GUNS n AMMO why does our standard military gun use the m-16?
there are way better guns that can support way better answers. Say for instance the FN-FAL, C7, even the G36 imo are better than the M-16. I understand our military likes to diversify not only rounds 5.56 and 7.62 nato but wouldn’t it be better to use just one kick butt gun and one ammunition standard? your thoughts?
Wow I am learning a lot, I forgot about the m-4 though, and can see how purchasing foreign weapons can be a burden to the economy. Personally I think that the 7.62x51R are amazingly effective but agree that they are more expensive. The galil is a great rifle has good range and stopping power. The M40A1 is more of a sniper rifle though and I was more thinking on the lines of Assault rifles and semi’s. The HK line i believe is mostly for CQC but wouldn’t mind seeing them in action for urban warfare 
. We still don’t see too many quality assualt rifles that use the 7.62×51. I know besides the FN-fal you there are the HK G3A3 and the AKM but those really dont outshine the m-16 by that much.
Ohhh ok now I see why I never seen the R-4 It’s gas operated… Hahha but it’s really a kick@$$ weapon!
Posted in military guns
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Why would you say the C7 is a better weapon when it is just a copy of our M16?
Here is a little more info on the C7 for you.(http://world.guns.ru/assault/as44-e.htm)
The M16(and all variants) truly are awesome, "kick butt" rifles that work great for their intended tasks. The military quit issuing 7.62 nato weapons in large numbers because of the smaller amount of ammo each soldier could carry and the weight of the weapon itself. Though some units still do have a few M14 variants and some are buying new Springfield Armory M1A’s.
The FN-FAL was almost adopted instead of the m-16 but it got edged out because of it’s foreign manufacture. Kinda ironic when today most of our military small arms are produced by Fabrique Nationale.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Well the military doesn’t really use the m16 standard anymore, they use the m4, which uses the same ammunition the 5.56 round, I believe the main reason for using this smaller type of ammunition is that it is cheaper, the weapons we use are very high quality, they just use smaller ammunition
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
The USMC still uses the M-16A2 as it’s standard issue rifle, yet it’s slow being faded out by the M4 and the M4A1 CQBW, the Close Quarters Battle Weapon. Standard issue sniper rifle is the M40A1 Sniper Rifle.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
do any countries still use the FAL? it is sort of showing its age.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Hmmmm There are so many great rifles and so many different situations that that one may be better in than another..
But ….I think that the 5.56X45 (.223 REM commercial) and the 7.62X51 (.308 WIN commercial) are already NATO standard….They use these rounds because they work good…Very good. Why rush to fix something that doesn’t need to really change all that much? The M-16 and it’s many variants are great rifles…More so in the last few years. The 5.56mm round that it fires proved to be very effective in the Vietnam conflict because of it’s yawing and cavitation …It produced more damage on impact. The Russians took notice and developed the 5.45X39 and the AK-74 rifle in 1974….It was supposed to replace the 7.62X39 AK47…But pretty much has just served with it. Yeah…The FN FAL is a beautiful rifle…But it fires the .308…And the trend was to reduce the round and rifle size. Rifles are a little like cars…There are all kinds of opinions about which one is best…And it really boils down to personal preferance…After all…The more comfortable you are with your rifle…The better you’ll use it! I would use the M16 anytime…But if I could grab what I wanted..I would go for an Israeli Galil or South African R4 chambered in 5.56X45mm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Galil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4_assault_rifle
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Back when we adopted the M16, we really weren’t "into" purchasing our weapons from foreign manufacturers. We also can’t afford to switch over everytime a new weapon comes out.
