[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: M16A1.jpg (20 KB, 600x300)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>
Nothing, which is why the AR is still in use by the military and is the most prolific sporting rifle in the US
>>
File: images.jpg (8 KB, 229x220)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>38536304
>such a piece of shit that there had to be a Congressional hearing into why it was such a piece of shit
>Nothing
>>
>>38536284
Nothing, get fucked faggot
>>
We really need to region lock this board to hasgunz countries
>>
>>38536284
Because DoD Sabatoge because brass over weapons programs wanted to keep the m14.
>>
File: Nam_dog.jpg (188 KB, 1476x981)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
>>38536324
>Clowngress
>>
File: m16-vietnam1.jpg (96 KB, 1024x640)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>38536328
keep in mind i'm talking about the M16A1 here.
>couldn't even load full magazines or it would jam
>had to clean it every hour or it would jam
>>38536353
is this true? i hear people say that but I'm wondering if there's any evidence to back it up
>>
>>38536324
>t. U.S. Ordnance that contracted an untested rifle because it was the cheapest option.
>>
>>38536383
M16 had some problems but the M16A1 had most of those problems corrected. Also they started using the correct powder with the A1 and the malfunction rate went way down
>>
File: Colt_SP1NIB_Right.jpg (124 KB, 1398x916)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
>>38536284
>>38536324
The M16A1 was good, it was the M16 which had problems, and most of them came down to ammunition being out of spec (too high pressure), and magazines not being good enough quality, things which no gun ever fares well from.

>>38536383
>couldn't even load full magazines or it would jam
>had to clean it every hour or it would jam
You're not getting this right.

For the magazines, yes, the initially fielded magazines were really shit, they were made under the notion that they would be disposable, and were thus calculated to be made as cheap and flimsy as possible, as they would only need to feed exactly 20 rounds ever.
Because soldiers immediately outran logistics, reusing magazines became necessary, and then you got problems, indeed, trying to refill these magazines to the full 20 would often cause problems, which could be alleviated to some degrees by taking out the follower spring and stretching it, or by just progressively loading less with each reuse, 20, 18, 16, etc.

This was made worse by another thing, that they changed the powder specs without doing any testing; the new powder would produce much higher pressure, which means more projectile velocity, but it would also mean the cyclic rate would be increased by about 200rpm, which is a colossal fucking problem, not only would this mean the bolt could outrun the often sluggish and tired magazines, you had wear problems and timing issues like the hammer following the bolt. Basically, you could often find yourself pulling the trigger and nothing happens, because the chamber is empty, or the hammer didn't cock.

A smaller problem was that soldiers were not issued cleaning kits, and were told that the rifle was self-cleaning, which it obviously was not. This was not good, but contrary to popular belief, this was far from the biggest problem, magazines and ammunition was by far worse.
>>
>>38536304
AR?
Thats an m16
>>
File: M16A1 b.jpg (952 KB, 2000x1333)
952 KB
952 KB JPG
>>38536477
>>38536383
They never changed the powder spec after the first time, what they did was to make the recoil buffer heavier for the M16A1, slowing down the cyclic rate to normal.

Changing the magazine specs to be properly reusable was another step taken, as well as including a cleaning kit inside the stock of the gun.
Other additions was the forward assist, which would let you force a round into battery, either to get past a malfunction, or to let you chamber a round with less noise.
The three-pronged flash-hider would also eventually be phased out in favor of the birdcage flash-hider, due to complaints of it snagging on things, and sometimes breaking.
The lower receiver would also be machined to feature fencing around the magazine release.

There's the matter of chrome lining, too. The original trials rifles, and the AR10, had a bore and chamber lined with chrome, this is good for numerous reasons, such as extending the lifespan of barrels, making cleaning easier, and greatly improving extraction.
MacNamara, the patron saint of bean counters, decided this was expensive, and had to go, and this would become a problem.
A phenomenon was observed where cartridges left chambered for long periods of time would become extremely difficult to extract, this would be called "cartridge swelling", blamed on moisture and humidity (in all likelihood, this was actually corrosion between the brass casing and the bare, un-chromed chamber), and standard procedure became to carry the rifle with an empty chamber and then rack the bolt when it was go time, to avoid that problem.
By bringing back chrome-lining for the M16A1, this specific problem was entirely eliminated, and it would of course improve lifespan and ease maintenance of the guns.

