Don't know how much truth there is to this. How many people here have experiences with the M-16?

Reminds me of this Wiki article, Comparison of the AK-47 and M-16.

It's too bad we "lost" hundreds of thousands of AKs in Iraq recently. I wonder where they went.. we haven't heard anything more about that, have we?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Hundreds-of-Thousands-of-Weapons-Lost-in-Iraq

This is a shitty excuse for journalism. I don't even know where to begin with how inaccurate this piece is.

Soldiers are generally taught to fire in burst-mode, not full auto, whenever possible because full auto is inherently inaccurate and a poor method of shooting when you're actually trying to hit people. It is irrelevant whether the AK-74 can outhit the M16 on full automatic, and I doubt the hell out of that statistic anyway.

"More thrusts per squeeze"? Huh?

They're misquoting the study about accessories added onto the rifle. The study, to the best of my knowledge, shows a correlation between more accessories and weapon malfunctions, but specifically does not imply causation. This is because the idiots who throw on as many add-ons as they can onto their rails tend to be the same kind of idiots who don't maintain their weapons properly.

"A walking man can't use sights very well, so you fire from the hip, full automatic." Right, walking people can't use sights very well, I guess that's why the IDPA and IPSC, every single police force, and every single military branch, including the special forces, of the US trains to shoot straight from the hip on full automatic, cowboy style. Oh, wait, what's that? That's completely untrue? Every single one of those groups teaches sighted fire on the move, with single shots or burst rounds? Ohhhhhhh....right.

The C-mag is better than 30-round mags? Right, wasn't this piece supposed to be about reliability and not jamming?

I can't speak for the reliability of the M16, M4 or AK74 because I don't train with any of these weapons, and hopefully I never will. However, the friends I have in the service are laughing at this video as much as I am. The M16 and M4 aren't infallible, and they can surely be improved, (and definitely certain procedures, like cleaning, need to be modified for use in a desert) but this piece is just so shitty that any criticism being leveled is worthless in context.

What a crock o' shite.

I will agree that the M16 does jam more often than comfortable, and is temperamental. But what gets me is why this piece keeps talking about the M4, but keeps showing the A4, as in the M16A4.
Secondly, they keep talking about shooting on full-auto, but as far as I know, the M16 and the M16A3 are the only ones to shoot on automatic. The M16A2 (which is being phased out of service), the M16A4, and the M4 all shoot on either semi or three round burst.

Would I rather shoot with a AK or an M16? Depends. The M16A4 and A2 can both have an effective range (shot hits where rifle is pointed) at about 550 yards. The max. effective range on the AK is only 300 yards.

Yes, the AK doesn't jam as much. Yes, the M16 has a better range. But that's the thing with rifles: you can't have a winner in all categories. At least that's what I thought - I saw a clip of FutureWeapons that showcased a new Heckler & Koch that is supposedly as un-jammable as the AK, yet accurate like the M16.
Only time will tell.

I wish I could change tags. I'd add in there "Butter, butter, jam!"

Sorry, dumb Marine joke there. Ask if you don't get it.

Thanks for the insight.
I don't get butter, butter, jam, please elaborate

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/

Beta vs. VHS.
Blu-ray vs. HDDVD.

I wish I could change tags. I'd add in there "Butter, butter, jam!"

LOL. I didn't even know it was a Marines thing. What else can I say but "TAP RACK BUTTER BUTTER...."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'M16, AK47, AK74, weapons, rifles, jam, jams' to 'M16, AK47, AK74, weapons, rifles, butter, butter, jam' - edited by rembar

Cyberbeast:

A lot of the time when you're doing practice and training without blanks, Marines will say "Bang!" or something. Maybe it's for reasons of timing, or maybe it's just no one likes to point a gun, pull the trigger and not hear anything.

So you get people walking around saying "BANG! BANG!"
Marines with M16s are supposed to be doing what is affectionately referred to as "Two in the heart, one in the mind." This means that you have two stopping rounds in the chest, (one round, or even two is not always enough to kill people, especially a .223. Also, a lot of times the insurgents are drugged up)and one in the head. That last one ensures that after they are on the ground, they can't just lay there and shoot you when you walk away.
So, in effect, you have a three round shot. So then you have Marines saying something like "Bud-da-da!"
Sort of sounds like "Butter", no?
Throw in the fact that they are cranky weapons, and you get "Butter Butter Jam!"

P.S. - Thanks, Rembar!

despite what you say rembar, there are other worrying bits in this story that you did not address, particularly the procurement and long term contracts and the thing about the wrong gunpowder.

i remember one guy training me in the RAF saying "THIS IS THE MAGAZINE FOR THE GP CADET RIFLE AND SA80. IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE DISPOSABLE BUT THE GOVERNMENT ARE TOO CHEAP SO WE USE THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN. LOOK AT IT. IT IS A PIECE OF SHIT LIKE A TOY. BE CAREFUL WITH IT OR YOUR GUN WILL JAM. THIS IS THE DUST COVER. USE IT OR YOUR GUN WILL JAM. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE SENT TO FIGHT IN A DESERT. THIS WEAPON WAS DESIGNED TO KILL RUSSIANS IN EUROPE. BE CAREFUL WITH IT OR IT WILL JAM."

that always fascinated me. man was he bitter about it. i guess something bad happened to one of his buddies.

