what is the best assault rifle?

[TornadoADV]

Personal experience that (sad to say here) the Canadian varient of the M-16 is somewhat superior to what we used in the Corp. With the exception of the ELCAN optics package, the C8 is just the better rifle. Redesigned and produced under license by Diemaco, the rifle is good out to 800 yards within about 1.5 MOA. Still lacks the hitting power of the higher caliber rounds (such as the 7.62 or 6.68) but being able to put steel on target at almost double the expected engagement range rates as a plus in my little black book. Down sides inlclude the C8 being somewhat heavier due to the match grade nickle plated barrel, and still suffers from the abundance of parts to strip down and clean. Easily fixed with a few after market parts from Magpul.

My second choice would have to be the DMRS varient of the M-14. 7.62mm ftw.

That held until the M-16A4 MWS and the 20 inch barrel that makes it a DMR. (Not as standard of course.)

 

[Horticulture]

Come on, now.

Sure, the Kalashnikov is iconic, and the M16 just feels so right in CS, but can't we all agree on the Dragon [http://perfectdark.retropixel.net/pd/weapons/#dragon]?

It's a gun that is also a bomb. Disarmed? Turn the tables on your opponent by blowing him the fuck up!

Recently toppled a foreign regime? Don't waste expensive cruise missiles on those statues of former dictators...demolish them with exploding guns!

If you've ever run out of ammo in the middle of a hard-fought deathmatch, you know how embarrassing it can be. Save yourself the shame of defeat by scattering exploding rifles haphazardly across the arena!*

Termite infestation? Don't waste your time with expensive pest control or hard-to aim bullets. Demolish your home to ensure that your vermin problems are a thing of the past!**

*May violate Geneva Conventions. See your local rules of war.

**May violate local building permits, demolition laws, concealed-carry laws, and international arms-control measures

 

[Sgt Doom]

I'd like to see numbers on how many of you ACTUALLY know what the hell you are talking about. Thats REALLY know, and not THINK you know. In the meantime, I'll be sniping pets and small children with my air rifle

So i'm not the only one who feels sick reading these threads.

 

[nimbeljack]

Depends, I guess.

 

[Joos]

There are no good assault rifles. They're all built to hurt or kill people, and that is not my definition of "good".

True. Perhaps he means "which assault rifle is the most efficient at killing"?

Not true. An assault rifle is not meant to kill the target, it is meant to incapacitate and cripple the target. Why? To put strain on the enemies support lines. A hurt soldier is going to 'cost' the enemy more than a dead one. So in a military sence, an assault rifle that immobilises the target is better than a gun that kills.

For efficent killing, grenade launchers and sniper rifles are more effective. So with that in mind my choice for best assault rifle is the Swedish built AK 5C. It has better reliabilty than an old AK 47 for sure. It's got metal stock and body, few parts and the slider and gas chanber is pretty much 'self cleaning' so cleaning in the field is very easy.

Not sure its the best internationally, but its my fav for sentimental reasons and definetly better than the 7.62 AK 47 and 5.56 M16 we tried in the service. It is basicly the Swedish modified FN FNC (which is a very reliable rifle on its own right) manufactured on licence by Bofors. The C version, is the modernised modular version with MIL-STD-1913 rail system, among other improvments.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak_5

 

[The Last Parade]

=D yay that makes 3 smart people on this thread... or at least 3 people who know how to wiki =P

Also on a side note, the M16's aren't being used anymore they were a very good gun for the Vietnam era but are being replaced by the M4 now

 

[Stalk3rchief]

Beyond a doubt, the M-16 is a piece of shit.
Anyone with weapons experience will tell you that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, it's innacurate and very unreliable.

Ummm... I'm going to have to go ahead and stop you there. The M-16 is FAR from a piece of shit. There are a LOT of people who aren't breathing anymore because of that little black rifle. There's a reason it is still seeing HEAVY use today.

The M-16 is NOT inaccurate in any way, shape, or form. The 5.56x45mm round has proven itself to be a more than accurate round time and again, and the M-16 has also proven very efficient at delivering it. In fact, the 5.56x45mm round has FAR better terminal performance at range than the 7.62x39. The 5.56x45mm round may lack the stopping power of the 7.62x39, but it is a faster round with better ballistics. The only thing that the 5.56x45mm round lacks is the kinetic energy due to it's smaller size. This makes it a little less capable of penetrating heavily armored targets, but with the right kind of bullet, the 5.56x45mm round can still penetrate just about any normal, reasonable, object it will encounter (light wood, drywall, soft body armors, some hard body armors, and many other materials.).

I've never found mine (it's an AR-15, but they are fundamentally the same) to be a pain in the ass to take apart either. It is easy to take apart, and the only real pain can be the bolt carrier, but even that is no big deal. The only reason you would ever want to take that apart anyhow would be to scrape the carbon off of it. As far as the rest of the weapon is concerned, it is a breeze to disassemble and reassemble. No tools are required, and there are very few small parts, no springs, and there are only two pins that hold the upper and lower recievers together.

I have also not had any problem with my AR-15 jamming. As long as you take care of it, it will work. I have fired THOUSANDS of rounds through my rifle, and I have yet to encounter a malfunction. The only reason I can think of that it would jam would be if someone flat-out did not clean it - ever. As long as you keep the carbon out of the bolt-carrier and keep a little Break Free in it, it will work whenever you ask it to.

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't excuse the fact that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, and that it has 0 stopping power.
Yeah it's still used today, but only because it's cost effective.
There are at least 10 assault rifles that beat it in every single way, but they're more expensive. I have 2 friends that are in the military, one's a simple lieutenant, the others an MP. BOTH of them have told me how unreliable the M-16 is on the field.
It's accurate, but even they have told me that's it's only advantage.
ONLY advantage.
The weapon was not designed to kill, it was only meant to immobilize any threat.
For some reason it's viewed as "More Humane"
In basic, when one is required to take the M-16 apart and put it back together, they BOTH told me it has too many parts.
I think I'll take the word of two trained soldiers over yours.

It's hardly a pain in the ass to take apart and put back together. I just took mine apart and put it back together (and took pictures to demonstrate how simple it is). This 11 year old girl obviously has no problem with it:

Spoiler

Here are some pictures of my rifle field-stripped. I did not remove the buffer spring nor did I bother with the trigger group since those RARELY ever break. The buffer tube should be swabbed from time to time, but there are differing opinions on that. As you will see it is HARDLY difficult or complex. Field-stripped, the rifle has very few parts. Most soldiers and Marines only need to disassemble it to this extent for cleaning.

Fully Assembled Rifle:

Spoiler

Partial Field Strip:

Spoiler

Field Stripped with disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Close-up of the disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Again, there was no need to pull out the trigger group or buffer spring since they should never fail, and if they do, it is usually because the person operating the weapon did RIDICULOUS things to it (like bathe it in bleach and run it over with a tank). I also did not bother with them because the AK field stripping procedure does not remove the trigger group either.