The M16 was troubled, mostly for ammo and magazines.
The M16A1 would fix these problems one way or the other, and though not excellent, it would be quite a good rifle that you could depend on.
>>
>>38536543
M16 is a US Armed Forces designation for a select-fire AR15 rifle to their specs.
>>
File: Colt Canada Rifle.jpg (1.43 MB, 3863x2575)
1.43 MB
1.43 MB JPG
The Canadians would improve on the M16A1 further, with the Diemaco C7, or "Colt Canada" rifle.

Aside from the improved recoil buffer, the cleaning kit, the birdcage hider, fenced lower, and chrome-lined barrel, the C7 would feature an enlarged trigger-guard (for winter gloves), replace the triangular handguards with A2 style round handguards (the triangular ones needed a left and right pair, the round ones are identical and eliminated this, simplifying logistics), and also added an A2 style brass-deflector behind the ejection-port.

In many ways, I say the C7 was actually better than the M16A2, by the virtue of being lighter, and featuring the, in my opinion, better A1 sights.
With a 30 round magazine of M193, this would be quite good for its day.
>>
>>38536555
>>38536623
Thanks, this cleared things up a lot. Would you say these later variants of the M16 were superior to other service rifles around the world at the time, say the FN FAL for example?
>>
>>38536284
>operating system
BRAAAAAAAAAAP.
>>
>>38536304
cringe
>>
Absolutely nothing went wrong.
The very first AR-15s to set foot in Vietnam were unit purchased and used commercial ammo. The rifle got glowing reviews from the US military advisors who used them.

If you give any weapon bad ammo and don't tell people how to maintain it, then negative results ensue.

The Canadians didn't improve jack shit.

The A2 has more mechanically precise target sights, but the Army just did a standard BZO and called it good.

The AR-15 was and is the state of the art in small arms. Any who tell you otherwise have simply no relevant or worthwhile experience.

There are people who shoot folks daily for a job and have their pick of whatever weapons in the world they want to use and they overwhelmingly pick an AR.

Even the Russians at the upper tiers of their SF.
>>
>>38536694
Yes, it would be better than the FAL by the virtue of being an assault rifle, which is more practical for most occasions than a battle rifle.

The FAL is a good rifle, it has good power and reach, but it reaches much farther than soldiers tend to fight at, and the high recoil makes rapid fire and full-auto harder to control, on top of that, ammunition weighs a lot, a combat load would typically be 100 rounds of 7.62mm NATO.
After WW2, the world would gradually move away from really high powered infantry rifles, though NATO would stall on the FAL and G3 due to American fuckery, they would eventually pursue intermediate rifles, the Soviets and Chinese were already on this track with the AK.

Basically, the typical soldier doesn't actually fight at ranges that something the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge can reliably reach out to, infantry combat tends to most often top out at like 400 yards, if that (exceptions do happen, but as a rule), and you can make a perfectly good deadly cartridge that isn't nearly as powerful (7.92x33mm, 7.62x39mm, 5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm), that reaches out that far, or almost that far, which is much easier to control in rapid and full-auto fire, and which weighs much less, allowing you carry much more ammunition (roughly twice).

One of the things which was discovered studying battle reports after WW2, was that with fair consistency, the winning sides in firefights tended to be the side which had the most ammunition, thus highlighting why having more ammunition at hand for soldiers was a good idea.
If you can carry more, and it reaches long enough, is deadly enough, and is easier to shoot, then for the most part, an intermediate cartridge is the most sensible choice.

So the M16A1, AKM and AK74, would by far be better fighting rifles than the FAL and G3, 9 times out of 10.
>>
>>38536732
>The Canadians didn't improve jack shit.
The C7 is better than the A2 by far.
>>
>>38536732
>any of this
No.
>Veitnam
The unit reports were faked, unless you seriously believe that "limbs and buttocks" were blown off. The rifles were used rarely, if at all.