Far be it from me to say the M16 or M4 is flawless. Like I said, I have no real training experience with the weapons and besides, no firearm is perfect, which is why I intentionally made no claim that there were no real problems pointed out in the piece. Clearly, real soldiers like MarineGunrock are more qualified to comment on the technical issues of firearms that he trains with and uses. My point is that this piece is misleading and doesn't give an accurate perspective from which to view criticism of the rifle (thus why I pointed out idiotic comments like "shooting from the hip on full auto", "C-mag < 30-round mag", etc). My complaint is one of journalistic standards (or lack thereof), and on this topic I believe I am qualified to comment.

The layman, watching this clip, would think, "ZOMG AK74 > M4, US military rifles suck!", because the layman doesn't know shit about firearms, and is forced to take the statements made in the piece at face value. It's the same reason why we have the assault weapons ban in the US, and why people seem to think smart weapons can compensate for poorly trained shooters, and why people believe that it's ok to use FMJ rounds in self-defense, but hollowpoints are automatically only used to kill police officers. I look upon this piece with utter contempt, not because I think the M16 is better than the AK or anything like that, but rather because I find the lack of journalistic integrity in this report appalling.

Can the M16 and M4 be improved? Surely. Does this piece level constructive criticism to a reasonable degree? Not at all.

this made me curious, so I did a little research about my own country.
since 1967, norway used the AG-3, which is a variant of the heckler and koch G-3. This, or next year, they are switching for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416

The switching process started in the 90's, and it took them 11 years to arrive at a decision for the HK416. The argument was not so much about which weapon, but about which type of ammo to use; the lighter 5,56mm or the heavier but more penetrating 7,62. the decision was finally made for the 5,56mm.
other guns that were concidered were: Colt Canada C8, Heckler and Kock G36, FN SCAR and FN2000 (famous from the game splinter cell) and some others. These weapons were also all evaluated in the field on missions in for example afghanistan.

i agree this had all the journalism of a wet paper bag, and that it was meant to be some kind of shocking "ZOMG OUR GUNS SUCK!!!" story.

it's obvious that the dude has a grudge, he is not being paid to make better guns so he goes on tv to diss the gun. I wonder what gun he would REALLY choose for his son. Probably an H&K not an AK but he didn't want to recommend a competitor.

about your last sentence, lavoll... lol... i believe that is partly WHY we keep doing these damn stupid wars, to test weapons. I saw one documentary (Mark Thomas i think) about weapons dealing which said people will only buy weapons that are "tested in battle" so the manufacturers therefore have an incentive to lobby for aggressive preemptive asymmetric war, not defensive peace.... and there's your militaryindustrialcomplex.

Most debates in the world can be reduced down to profit motive and money trail.

and yes i know it's not a gun it's a rifle.

Jessie Lynch's gun jammed....

I don't recall exactly, and I haven't time to find a source but I believe he may really have a grudge. I recall that it was a fella working at Colt (presumably this guy) who designed the rifle, but the company lost interest when it seemed like the Army didn't want it, and sold the design off to another company (Armalite, I believe). At any rate, it was a little scandalous because it ended up as a gigantic contract.

I'll post an edit if I find a source. Sorry for all the vaguery.

I'm not a soldier, but I've heard from various friends that thought the M-16 was a fine rifle. They said the Kalashnikov is great for soldiers with no training, no cleaning kits and poorly manufactured ammunition, but they would rather have an M-16. I have fired both on a range and I preferred the M-16- it was more comfortable to use.

Ok let's look at what's relevant in this piece. They're comparing to the AK because it is the most used assault rifle around the world and it is what we come up against constantly.

So why don't we have a better gun. Everyone seems to be nagging about how this is wrong and that is wrong with the reporting. But are you saying that the M-16 is the best rifle our troops could have in the field? That there is no way to make anything better?

Of course, that's bullshit. If that's where we wanted to put our money we could and would. But why bother? We're busy with the latest most expensive jet that takes years to develope and billions along the way.

LiquidYogi,

You seem to forget that it's exponentially cheaper to purchase a better weapon for each soldier than it is to pay out life insurance of $400,000. As it stands now, an M16A4 (the rifle of current issue) costs roughly between $600-$750.(I don't know the exact number, but the A2 was about $600)

The M16A4 is a fine weapon, provided you take care of it. If you're a lazy soldier, and let dust, dirt and grime accumulate, then yeah, your bolt is going to stick or your magazine won't feed properly. But the AK-47 is far inferior to the M16 when it comes to everything other than reliability of function. I cold make a list of pros and cons, but I don't think I need to.
If I went back to Iraq and had the choice, I'd definitely take the M16 any day.

Q.E.D.

Thanks for the insights everyone. I couldn't reply earlier cause I was away on vacation.

*waronterror

Adding video to channels (Waronterror) - requested by raven.

I do not like the M16, but The M4 is a nice version.

A walking man can use the sights on a gun... I had to in training.

The smaller the rifle the higher the accuracy when walking... because it cuts down on the muzzle wobble.

That is why Swat and CQB guys tend to use small weapons.

A good weapon system in use by the Germans the G3 weapon systems.