The 5.56mm is a pretty good overall round with great velocity, range and trajectory. Carrying 6 mags full of ammo saves some weight also so there are several factors. When we change our training in the military, it’s usually based off of the previous war. We weren’t that well equipped to deal with urban combat and realized what we needed to do to make that part of our "routine"… including a better weapon. I’d like to see them move to the HK416 and 417 but by the time a switch ocurrs… there could be something better on the market.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
We use a 7.62 for other heavier wapons, but the M16 and M4 use 5.56 (.223 cal) The 5.56 is still effective, and has better range in an M16 than a 7.62 does in the AK-47.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
because the m16 uses the 5.56mm nato standard round this is because nato forces need to have the same ammunition so we can borrow and sell it to each other
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
For years there was one NATO standard, the 7.62×51 and the US had a battle rifle in the M14. The use of the M16 dates to Vietnam and was a seocndary weapon for years until the US decided maintaining the M16 and M14 was too expensive and they decided to keep the M16. Bad choice in my opinion but I was just an enlisted guy. The US then forced NATO out of the 7.62×51 (7.62 NATO) as the standard rifle caliber but did keep it as the light/medium machinegun; NATO did not get the US to change the US got NATO to change. The M$ is nothing but a variant of the M16 and still suffers some of the problems of the parent-they are too prone to jamming, short effective range compared to a battle rifle, and complicated to manufacture and maintain. It is not a new weapon but a mod to an existing one. I carried an M14, M16, M16A1, and M16A2 and my personal preferences are simple for a main battle rifle the FN-FAL for an assualt rifle the AK47. I cannot carry as much 7.62×51 ammo as 5.56 pound for pund butthen it is a better stopper and more accurate so don;t have to use as much to be effective. The M16 and variants (M4) are not a battle rifle by definition (semiautomatic weapon firing full sized ammunition) and they are not a true assualt rifle any more but something in between. The US should be working on adapting a new rifle with better range and stopping power then the 5.56; meaning new weapon and caliber.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Basic Load has always been the issue in the debate between 7.62 x51mm (caliber .308) NATO and 5.56 x45mm (caliber.223) NATO. The average rifleman can carry between 100(5 mags) – 180(9 mags) rounds of 7.62mm ammunition versus 210(7 mags) – 390(13 mags) rounds of 5.56mm ammunition not counting additional bandoleers of ammunition.
In a fire fight whoever throws the mostest fastest is going to win. The Ideal solution to the problem is to have at least one battle (7.62mm) rifle to every three assault (5.56mm) rifles and one light (5.56mm) SAW in a fire team.
There’s no such ammution as 7.62 x51mm Rimmed, it is Soviet 7.62 x54mm Rimmed used in the Nagaut M1891, M1891/30, M1939 and M1944, several WWII machine guns as well as the modern day SVD sniper rifle.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I’ve always argued against the 5.56 but I’ll play devil’s advocate and give the government’s reasoning for it:
The 5.56 is a light, very fast round. It penetrates very well through engine blocks and body armor. It tumbles in flesh (that last part is seriously doubted by many ballistics experts, but that’s the reasoning). Because of its small diameter, magazine capacity is increased, and total number of rounds carried increases.
It is also a low recoil round – that’s why many consider it superior to the 7.62 x 51. It is more controllable in sustained fire.
Its lack of instant lethality is not considered a serious drawback. The theory is that few people are only shot once, and also that a wounded man is more of a drain to his unit than a dead man. That last part is probably inapplicable in our current scenario, since terrorists aren’t known for their humanitarian concerns.
Finally, the 5.56 is often said to be a cleaner burning round than larger bore calibers, thus reducing muck and increasing reliability. I think that this is complete bunk, and I have never heard it said in an official capacity. My personal experience cleaning M-16s and M-4s is that they get very dirty very quickly.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I think our military is ready for a completely different weapon myself. The M16/M4 style assault rifles have worked out all right for our military, but they do lack stopping power and reliability compared to other assault rifles. I agree with other posters that using an American made gun is important. We have to be able to self-produce the rifle in whatever quantities necessary in case of times of war. We can’t rely on some foreign company to supply the same weapon forever nor can we predict what international gun laws may be pushed for in the future.
I would like to see a new assault rifle cartridge used such as the 6.8mm that the Barrett M468 uses. A rifle like this with the H&K 416s unstoppable gas piston would be ideal for all combat situations. The 6.8mm Remington SPC has far more stopping power than the .233/5.62NATO and has far more penetration power and accuracy than the AK-47s original 7.62×39 cartridge. The H&K 416 and the AK style rifles are the only ones that you can submerge in water, sand, mud or whatever and then still expect them to perform reliably and not blow up in your face. The M4 or most any other assault rifle would have to be cleaned thoroughly.
November 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Because of the low recoil, and someone with no experience with guns can shoot, clean it.