the M-16. considered the worst assault rifle in the world. any sort of melee with it would shatter the spring-loaded stock and the overly complex firing mechanism was a ***** to clean and jammed alot. the only reason it became the standard american infantry rifle was politics, "buy my gun and you get my vote". it was originally designed for MPs at stateside military bases
Those problems have all been fixed. Now it is an exemplary military rifle. As for what was wrong with the M-14 well... too expensive... too heavy and the recoil is just fucking awful on that fat bastard. Though it supposedly works beautifully as a sniper and semi-automatic battle rifle.
Worst gun? Desert Eagle, that thing is horrifically impracticable. Too heavy, nasty recoil, the bullets are too big and it has a horribly limited magazine capacity.
i was referencing the original m16, but currently it is probably far from an exemplary military rifle, else why are they replacing it with the ACR? as for the m14, the semi auto battle rifle is what it was designed for, punch big holes in your targets. the auto setting was just for suppressing fire on the occaision that you didnt have an LMG available
There are no official plans to replace the M-16 and M-4 series of rifles. Competitions have been held but no replacement has ever been chosen and the United States military hasn't even placed any orders for the ACR as far as I am aware (someone has been playing too much MW2 it seems). The M-16 does its job very well and the M-4 does its job pretty well(There have been reports of reduced stopping power on the M-4 but it still kills people). They are considered very good weapons by the people who are actually familiar with them. The M-14 was designed as you said to deliver accurate shots with full auto being used for suppressing actions but the problem with that is that almost All fire in a combat scenario is suppressing fire. The ammunition is too heavy for what it would be used for and so a new weapon was designed using a round that was better suited for the majority of small arms use in a warzone. The M-14 just doesn't work as well for that purpose as the M-16 because the recoil is awful so it is very difficult to keep the volume of fire going where it is supposed to go and you will run out of bullets faster because you just can't carry enough to maintain the fire that you need to maintain.
EDIT: Also in response to some of your earlier comments the M-14 does not come standard with a pistol grip. A Pistol grip is a grip that is separate from the stock and the M-14 only accepts one with heavy modification. The Ammunition for the M-14 may not sound much larger but there is a large difference.
Thats the 5.56 on the left with the 7.62 on the right and a 30-30 Winchester in the center. As you can see there is in fact a significant difference in size. The weight is also very different with the 7.62 weighing between 9 and 12 Grams and the 5.56 weighing about 4 grams. That may not seem like much but you are carrying hundreds of these things around and you can carry twice as many 5.56's as 7.62's. Are you starting to understand now?
Right but the 7.62 puts a man down in 1. Every. Single. Time. The 5.56 you need a center mass hit every single time. With a 7.62 you put a hole the size of a grapefruit in your target. The 5.56 may cause cavitation but remember the rule of center mass. All the cavitation in the world wont drop someone if it cant hit a vital and when the insurgents are hopped up on meth they wont even flinch when a 5.56 hits them.
That is why Soldiers are taught to aim for the center of mass which they hit with regularity and even if they do not there are still the other five guys in your squad firing three round bursts into the guy with the AK. You can not carry around enough ammo for the M-14 to stay competitive with the AK series in a volume of fire fight. The United States military would not continue using a weapon for 50 years if it did not work. Stopping power isn't everything if it was we would be issuing these things to our soldiers.
The AK and the M14 shoot almost the same damn exact round, the difference is you can aim an M14 and the new M14 EBR is lighter and more accurate still.
As almost a random footnote, you can use the quote button multiple times per page to cue up multiple responses. It doesn't do as much for your post count, but it will keep the mods off your back for multi-posting (on those rare occasions when they care). *Returns to topic at hand.*
I dont know my rifles too well, and shotguns are generally all around pretty reliable. But as far as jamming, malfunctioning, misfiring, and being general shit. Your worst guns are probably either the american M16A1, or the Russian Makarovs. On the opposite end of the spectrum if your looking for a really good gun, few handguns are quite as prone to cracking and/or breaking as the Beretta M92. And anyone who's watched too many movies knows the Ak47 is still the best assault rifle ever made.
The M92 is the civilian version of the M9 (Or rather, the other way around), and for that very reason it should be spurned for having such a miserable spin off.
As for the AK-47, this board has had numerous discussions about the weapon. The standard Soviet AK-47 is absolute garbage, regardless of its firing rate or tendency to not jam. Modern version manufactured by better civilian fire arm companies have done much better, but have yet to fix the basic issue: The AK-47 is a loud weapon which is too loose to hit accurately after the first shot with miserable recoil.
And to top it all off, the ammunition sucks.
JWAN said:
The AK and the M14 shoot almost the same damn exact round, the difference is you can aim an M14 and the new M14 EBR is lighter and more accurate still.
What's with all the hate on the Desert Eagle? Sure the .50 cal AE version is totally pointless as a sidearm, but the gun comes in like two other flavors (.44 magnum and .357 magnum).
Worst firearm in modern history: The M16/M4 and it's variants (not including the HK M416/417). Probably caused the deaths of more Americans than any firearm the enemy (if your in the US) ever used. Indirectly of course, but a jammed gun might as well be a bullet to the face.
And i'm also a little confused as to the hate on the XM8. The thing beat out all the other rifles in the US trials. That is to say, it beat the FN SCAR, Colt M4, and HK M416. Personally, I'd rather have a rifle that jams once every 10,000 rounds that one that jams ever time it see a speck of dirt or sand. (unless the issue is the NATO 5.56mm round, which is shit.)
Update your rifle knowledge. The M16 and the M4 have been upgraded substantially and are absolutely fine for being around for 30 years. The only real issue now is that the 5.56 is just too small to have put down power. Sure if you get a center mass hit the hydrostatic shock is strong enough to cause cavitation and damage organs but I;d rather blow them over with a 12 gauge deer slug or a .308. Either one of those can kill even if it hits you in a limb.
Yes, yes, it's true the M family has gotten some upgrades, but the fact that they STILL jam so frequently is the issue. Last year, a Marine way station was hit by insurgents in Afghanistan. over 50% Marines stationed there were wounded or killed when their rifles (M4s) jammed. And it isn't a matter of poor maintenance, they're Marines. They take care of their weapons. M4s are good to about six thousand rounds. Six thousand rounds isn't much when you are have to train in marksmanship with you rifle. Then add in sand and dirt and you have a mess. The M series rifles are obsolete. They need to be replaced with rifles that don't fire the NATO 5.56 round and don't jam after so few rounds are fired thru them. And that makes them one of the worse modern firearms.
I know the Marines, there my boys, I'm training to become one and LEAD them. But also remember that the Marines always get equipment that's been used or its been in storage for years. I also agree that they need to be replaced but they are still by no means the worst.
Maybe not the worst EVER. Definitely the worst the US military was ever issued. Give our boys some M14s or maybe the HK M417 (it's in NATO 7.62mm like the M14). The fact that you can't drop someone (that is to say you can't knock them down) with an M4 leads me to believe it is inadequate for it's job. The largest thing i'd shoot with a .223/5.56mm round is like a deer. MAYBE. If i had to go into combat, id want a full rifle round or maybe something like the 6.5mm round made my Alexander Arms. That's why i hold the M16 in such low regard. I suppose it'd be cool to plink around with, even if it is expensive.
I agree I think we need to look at the new M14 EBR or look at the 6.8 because that does cause WAY more HS (hydrostatic shock) and it has less of a chance of going through and wounding civilians.
I dont know my rifles too well, and shotguns are generally all around pretty reliable. But as far as jamming, malfunctioning, misfiring, and being general shit. Your worst guns are probably either the american M16A1, or the Russian Makarovs. On the opposite end of the spectrum if your looking for a really good gun, few handguns are quite as prone to cracking and/or breaking as the Beretta M92. And anyone who's watched too many movies knows the Ak47 is still the best assault rifle ever made.
The M92 is the civilian version of the M9 (Or rather, the other way around), and for that very reason it should be spurned for having such a miserable spin off.
As for the AK-47, this board has had numerous discussions about the weapon. The standard Soviet AK-47 is absolute garbage, regardless of its firing rate or tendency to not jam. Modern version manufactured by better civilian fire arm companies have done much better, but have yet to fix the basic issue: The AK-47 is a loud weapon which is too loose to hit accurately after the first shot with miserable recoil.
I still maintain a pretty vocal hatred of the M9 because of their habit of throwing shell casings all over the map. Including into my face when I actually needed to use the damn thing. (Strictly speaking it was one of the M9 knockoffs, but even the branded Beretta 92s do the same thing in my experience).
As for functional iterations of the 47's design, from what I'm told the SIG 550 actually falls into this category more or less, while being a top notch assault weapon.
Finally, and for the second mention in this thread, no thoughts on the Vektor CP1 being "the worst" for its habit of randomly discharging?
The AK-47 is one of the worst. Yeah, it's a quick fire rate, and it almost never jams, but that doesn't fix the terrible accuracy, the strength needed to wield it(it's not heavy, but start firing it and you have a real problem with it not jerking up and blowing YOUR face off) the enormous recoil, and when it DOES finally overheat and jam, you can NEVER use it again.
Also, and I know I'm gonna catch a TON of flak for this, but fragmentation grenades and shotguns. They're both VERY situational,. and with the frag grenade you have as much chance of injuring/killing yourself as others if you don't use it properly.
And shotguns are pretty much pathetic if someone's more than 10 feet away from you.
I've answered this about a million times. I was taking liberties with the aiming, and hunting slugs are different than battle slugs. A battle slug sprays areas with a larger radius to nullify a room and put people down faster. A hunting slug keeps the pellets closer together to do more damage.
No your not even on the same page:
2 main types of shotgun ammunition
Buckshot (for home invaders, terrorists, and some medium game depending on the state)
Slugs (large game and terrorists)
Buckshot are large pellets covered in copper with lead centers (think BB gun size)
Slugs are full metal jacket(copper) solid lead core bullets, it is ONE projectile
Both the military and hunters use slugs
The military does use buckshot but it has a tight choke on it to focus the pellets in a TIGHT pattern. Why you ask? Because the wars nowadays are mainly fought in close quarters where you need to know exactly where your lead is going to go.
The US Army does not use solid core shotgun shells in standard loads, of this I am sure. Non-standard? Not sure. But the ammunition ordering sheet I am viewing does not include slugs, which inclines me to believe that its not just me thats never seen military slug ammunition.
http://www.kmike.com/Ammo/tm%2043-0001-27.pdf
The stand ammo load out for door kicking are Key Masters (Which are also absent from the TM) and 00.
EDIT: Looking to see if this TM has been superseded.
Im pretty sure they use slugs, I know the door breaching rounds are specially made for that job and those use a pellet. Well I could be wrong about slugs then but they still put on a restrictive choke enough that it would carry beyond the "9 meters" the first guy said. I know my 12 gauge with a full choke will make a tight pattern at 50 feet. I would just check with my uncle but that wouldn't do the sake of argument any good . I know my dads gunnery sgt used a mossberg 500 with slugs but that was back in the day.
The gun used by both sides in world war 2 and that the SAS would continue to use for 60 years or so? No.
M60 and M16 were both very useless in Vietnam , certainly contributing to America's eventual loss.
Also a lot of people hold the M1 Garand in to high a regard, fairly average in terms of accurracy and clip size with the added advantage of semi-automatic fire. However every time a clip was emptied it would spring from the gun and make a huge audible *TING* noise letting everyone know you're out of ammo, and that's the kind of thing that would get soldiers killed.
In the midst of combat you'd never hear that "ting." Even if you could, it would still be suicidal to rush the reloading soldier since that would require breaking cover with all his buddies pointing guns it you. It was considered so great since it was semi automatic which was a huge plus compared to the bolt action rifles at the time, it's ease of use, and reliability. In fact, the weapon was so reliable that there are reports of the weapon freezing. They work perfectly after thawing by means of urination.
What's with all the hate on the Desert Eagle? Sure the .50 cal AE version is totally pointless as a sidearm, but the gun comes in like two other flavors (.44 magnum and .357 magnum).
Worst firearm in modern history: The M16/M4 and it's variants (not including the HK M416/417). Probably caused the deaths of more Americans than any firearm the enemy (if your in the US) ever used. Indirectly of course, but a jammed gun might as well be a bullet to the face.
And i'm also a little confused as to the hate on the XM8. The thing beat out all the other rifles in the US trials. That is to say, it beat the FN SCAR, Colt M4, and HK M416. Personally, I'd rather have a rifle that jams once every 10,000 rounds that one that jams ever time it see a speck of dirt or sand. (unless the issue is the NATO 5.56mm round, which is shit.)
Update your rifle knowledge. The M16 and the M4 have been upgraded substantially and are absolutely fine for being around for 30 years. The only real issue now is that the 5.56 is just too small to have put down power. Sure if you get a center mass hit the hydrostatic shock is strong enough to cause cavitation and damage organs but I;d rather blow them over with a 12 gauge deer slug or a .308. Either one of those can kill even if it hits you in a limb.
Yes, yes, it's true the M family has gotten some upgrades, but the fact that they STILL jam so frequently is the issue. Last year, a Marine way station was hit by insurgents in Afghanistan. over 50% Marines stationed there were wounded or killed when their rifles (M4s) jammed. And it isn't a matter of poor maintenance, they're Marines. They take care of their weapons. M4s are good to about six thousand rounds. Six thousand rounds isn't much when you are have to train in marksmanship with you rifle. Then add in sand and dirt and you have a mess. The M series rifles are obsolete. They need to be replaced with rifles that don't fire the NATO 5.56 round and don't jam after so few rounds are fired thru them. And that makes them one of the worse modern firearms.
I know the Marines, there my boys, I'm training to become one and LEAD them. But also remember that the Marines always get equipment that's been used or its been in storage for years. I also agree that they need to be replaced but they are still by no means the worst.
Maybe not the worst EVER. Definitely the worst the US military was ever issued. Give our boys some M14s or maybe the HK M417 (it's in NATO 7.62mm like the M14). The fact that you can't drop someone (that is to say you can't knock them down) with an M4 leads me to believe it is inadequate for it's job. The largest thing i'd shoot with a .223/5.56mm round is like a deer. MAYBE. If i had to go into combat, id want a full rifle round or maybe something like the 6.5mm round made my Alexander Arms. That's why i hold the M16 in such low regard. I suppose it'd be cool to plink around with, even if it is expensive.
I agree I think we need to look at the new M14 EBR or look at the 6.8 because that does cause WAY more HS (hydrostatic shock) and it has less of a chance of going through and wounding civilians.
The AK and the M14 shoot almost the same damn exact round, the difference is you can aim an M14 and the new M14 EBR is lighter and more accurate still.
I thought they got dropped to Chinese and Philippenes based resistance during the war, I know they were barely used in Europe. But my point still stands is that they furfill their purpose correctly.
Now if they were being issued to police officers or actual soliders it would be ridiculous.
The AK-47 is one of the worst. Yeah, it's a quick fire rate, and it almost never jams, but that doesn't fix the terrible accuracy, the strength needed to wield it(it's not heavy, but start firing it and you have a real problem with it not jerking up and blowing YOUR face off) the enormous recoil, and when it DOES finally overheat and jam, you can NEVER use it again.
Also, and I know I'm gonna catch a TON of flak for this, but fragmentation grenades and shotguns. They're both VERY situational,. and with the frag grenade you have as much chance of injuring/killing yourself as others if you don't use it properly.
And shotguns are pretty much pathetic if someone's more than 10 feet away from you.
I've answered this about a million times. I was taking liberties with the aiming, and hunting slugs are different than battle slugs. A battle slug sprays areas with a larger radius to nullify a room and put people down faster. A hunting slug keeps the pellets closer together to do more damage.
No your not even on the same page:
2 main types of shotgun ammunition
Buckshot (for home invaders, terrorists, and some medium game depending on the state)
Slugs (large game and terrorists)
Buckshot are large pellets covered in copper with lead centers (think BB gun size)
Slugs are full metal jacket(copper) solid lead core bullets, it is ONE projectile
Both the military and hunters use slugs
The military does use buckshot but it has a tight choke on it to focus the pellets in a TIGHT pattern. Why you ask? Because the wars nowadays are mainly fought in close quarters where you need to know exactly where your lead is going to go.
The US Army does not use solid core shotgun shells in standard loads, of this I am sure. Non-standard? Not sure. But the ammunition ordering sheet I am viewing does not include slugs, which inclines me to believe that its not just me thats never seen military slug ammunition.
http://www.kmike.com/Ammo/tm%2043-0001-27.pdf
The stand ammo load out for door kicking are Key Masters (Which are also absent from the TM) and 00.
EDIT: Looking to see if this TM has been superseded.
Im pretty sure they use slugs, I know the door breaching rounds are specially made for that job and those use a pellet. Well I could be wrong about slugs then but they still put on a restrictive choke enough that it would carry beyond the "9 meters" the first guy said. I know my 12 gauge with a full choke will make a tight pattern at 50 feet. I would just check with my uncle but that wouldn't do the sake of argument any good . I know my dads gunnery sgt used a mossberg 500 with slugs but that was back in the day.
Interesting note: Key masters actually contain metallic dust, not pellets. This way, they destroy hinges, but dissipate a few feet later, reducing the risk or ricochet.
Very few people seem to know that, so this is less arguing and more 'Fun Facts.'
Starke said:
AccursedTheory said:
JWAN said:
The AK and the M14 shoot almost the same damn exact round, the difference is you can aim an M14 and the new M14 EBR is lighter and more accurate still.
I dont know my rifles too well, and shotguns are generally all around pretty reliable. But as far as jamming, malfunctioning, misfiring, and being general shit. Your worst guns are probably either the american M16A1, or the Russian Makarovs. On the opposite end of the spectrum if your looking for a really good gun, few handguns are quite as prone to cracking and/or breaking as the Beretta M92. And anyone who's watched too many movies knows the Ak47 is still the best assault rifle ever made.
The M92 is the civilian version of the M9 (Or rather, the other way around), and for that very reason it should be spurned for having such a miserable spin off.
As for the AK-47, this board has had numerous discussions about the weapon. The standard Soviet AK-47 is absolute garbage, regardless of its firing rate or tendency to not jam. Modern version manufactured by better civilian fire arm companies have done much better, but have yet to fix the basic issue: The AK-47 is a loud weapon which is too loose to hit accurately after the first shot with miserable recoil.
And to top it all off, the ammunition sucks.
JWAN said:
The AK and the M14 shoot almost the same damn exact round, the difference is you can aim an M14 and the new M14 EBR is lighter and more accurate still.
the difference I find is that the NATO 7.62x51 holds more powder in a longer case. Based on the class of rifle cartridge its MORE than being necked different but its not a VAST difference. But if you've worked with both Ill give you the edge then, Ive worked with the 7.62x51 and Ive found that it gives a kick but then again I shoot 10 gauge shotguns alot. I havent been exposed enough to make a fair assessment.
What's with all the hate on the Desert Eagle? Sure the .50 cal AE version is totally pointless as a sidearm, but the gun comes in like two other flavors (.44 magnum and .357 magnum).
Worst firearm in modern history: The M16/M4 and it's variants (not including the HK M416/417). Probably caused the deaths of more Americans than any firearm the enemy (if your in the US) ever used. Indirectly of course, but a jammed gun might as well be a bullet to the face.
And i'm also a little confused as to the hate on the XM8. The thing beat out all the other rifles in the US trials. That is to say, it beat the FN SCAR, Colt M4, and HK M416. Personally, I'd rather have a rifle that jams once every 10,000 rounds that one that jams ever time it see a speck of dirt or sand. (unless the issue is the NATO 5.56mm round, which is shit.)
Update your rifle knowledge. The M16 and the M4 have been upgraded substantially and are absolutely fine for being around for 30 years. The only real issue now is that the 5.56 is just too small to have put down power. Sure if you get a center mass hit the hydrostatic shock is strong enough to cause cavitation and damage organs but I;d rather blow them over with a 12 gauge deer slug or a .308. Either one of those can kill even if it hits you in a limb.
Yes, yes, it's true the M family has gotten some upgrades, but the fact that they STILL jam so frequently is the issue. Last year, a Marine way station was hit by insurgents in Afghanistan. over 50% Marines stationed there were wounded or killed when their rifles (M4s) jammed. And it isn't a matter of poor maintenance, they're Marines. They take care of their weapons. M4s are good to about six thousand rounds. Six thousand rounds isn't much when you are have to train in marksmanship with you rifle. Then add in sand and dirt and you have a mess. The M series rifles are obsolete. They need to be replaced with rifles that don't fire the NATO 5.56 round and don't jam after so few rounds are fired thru them. And that makes them one of the worse modern firearms.
I know the Marines, there my boys, I'm training to become one and LEAD them. But also remember that the Marines always get equipment that's been used or its been in storage for years. I also agree that they need to be replaced but they are still by no means the worst.
Maybe not the worst EVER. Definitely the worst the US military was ever issued. Give our boys some M14s or maybe the HK M417 (it's in NATO 7.62mm like the M14). The fact that you can't drop someone (that is to say you can't knock them down) with an M4 leads me to believe it is inadequate for it's job. The largest thing i'd shoot with a .223/5.56mm round is like a deer. MAYBE. If i had to go into combat, id want a full rifle round or maybe something like the 6.5mm round made my Alexander Arms. That's why i hold the M16 in such low regard. I suppose it'd be cool to plink around with, even if it is expensive.
I agree I think we need to look at the new M14 EBR or look at the 6.8 because that does cause WAY more HS (hydrostatic shock) and it has less of a chance of going through and wounding civilians.
In MW2 the weakest weapon is the Vector. It's the same caliber as the UMP but has half the power. Riddle me that one. I still use it. It's definetly one of my top 3 weapons. I'm not a n00b, I use the difficult/fun weapons that no one else seems to really use.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
