Question for military and firearm experts?
If you were in battle fighting for your life would it matter much if your weapon was an AR-15 instead of an M-16?
For those that don’t know, an AR-15 was initially manufactured from Colt who also makes the M-16. Many parts of the AR-15 are interchangable with an M-16. The M-16 has a selector switch allowing single, full auto and three shot burst. If you are isolated from your supply you will have limited ammunition which you are carrying on your back. Using full auto will deplete your ammo in a fraction of the time than using single shot mode. Are you seriously going to use full auto at a rate of 1200 rounds per minute with a few hundred rounds you are carrying? There is a philosophy on handguns that if you got six shots you make them count but if you have a large magazine you are not concerned as much about each shot because you can keep pulling the trigger as a result having a much higher miss ratio
So would it really matter to you if you had an AR-15 or an M-16?
Tagged with: ammo • ammunition • ar 15 • burst • colt • fraction • full auto • handguns • large magazine • philosophy • selector switch • shot mode • single shot
Filed under: military firearms
M-16s are either semi-auto or 3 round burst if im not mistaken. I would take the M-16 though. I am also pretty sure military weapons get larger magazines.
In combat, the only thing that matters is getting you and your comrades out alive. You use your training and do what it takes. You don’t have time for philosophical arguments like this, which is akin to wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while your executioner begins the downward swing of his axe…
M16 more accurate.
I wouldn’t want either weapon. I would rather have an M-14.
I’ve been in a few combat engagements, and a few where I honestly felt I was indeed fighting "for my life". My duty weapon is an M-4. I’ve never gone to 3 round burst (we no longer have the fully auto option after the M16A2) except in fooling around on the range. The semi-auto setting gets the bullets out plenty fast enough for me.
My first deployment I had a GAU-5, which is like a vietnam era M-4, it was fully automatic and I used that. Your enemy can be deterred by the sound of automatic fire.
The biggest reason I would preferr an M16 over the AR is the provision to mount the M203 grenade launcher. In a fight for your life, the ability to blow the poo out of things is a beautiful thing.
first of all your information for such a question is wrong. the M-16A1 is the only version of the weapon that had "full auto" capabilities. all other versions have a three setting selector switch the settings are safe, semi, and burst (3 round).
by the way the AR-15 is a piece of junk compared to the M-16. keep your philosophy on hand guns. and try putting on a pair of boots before you ask such a silly question again
The AK. The most reliable gun in the world! Simply unbreakable!…….between those two though, the AR
""The M-16 has a selector switch allowing single, full auto and three shot burst"" No it doesn’t. Your variant has either SAFE SEMI AUTO or SAFE SEMI BURST. You don’t get all four!
Trigger control is trained. I very rarely used Auto. But it was nice to have. Most people I know rarely used Auto, but it was nice to have. When you need it, you don’t have time to waste wishing you had it.
What you see in the movies is full time use of AUTO, and the almost complete non-use of the sights. Both are very far from the truth. SEMI is the most used firing mode. The sights are there for a reason.
The M16 family of weapons is the superior weapon, considering available attachments. M203. Very handy attachment.
Full Auto is only good for burst and with a lot of training, ie; putting a three round burst into someone to make sure they are no longer with us. As for the weapons, both the AR-15 and M-16, they were designed by Stoner to give us a mid-way round and make the weapon load lighter on the soldier, but the early version (AR-15) had a lot of problems, to tight of tolerances, the bore was not plated so it sucked in the humidity, etc…they have gotten most of the kinks out but it is still a high maintainence weapon compared to the AK series, and if one had to chose a weapon I would take the H&K 416 or Sig 550 Rifles, the combine the good of both the AK and AR series of rifles but also cost more than twice as much as each M4 we currently get issued.
I never thought about using anything other then what I was issued, but why would I want the civilian version when I can use one that was made for combat.
The selector switch on a M-16A2 or A4 has 3 settings: safe, semi and burst. The only M-16 that I’m aware of with full auto is the A1. You’d be surprised how quickly you can go through a magazine while just using burst let alone semi.
I was never Army Infantry so I can’t speak for how they’re trained, but I would guess it’s close to how Marine Infantry are trained. We don’t use full-auto except on weapon systems that are designed for it and then we fire controlled bursts (6-8 rounds). I’ve only been in a few situations were the SAW and M240 gunners fired their FPL. Some of that was due to the "oh sh!t" (inexperiance) factor and some of it was that’s what we needed.
Given my choice I’d rather have the Barret 6.8. Just about the same as the M-16/M-4; same lower receiver, bolt carrier, rail system and charging handle, but with more stopping power.
given the situation you describe its not going to make much difference,the deciding factor will be your fire discipline and control of your shots,as in all fire fights well aimed shots are what you want to achieve and full auto is a last resort and normally only used if your about to be over run or laying down covering fire,the British soldier has had not had a weapon in the past until the SA80 that could put down full auto unless he carried a GPMG therefor with the SLR it was a case of single shots and lots of them.