Your claim that it is unreliable is also ill-founded. The design has been in constant revision for 45 years now, and all of the kinks that existed when it was fielded back in 1964 have pretty much been ironed out. Again, the only way it will malfunction on any regular basis is if the person operating it fails to give it basic, routine, maintainence. Any other firearm on earth will fail if it is not properly taken care of. Even the venerable AK-47 can be made to fail if it is not properly maintained. I have seen it myself.

As for your, "0 stopping power," claim, I can promise you one thing. One bullet from an M-16 will kill you just as dead as any single bullet from any other weapon. the 5.56x45mm FMJ can penetrate concrete blocks and also has the tendency to tumble upon entering a soft target. The fact that the round tumbles end over end means that the bullet creates a wound channel that is the length of the bullet rather than just a clean hole!

I too know quite a few Soldiers as well as Marines. Hell, one of them is a certified U.S. Army armorer. Every single one of them swears by their M-16 because it does what it needs to do and it does it very well. It makes bad guys die... And it has more than proven that over the past 45 years or so. Seriously, your claims that it is inaccurate (a laughable claim that will be refuted by anyone who has ever used one), a pain to take apart (which I have shown is not the case), and unreliable are a little ridiculous. Sure, there are better rifles out there, but the M-16 and its variants are hardly, "Shit."

EDIT: Much respect to your enlisted friends, but I am speaking from personal experience as well. The M-16 platform is excellent, and I know very few Soldiers or Marines that will argue differently. I own one, and I feel as though that makes me more qualified to pass judgement than you seeing as how I use, clean, and modify it on a regular basis. Were you ever enlisted?

The how do you explain all of the money the us army delta forces were putting into finding an H&K gun that was better that the colt rifles back in the early 2000's?
They wanted a better gun, but you say they already had the best one?

This forum is about the best gun, the BEST gun. Not a gun that works alright, does the job fairly well, blah blah blah.
I don't honestly give two shits about your preferences, everyone has an opinion, and mine certainly won't be changed by the likes of you.
A gun that designed to immobilize a threat is NOT efficient. I prefer guns that kill.
In fact of all the guns out there, I'd use the HK-XM8 over anything else.
Besides, if I'm right, you shoot your gun at a range, yes?
I've heard so many stories of the M-16 and the M-4 jamming on soldiers in Iraq, it's always in articles and war stories.
But my god, there's no way there right, you are!
=D
Jack ass.

Wow... I attempt a civilized discussion, and the best you can do is some sarcasm and some name calling. I provide proof, and you provide an opinion based on misconceptions. I point out those misconceptions, and the best you can do is stubbornly cling to your opinion and deny the facts that I have presented. Wow...

If you honestly believe that the M-16 does not kill than you are indeed the most ignorant individual I have ever debated with. The weapon was not specifically designed with the idea of, "Hey, let's just wound them," but rather that the soldier could carry a LOT more ammo with them, and it would make for a lighter combat load. The idea was that the soldier could sustain himself longer than the enemy in a prolonged firefight and not run out of ammo. I suppose you can also make that claim about the SA80, Styer Aug, G36, XM8, and the Israeli Tavor seeing as they all chamber the SAME ROUND! Hell, the Russians even have an AK variant that chambers the 5.56mm round, and the AK-74 chambers an ever smaller caliber round (5.45x39mm). So honestly, you are only displaying your ignorance here.

The XM8 was scrapped because the polymers in the rifles' frame melted during sustained automatic fire. If you would really want a weapon that melts, go right on ahead. You can have it.

The money spent by the Special Forces branches back in the early 2000s did go into R&D of new weapons platforms, but that's only half of the story. When it was decided that re-inventing the wheel was both unnecessary and a waste of time, a great deal of the money went into developing an intermediate cartridge for the M-16 platform. Just see the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.5 Grendel was not specifically developed for the Special Forces, but has been explored as an option to compliment the 5.56mm round. The 6.8SPC and a weapon to fire it is where a lot of the money went. The XM8 melted, and the FN SCAR is the only real contender left (aside from the REC7 that is), but there are some that are skeptical of how sturdy the composite stock is (see the August 3, 2009 issue of Shotgun News).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_REC7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel

Wow dude.
I can't believe you didn't get anything I just said.
I'm not going to let some stranger convince me from believe something close friends have told me.
You're a stranger, I don't know you.
Seeing as how this is the the internet, you could be a drooling lump in a wheelchair who just happened to discover Wikipedia [I'm not calling you that, just saying it's always possible on the interwebz.]
But you can't understand my point.
You just sit there, scratch your head, and then repeat yourself.

 

[TornadoADV]

Then go away?

Also on a side note, the M16's aren't being used anymore they were a very good gun for the Vietnam era but are being replaced by the M4 now

LOLUMAD.

definetly better than the 7.62 AK 47 and 5.56 M16 we tried in the service

Oh, so your opinion is considered fact now? I must of missed the televised conference.

Also, FYI, it's spelt "definitely". LRN2SPL

 

[r3lix]

AK-47, Not even a second thought for that one, The weapon is just so sexy.

 

[I Framed OJ]

The guy was in 3RAR, only a private, he was very often in the heat of combat. He was trained to use AUGs, M16's, Ak-47's (All the big ones), said that the SAS usually turn in their SA80's in for M4's or MP5's (Yes I know MP5s are sub machine gun but those guys are awesome). Now I know I am not an expert because I know alot of people in the Military, but I have been brought up with guns and my father was an armourer and loves physics and wont shut up about it!

Even though I will always agree that I'd personally go with an M16 (Actually, an M4 due to it's Durability) I am fully aware of how easy an AK is. You can train a group of people to field strip an M16 in two weeks, and an AK-47 in 2 hours. But if you want a durable assult rifle, go with an M4, SEAL's and Aussie Navy Divers use them to diving, without any modification. Although they would require more matianance, but all-in-all a better firearm in my opinion.

Now bombard me with more facts but I am just stating my opionion that I have gathered over the years.

 

[tsb247]

The money spent by the Special Forces branches back in the early 2000s did go into R&D of new weapons platforms, but that's only half of the story. When it was decided that re-inventing the wheel was both unnecessary and a waste of time, a great deal of the money went into developing an intermediate cartridge for the M-16 platform. Just see the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.5 Grendel was not specifically developed for the Special Forces, but has been explored as an option to compliment the 5.56mm round. The 6.8SPC and a weapon to fire it is where a lot of the money went.

The hilarity of this situation is that if the Americans had just listened to the British 55 years ago, they'd already have an intermediate cartridge in the vein of the 6.8mm SPC and 6.5mm Grendel. That's what the British were aiming at with the EM-2 rifle, which seems to have been years ahead of its time - bullpup design, optical sights, intermediate cartridge, possibly very good reliability.

The American approach to cartridge design seems to have been as such:

"Oh, no, we could never take up an intermediate cartridge. They're too small, and we want a bigger round for our machine guns."

"OH GOD, THE RECOIL! Nobody will ever be able to fire this full-powered round effectively in full automatic with a rifle. Let's go make a much smaller round."

"Actually, we've been using this round for forty years and even ended up using it in some of our machine guns, but it doesn't seem to be powerful enough. Let's go make that intermediate cartridge now, that we could have had in the 1950s if we hadn't been in such a big rush to have a full-powered cartridge which couldn't be used effectively."

