00 for an M16 and the M14 was 177.00. Ammo for the M16 was .07 a round and M14 ammo .17 a round.

  3. #33
    Gunco Member Cooker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    39
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    I don't have as much action with it as many of the other posters do but I used it in G1 and Somalia and never had a problem. Lubed it with graphite. No malfunctions. Just a note for those that don't know, the sand in Iraq (what I was in) was more of a powder, like flower, than beach sand like we see here, gets in everything.

    Got a buddy headed over in a few weeks, I'll have him keep me posted.
    "You can't cover up crazy with a new pair of jeans"

  4. #34
    jack404
    Guest jack404's Avatar

    Default

    G'day folks

    I've been lucky to operate a lot of weapons over the years from Owen Gun to M4/203 rigs, the early M16's needed to have the gas system "flushed" occasionally and yes the throats wore on the Mattel toys.

    Name a perfect battle rifle ? they have there points but some fool alwys gets in the way,

    we tested the AR180 next gens here for a year and we all gave it the thumbs up but we went to styers that the first issue had UV issues on the plastics, chemical issues the next and we are on mark 4 now.

    the M4 as a platform i think is better than a M/16, the action is cleaner, the recoil on FA is far better with less twist to it, but yes run em dry or with graphite in desert and cement dust conditions.

    Rhino systems (sp?) had a FN L1A1 SLR style gas system that was fitted to our
    SAS's 203's for extented ops to reduce chances of fouling if in heavy usage for extended periods, but it was mark 2 style adjustable, very nice setup and well thought of by all who used it. But theres only 40 or so...

    as for why spec ops use AK's its because the indians dont use M'4's and shoot at anyone with one on site. its a second look item.

    a mate is now in a snatch squad, a PMO group that chase down car and road side bomb makers.. they carry AK's and and P's, they made the news with catching the two tankers full of ampho set to go late last year in Bagdad.

    cheers folks

    jack

  5. #35
    Gunco Member MoonDoggie116's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio Boonies
    Posts
    21
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    We were taught to KEEP THEM CLEAN, and we did and I still do, I Coyote Hunt with mine now and still clean it after every outing

  6. #36
    Resident Evil s70fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    132
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    The Marine I know that is currently deployed in Iraq says he "loves" his M4. His life depends on it everyday. Here is a reality picture of his from Iraq.

    Welcome to the 21st century, things are going to be very different.

  7. #37
    Gunco Rookie Dutchman01's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 4thIDvet View Post

    Talking to my neighbor yesterday. He is a Viet-Nam vet Marine. He was early Nam and was one of the unlucky Vets to get the "Bad" M-16s that were shipped over there.
    I guess the horror stories were true about jamming and doing bad things when needed.
    Mine, a later issue, never failed me. It always went bang when I pulled the trigger.
    We have a lot of Iraq vets joining the site.
    Are these weapons working for you guys in the Sand Box??
    I see pictures of the special ops guys and a lot of them seem to be carrying AKs.
    What is up with the M16 over there???
    I spoke to a marine who had just gotten back from the fallujah area sometime after that dustup they had. He told me if you wanted to get back to base without a stoppage you had to clean your m-4 before a firefight, after a firefight, and if you had an extra 30 minutes during a firefight you needed to clean it then as well. The m-16 series of rifles from their inception right down to today is a scandel. We can do better than this rifle. We should've done better by our troopers.

  8. #38
    White Cracker 4thIDvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Swamp Florida
    Posts
    12,441
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)

    Post Interesting viewpoints all.

    Like I say. The only reason we have what you guys are calling the M4?? I guess is the updated version of the M16 we had. Colt had started production in Hartford Connecticut. Even before the Govt. contract was approved.
    They then told the Govt. boys were ready to ship.
    A lot of guys died as the first version was a fubar.
    Stoners weapon was a better version of the then M16. I know a lot of the special ops guys Seals etc. carried the Stoner in Nam.
    I don't own one and have not been around the weapon for a number of years. But some interesting feedback coming in. Pro and Con.
    "Man needs but two things to survive alone in the woods. A blow up female doll and his trusty old AK-47" - Thomas Jefferson 1781


  9. #39
    Gunco Addicted for life j427x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,349
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)

    Default

    we would sometimes use AK's. but only under certain conditions. and those conditions were not picked up by the press. if we captured a big hooch of ak ammo and were running low on mk-262 for example -- which did happen from time to time.

    after being trained for years to "shoot-anybody holding an AK" you can see why you sometimes have to limit the use of the AK by your forces.

    i think everybody has an agenda to push in the press these days. HK and FN want to make a big score and sell some uber-gold plated rifles to the armed forces. colt wants to keep selling overpriced m-4s--ect-ect

    the biggest problems i see with the ar series are--some what limited power from the 5.56 round and the idea of mags as a disposable item. 80% of ar failures could be cured if we just had some better made mags that were made of thicker stuff around the feed ramps.

    the direct gas system is a problem--but it is not as high on problem list as some would suggest. i have a ar-180 and a bushmaster xm-17 that i have had since the late 80's. they have a similar gas system to the much ballyhooed HK-416 system. they use AR-15/m-16 mags and guess what --i have had a few jams with them. all magazine related failures though. the breech is cleaner --but it still isn't --spotless.

    i think it is time for a new system for the armed forces--with a new round to go with it. the 6.8spc and the 6.5grendel were good attempts but were constrained by having to fit in the AR-mags.

    and while were on the magazine problem--you want to know why 6.5 grendel, 6.8spc only hold 24 or so rounds in a 30rd length ar mag?? the flimsy -thin ar-mags swell up if you try to put more rounds in the damned thing!!--if the mags were made better you could hold around 28-rounds in the same space.

    to make a thicker mag --you need a bigger mag well--so while you are at it--you just as well make the mag well a few mm to a cm or so longer so you won't have to push the bullet so far back in the case that it eats up power that could push the bullet faster.

    overall i think the AR is still a workable system --but at the same time the writing is on the wall for the 5.56 round. while going to a new round--it is the ideal time for weapon improvements.

  10. #40
    Gunco Member Cooker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    39
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Chief of staff: Army reviewing complaints over bullets
    By JAY REEVES (Associated Press Writer)
    From Associated Press
    May 29, 2008 5:03 PM EST

    HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - The military is reviewing soldiers' complaints that their standard ammunition isn't powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's highest-ranking officer said Thursday. But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said it was too soon to say whether the Pentagon will switch.
    Current and former soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military's M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Speaking with reporters at a conference in Huntsville, Casey said leaders are constantly soliciting feedback from soldiers in the field and were aware of complaints about the M855 ammunition.
    "To effectively prepare them we have to adapt as the enemy adapts, and that is some of the feedback we have gotten," Casey said. "We'll evaluate it quickly and then we'll decide how we want to proceed."
    But Casey said it would be premature to say if the Pentagon will consider a different type of ammunition.
    "I can't tell you exactly what we're going to do," he said.
    The M855 rounds were designed decades ago to puncture the steel helmets of Soviet soldiers from hundreds of yards away. Some soldiers said that they are not large enough to stop an enemy immediately in close quarters.
    Casey said the military has been evaluating its equipment and practices since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
    "Technology is pulling us, and what we're learning on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is pushing us," he said.
    "You can't cover up crazy with a new pair of jeans"

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •