Talk:M16 rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Wikipedian removed M16 rifle from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: September 27, 2006

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Page title 2 M16 page talk 3 M-16 or M16? 4 (display) 5 Leftovers from assault rifle 6 Confusion 7 M16 variants 8 You'd think 9 M16A2 10 M16 performance and quality 11 Proposed merge with Eugene Stoner 12 Proposed move from M16 (rifle) to M16 13 NPOV, weasel wording, etc. 14 M16 Table issues 15 Featured Article 16 "Major" Users 17 Holy POV batman 18 source for m16a4 information 19 Forward Assist 20 wikipdia:requested move on Talk:M16 21 Blackhawk Down Poster 22 5.56 less than lethal? 23 AR-16 Reference 24 redundant sections are redundant 25 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 26 Delisted GA 27 No XM16? 28 Reasons for more detailed introduction 29 M16 Barrels 30 Why isn't the R in Rifle capitalized... 31 House Cleaning

[edit] Page title

[edit] M16 page talk

This talk did not have a header and was from discussion in March 2005

I think M16 rifle or even M16A1 rifle is a better name. There are too many "M" terms used in the US military, like M151. Would you know that was a jeep, if I hadn't just told you? --Ed Poor

I knew M151 was a jeep. -Weps

M16 rifle's reasonable; the M16A1 doesn't exist in wide use anymore. The US Army uses the M16A2, which cannot be fitted with attachments; the M16A4 can(the Marines are the biggest useres of this system). The US also uses the M16A3 which is a full auto version of the M16A2. However, the latter is not in wide use either; therefore, the Army has switched to the M4 series. In short, it's either M16 rifle, M16 (rifle), Colt M16, or M16A2 rifle (I personally like M16 rifle or Colt M16). 68.105.188.67 21:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually the M16A2 can use the M203 and LSS.

--Weps

I'm in favor of M16 rifle. There's no sense referring to a specific AX variant, and Colt has no particular claim to the design other than being the initial manufacturer. Armalite produced the initial design, and it's currently manufactured for the US by FNMI.

--Mmx1 01:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually Colt, Armalite, FN, Panther DPMS,and Bushmaster make the M16. Colt and Bushmaster make US Military issue M16's.

Armalite, Panther Arms/DPMS, and Bushmaster make M16 pattern firearms, not M16s. Colt and FN make the M16s in use by the US military, Bushmaster made a number of contract M4s under contract in the early '90s. --Thatguy96 10:33, 2 Jan 2006

The M16A1 is nolonger used (Except by Nat Guard units), the M16A2 is standrad issue for rear enchlon units, the M16A3 is used by foward support units, and he M4 and M4A1 are used by front line units. The Marines use the M16A4 and M16A2. The M16A3 is a Auto version and the M16A4 is a RIS version.

-Weps

The M16 and M16A1 are both still in USAF inventory, despite their best efforts to completely strike it from their arsenals. The M16A2 is still standard issue for frontline USAF security units and some Marine Corp units, along with US Army Reserve. M16A3 was purchased in small numbers by the USN for the SEALs and may or may not have filtered down to other units. The M4/A1 is used by various front line units. The M16A3 is NOT equiped with a flattop or M5 RAS as standard, and the M16A4 in only certain cases has the M5 RAS as standard. --Thatguy96 10:36, 2 Jan 2006

[edit] M-16 or M16?

discussion about dash in June 2005

Which is it? 68.40.169.172 03:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- There is no dash in the designation M16 in official documentation or in the markings stamped on the side of military rifles. D.E. Watters 04:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why has this page not been moved to M16 (rifle) then? I'd do it myself, but I don't know much about gun designations and so maybe there's more to it than what I know. ✈ James C. 22:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

--This page actually started as M16 (rifle). On May 30, 2005, someone moved it (and the Talk page) to M-16 (rifle). I'd move it back myself, but I don't know how. --D.E. Watters 01:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the article back - for future reference, you can just click the "move" button in the bar atop the articlespace. --FCYTravis 06:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess that was too obvious! Thanks for the info. --D.E. Watters 07:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

If there was M16/203 already, than why we need M16, it's mainly the same? Only because of HE grenade? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.29.43 (talk • contribs) 13:12, February 18, 2007 (UTC)

I think CAR15 is better than M16. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.29.34 (talk • contribs) 13:23, February 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (display)

This article's 2nd paragraph is unnessesarily widened and hovering over the main picture in my browser (Safari 1.0).

- drakonok at yahoo dot com

That happens with various browsers (I think those that use the Gecko engine, namely Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Konqueror, and Safari) for no reason. Try refreshing. 68.105.188.67 21:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Konqueror and Safari use KHTML, not Gecko. In Konqueror I find that mouseovering the article/disussion/et cetera tabs at the top of the page fixes its width.

The M203 grenade launcher is probably an important enough accessory to merit some text and a link for this article.

- M4-10

Added internal link to M203. Tronno 18:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the "this is how you should shoot it" section. At the very least it needs a "don't kill yourself" thing. But this means giving Normal Safety Procedures (as they are known in Britain).

What's the source on China being a manufacturer of M16s? I'm aware that Norinco (state arms company) manufactures AR15s for export civilian sales, and that Taiwan (not China) manufactures an M16 clone, but the end statement including China as a major manufacturer is not really correct.

If I remember correctly, that information is available on the Colt website. Maclyn611 16:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

In the section "Conarc", para 2, last sentence, it states: "Winchester entered a design based on their M1 Carbine and even Earle Harvey of Springfield attemptd to before his bosses refuse to consider such a design while work on the T44 continued".

Can anyone make sense of this ?

---

I don't know if it's a good idea to imply that women are weak and need lower recoil rifles than men. I know some who have no problems firing a .303. Nvinen 13:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leftovers from assault rifle

Feel free to merge etc:

It soon became clear to the US that the British had been correct all along, and the M14 proved incapable of being fired accurately in fully-automatic mode due to heavy recoil and muzzle climb. This meant the US had spent a lot of time and money changing from one semi-auto system, the Garand, to another, the M14. Other forces found themselves with the same problem, leaving NATO with semi-auto weapons facing true assault rifles, notably the famed AK-47, being built by the Soviets and deployed world-wide.

Into the story comes Eugene Stoner and the CONARC project to develop a new light-weight weapon for US use. His design combined the EM-2's carrying handle, the StG44's ejector port cover and hinged design, a gas-operated firing mechanism from a Swedish rifle, and a an inline stock for better control in automatic. Unlike most designs, where the stock is bent down from the barrel to raise the sights up to eye level, the new design had a raised sighting system. The result was the AR-15, firing a .223 inch (5.56 mm) round, which handily beat the other designs tested by CONARC. After special forces used it in Vietnam and worked out some early deficiencies, the new M16 rifle became the standard US weapon.

Dan100 12:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

regarding the sentence in CONARC :""Winchester entered a design based on their M1 Carbine and even Earle Harvey of Springfield attemptd to before his bosses refuse to consider such a design while work on the T44 continued"."

I believe it's an enumeration of other designs submitted for the CONARC competition. Winchester with a M1 variant. Earle Harvey would have entered a design but his superiors refused to divert work from the T44.

Edited to reflect these changes.

--Mmx1 01:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

It is so bloody annoying the way the US military has a jillion different names for things.

I mean, I thought that the AR15 was the original Stoner-designed pre-military-adoption version, which apparently it is, but it was also the different-in-appearance-with-some-features-added military version (also known as the M16E1), AND it's also the modern semi-only civilian version, which has various different appearances.

I mean, what the hell is that? The US military gives something a "test name" like the XM-numberal here, then when it's adopted gives it an M-designation name, usually with a different number. Then of course is the fact that the M-whatever will usually also be the name of a tank, a rocket launcher, and a fuggin' can opener.

For instance: There's an M1 rifle, an M1 carbine, an M1 submachine gun, and I think there's also an M1 grenade IIRC.

So I might have made some errors correcting what I thought were errors. Or everybody could have been wrong.

Why can't the US armed forces just call assault rifles AR-year of adoption, pistols P-year of adoption, etc? By this the M-16A1 would be the AR67.

They had, until WW2 for the most part, used an M+year adopted (like in M1911A1), but the system was changed to be sequential based on the type of equipment. Like Rifle, M1 or Carbine, M1 or Carbine, M2. The big problem with your idea, and what was going on in the early years of WW2 ws the adoption of multiple types of equipment and multiple variations rapidly. For example, the M3 Grant and M4 Sherman tanks were adopted in a very short order, along with a light tank or two. How confusing would it be to be the commander of a Tank Battalion with T1942's and LT1942's after upgrading from T1940's and LT1941's while your rifles are R1936A2's and... You can see how quickly and annoying all the numbers get. *smirk* Deathbunny 06:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It worked fine for the Germans, then after WWII the Germans started randomly affixing numbers to things too. I mean, I can tell when an MP40 was introduced: 1940. Is a G36 supposed to have been introduced in 1936? No, but neither was it introduced in 2036.

Just noticed this. G36 isn't arbitrary. The Germans follow a system akin to the US System where the number is sequential based on type. Gewehr 36 is the 36th rifle adopted by the Germans since the end of the war. Since the German term Gewehr covers rifles and carbines or all types, you see lots of things with a G designator, but if I had my copy of Ed Ezell's Small Arms Today I'd list Gewehr's 1-35 for you so you could see. The ones I have on hand are:

• G1: 7.62x51mm NATO FN FAL 50.00 battle rifle variant
• G2: 7.62x51mm NATO Sig 510-4 battle rifle
• G3: 7.62x51mm NATO HK G3 battle rifle
• G4: 7.62x51mm NATO Armalite AR-10 battle rifle
• G5: 7.62x51mm NATO Steyr SSG-69 bolt-action rifle
• G8: 7.62x51mm NATO HK 21 machine gun variant; aka “HK 81”; short barrel
• G11: 4.73x33mm HK G11 assault rifle
• G21: 7.62x51mm NATO AI AW bolt-action rifle
• G22: .300 WinMag AI AWM-F bolt-action rifle variant
• G23: .300 WinMag AI AWM bolt-action rifle
• G24: 12.7x99mm AI AW50F bolt-action rifle
• G36: 5.56x45mm NATO HK G36 assault rifle
• G37: 5.56x45mm NATO Sig SG551 SWAT carbine

In fact, the only arbitrary one I'm familiar with in the system is the G82 designation for the Barrett M82 AMR. -- Thatguy96 17 June 2006, 10:49

GAH! And now looking it up, it seems that the M16E1 was also called the M16A1. But then again I have seen in reputable sources the M16E1 DIFFERENTIATED from the M16A1. My head hurts.

I just found out at www.world.guns.ru that the Air Force M-16 was different from the US Army M16E1. --Edward Wakelin

-- The XM16E1 became the M16A1. Certain improvements like hard-chromed chambers and bores did not occur until after its adoption as the M16A1. --D.E. Watters 04:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

How are we sure that the M16A3 had the A2 style style carrying handle. Both globalsecurity and world guns has it having an RIS.

100% sure because this is what the most recent US Army Technical Manual says. thatguy96 09:55, Nov 18, 2005 (UTC)

A RIS can be fitted to any AR-15/M16-type upper that has barrel contours not exceeding those of the M16A2 plan and whose barrel is attached in the same manner. Theoretically, you could put a RIS on an M16, M16A1, M16A2, etc. What doesn't work is certain other types of RIS, like the Swan Sleeve, that has a piece that connects the RIS to the upper rail of a flat top upper. You also have difficulties being able to mount optics on an RIS because of the carrying handle on the A1/A2 being in the way and/or pushing the optic further forward than optimum for eye relief. (You can use a riser on the optid to clear the handle.) Deathbunny 06:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M16 variants

This is what I believe to be correct, anybody who sees mistakes please notify me.

AR-15: Eugene Stoner's trial version, also the name for the civilian version of the various M16 models. M-16: USAF version, basically the AR-15 with a ejection port cover. M-16E1: US Army version, USAF version plus forward assist. M-16A1: Above, with improved flash hider, chromed insides. M-16A2: Above, with redesigned furniture, 1:7 twist heavier barrel, semi/3rb firing modes, improved rear sight/carry handle. M-16A3: Above, with flat-top Picatinny rail instead of carrying handle. M-16A4: I have heard this term used... Supposedly it's an M16A3 with full-auto capability? --Edward Wakelin

-- The ejection port cover was standard from the very beginning with the AR-10 and AR-15. There were a series of internal changes with the introduction of the USAF M16. The Army rifles were referenced as XM16E1 until its offical standardization as the M16A1. The M16A3 is the full-auto version of the M16A2 and retains the carrying handle. The M16A4 is the flat-top version of the M16A2. --D.E. Watters 04:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

M-16A3: Above, with flat-top Picatinny rail instead of carrying handle, fully automatic.

M-16A4 (M-16A2E4 MWS): Above, with single, and burst fire only. It is fitted with Full length Knights Armament M5 RAS (Rail attachment system)RIS. The M-16A2E4 MWS (Modular Weapon System) is currently the USMC issue weapon instead of the m4 carbine series, It was chosen after competing in multiple military trials. It is the primary weapon currently being used in Iraq by the Marine Corps. --24.21.58.255

-- US Army Technical Manuals clearly show the M16A3 as having a carrying handle. The latest versions of the same manuals clearly show that the flat-top variant of the M16A2 is the M16A4. We have addressed the differences between the military and civilian designations elsewhere in the article. In addition, the M16A2E4 designation has long since been replaced by the designation M16A4. --D.E. Watters 15:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

But, confusingly enough, the XM16E1 was different from the M16A1, and also different from the USAF M16...

Honestly, gun nomenclature is just messed up. It's like they roll a friggin' die. "OH WOW, OUR NEW TANK WILL BE THE M2D6+4" "OLOL YOU KILLED MY ORC". --Edward Wakelin 13:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- Yes, a XM16E1 of 1965 production is different from a M16A1 in 1971. However, the differences we associate with the M16A1 were either already being introduced for the XM16E1 late in its production (birdcage flash hider and heavy buffer) or months and years after the M16A1's standardization (hard-chromed chambers and bores). There was no effective difference between the last XM16E1 produced and the first M16A1 produced. The difference was merely a change of designations due to its offical change in status from Experimental to Standard A. --D.E. Watters 18:49, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought the M16A1 was the one that by 1968 or 69 or so most troops were using... Or was that the M16E1A1? XM16E1A1?

And how was the M16E1 experimental, if eventually the vast majority of troops in Vietnam were using it? --Edward Wakelin

-- The original XM16E1 and M16A1 were upgraded to then current production standards as the parts supply allowed. Effectively, all of the Army's AR-15-type rifles in 1969 were becoming M16A1 whether through initial production or armorer upgrades. Just remember that barrels with fully chromed bores were not available for production rifles until 1971.

The XM16E1 was considered experimental primarily because the Army's first purchase was supposed to be its only purchase. Originally, it was only meant to cover the Army's rifle shortfalls for the end of M14 production to the first issue of the SPIW. The delays in SPIW's development and increased demand for the XM16E1 from US troops in South Vietnam gave the US Army brass a reality check. The XM16E1 was declared 'Standard A' (becoming the M16A1) primarily because was already becoming a de facto standard. --D.E. Watters 01:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

AR15 USAF, Standard model.

M16: US Army Designation, same as the AR-15 different designation. --12.202.178.221

Wrong. This is a US Air Force designation as well.--Asams10 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

M16A1: Reconfigured M16. Foward assist, three round burst, slowed ROF. --12.202.178.221

WRONG. The M16A1 is simply the M16 with a Forward assist and notched. Later, M16's all got notched bolt carriers. It most certainly does NOT havea 3-round burst.--Asams10 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

M16A2: Reconfigured and retooled. New sights, new heat sheild, new pistol grip. --12.202.178.221

AND new handguards, new stock (longer and stronger) New flash supproesor and DOZENS of other changes.--Asams10 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

M16A3: RIS version of the M16A2

M16A4: Automatic RIS version of the M16A2 --12.202.178.221

• Incorrect yet again. The M16A3 is the full-auto variant of the M16A2, while the M16A4 is the flattop version of the M16A2. --D.E. Watters 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

CAR15: Shortened version of AR-15/M16

M4: Shortened M16A2

M4A1: RIS version or M4

XM117: M4 with an enlongated flash surpressor.

M733 Commando: Super short M4 --12.202.178.221

These are wrong, refer to the table in the main article for accurate descriptions of the models. Refer to the Colt Commando and M4 pages for accurate info on the "CAR15", M4, M4A1, and XM177, as well as, the Colt Model 733. --Thatguy96 10:33, 2 Jan 2006

--There seems to be confusion about the M16A2, A3, and A4 models. The M16A3 is not a full-auto version of the A2: the A2 is a burst version of the A1. The A3 is the full-automatic version of the burst-capable M16A4, both of which have a flattop receiver.

Unfortunately, there is no confusion. You are confused. You can easily find a copy of US Army Technical Manual (TM) 9-1005-319-23&P which clearly supports the reality that the M16A3 is identical to the M16A2 (with a fixed carry handle), except in the fire control group. The M16A2 is also not a burst capable version of the M16A1, but a version with a variety of improvements and changes (not all cosmetic) over the A1, that also happens to have the 3-round limiter. -- Thatguy96 23:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

--Odd, since every resource I've read has stated that the M16A3 has a flattop receiver (and shows pictures of such).

What's "every resource," because the US government, Colt, Duncan Long, Chris Bartocci, and Daniel Watters all agree with what I've presented. -- Thatguy96 06:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You'd think

That military nomenclature, for whatever, would be one of the places where simplicity and good organisation would be needed, to save lives.

But no, they have to make everything SO DAMN CONFUSING.

Heh heh, ask anyone in the military - that's SOP for us. I'd like to think it's to make our minds sharper by keeping us from using shortcuts or 'the easy way' but in all honesty it's probably because no one really thought it through. 84.173.129.246 11:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M16A2

When was it actually being used by the Army? Didn't the USMC adopt it slightly earlier? Or later? I remember reading earlier, but later would make more sense, given that the Corps usually gets the new stuff last...

-- The USMC did indeed adopt the M16A2 first. They placed their first order in November 1983. The US Army was holding out for something better, and did not place their first major order until March 1986. --D.E. Watters 00:24, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

-- I have no idea what I'm doing here, I'm a complete newbie here; so if I goof up, someone please erase whatever I may have done wrong.

My comment regarding the M16A+ is in reference to one sentence that, in the context of making the M16A2 a three-round burst, was something like "poorly trained soldiers would 'spray' on fully auto, wasting ammunition..." (not verbatim, it took me ten minutes to get to this point.) While not entirely inaccurate, it doesn't fully explain the circumstances of the situation.

The term we used was "spray and pray." And certainly, most of us were very inexperienced, but not necessarily poorly trained; and all of us were terrified. But to put it into the proper perspective, it would more properly be termed as "supressive fire." Try to imagine a city or farm kid from the USA who has never seen a jungle, fighting against an enemy to whom this is native turf. They were invisible, for the most part. Now, for a grunt unit taking fire without a visible enemy, the only option until you could call in air or artillery support was to "spray and pray" - fire on "rock and roll" in their general direction and hope you either hit someone, or at least keep them occupied enough so they couldn't get a bead on you or your buddies. Selective fire requires a target; but the M16A1 fired on full auto by a couple of dozen people can throw thousands of rounds in the general direction of the bad guys in mere seconds and probably kill a few by sheer luck.

I don't recall the exact numbers of rounds expended to enemy KIA ratio, but it took a lot of bullets per kill. It wouldn't be accurate anyway, because the enemy KIA ratio was never accurate.

In Iraq or Afghanistan (never been there) I would imagine a three round burst would be more appropriate because you would probably have a target before you squeezed off.

I'm just not comfortable with the wording of that sentence because it doesn't convey the reality of the situation. Literally, it is factual; however I think a tiny bit of editing to be in order. I'm not about to try this until I learn far more about this system than I have learned in just a few weeks.

VFW Loki 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M16 performance and quality

It's probably PoV, but should there be any mention of the performance and quality of various M16 models?

There is quite a bit of criticism of the M16A2 out there, eg: There are better weapons firing the same ammo (The C7 series, a development of either the M16A1 or A2, is generally considered to be higher quality, the G36 is considered to be top-notch especially with the 2-scope layout, the FAMAS G2 is supposed to be excellent, etc etc etc).

The weapons created for the ACR competition or whatever it was called were all generally better, but they didn't reach the unrealistic 100% effectiveness bar.

--Edward Wakelin 17:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is also considerable difference of opinion about the ammunition itself, and some slightly inaccurate information in the main page. If you run real M855 Ball through a real 20" barreled AR or M16A2, most production lots originating in the US are going to clock in at around 3050 ft/sec muzzle velocity. Compare and contrast the real-world 3250-3300 ft/sec of M193 Ball from the same weapons. Note that some M855 / SS109 is considerably warmer than this. Some production runs of IMI (Israeli) M855 approach 3150 ft/sec from the muzzle of a 20" rifle, for instance. If M855 is only doing 2900 ft/sec out of an M16A2 (not an M4 or M177, an M16A2 with a 20" barrel) then something is definitely wrong with that production lot and it is far outside acceptable specs.

There is no practical difference in trajectory between the two. Even an optical sight using a bullet drop compensating reticle or a bullet drop compensating elevation turret zeroed for one will be within one minute of arc of the other's trajectory (once it is re-zeroed at 100m or 200m with the other ammunition) out past 600 meters--which is a lot further than the usual range of engagement with an assault rifle on the modern battlefield.

To the extent that there is any difference in trajectory at all, the M16A2/M855 combination is considered to have slightly greater effective range than M16A1/M193, the reverse of what the article states. The M16A1 with M193 is normally zeroed at 250m, while the M16A2 with M855 is zeroed at 300m, at least in USMC service. All else being equal, M855, despite its slightly lower initial velocity, shoots ever so slightly flatter than M193 due to the longer, heavier bullet retaining velocity better, ballistic coefficient approximately 0.310 versus approximately 0.240. This is the reverse of what the article states.

M855 and M193 have their strengths and weaknesses. M855 is much more expensive to manufacture, but retains velocity somewhat better downrange and under most circumstances has slightly superior performance against hard barriers due to the steel insert in the point of the projectile. M193 is considerably less expensive and may be more accurate at long range due to the complex construction of the SS109 type projectile (if that steel insert is an imperceptible bit off-center inside the bullet, accuracy past 200m or so will suffer very badly). M193 seems to be slightly more destructive in soft tissue than M855, at least out to 150m or thereabouts, though the reasons for this are not conclusively known (speculation centers on slightly higher velocity at impact and the lack of an steel insert making the projectile's point prone to bending to one side on impact, initiating yaw sooner and more reliably). M193 Ball seems to penetrate slightly thicker sheet steel than M855 out to 50m or so, again perhaps due to higher velocity, though the difference is slight and varies from production lot to production lot.

If we had any hard facts, sure. I've fired the FAMAS and thought it was horrible in every way. I use the C7 all the time and while I think it is an excellent rifle, I suspect the supposed superiority is just "made in Canada" propaganda. I have heard that US Army ammunition is of lower quality than what Canadians use, which may be an alternate cause of performance problems. There is so much speculation. Without hard facts (quantitative data) I think we should avoid wading into performance debates. --M4-10 20:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OT, what was the FAMAS like? Bullpup designs in general are definitely shorter, but I've heard bad things about the reloading movements being awkward, bullpup designs being awkward to fire from a prone position, etc.

PS: Are you employed in one of the militaries that uses the C7, or what?

--Edward Wakelin 23:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found the FAMAS to be off-balanced and the movements were awkward. I initially conceded that I may be prejudiced against bullpups due to inexperience but that same day I handled and fired the Steyr Aug and loved it. The FAMAS safety is in the trigger guard which is dumb and the cocking mechanism is like the AR-10 (mounted on top of the weapon below the sight rail) which I didn't like much either. The only thing I liked about the FAMAS was the built-in foldable bipod.

I am Canadian military, reserve infantry officer. --M4-10 02:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the AUG has problems with the safety... Or is that just the Australian version? I've heard bad things about the Australian version. The FAMAS trigger-safety setup does look rather unsafe, and the cocking mechanism looks like it would involve a bit more movement that should be necessary.

I'm thinking of joining the regular Forces or the reserves when I'm out of university, if I'm eligable and the Forces haven't collapsed funding- or morale-wise. --Edward Wakelin 13:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've only fired U.S. Army weapons so I can't comment on comparisons between them and others, but I can say with absolute confidence that the M16A2 does leave a lot to be desired.. the biggest issue with the M16A2 is jamming, usually from double-feeds (when two bullets get stuck in the chamber while loading.. because they're copper-jacketed and copper is a soft metal, the 15-pounds of force from the bolt slamming into it tends to fix them in place and you often need to break out a Gerber to dislodge the rounds, which itself can be dangerous if the weapon is hot due to cookoffs). Weapon malfunctions occur either because the weapon is old and worn down (often) or because sand, dirt or other foreign material got into the chamber and interfered with the bolt or magazine. I know that when I go to the range to qualify on the M16A2 I have to clean the weapon for one or two days beforehand otherwise it WILL malfunction (reliably) and when we come back from the range we have to clean them for a good one to two hours.. The amount of carbon that builds up on the firing pin and in the chamber interferes quickly with normal operation.. I doubt I could get more than 15 or 20 30-round magazines fired before nonstop malfunctions occurred, and that's with a NEW weapon hot off the manufacturing line.. I haven't fired other rifles but I'm told that the M16 series is exceptionally vulnerable to this. The AK-47 (just to name one) is rumored to be much more resilient. 84.173.129.246 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many weapons much better than the M16 in that regard; not just the AK series, but new weapons like the HK416 are a vast improvement, because they use the piston system, not direct gas inpingement, which really limits the amount of carbon build-up you get. Why the military still uses M16s is beyond me. Oh right, it's the money. I almost forgot. It's more important to save money that putting reliable weapons in the hands of our soldiers. How silly of me. Parsecboy 16:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge with Eugene Stoner

Against. Gene Stoner deserves a separate page simply because the AR-15/M16-series are not his only inventions. --D.E. Watters 04:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Against. This was a tough one, but I feel that it truely does belong w/ the M16. It is a bit involved and specific for a biographical entry. Glaucus 19:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Should be renamed to something like Eugene Stoner's Design -- Zondor 23:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Against: Strongly against actually. Stoner is not just known for the AR-15 rifle. He also designed the Stoner 63 which was adopted and evaluated in combat in Vietnam. It was decided that, while the design had several points of merit over the AR-15, it was not significantly better to overcome the advanced production status of the AR-15. Stoner went on to design several larger arms for a defense contractor. This is akin to making Thomas Edison a footnote under the heading of the light bulb.--Asams10 23:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

     Thomas Edison patented the light bulb first, didn't invent it --194.75.128.200 13:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thomas Edison neither invented nor patented the lightbulb. What he did patent was an improvement to the lightbulb that made it practical product. Chuck 16:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move from M16 (rifle) to M16

discussion in August 2005 about move

I propose this page be moved to M16. On the current M16 page is a link to the Eagle Nebula and MI6. The nebula's main name in this case isn't even M16, but rather 'Eagle Nebula', and MI6 isn't even a M16, but 'M' 'I' '6'. While the nebula may be big, and MI6 looks a little like M16, the rifle M16 is by far and away the most common reference for M16. It makes the most sense IMO, and it will simplify splitting off pages (maybe like 'M16 history'). Ve3 02:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Against: Don't know where you got your information but the nebula is M16. Did you even go to the Eagle Nebula page and look at it before making that comment? In addition, M16 is also a plotting board for controlling mortar fire, a peptidase family, a line of knives, a type of connector for electronics, a line of sailboat sails, and the FAA designation for the John Bell Williams Airport in Raymond, MS. Chuck 17:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you even go to the Eagle Nebula page? Or read my comment? I said "The nebula's main name in this case isn't even M16, but rather 'Eagle Nebula'";M16 is just one of its names, and not its wikipedia page name, which is currently 'Eagle Nebula'. Anyway, the main point wasn't that there were not other things that use 'M16', but that the rifle M16 is the most common reference for 'M16' (not a 'peptidase family'). However, given there will be so many other m16s eventually, I suppose its pretty much a dead issue. Ve3

Oops, I totally misunderstood your original post. Sorry for the rude comment. However, I still think the disambiguation page should stay as is. Chuck 20:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, weasel wording, etc.

"it is often recognized as the best assault rifle of its time period and is the paradigm for assault rifles today."

Now, I know quite a few people that would say that about, for instance, the AK-47. Or any number of other assault rifles. It's clearly NPOV, despite the "often recognized" weaseling. 72.224.116.191 15:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've fired the M16A2 and I don't consider it as the best assault rifle. The rifle must be clean or you're asking for jams. The ball ammo it uses puts out lots of powder which must be cleaned off. Burst mode is a joke. The elevation wheel traps sand and dirt easily, making it hard to turn. And if you ever drop it, hope there's no live round in the chamber. Finally, no one seems to talk much about the double-feed jam, the worst. --Pelladon 07:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M16 Table issues

Pettifogger, I didn't think the Colt 602 was the XM16. I was pretty sure neither of these rifles were standardized, and that the XM16 the 604, and then when it was standardized as Type A it became the M16. The purchase of the 602 appears to have been extremely limited, and I'm not even exactly sure who ordered them. I've never heard to them referred to as XM16s either. Also, I thought that the distinction between the M16A1 PIP and the M16A1E1 was more defined and that the two rifles should be considered seperate. These were my understandings, that's all. --Thatguy96 21:37, 29 November 2005

There is no reason to have separate columns for US Army and US Air Force designations, since they both used the same names. It also excludes the US Navy and US Marine Corps.

I felt that the Model 601 and Model 602 were different enough to have separate entries.

The XM16 was the Model 602, not the Model 604. "The 02 is the initial version of the M16 rifle. Some were marked with the US Property marking. These were referred to as the "XM16", with the "X" designating "Experimental." ^[1]

I changed S-1-F to Safe-Semi-Auto or Safe-Semi-Burst, since it is more obvious to the unlearned reader, and it reflects what is actually on the rifle. I don't know of any firearm publication that uses S-1-F. It does not significantly affect column width since "Trigger pack" was much longer than S-1-F.

The rifling twist was added, since that is different than profile.

The front sight type was added as a column since that does vary. For the M16 and M16A1, it was a round post with five positions. For the M16A2, it was a square post with four positions. The M16A2E1 Enhanced Rifle and Model 656 sniper rifle also had different front sights.

The open-ended three-prong flash hider and the birdcage were both used on the M16, XM16E1, and M16A1. The M16A1 was officially type-classified on February 28, 1967. The birdcage flash hider was used on all M16 production starting in January 1967. {{ref|BlackRifle}1}

The M16A1E1 is the same thing as the M16 Product Improved Program. "For identification purposes the PIP rifles were designated the M16A1E1.' ^[2] The next page has a picture captioned "One of the 50 Product Improved (PIP) rifles, called the 'M16A1E1'". Since the M16A1E1 was a transitional item, there are pictures of them with a mix of M16A1 and M16A2 features.

1. ↑ Stevens, R. Blake & Edward C. Ezell. The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective. Cobourg, Canada: Collector Grade Publications, 1994, 226.
2. ↑ Shea, Dan. "SAR Identification Guide: The Colt Models," Small Arms Review Vol.1 No. 5. (February 1998).
3. ↑ Stevens, 347.

Pettifogger 04:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just so that it's clear, there were substantial purchases of the Model 602 AR-15 by the USAF. That's why they got stamped Property of US Government, and why they were issued as AR-15s, not M16s. This was before contract DA-11-199-AMC-508. The specifications for the USAF manuals for the "RIfle, AR-15" state the rifle barrel is 1/12 twist, which means it's a Model 602 Colt AR-15, not a Model 601 Colt Armalite AR-15. I believe the NSN for the Model 602 was 1005-00-939-0584. Pettifogger 02:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

If we could find three good references this article would qualify for featured article status. Captain Jackson 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Alexander 007 03:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Major" Users

The list of major users seems to be vastly overblown. A lot of the countries listed have their own weapons manufacturers and the standard issue rifle is not (and never was) the M16 (Germany, France, ...). Other countries have since moved on to other, more reliable rifles and are not using the M16 any more (Australia, New Zealand). I think this section needs a cleanup or at least some references. 130.123.225.69 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is according to Colt. I'm not sure about Germany, but French Special forces are definite users of the pattern, and continue to be. You can find pictures of French SF in Ivory Coast with a smattering of FAMAS G2s, AR-15/M16 type weapons, and Sig-Sauer SG550 type weapons. The Australian SASR continues to use the pattern (primarily M4s manufactured by Colt), despite the change on the official army level to the ADI F88 (the locally produced Steyr AUG clone). This is also the case with the British SAS, who refused to adopt the original SA80 series weapons, preferring to stick to this pattern and other stock weapons instead. I can't find a single country on the list besides Germany that I find fault with. It may not be front-line use, and it may not be the majority of that countries weapons, but all of the countries on the list field the pattern in some capacity. Thatguy96 15:34, 31 January 2006

[edit] Holy POV batman

Good god the m16a2 section is POV. Someone apparently doesn't like it. I cleaned out some factually incorrect information there, as well as the most blatantly POV statements. I'm considering deleting the entire last paragraph of that section, as it adds nothing to the article whatsoever. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• FWIW: The criticisms of the M16A2's features came straight from an US Army-sponsored report. They really did feel that certain A2 "improvements" were not necessary given the differences between Army marksmanship doctrine vis-a-vis USMC doctrine. A brief discussion of the Mellonics's original 1982 memo can be found in "The Black Rifle". The full report "Analysis of M16A2 Rifle Characteristics and Recommended Improvements" can be found online. --D.E. Watters 02:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that this is one report of the US Army against many other military reports. Full automatic fire has since been discredited as an effective means of suppressing fire in both USMC and Army. With the wide spread use of aimpoints and ACOG's problems with the irons are not nearly as important as before.

Chin, Cheng-chuan

• The significance of the Mellonics report is that it helps explain the mindset in certain Army circles against adopting the M16A2. The Army did not order significant quantities of M16A2 until a couple of years after the USMC did so. --D.E. Watters 15:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] source for m16a4 information

"Program Status. Fielding of the MWS began in FY 2003. and continues through FY 2007, for a total. of 59479 M16A4 and 10407 M4 weapons. Procurement Profile"

[3]. There. 60,000 produced in a year, 50000 more than the m4 counts as significant numbers. As for the firing cycle: If you're seriously disputing that......... Please don't WP:DICK⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Procured does not equal received or fielded. You state that the rifle has almost completely replaced the M16A2 in country, and you cite nothing to this. To the contrary, reports I've gotten from the Marines is that they've got some, but are mostly using M4's.--Asams10 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not state that. The person who originally put that stated that. Secondly, I've seen the marines first hand using them, though that doesn't count here. You can check the pictures yourself. www.militaryphotos.net, www.defenselink.mil, www.military.com all have extensive photos of USMC using m16a4's in iraq. Furthermore, you deleted the section about cycle of operation. That's absurd. See this from armalite [4]

Furthermore, you cannot dispute that there are 3 main iterations of the m16. What, does the m16a4 not exist now? It doesn't matter how many are in use, the fact is, it's an iteration of the development, that's all the article states. Finally, marines do NOT get m4's in any large numbers. Any marine will tell you that. Would you like me to go bring some in to post that here? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I revised the section. The cycle of operation should NOT be in the initial paragraph.--Asams10 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forward Assist

The article appears to imply that the forward assist was added in response to the M16's reliability problems in Vietnam. That is widely believed, but I think a review of the historical record will show the Army demanded the forward assist be added prior to the reliability problems arising, not in response to them. As I understand it, Army officers demanded some way of closing the bolt manually simply because the M1 Garand and M14 had that ability, therefore the M16 should too.

You are correct on this. The Forward Assist was a feature demanded as part of a whole host of features that were primarily intended to bog the M16 down so much in redesign and alteration as to effectively prevent its adoption. Among other things was a change to .258" caliber. These "Poison Pills" were continually addressed throughout the turbulent adoption process to attempt to derail the gun. This happens to be one that was left in. Whatever advantages (real or imagined) provided by the Forward Assist are negated by its disadvantages; namely, the Forward Assist will cause as many jams as it will prevent, it adds cost and complexity to the weapon, and it makes the manual of arms more confusing.--Asams10 19:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bull. How are you going to sit here and pretend to have knowledge of the M-16 by saying that the forward assist will cause as many jams as it will prevent? It is an additional piece outside of the receiver which plays no role in the action of the rifle. So what you're trying to say right here, is that adding a little metallic ear, that you can depress from the receiver to force the bolt shut makes a weapon more complex? You my friend have no idea what you're talking about. - Hemi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.11.224.178 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

You attack me personally without bothering to register. Register this. The forward assist pushes a round further into the chamber. It JAMS it into the chamber when used PROPERLY. This is MORE likely to jam the rifle. Your argument sucks. It does add cost and it does add complexity. It takes two machined parts, a spring, two pins, slots cut into the side of the bolt carrier, a boss on the side of the forging, and two holes drilled into the receiver. Each of these holes also requires a separate fixture and tool. In the factory, two fixtures and two drill presses were used requiring two full-time machine operators, just for the receiver. Please try to do a LITTLE research before you call me on something so you don't look like a fool.--Asams10 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikipdia:requested move on Talk:M16

See Talk:M16#Requested Move M16 to M16 (disambiguation) --Philip Baird Shearer 14:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackhawk Down Poster

I believe that if somebody were to get a screenshot of a scene in Blackhawk Down, then the fair use tag would allow us to use it to illustrate the M16 itself. See Template:Film-screenshot and the justification, "...for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents," to comment on the use of the M16 in the film. However, I believe that it's a bit extreme to take the poster image down for the reasons given.--Asams10 01:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5.56 less than lethal?

Ranked dead last in lethality? From the report: [5] Is Faulty Ammo Failing Troops? Field Report, Government Tests Raise Questions About Bullet For M-16 Rifle

“

In a fierce exchange of gunfire, one insurgent was hit seven times by 5.56 mm bullets, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian. It took a shot to the head with a pistol to finally bring him down. But before he died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven more. "The lack of the lethality of that bullet has caused United States soldiers to die," says Maj. Anthony Milavic. Milavic is a retired Marine major who saw three tours of duty in Vietnam. He says the small-caliber 5.56, essentially a .22-caliber civilian bullet, is far better suited for shooting squirrels than the enemy, and contends that urban warfare in Iraq demands a bigger bullet. "A bullet that knocks the man down with one shot," he says. "And keeps him down." Milavic is not alone. In a confidential report to Congress last year, active Marine commanders complained that: "5.56 was the most worthless round," "we were shooting them five times or so," and "torso shots were not lethal." In last week's Marine Corps Times, a squad leader said his Marines carried and used "found" enemy AK-47s because that weapon's 7.62 mm bullets packed "more stopping power."

”

The argument for the 5.56 was you could carry more rounds.--Paul E. Ester 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd, a new US Army report would seem to challange that to a degree.

“

PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. -- The Army has completed a detailed study of the effectiveness of its standard-issue M855 5.56mm ammunition cartridge that is used in the M16 and the M4 rifles. The study found no significant difference between the M855 and commercially available 5.56mm rounds during close fighting. A team of military, scientific, medical, engineering and law enforcement experts conducted the study for the Army’s Project Manager, Maneuver Ammunition Systems located here. “All of the rounds studied performed in a band of effectiveness that will produce excellent results in real-life situations,” Col. Mark D. Rider said. The study sought to answer whether any commercial, off-the-shelf 5.56mm bullets that perform better than M855 against unarmored targets in Close Quarters Battle might be available. It was limited further to determining if the Army could quickly purchase and field a possible replacement for the M855 and did not consider replacing the current inventory of 5.56mm weapons with weapons of another caliber. “This was not a caliber study” Rider said. “However, it did find that the current family of 5.56mm weapons and the older 7.62mm M14 have the same potential effectiveness in the hands of a Warfighter during the heat of battle.” The study also showed an increase in lethal potential when the marksmanship technique of firing controlled pairs, i.e. firing two rounds in rapid succession, was used. Rider said the Army will continue to study variations in performance that some Soldiers and Marines to criticize the M855 while the overall majority are satisfied with its effectiveness. He also noted that researchers believe that interaction between the weapon and the bullet may be the root cause of “through-and-through.” In arriving at these conclusions, the team developed ground-breaking tools and methodologies that apply sophisticated modeling and equipment normally reserved for the study of high-dollar systems such as tanks and artillery to less costly weapons for the very first time. As a result, new standards for testing small caliber ammunition are emerging that will help bring the science of more costly system to individual weapon. Rider said that his organization is beginning to study how commercially available rounds perform against common battlefield barriers like body armor, car doors, and windshield glass compared to the M855. Answers to these questions will help improve the lethal capability of the ground forces for decades into the future, he said.

”

When are you ever going to shoot a person in a combat situation once and wait to see what happens?

-- Thatguy96 22:21 7 June 2006

The second study apparently merely compared commecial 5.56mm ammunition to military ammo. No mention is made of comparison across calibers. Kensai Max 23:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few stories floating around the Army about insurgents using hallucinatory drugs to keep themselves killing as long as possible.. it's entirely possible that if you're high out of your mind you wouldn't notice the damage a 5.56 round will do, but it is most certainly lethal.. Just to be safe, though, I'd stick with a .50 caliber M2. :P 84.173.129.246 11:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AR-16 Reference

See page 57 of "The Black Rifle." --D.E. Watters 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Upon further research, I believe that it may have been the AR-12. The AR-12 and AR-16 are very similar in appearance. The AR-12 was originally supposed to be a stamped receiver alternative to the AR-10, complete with direct impingement. However, after Fairchild sold the patent rights to the direct impingement system to Colt, Stoner modified the gas system to a short-stroke piston design. The AR-16 is really a modified version of the gas piston-eqipped AR-12. You can find detailed photos of the AR-12 in the March '96 issue of "Machine Gun News" and the January '98 issue of "Small Arms Review."D.E. Watters 01:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redundant sections are redundant

There is a lot of information in this article that is repeated further down, and later that information is repeated, such that information that was already in place in one section is also repeated in another section.

In other words a lot of information in this article is repeated later and some of the information appears also in an earlier section. This seems redundant and seems to detract from the overalll good quality of this article. It might be suitable for some of the information to occur in 2 different contexts but it seems that a lot of this has been written without regard to what appears in other sections of the article.

I don't feel I have the expertise to easily recognise where the use of repetition is appropriate and where it is not, however if some expert gun dude wants to attack it, I'd be very glad to pick it over and point out specifically where it seems redundant if help is needed... any takers? Message my talk page if you like Pedant 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's a lot of repeated information in the article, and I think that's the main reason why article size to be longer than the ideal size set by Wikipedia's standard (see Wikipedia:Article size). Editing articles down is not one of my strenghts, but any help is appreciated. —Squalla 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

“

"After numerous problems in the field, numerous changes were fielded."

”

In light of this[6], I'd have to agree. I find the article overly long, overtly redundant, and ostensibly confusing.

Perhaps this article should be greatly wikified to assist those with less than conventional knowledge of military assault weapons. --Yakksoho 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Former Rifleman Speaks:

I served ten years as a US Army Infantryman and I have used the M-16A4 in combat in Iraq as well as shot the M-16A2 under every condition imaginable, sandstorms, swamp, rain and snow to name a few. In ten years I never had a '16 jam on me. I have used them to take out point targets from arms length to 600 meters. This rifle is accurate and reliable. The problem with lethality lies not with the the weapons caliber, but the composition of the projectile. U.S troops use a full metal jacket round that was designed to defeat Soviet and Warsaw Pact body armor by utilising a metal jacket and a steel or tungsten core. In the War on Terror, we need to switch to a soft lead "hunting" type projectile that will mushroom and fragment on impact, creating a greater shock effect by transferring more kinetic energy into the enemy. What happens now is when we shoot coked and methed-out insurgents with these full metal jacket rounds is that they pass right through them like a hot knife through butter. They eventually die from blood loss or infection, but they can still be dangerous. When I was in the Battle of Fallujah in November 2004, we figured out that if we aimed low and tried to hit insurgents in the hips or the legs, they dropped like rocks. Once they were down we could finish them off or use the wounded to bait their buddys. Many times I saw 5.56mm accidently skip of the pavement and into the shins and thighs of insurgents. Also the best M-16 variant is the M-4 carbine. You get all the advantages of a close combat weapon that can be fitted with any number of sighting aids, lasers and tac lights and still get pie plate sized groups at 300 meters. Also, I favor iron sights over M-68 red dot sights or ACOGS, I don't trust a sight that needs batteries. In close quarters I believe in "fingers and toes" sighting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.232.46 (talk) 23:02, 26 Septmeber 2006.

• You were active for 10 years and never had to use immediate action on your weapon? Additionally, you seem to be under the false impression that an ACOG needs batteries. I'm skeptical of your claim to have been in the Army at all, let alone spending 10 years as Infantry and serving in combat. ALL automatic firearms jam. The M-16 and its variants are no exception. When properly maintained, it doesn't happen very frequently, but it does happen. EvilCouch 10:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said that I'd never seen or heard of one jamming, I said I never had one jam on ME. Now I have had to apply SPORTS a time or two to get a fully loaded 30 round mag going, but after that it never jammed unless I had a dud round. Yes, the ACOG does not require batteries, I was referring to the M-68 red dot style scope that require a lithium battery to operate. I still preferr iron sights above all because that's what I was weened on and they have the least amount of things that break or need adjusting. As far as my own service with the United States Army, its a matter of public record: Epps, Matthew W last 4 8402. Look it up. Oh, and Mr. Couch, you failed to mention what branch YOU served in. Your lack of attention to detail pertaining to what I wrote suggests you might be a cake eater. Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not angry with you, there's one "Soldier of Fortune" wanna-be who likes casting doubt on other peoples service to compensate for their lack of testicles in every bunch. Have a grunt-tastic day!

Peace Love and Chicken Grease(10OCT06)

I didn't mention my branch in this talk page, because it's on my userpage. But, since you want to go there; US Army, 11B, 1998-2005, 3/75 Ranger RGT, 11th IN RGT, and 1-503D/2 ID. Don't take it personally, but I see military posers on a regular basis and when I see a dubious statement like "never had a '16 jam on me", I can't help but get suspicious. I apologise for going off on you, but you know where I'm coming from. EvilCouch 05:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings here, it never hurts to check someones bonifides. Since I got out I tend to take stuff personally, I blame it on PTSD...LOL. 1-503rd is out of Camp Red Cloud ain't they? I get all those Korea posts mixed up. I never actually went to Korea, but in ten years I heard every Korea story there was. From soju to the midget and "mom". Joke: How many Rangers does it take to change a light bulb? A: 3, 1 FNG to change the lightbulb and 2 old timers to stand there and talk about how hard it was when THEY had to change it. Now the M-60 machine gun, those damn things jam. I was a 60 gunner in 2-2IN 1ID in Germany just before we got 240-bravos, that damn thing jammed every 10 or 12 rounds.

We should take this over to a personal talk page, as we've gone off topic. I openned up your talk page, although we could just as easily use mine. EvilCouch 10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say the ACOG needs batteries. He says he prefers iron sights over m68s and acogs, and seperately that he doesn't trust a sight that needs batteries. In 5 years in the army infantry, I've rarely had an M16 jam on me, and the times it did were due to faulty ammo or faulty magazines, not the rifle itself. When cleaned religiously like any good infantryman does, it's a great piece of work. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I served ten years as a US Army Infantryman and I have used the M-16A4 in combat in Iraq as well as shot the M-16A2 under every condition imaginable, sandstorms, swamp, rain and snow to name a few. In ten years I never had a '16 jam on me.

I stopped reading there - you, sir, are a fake. I see that other people have already blasted you for it, though, so I'll save my breath. It's sad when a freaking 25B (a COMPUTER guy) in the Army can see through this shit. We get probably the least combat exposure out of anybody. 84.173.129.246 11:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Former Rifleman: Perhaps if you pogues (Personel Other the Grunts) would clean your rifles regularly then you wouldn't get jams. If you like, go to www.myspace.com/mattepps and check out my pics if you think I'm a fake. As I have stated before I have seen M-16's jam due to old, worn out magazines, dud rounds or failure due to fair wear and tear. However I stand by the claim that I have never experienced a jam with the M-16A2, M-16A4 or the M-4 on a rifle range, live fire excercise like a Table XII or in combat. The only malfunctions I experienced were intentional malfunctions caused by putting spent casings into a magazine to simulate a malfuction during BRM back on Sand Hill or for EIB testing. I also stand by the claim that a well maintained, clean and properly zeroed M-16 in its current form is a very accurate and reliable weapon though less lethal that I'd like with current issue ammunition. P.S.: Be sure and leave me a message on myspace you litte Fobbit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.178.63.204 (talk • contribs) 08:54, March 25, 2007 (UTC)

Dudes, did you read what the former rifleman actually said? Maybe if you would have read a bit further, you would have seen that he only said that one had not jammed for HIM. Also, what do you mean by a "jam"? We may be talking about different things here. Are you only considering a double feed or stuck casing as a jam, I do? Or do you also consider stovepipes and most types of misfeeds to be jams, too? See, I would consider stovepiping and some misfeeds to be MALFUNCTIONS, not JAMS, because you don't have to pull out tools or anything special to take care of the problem. Maybe that is just me, but two people reading the word "jam" might have different ideas of what a jam is. I have experienced a number of malfuntions during my time in the Army (25 years, including M16s, A1s and A2s), but never an actual JAM personally, though I too have seen them. AK person 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

Forget inline citations, the vast majority of this article is compleatly unreferenced. How is anyone supposed to tell whether the five things at the bottom actually cover this increadibly expansive and detailed article? I also don't see any sign it was reviewed in the first place, which is problematic. Homestarmy 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, we can tell that the books listed cover this article by READING THE BOOKS. If you want somebody to go statement by statement and reference EVERY point made, you can keep your "Good Article" status away from here. It's referenced, it's just not an AMA article.--Asams10 05:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No XM16?

Okay, now I'm confused. How is it possible to have an XM16E1 if there isn't an XM16? Shouldn't it have then been XM16? How can you have a subvariant of a variant that never existed? -- Thatguy96 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Air Force version of the XM16 was the AR-15. The Air Force didn't use Army terminology. In reality, the XM16 existed, at least on paper.--Asams10 23:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that was sorta my point. XM16 had to have at least been a "paper" designation, because there would be no way the Army would've gotten to XM16E1 without the distinction. I guess I could still be wrong, but this would seem logical. -- Thatguy96 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for more detailed introduction

The biggest single reason, is that to simply talk about the M16 is not accurate, becuase it is not the designation for the whole family. The article is actualy about 4 distinct military eqipment items, each with their own history and details. If just 1 designation is listed, it is just not correct.

Another is that having a short introduction is common literary practice, becuase later information can be too detailed for key information. The second overview is more accurate but also longer, and the same can be said for the even larger sections farther down in the article (redundant, but more detailed).

In the long term the introduction can be both shorter and accurate, but this cannot be achieved by removing the other rifle's designations. I don't mean about the previous XM16 issue brought up by DE, but the mentioniong the A2/A4 etc. The NATO and ammo can probably be trimmed back also, but I leave that to others. Ve3 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait are you kidding me? Or am I really reading you say the "M16 is not accurate." The M-16 is the most accurate semi-automatic rifle ever created. If I'm not reading correctly, sorry about that but if I am, you my friend need to stop playing video games and research this rifle more. - Hemi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.11.224.178 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

He didn't say the M16 wasn't accurate. Please do not personally attack other users when you can't even read their comments correctly.--Asams10 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, don't say that it is the MOST accurate. I am sure that some other stock semi-auto weapons (possibly even the M1 Garand or M-14, though I haven't checked that personally) are more accurate than the M16. Stay away from the hyperbole when you say something. AK person 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M16 Barrels

I erased the "The 30-round magazine is not suited to sustained fire like the belted feed systems of heavier true machine guns, and the M16's lightweight barrel would overheat quickly under automatic fire." because of blatant bull.

The M16 is issued as an HBAR, meaning HEAVY BARRELED AUTOMATIC RIFLE, therefore it automatically proves who ever wrote this doesn't know what he's talking about.

The 30 round magazine is also VERY suited for sustained fire, especially because the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (Light Machine Gun) is capable of being belt-fed or fed through an M-16 magazines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.11.224.178 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Once again, you read the section you removed incorrectly, Neither the M16 nor the M16A1 are heavy barreled. The M16A2, A3, A4, the M4, and the M4A1 are all light contour under the handguard and overheat quickly. The reason for the 30-round magazine comment is that frequent mag changes required with the 30-round magazine make it unsuited for sustained fire use needed for suppressive fire. I'm putting the section back. Once again, sign your comments. --Asams10 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because the M249 SAW was designed to accept standard 30-round or 20-round magazines AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE does not mean that the magazine itself is specifically designed for or practically suited for sustained fire.. Anyone who has EVER fired a M249 in the United States Army will tell you the same thing - loading a magazine into it is asking for trouble (ie jams). Not that a 30-round magazine would last you long enough to make it worth the trouble of loading in the first place. The SAW eats through ammo like a monster. And it's designed for belts. Don't get it twisted, our weapons aren't nearly as reliable as the manufacturers and defense contractors would like the general public to believe. 84.173.129.246 11:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus the 30 round mags in the m249 jam generally after 3 or 4 shots. I know, I was a SAW gunner for 2 years. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jester, I'm not sure if the magazines are to blame for the issues. I carried an M240G in Fallujah, so I was qualified with the M249 as well. The condition of the M249s in service probably play the biggest role in their performance. I've fed an M249 with plenty of 30 rounders, and they worked fine. A casual FTF once in a while, but the same happened when I belt fed it. - Hemi

The M-16 hasn't been used in the automatic rifle role since the M-249 SAW came out in the 80's. I too have a number of years experience with the SAW and I have found that it's performance with M-16 magazines depends on the condition of the magazine itself. If the magazine is old and unserviceable, like many magazines are because either Joe is too lazy to get some new ones then the old ones were out, or the armorer can't get any, then you get a greater number of jams. The precribed sustained rate of fire for the M-16 is between 10- 15 rounds per minute if you want to hit anything. Remember, suppressive fire only suppresses if it's accurate. So that's why every rifle squad now has two saws, one in each fire team. The saws along with 7 rifles and 40mm grenades can provide a nice base of fire for the platoon to manuever off of. This is especaially true when you add one of the platoons machine gun teams laying scunion on the bad guys with the M-240B

[edit] Why isn't the R in Rifle capitalized...

The first letter after a number is supposed to be capitalized and M4 Carbine... What's the deal, eh? Deathbunny 10:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll see that alot in many, many articles. See the Naming conventions. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House Cleaning

I went through and purged unnecessary, duplicate, and commercial links. There are TWO lists of see-also's and many of these were also listed in the text. Not very organized or efficient. --Asams10 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think M16/203 is better than only M16. Only because of HE grenade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.29.43 (talk • contribs) 13:13, February 18, 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, although you trade off for those grenades. The 203 is rather awkward (in my opinion), and it adds just a wee bit of weight to the total weapon, plus you have to carry at least a few grenades. The 203 firepower is nice to have in a fight, but I'd let someone else take it to the fight if they want it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AK person (talk • contribs) 18:05, March 21, 2007 (UTC)