I'm actually not familiar with the EM-2, and I had not heard of the .280 British cartridge.

However, you are probably right, that sounds like something the U.S. Army would do. Heck, the recoil and weight were the two main reasons for dumping the M14. I can imagine they were a little cautious when researching new weapons and ammo when it came to recoil. Although I can't imagine the .280 British have near the recoil of the .30-06, so I would find it hard to see a problem with it.

I have heard some argue that the 7.62x51 an intermediate round that they eventually came up with back in the day (since it is really a necked down .30-06), but I would hardly classify it as such seeing that it still has considerable recoil. I suppose their rationale for this is simply because it is a necked down version of an already well-known, more powerful cartridge.

 

[Cryo84R]

The M-16 is a solid, reliable long gun that saved my life once.
I'd take one any day of the week.

 

[tsb247]

Beyond a doubt, the M-16 is a piece of shit.
Anyone with weapons experience will tell you that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, it's innacurate and very unreliable.

Ummm... I'm going to have to go ahead and stop you there. The M-16 is FAR from a piece of shit. There are a LOT of people who aren't breathing anymore because of that little black rifle. There's a reason it is still seeing HEAVY use today.

The M-16 is NOT inaccurate in any way, shape, or form. The 5.56x45mm round has proven itself to be a more than accurate round time and again, and the M-16 has also proven very efficient at delivering it. In fact, the 5.56x45mm round has FAR better terminal performance at range than the 7.62x39. The 5.56x45mm round may lack the stopping power of the 7.62x39, but it is a faster round with better ballistics. The only thing that the 5.56x45mm round lacks is the kinetic energy due to it's smaller size. This makes it a little less capable of penetrating heavily armored targets, but with the right kind of bullet, the 5.56x45mm round can still penetrate just about any normal, reasonable, object it will encounter (light wood, drywall, soft body armors, some hard body armors, and many other materials.).

I've never found mine (it's an AR-15, but they are fundamentally the same) to be a pain in the ass to take apart either. It is easy to take apart, and the only real pain can be the bolt carrier, but even that is no big deal. The only reason you would ever want to take that apart anyhow would be to scrape the carbon off of it. As far as the rest of the weapon is concerned, it is a breeze to disassemble and reassemble. No tools are required, and there are very few small parts, no springs, and there are only two pins that hold the upper and lower recievers together.

I have also not had any problem with my AR-15 jamming. As long as you take care of it, it will work. I have fired THOUSANDS of rounds through my rifle, and I have yet to encounter a malfunction. The only reason I can think of that it would jam would be if someone flat-out did not clean it - ever. As long as you keep the carbon out of the bolt-carrier and keep a little Break Free in it, it will work whenever you ask it to.

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't excuse the fact that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, and that it has 0 stopping power.
Yeah it's still used today, but only because it's cost effective.
There are at least 10 assault rifles that beat it in every single way, but they're more expensive. I have 2 friends that are in the military, one's a simple lieutenant, the others an MP. BOTH of them have told me how unreliable the M-16 is on the field.
It's accurate, but even they have told me that's it's only advantage.
ONLY advantage.
The weapon was not designed to kill, it was only meant to immobilize any threat.
For some reason it's viewed as "More Humane"
In basic, when one is required to take the M-16 apart and put it back together, they BOTH told me it has too many parts.
I think I'll take the word of two trained soldiers over yours.

It's hardly a pain in the ass to take apart and put back together. I just took mine apart and put it back together (and took pictures to demonstrate how simple it is). This 11 year old girl obviously has no problem with it:

Spoiler

Here are some pictures of my rifle field-stripped. I did not remove the buffer spring nor did I bother with the trigger group since those RARELY ever break. The buffer tube should be swabbed from time to time, but there are differing opinions on that. As you will see it is HARDLY difficult or complex. Field-stripped, the rifle has very few parts. Most soldiers and Marines only need to disassemble it to this extent for cleaning.

Fully Assembled Rifle:

Spoiler

Partial Field Strip:

Spoiler

Field Stripped with disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Close-up of the disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Again, there was no need to pull out the trigger group or buffer spring since they should never fail, and if they do, it is usually because the person operating the weapon did RIDICULOUS things to it (like bathe it in bleach and run it over with a tank). I also did not bother with them because the AK field stripping procedure does not remove the trigger group either.

Your claim that it is unreliable is also ill-founded. The design has been in constant revision for 45 years now, and all of the kinks that existed when it was fielded back in 1964 have pretty much been ironed out. Again, the only way it will malfunction on any regular basis is if the person operating it fails to give it basic, routine, maintainence. Any other firearm on earth will fail if it is not properly taken care of. Even the venerable AK-47 can be made to fail if it is not properly maintained. I have seen it myself.

As for your, "0 stopping power," claim, I can promise you one thing. One bullet from an M-16 will kill you just as dead as any single bullet from any other weapon. the 5.56x45mm FMJ can penetrate concrete blocks and also has the tendency to tumble upon entering a soft target. The fact that the round tumbles end over end means that the bullet creates a wound channel that is the length of the bullet rather than just a clean hole!

I too know quite a few Soldiers as well as Marines. Hell, one of them is a certified U.S. Army armorer. Every single one of them swears by their M-16 because it does what it needs to do and it does it very well. It makes bad guys die... And it has more than proven that over the past 45 years or so. Seriously, your claims that it is inaccurate (a laughable claim that will be refuted by anyone who has ever used one), a pain to take apart (which I have shown is not the case), and unreliable are a little ridiculous. Sure, there are better rifles out there, but the M-16 and its variants are hardly, "Shit."

EDIT: Much respect to your enlisted friends, but I am speaking from personal experience as well. The M-16 platform is excellent, and I know very few Soldiers or Marines that will argue differently. I own one, and I feel as though that makes me more qualified to pass judgement than you seeing as how I use, clean, and modify it on a regular basis. Were you ever enlisted?

The how do you explain all of the money the us army delta forces were putting into finding an H&K gun that was better that the colt rifles back in the early 2000's?
They wanted a better gun, but you say they already had the best one?

This forum is about the best gun, the BEST gun. Not a gun that works alright, does the job fairly well, blah blah blah.
I don't honestly give two shits about your preferences, everyone has an opinion, and mine certainly won't be changed by the likes of you.
A gun that designed to immobilize a threat is NOT efficient. I prefer guns that kill.
In fact of all the guns out there, I'd use the HK-XM8 over anything else.
Besides, if I'm right, you shoot your gun at a range, yes?
I've heard so many stories of the M-16 and the M-4 jamming on soldiers in Iraq, it's always in articles and war stories.
But my god, there's no way there right, you are!
=D
Jack ass.

Wow... I attempt a civilized discussion, and the best you can do is some sarcasm and some name calling. I provide proof, and you provide an opinion based on misconceptions. I point out those misconceptions, and the best you can do is stubbornly cling to your opinion and deny the facts that I have presented. Wow...

