Sld1959
Ronin
New powder being new to the cartridge as it was designed not a new design powder. But thank you for the correction lol.
Last edited:
Mattel M16 Rifle
- Thread starter Sandaza1!
- Start date
HayesGreener
Ronin
A prime example of HQ people without a clue making decisions for people in the field who then have to deal with it
Good friend was a Special Forces Captain in ‘nam. He was an advisor to ARVN. His new M16 was “ lost in combat” after it failed (jam) in his first firefight with it. He carried a Chicom AK47 for the remainder of that tour (and “acquired” another on his second tour. Ammo was scrounged from enemy forces). He HATED the M16’s-and has never had an AR. I pointed out that the A2’s and later models of M16 and AR15 have worked pretty well, but he’s got zero interest. He’s got a Mini 30 and a Bulgarian AK semi auto these days
. He also has no use for the .223/5.56 mm. “Not enough power to reliably stop an assailant.” He agreed with Col.Cooper’s assessment that it’s a “poodle shooter”
. He also has no use for the .223/5.56 mm. “Not enough power to reliably stop an assailant.” He agreed with Col.Cooper’s assessment that it’s a “poodle shooter”
Last edited:
My Sqn. CO in 2/11th ACR was former SF, the CO of A-342 at Dong Xoai, a CIDG camp overrun in '65, we speak a couple of times a month. All their weapons were WWII apart from a couple of the early AR15's. He personally carried an M1 or M2 carbine, as did most of the Team.Good friend was a Special Forces Captain in ‘nam. He was an advisor to ARVN. His new M16 was “ lost in combat” after it failed (jam) in his first firefight with it. He carried a Chicom AK47 for the remainder of that tour (and “acquired” another on his second tour. Ammo was scrounged from enemy forces). He HATED the M16’s-and has never had an AR. I pointed out that the A2’s and later models of M16 and AR15 have worked pretty well, but he’s got zero interest. He’s got a Mini 30 and a Bulgarian AK semi auto these days
Vietnamese military age males do not represent especially thick targets requiring battle or assault rifle cartridges. Heavier .30 rounds do carry better in the bush, depending on the bush.
Grayfox
Professional
After my experiences with the M-16A1, I felt pretty much the same. I had zero interest in any kind of AR for many years. But when Obama got elected and it appeared a ban was on the horizon, I broke down and bought a S&W M&P 15 on sale cheap. Then about a year or so later, I stumbled onto a great deal on a Colt A2 model that hit the nostalgia bug in me. So, I do own two AR type rifles, but to be honest if they get fired once a year, they're doing good.
Frankly, I have no desire to own any more and I only have these two because so many people want me not to have them. I'm stubborn like that.
HayesGreener
Ronin
I much preferred an M14 but the M16 was one heck of a lot easier to carry around all day wuth 200 rounds
My first campaign was in Aerorifle in the 101st Abn., a Division asset, 2/17th Air Cav. The 911 & "eyes and ears of the 101st". But of course, with missions different from Infantry, often reactive. The SOP for Delta Troop, the ground component, was 600 rounds...thirty 20-round mags, PLUS, 200 rounds of linked 7.62 for the M60 gunners. Just half that in 7.62 rifle ammo would have been prohibitively heavy.
An RTO, I only carried my own ammo, but a PRC25 & spare battery. And some rounds for the M203.
RVN 1969-70, USMC. M-16s we had were at best only so-so, very problematic. As a FO, and attached to a grunt company, I could get away with carrying whatever I wanted; over the year + time in country, I carried a Savage shotgun, M-3 grease gun and a M-2 carbine. The carbine was the best of the lot. Why I have 4 CMP M-1 carbines, and only 2 ARs. IMO, a much better battle rifle than the original M-16s.