If you honestly believe that the M-16 does not kill than you are indeed the most ignorant individual I have ever debated with. The weapon was not specifically designed with the idea of, "Hey, let's just wound them," but rather that the soldier could carry a LOT more ammo with them, and it would make for a lighter combat load. The idea was that the soldier could sustain himself longer than the enemy in a prolonged firefight and not run out of ammo. I suppose you can also make that claim about the SA80, Styer Aug, G36, XM8, and the Israeli Tavor seeing as they all chamber the SAME ROUND! Hell, the Russians even have an AK variant that chambers the 5.56mm round, and the AK-74 chambers an ever smaller caliber round (5.45x39mm). So honestly, you are only displaying your ignorance here.

The XM8 was scrapped because the polymers in the rifles' frame melted during sustained automatic fire. If you would really want a weapon that melts, go right on ahead. You can have it.

The money spent by the Special Forces branches back in the early 2000s did go into R&D of new weapons platforms, but that's only half of the story. When it was decided that re-inventing the wheel was both unnecessary and a waste of time, a great deal of the money went into developing an intermediate cartridge for the M-16 platform. Just see the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.5 Grendel was not specifically developed for the Special Forces, but has been explored as an option to compliment the 5.56mm round. The 6.8SPC and a weapon to fire it is where a lot of the money went. The XM8 melted, and the FN SCAR is the only real contender left (aside from the REC7 that is), but there are some that are skeptical of how sturdy the composite stock is (see the August 3, 2009 issue of Shotgun News).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_REC7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel

Wow dude.
I can't believe you didn't get anything I just said.
I'm not going to let some stranger convince me from believe something close friends have told me.
You're a stranger, I don't know you.
Seeing as how this is the the internet, you could be a drooling lump in a wheelchair who just happened to discover Wikipedia [I'm not calling you that, just saying it's always possible on the interwebz.]
But you can't understand my point.
You just sit there, scratch your head, and then repeat yourself.

Your logic here is frightening. Really, it is. I understood. I was just hoping you would be receptive when presented with evidence. Apparently I was wrong. You do not have the ability to look at evidence contrary to your ideas and understand that your were incorrect.

According to your logic, I can't convince you of anything anyhow because you do not know me, and since you do not know me, I cannot possibly be right about anything, despite presenting evidence to back up my case.

Again, according to your logic, if your close friends told you do put a single drop of bleach in your coffee every morning because it, "Cleans out your system, really!" and I told you, "Hey, you know, drinking any amount of bleach will likely kill you - even if not at first," and you replied, "I will not be convinced because my close friends told me, and you can't change my opinion because I do not know you. I will do it anyway," then quite frankly, you would likely die. That is the train of thought that you just admitted to, and it's quite funny.

All I have done is provide evidence to disprove the faulty information that you used to back up your original post. I have gone through the trouble to say, "Here is where you are misinformed, and this is why." I even provided photos that I took myself and provided links and videos that I had taken the time to collect from the far corners of the internet. I provided a great deal of evidence that backed up my point (which is how you debate by the way). Instead of trying to do some research yourself to try and make your case, all you can do is call me a jackass and say, "My opinion cannot be changed because my close friends told me, and I do not know you."

Oh God! Stranger Danger!

If you are unable to accept that a person you do not even know could possibly know more about the subject than either you or your friends, then I do not think you are ready for the internet. Go home, grow up, and come back when you think you can handle it.

 

[tsb247]

Come on, now.

Sure, the Kalashnikov is iconic, and the M16 just feels so right in CS, but can't we all agree on the Dragon [http://perfectdark.retropixel.net/pd/weapons/#dragon]?

It's a gun that is also a bomb. Disarmed? Turn the tables on your opponent by blowing him the fuck up!

Recently toppled a foreign regime? Don't waste expensive cruise missiles on those statues of former dictators...demolish them with exploding guns!

If you've ever run out of ammo in the middle of a hard-fought deathmatch, you know how embarrassing it can be. Save yourself the shame of defeat by scattering exploding rifles haphazardly across the arena!*

Termite infestation? Don't waste your time with expensive pest control or hard-to aim bullets. Demolish your home to ensure that your vermin problems are a thing of the past!**

*May violate Geneva Conventions. See your local rules of war.

**May violate local building permits, demolition laws, concealed-carry laws, and international arms-control measures

Your post is made of WIN! Dragon = awesome!

 

[Stalk3rchief]

Beyond a doubt, the M-16 is a piece of shit.
Anyone with weapons experience will tell you that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, it's innacurate and very unreliable.

Ummm... I'm going to have to go ahead and stop you there. The M-16 is FAR from a piece of shit. There are a LOT of people who aren't breathing anymore because of that little black rifle. There's a reason it is still seeing HEAVY use today.

The M-16 is NOT inaccurate in any way, shape, or form. The 5.56x45mm round has proven itself to be a more than accurate round time and again, and the M-16 has also proven very efficient at delivering it. In fact, the 5.56x45mm round has FAR better terminal performance at range than the 7.62x39. The 5.56x45mm round may lack the stopping power of the 7.62x39, but it is a faster round with better ballistics. The only thing that the 5.56x45mm round lacks is the kinetic energy due to it's smaller size. This makes it a little less capable of penetrating heavily armored targets, but with the right kind of bullet, the 5.56x45mm round can still penetrate just about any normal, reasonable, object it will encounter (light wood, drywall, soft body armors, some hard body armors, and many other materials.).

I've never found mine (it's an AR-15, but they are fundamentally the same) to be a pain in the ass to take apart either. It is easy to take apart, and the only real pain can be the bolt carrier, but even that is no big deal. The only reason you would ever want to take that apart anyhow would be to scrape the carbon off of it. As far as the rest of the weapon is concerned, it is a breeze to disassemble and reassemble. No tools are required, and there are very few small parts, no springs, and there are only two pins that hold the upper and lower recievers together.

I have also not had any problem with my AR-15 jamming. As long as you take care of it, it will work. I have fired THOUSANDS of rounds through my rifle, and I have yet to encounter a malfunction. The only reason I can think of that it would jam would be if someone flat-out did not clean it - ever. As long as you keep the carbon out of the bolt-carrier and keep a little Break Free in it, it will work whenever you ask it to.

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't excuse the fact that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, and that it has 0 stopping power.
Yeah it's still used today, but only because it's cost effective.
There are at least 10 assault rifles that beat it in every single way, but they're more expensive. I have 2 friends that are in the military, one's a simple lieutenant, the others an MP. BOTH of them have told me how unreliable the M-16 is on the field.
It's accurate, but even they have told me that's it's only advantage.
ONLY advantage.
The weapon was not designed to kill, it was only meant to immobilize any threat.
For some reason it's viewed as "More Humane"
In basic, when one is required to take the M-16 apart and put it back together, they BOTH told me it has too many parts.
I think I'll take the word of two trained soldiers over yours.

It's hardly a pain in the ass to take apart and put back together. I just took mine apart and put it back together (and took pictures to demonstrate how simple it is). This 11 year old girl obviously has no problem with it:

Spoiler

Here are some pictures of my rifle field-stripped. I did not remove the buffer spring nor did I bother with the trigger group since those RARELY ever break. The buffer tube should be swabbed from time to time, but there are differing opinions on that. As you will see it is HARDLY difficult or complex. Field-stripped, the rifle has very few parts. Most soldiers and Marines only need to disassemble it to this extent for cleaning.

Fully Assembled Rifle:

Spoiler

Partial Field Strip:

Spoiler

Field Stripped with disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Close-up of the disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Again, there was no need to pull out the trigger group or buffer spring since they should never fail, and if they do, it is usually because the person operating the weapon did RIDICULOUS things to it (like bathe it in bleach and run it over with a tank). I also did not bother with them because the AK field stripping procedure does not remove the trigger group either.

Your claim that it is unreliable is also ill-founded. The design has been in constant revision for 45 years now, and all of the kinks that existed when it was fielded back in 1964 have pretty much been ironed out. Again, the only way it will malfunction on any regular basis is if the person operating it fails to give it basic, routine, maintainence. Any other firearm on earth will fail if it is not properly taken care of. Even the venerable AK-47 can be made to fail if it is not properly maintained. I have seen it myself.

As for your, "0 stopping power," claim, I can promise you one thing. One bullet from an M-16 will kill you just as dead as any single bullet from any other weapon. the 5.56x45mm FMJ can penetrate concrete blocks and also has the tendency to tumble upon entering a soft target. The fact that the round tumbles end over end means that the bullet creates a wound channel that is the length of the bullet rather than just a clean hole!

I too know quite a few Soldiers as well as Marines. Hell, one of them is a certified U.S. Army armorer. Every single one of them swears by their M-16 because it does what it needs to do and it does it very well. It makes bad guys die... And it has more than proven that over the past 45 years or so. Seriously, your claims that it is inaccurate (a laughable claim that will be refuted by anyone who has ever used one), a pain to take apart (which I have shown is not the case), and unreliable are a little ridiculous. Sure, there are better rifles out there, but the M-16 and its variants are hardly, "Shit."

EDIT: Much respect to your enlisted friends, but I am speaking from personal experience as well. The M-16 platform is excellent, and I know very few Soldiers or Marines that will argue differently. I own one, and I feel as though that makes me more qualified to pass judgement than you seeing as how I use, clean, and modify it on a regular basis. Were you ever enlisted?

The how do you explain all of the money the us army delta forces were putting into finding an H&K gun that was better that the colt rifles back in the early 2000's?
They wanted a better gun, but you say they already had the best one?

This forum is about the best gun, the BEST gun. Not a gun that works alright, does the job fairly well, blah blah blah.
I don't honestly give two shits about your preferences, everyone has an opinion, and mine certainly won't be changed by the likes of you.
A gun that designed to immobilize a threat is NOT efficient. I prefer guns that kill.
In fact of all the guns out there, I'd use the HK-XM8 over anything else.
Besides, if I'm right, you shoot your gun at a range, yes?
I've heard so many stories of the M-16 and the M-4 jamming on soldiers in Iraq, it's always in articles and war stories.
But my god, there's no way there right, you are!
=D
Jack ass.

Wow... I attempt a civilized discussion, and the best you can do is some sarcasm and some name calling. I provide proof, and you provide an opinion based on misconceptions. I point out those misconceptions, and the best you can do is stubbornly cling to your opinion and deny the facts that I have presented. Wow...

If you honestly believe that the M-16 does not kill than you are indeed the most ignorant individual I have ever debated with. The weapon was not specifically designed with the idea of, "Hey, let's just wound them," but rather that the soldier could carry a LOT more ammo with them, and it would make for a lighter combat load. The idea was that the soldier could sustain himself longer than the enemy in a prolonged firefight and not run out of ammo. I suppose you can also make that claim about the SA80, Styer Aug, G36, XM8, and the Israeli Tavor seeing as they all chamber the SAME ROUND! Hell, the Russians even have an AK variant that chambers the 5.56mm round, and the AK-74 chambers an ever smaller caliber round (5.45x39mm). So honestly, you are only displaying your ignorance here.

The XM8 was scrapped because the polymers in the rifles' frame melted during sustained automatic fire. If you would really want a weapon that melts, go right on ahead. You can have it.

The money spent by the Special Forces branches back in the early 2000s did go into R&D of new weapons platforms, but that's only half of the story. When it was decided that re-inventing the wheel was both unnecessary and a waste of time, a great deal of the money went into developing an intermediate cartridge for the M-16 platform. Just see the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.5 Grendel was not specifically developed for the Special Forces, but has been explored as an option to compliment the 5.56mm round. The 6.8SPC and a weapon to fire it is where a lot of the money went. The XM8 melted, and the FN SCAR is the only real contender left (aside from the REC7 that is), but there are some that are skeptical of how sturdy the composite stock is (see the August 3, 2009 issue of Shotgun News).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_REC7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel

Wow dude.
I can't believe you didn't get anything I just said.
I'm not going to let some stranger convince me from believe something close friends have told me.
You're a stranger, I don't know you.
Seeing as how this is the the internet, you could be a drooling lump in a wheelchair who just happened to discover Wikipedia [I'm not calling you that, just saying it's always possible on the interwebz.]
But you can't understand my point.
You just sit there, scratch your head, and then repeat yourself.

Your logic here is frightening. Really, it is. I understood. I was just hoping you would be receptive when presented with evidence. Apparently I was wrong. You do not have the ability to look at evidence contrary to your ideas and understand that your were incorrect.

According to your logic, I can't convince you of anything anyhow because you do not know me, and since you do not know me, I cannot possibly be right about anything, despite presenting evidence to back up my case.

Again, according to your logic, if your close friends told you do put a single drop of bleach in your coffee every morning because it, "Cleans out your system, really!" and I told you, "Hey, you know, drinking any amount of bleach will likely kill you - even if not at first," and you replied, "I will not be convinced because my close friends told me, and you can't change my opinion because I do not know you. I will do it anyway," then quite frankly, you would likely die. That is the train of thought that you just admitted to, and it's quite funny.

All I have done is provide evidence to disprove the faulty information that you used to back up your original post. I have gone through the trouble to say, "Here is where you are misinformed, and this is why." I even provided photos that I took myself and provided links and videos that I had taken the time to collect from the far corners of the internet. I provided a great deal of evidence that backed up my point (which is how you debate by the way). Instead of trying to do some research yourself to try and make your case, all you can do is call me a jackass and say, "My opinion cannot be changed because my close friends told me, and I do not know you."

Oh God! Stranger Danger!

If you are unable to accept that a person you do not even know could possibly know more about the subject than either you or your friends, then I do not think you are ready for the internet. Go home, grow up, and come back when you think you can handle it.

Hate to be a smartass, but I am at home.
I understand the logic you gave me, and sure, I'm more susceptible to believe the M-16 isn't the biggest piece of garbage in the world, but I still think there are better guns, as does pretty much everybody.
The m-16 is not a weapon of near divine power that never jams and has the ability to smite any foe and so on and so forth.
Every gun is flawed in some way or another, the M-16 is no acception.

 

[tsb247]

Beyond a doubt, the M-16 is a piece of shit.
Anyone with weapons experience will tell you that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, it's innacurate and very unreliable.

Ummm... I'm going to have to go ahead and stop you there. The M-16 is FAR from a piece of shit. There are a LOT of people who aren't breathing anymore because of that little black rifle. There's a reason it is still seeing HEAVY use today.

The M-16 is NOT inaccurate in any way, shape, or form. The 5.56x45mm round has proven itself to be a more than accurate round time and again, and the M-16 has also proven very efficient at delivering it. In fact, the 5.56x45mm round has FAR better terminal performance at range than the 7.62x39. The 5.56x45mm round may lack the stopping power of the 7.62x39, but it is a faster round with better ballistics. The only thing that the 5.56x45mm round lacks is the kinetic energy due to it's smaller size. This makes it a little less capable of penetrating heavily armored targets, but with the right kind of bullet, the 5.56x45mm round can still penetrate just about any normal, reasonable, object it will encounter (light wood, drywall, soft body armors, some hard body armors, and many other materials.).

I've never found mine (it's an AR-15, but they are fundamentally the same) to be a pain in the ass to take apart either. It is easy to take apart, and the only real pain can be the bolt carrier, but even that is no big deal. The only reason you would ever want to take that apart anyhow would be to scrape the carbon off of it. As far as the rest of the weapon is concerned, it is a breeze to disassemble and reassemble. No tools are required, and there are very few small parts, no springs, and there are only two pins that hold the upper and lower recievers together.

I have also not had any problem with my AR-15 jamming. As long as you take care of it, it will work. I have fired THOUSANDS of rounds through my rifle, and I have yet to encounter a malfunction. The only reason I can think of that it would jam would be if someone flat-out did not clean it - ever. As long as you keep the carbon out of the bolt-carrier and keep a little Break Free in it, it will work whenever you ask it to.

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't excuse the fact that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, and that it has 0 stopping power.
Yeah it's still used today, but only because it's cost effective.
There are at least 10 assault rifles that beat it in every single way, but they're more expensive. I have 2 friends that are in the military, one's a simple lieutenant, the others an MP. BOTH of them have told me how unreliable the M-16 is on the field.
It's accurate, but even they have told me that's it's only advantage.
ONLY advantage.
The weapon was not designed to kill, it was only meant to immobilize any threat.
For some reason it's viewed as "More Humane"
In basic, when one is required to take the M-16 apart and put it back together, they BOTH told me it has too many parts.
I think I'll take the word of two trained soldiers over yours.

It's hardly a pain in the ass to take apart and put back together. I just took mine apart and put it back together (and took pictures to demonstrate how simple it is). This 11 year old girl obviously has no problem with it:

Spoiler

Here are some pictures of my rifle field-stripped. I did not remove the buffer spring nor did I bother with the trigger group since those RARELY ever break. The buffer tube should be swabbed from time to time, but there are differing opinions on that. As you will see it is HARDLY difficult or complex. Field-stripped, the rifle has very few parts. Most soldiers and Marines only need to disassemble it to this extent for cleaning.

Fully Assembled Rifle:

Spoiler

Partial Field Strip:

Spoiler

Field Stripped with disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Close-up of the disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Again, there was no need to pull out the trigger group or buffer spring since they should never fail, and if they do, it is usually because the person operating the weapon did RIDICULOUS things to it (like bathe it in bleach and run it over with a tank). I also did not bother with them because the AK field stripping procedure does not remove the trigger group either.

Your claim that it is unreliable is also ill-founded. The design has been in constant revision for 45 years now, and all of the kinks that existed when it was fielded back in 1964 have pretty much been ironed out. Again, the only way it will malfunction on any regular basis is if the person operating it fails to give it basic, routine, maintainence. Any other firearm on earth will fail if it is not properly taken care of. Even the venerable AK-47 can be made to fail if it is not properly maintained. I have seen it myself.

As for your, "0 stopping power," claim, I can promise you one thing. One bullet from an M-16 will kill you just as dead as any single bullet from any other weapon. the 5.56x45mm FMJ can penetrate concrete blocks and also has the tendency to tumble upon entering a soft target. The fact that the round tumbles end over end means that the bullet creates a wound channel that is the length of the bullet rather than just a clean hole!

I too know quite a few Soldiers as well as Marines. Hell, one of them is a certified U.S. Army armorer. Every single one of them swears by their M-16 because it does what it needs to do and it does it very well. It makes bad guys die... And it has more than proven that over the past 45 years or so. Seriously, your claims that it is inaccurate (a laughable claim that will be refuted by anyone who has ever used one), a pain to take apart (which I have shown is not the case), and unreliable are a little ridiculous. Sure, there are better rifles out there, but the M-16 and its variants are hardly, "Shit."

EDIT: Much respect to your enlisted friends, but I am speaking from personal experience as well. The M-16 platform is excellent, and I know very few Soldiers or Marines that will argue differently. I own one, and I feel as though that makes me more qualified to pass judgement than you seeing as how I use, clean, and modify it on a regular basis. Were you ever enlisted?

The how do you explain all of the money the us army delta forces were putting into finding an H&K gun that was better that the colt rifles back in the early 2000's?
They wanted a better gun, but you say they already had the best one?

This forum is about the best gun, the BEST gun. Not a gun that works alright, does the job fairly well, blah blah blah.
I don't honestly give two shits about your preferences, everyone has an opinion, and mine certainly won't be changed by the likes of you.
A gun that designed to immobilize a threat is NOT efficient. I prefer guns that kill.
In fact of all the guns out there, I'd use the HK-XM8 over anything else.
Besides, if I'm right, you shoot your gun at a range, yes?
I've heard so many stories of the M-16 and the M-4 jamming on soldiers in Iraq, it's always in articles and war stories.
But my god, there's no way there right, you are!
=D
Jack ass.

Wow... I attempt a civilized discussion, and the best you can do is some sarcasm and some name calling. I provide proof, and you provide an opinion based on misconceptions. I point out those misconceptions, and the best you can do is stubbornly cling to your opinion and deny the facts that I have presented. Wow...

If you honestly believe that the M-16 does not kill than you are indeed the most ignorant individual I have ever debated with. The weapon was not specifically designed with the idea of, "Hey, let's just wound them," but rather that the soldier could carry a LOT more ammo with them, and it would make for a lighter combat load. The idea was that the soldier could sustain himself longer than the enemy in a prolonged firefight and not run out of ammo. I suppose you can also make that claim about the SA80, Styer Aug, G36, XM8, and the Israeli Tavor seeing as they all chamber the SAME ROUND! Hell, the Russians even have an AK variant that chambers the 5.56mm round, and the AK-74 chambers an ever smaller caliber round (5.45x39mm). So honestly, you are only displaying your ignorance here.

The XM8 was scrapped because the polymers in the rifles' frame melted during sustained automatic fire. If you would really want a weapon that melts, go right on ahead. You can have it.

The money spent by the Special Forces branches back in the early 2000s did go into R&D of new weapons platforms, but that's only half of the story. When it was decided that re-inventing the wheel was both unnecessary and a waste of time, a great deal of the money went into developing an intermediate cartridge for the M-16 platform. Just see the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.5 Grendel was not specifically developed for the Special Forces, but has been explored as an option to compliment the 5.56mm round. The 6.8SPC and a weapon to fire it is where a lot of the money went. The XM8 melted, and the FN SCAR is the only real contender left (aside from the REC7 that is), but there are some that are skeptical of how sturdy the composite stock is (see the August 3, 2009 issue of Shotgun News).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_REC7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel

Wow dude.
I can't believe you didn't get anything I just said.
I'm not going to let some stranger convince me from believe something close friends have told me.
You're a stranger, I don't know you.
Seeing as how this is the the internet, you could be a drooling lump in a wheelchair who just happened to discover Wikipedia [I'm not calling you that, just saying it's always possible on the interwebz.]
But you can't understand my point.
You just sit there, scratch your head, and then repeat yourself.

Your logic here is frightening. Really, it is. I understood. I was just hoping you would be receptive when presented with evidence. Apparently I was wrong. You do not have the ability to look at evidence contrary to your ideas and understand that your were incorrect.

According to your logic, I can't convince you of anything anyhow because you do not know me, and since you do not know me, I cannot possibly be right about anything, despite presenting evidence to back up my case.

Again, according to your logic, if your close friends told you do put a single drop of bleach in your coffee every morning because it, "Cleans out your system, really!" and I told you, "Hey, you know, drinking any amount of bleach will likely kill you - even if not at first," and you replied, "I will not be convinced because my close friends told me, and you can't change my opinion because I do not know you. I will do it anyway," then quite frankly, you would likely die. That is the train of thought that you just admitted to, and it's quite funny.

All I have done is provide evidence to disprove the faulty information that you used to back up your original post. I have gone through the trouble to say, "Here is where you are misinformed, and this is why." I even provided photos that I took myself and provided links and videos that I had taken the time to collect from the far corners of the internet. I provided a great deal of evidence that backed up my point (which is how you debate by the way). Instead of trying to do some research yourself to try and make your case, all you can do is call me a jackass and say, "My opinion cannot be changed because my close friends told me, and I do not know you."

Oh God! Stranger Danger!

If you are unable to accept that a person you do not even know could possibly know more about the subject than either you or your friends, then I do not think you are ready for the internet. Go home, grow up, and come back when you think you can handle it.

Hate to be a smartass, but I am at home.
I understand the logic you gave me, and sure, I'm more susceptible to believe the M-16 isn't the biggest piece of garbage in the world, but I still think there are better guns, as does pretty much everybody.
The m-16 is not a weapon of near divine power that never jams and has the ability to smite any foe and so on and so forth.
Every gun is flawed in some way or another, the M-16 is no acception.

And you will notice that I never stated that it is without problems and is not flawed. I never said it cannot malfunction, and it is the most perfect weapon on earth. My point is that it is not nearly as flawed as you make it out to be. I never even made the point that it is the, "Greatest thing since sliced bread and on the eighth day, God created the M-16." I said nothing of the sort. I merely stated that it is far from a peice of shit, and presented the information to back it up. Sure, there are weapons out there that perform better, but that was not the point being argued, and even if it was, any given weapon's performance can be argued in either direction.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

Beyond a doubt, the M-16 is a piece of shit.
Anyone with weapons experience will tell you that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, it's innacurate and very unreliable.

Ummm... I'm going to have to go ahead and stop you there. The M-16 is FAR from a piece of shit. There are a LOT of people who aren't breathing anymore because of that little black rifle. There's a reason it is still seeing HEAVY use today.

The M-16 is NOT inaccurate in any way, shape, or form. The 5.56x45mm round has proven itself to be a more than accurate round time and again, and the M-16 has also proven very efficient at delivering it. In fact, the 5.56x45mm round has FAR better terminal performance at range than the 7.62x39. The 5.56x45mm round may lack the stopping power of the 7.62x39, but it is a faster round with better ballistics. The only thing that the 5.56x45mm round lacks is the kinetic energy due to it's smaller size. This makes it a little less capable of penetrating heavily armored targets, but with the right kind of bullet, the 5.56x45mm round can still penetrate just about any normal, reasonable, object it will encounter (light wood, drywall, soft body armors, some hard body armors, and many other materials.).

I've never found mine (it's an AR-15, but they are fundamentally the same) to be a pain in the ass to take apart either. It is easy to take apart, and the only real pain can be the bolt carrier, but even that is no big deal. The only reason you would ever want to take that apart anyhow would be to scrape the carbon off of it. As far as the rest of the weapon is concerned, it is a breeze to disassemble and reassemble. No tools are required, and there are very few small parts, no springs, and there are only two pins that hold the upper and lower recievers together.

I have also not had any problem with my AR-15 jamming. As long as you take care of it, it will work. I have fired THOUSANDS of rounds through my rifle, and I have yet to encounter a malfunction. The only reason I can think of that it would jam would be if someone flat-out did not clean it - ever. As long as you keep the carbon out of the bolt-carrier and keep a little Break Free in it, it will work whenever you ask it to.

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't excuse the fact that it's a pain in the ass to take apart and reconstruct, and that it has 0 stopping power.
Yeah it's still used today, but only because it's cost effective.
There are at least 10 assault rifles that beat it in every single way, but they're more expensive. I have 2 friends that are in the military, one's a simple lieutenant, the others an MP. BOTH of them have told me how unreliable the M-16 is on the field.
It's accurate, but even they have told me that's it's only advantage.
ONLY advantage.
The weapon was not designed to kill, it was only meant to immobilize any threat.
For some reason it's viewed as "More Humane"
In basic, when one is required to take the M-16 apart and put it back together, they BOTH told me it has too many parts.
I think I'll take the word of two trained soldiers over yours.

It's hardly a pain in the ass to take apart and put back together. I just took mine apart and put it back together (and took pictures to demonstrate how simple it is). This 11 year old girl obviously has no problem with it:

Spoiler

Here are some pictures of my rifle field-stripped. I did not remove the buffer spring nor did I bother with the trigger group since those RARELY ever break. The buffer tube should be swabbed from time to time, but there are differing opinions on that. As you will see it is HARDLY difficult or complex. Field-stripped, the rifle has very few parts. Most soldiers and Marines only need to disassemble it to this extent for cleaning.

Fully Assembled Rifle:

Spoiler

Partial Field Strip:

Spoiler

Field Stripped with disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Close-up of the disassembled bolt assembly:

Spoiler

Again, there was no need to pull out the trigger group or buffer spring since they should never fail, and if they do, it is usually because the person operating the weapon did RIDICULOUS things to it (like bathe it in bleach and run it over with a tank). I also did not bother with them because the AK field stripping procedure does not remove the trigger group either.

Your claim that it is unreliable is also ill-founded. The design has been in constant revision for 45 years now, and all of the kinks that existed when it was fielded back in 1964 have pretty much been ironed out. Again, the only way it will malfunction on any regular basis is if the person operating it fails to give it basic, routine, maintainence. Any other firearm on earth will fail if it is not properly taken care of. Even the venerable AK-47 can be made to fail if it is not properly maintained. I have seen it myself.

As for your, "0 stopping power," claim, I can promise you one thing. One bullet from an M-16 will kill you just as dead as any single bullet from any other weapon. the 5.56x45mm FMJ can penetrate concrete blocks and also has the tendency to tumble upon entering a soft target. The fact that the round tumbles end over end means that the bullet creates a wound channel that is the length of the bullet rather than just a clean hole!

I too know quite a few Soldiers as well as Marines. Hell, one of them is a certified U.S. Army armorer. Every single one of them swears by their M-16 because it does what it needs to do and it does it very well. It makes bad guys die... And it has more than proven that over the past 45 years or so. Seriously, your claims that it is inaccurate (a laughable claim that will be refuted by anyone who has ever used one), a pain to take apart (which I have shown is not the case), and unreliable are a little ridiculous. Sure, there are better rifles out there, but the M-16 and its variants are hardly, "Shit."

EDIT: Much respect to your enlisted friends, but I am speaking from personal experience as well. The M-16 platform is excellent, and I know very few Soldiers or Marines that will argue differently. I own one, and I feel as though that makes me more qualified to pass judgement than you seeing as how I use, clean, and modify it on a regular basis. Were you ever enlisted?

The how do you explain all of the money the us army delta forces were putting into finding an H&K gun that was better that the colt rifles back in the early 2000's?
They wanted a better gun, but you say they already had the best one?

This forum is about the best gun, the BEST gun. Not a gun that works alright, does the job fairly well, blah blah blah.
I don't honestly give two shits about your preferences, everyone has an opinion, and mine certainly won't be changed by the likes of you.
A gun that designed to immobilize a threat is NOT efficient. I prefer guns that kill.
In fact of all the guns out there, I'd use the HK-XM8 over anything else.
Besides, if I'm right, you shoot your gun at a range, yes?
I've heard so many stories of the M-16 and the M-4 jamming on soldiers in Iraq, it's always in articles and war stories.
But my god, there's no way there right, you are!
=D
Jack ass.

Wow... I attempt a civilized discussion, and the best you can do is some sarcasm and some name calling. I provide proof, and you provide an opinion based on misconceptions. I point out those misconceptions, and the best you can do is stubbornly cling to your opinion and deny the facts that I have presented. Wow...

If you honestly believe that the M-16 does not kill than you are indeed the most ignorant individual I have ever debated with. The weapon was not specifically designed with the idea of, "Hey, let's just wound them," but rather that the soldier could carry a LOT more ammo with them, and it would make for a lighter combat load. The idea was that the soldier could sustain himself longer than the enemy in a prolonged firefight and not run out of ammo. I suppose you can also make that claim about the SA80, Styer Aug, G36, XM8, and the Israeli Tavor seeing as they all chamber the SAME ROUND! Hell, the Russians even have an AK variant that chambers the 5.56mm round, and the AK-74 chambers an ever smaller caliber round (5.45x39mm). So honestly, you are only displaying your ignorance here.

The XM8 was scrapped because the polymers in the rifles' frame melted during sustained automatic fire. If you would really want a weapon that melts, go right on ahead. You can have it.

The money spent by the Special Forces branches back in the early 2000s did go into R&D of new weapons platforms, but that's only half of the story. When it was decided that re-inventing the wheel was both unnecessary and a waste of time, a great deal of the money went into developing an intermediate cartridge for the M-16 platform. Just see the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.5 Grendel was not specifically developed for the Special Forces, but has been explored as an option to compliment the 5.56mm round. The 6.8SPC and a weapon to fire it is where a lot of the money went. The XM8 melted, and the FN SCAR is the only real contender left (aside from the REC7 that is), but there are some that are skeptical of how sturdy the composite stock is (see the August 3, 2009 issue of Shotgun News).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_REC7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5_mm_Grendel

Wow dude.
I can't believe you didn't get anything I just said.
I'm not going to let some stranger convince me from believe something close friends have told me.
You're a stranger, I don't know you.
Seeing as how this is the the internet, you could be a drooling lump in a wheelchair who just happened to discover Wikipedia [I'm not calling you that, just saying it's always possible on the interwebz.]
But you can't understand my point.
You just sit there, scratch your head, and then repeat yourself.

Your logic here is frightening. Really, it is. I understood. I was just hoping you would be receptive when presented with evidence. Apparently I was wrong. You do not have the ability to look at evidence contrary to your ideas and understand that your were incorrect.

According to your logic, I can't convince you of anything anyhow because you do not know me, and since you do not know me, I cannot possibly be right about anything, despite presenting evidence to back up my case.

Again, according to your logic, if your close friends told you do put a single drop of bleach in your coffee every morning because it, "Cleans out your system, really!" and I told you, "Hey, you know, drinking any amount of bleach will likely kill you - even if not at first," and you replied, "I will not be convinced because my close friends told me, and you can't change my opinion because I do not know you. I will do it anyway," then quite frankly, you would likely die. That is the train of thought that you just admitted to, and it's quite funny.

All I have done is provide evidence to disprove the faulty information that you used to back up your original post. I have gone through the trouble to say, "Here is where you are misinformed, and this is why." I even provided photos that I took myself and provided links and videos that I had taken the time to collect from the far corners of the internet. I provided a great deal of evidence that backed up my point (which is how you debate by the way). Instead of trying to do some research yourself to try and make your case, all you can do is call me a jackass and say, "My opinion cannot be changed because my close friends told me, and I do not know you."

Oh God! Stranger Danger!

If you are unable to accept that a person you do not even know could possibly know more about the subject than either you or your friends, then I do not think you are ready for the internet. Go home, grow up, and come back when you think you can handle it.

Hate to be a smartass, but I am at home.
I understand the logic you gave me, and sure, I'm more susceptible to believe the M-16 isn't the biggest piece of garbage in the world, but I still think there are better guns, as does pretty much everybody.
The m-16 is not a weapon of near divine power that never jams and has the ability to smite any foe and so on and so forth.
Every gun is flawed in some way or another, the M-16 is no acception.

And you will notice that I never stated that it is without problems and is not flawed. I never said it cannot malfunction, and it is the most perfect weapon on earth. My point is that it is not nearly as flawed as you make it out to be. I never even made the point that it is the, "Greatest thing since sliced bread and on the eighth day, God created the M-16." I said nothing of the sort. I merely stated that it is far from a peice of shit, and presented the information to back it up. Sure, there are weapons out there that perform better, but that was not the point being argued, and even if it was, any given weapon's performance can be argued in either direction.

In all honesty, it's safe to say I got turned around a little in this argument. We both have different opinions on the matter, and you did indeed change my mind in a few ways about the weapon.
I say we just agree to disagree at this point, this is silly and has gone for way too long.

 

[Unknower]

From my vast experience in Counter-Strike, I'll say Steyr AUG. I don't like the firing rate while zooming though. On second thought, I'll say QBZ-95 because no one else has suggested it yet and I want to be different!

*cough*

Seriously though, I don't know much about guns. Pffft, like that would stop me from posting! Well, anyway, this is like choosing the best car. There isn't one. There's best car for off-road driving, best car for driving in desert and best car for umm, err driving the president around [http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/images/gallery/12/2009/01/medium_3196660161_114032f554_o.jpg]. The same works for assault rifles.

PS: tsb247 and Stalk3rchief, please shorten your posts a bit. You don't need to quote the whole post.

 

[tsb247]

-Uber snip-

Agreed. Let's call it quits at this point.