The AR15 is a dead end in firearms, anyone who says otherwise is a mouth breathing retard.
>people who shoot fokes daily
AK type rifles outnumber AR type rifles 5/1, and Special Forces need to go, without constant air support they get utterly destroyed.
>Russians
>AR's
Ohhhh sweet summer child.
>>
>>38536831
The only thing better was the trigger.
>>
>>38536834
>unless you seriously believe that "limbs and buttocks" were blown off
Yes, have you seen what just basic bitch ball ammo 5.56mm does when it hits bone at 100 yards? You take that to the shoulder and you'll basically have to amputate that arm, assuming you don't bleed out.
This doesn't even get to things like hollowpoints or softpoints, or modern shit like Mk.262 Mod 1

>The AR15 is a dead end in firearms
Motivate your faggotry.

>>38536835
Lighter barrel profile makes a lighter rifle, the simpler sights are better for combat, the enlarged trigger guard is good for winter gloves.

These days we would do a flat-top with optics, but comparing fixed carryhandles, I think the A1 sights are more utilitarian than the A2 sights.
>>
>>38536834
Confirmed no guns.

The ar platform is the undisputed top dog with only trade offs in its superiority to specialization with other variants of its kind.

All other platforms simply need not apply.
>>
>>38536848
>5.56
Dr. Fackler disagrees.
>boutique ammo
Either illegal or expensive, shows that 5.56 is not a lethal enough cailber, when not if it fails its only a 5mm hole.
>dead end
Only the M16/M4 is the only rifles that use its design, that's like the Luger vs the Browning.
>A1 sights
>good
No. Not at all.
The A2 sights are quite simply the best irons out there, with 500M+ hits very possible.
>trigger guard
>not punching out the trigger guard
Who's a noguns! Yes you are!
>>38536850
The AR18 dosent compete, it utterly dominates the gun world.
>>
>>38536850
The big advantage of the AR is locking a multi-lug bolt to a barrel extension. This is great because the receiver is no longer a load bearing component so it can be manufactured out of a lighter and cheaper material. It also means that the receiver is less of a factor in accuracy, so the gun is not only significantly cheaper to manufacture but also easier to manufacture to a higher standard of accuracy.
In-line recoil is also a good feature.

As for DI, I think that's a dead end. It does make cleaning more of an issue and it necessitates a buffer tube, neither of which are absolute deal-breakers which is why AR10/15 designs are still popular, but the AR-18 based designs are more streamlined and have enjoyed a lot of popularity.

Maybe that's just my personal preference, since the HK416/417 is being adopted all over the place and it isn't AR18 based, although the FN SCAR family is. I suspect that has more to do with licensing rights though.
>>
>>38536874
FN are total cunts about licencing, that's why G3's were fucking everywhere.
>>
>>38536866
>Dr. Fackler disagrees
Dr. Fackler can suck my cock.

>>boutique ammo
I literally mention ball ammo, such as M193.

>Only the M16/M4 is the only rifles that use its design
Which are cloned endlessly. You don't need to reinvent the AR15 when it's already near perfect.

>No. Not at all
Peep sights are good, they're simple, and they're well protected.

>>not punching out the trigger guard
I don't need to, having that thing rattle around, I can just have it as is.

>it utterly dominates the gun world
In various takes on it, sure, which still are outcompeted by the AR15.

>>38536874
>As for DI, I think that's a dead end. It does make cleaning more of an issue and it necessitates a buffer tube
I don't see how, without a separate piston over the barrel, the bolt itself acting like a piston, you get 100% inline recoil.
The buffer tube can be worked around, if it really needs to be, but honestly, it helps make sure the recoil is stupid light, and again, that recoil is fully inline.

For cleaning, it's not even remotely as big an issue as some people make it out to be, most fouling goes inside the bolt-carrier, which is designed to handle obscene amounts of carbon filth. You can absolutely neglect this area for cleaning and it really doesn't change reliability one way or the other.
If you want to make cleaning easier, you can get a BCG plated in nickel boron.

Also, DI is a misnomer, the AR15 is fundamentally different from the MAS49 and Ljungman.
>>
>>38536921
Just shut the fuck up, nobody cares about your $2000 fucking range queen, nobody uses it. Every nation besides us and some tiny ass militaries uses piston guns, every belt fed machine guns use pistons, and AR's are only cloned (ignoring AK's entirely) because the civilian gun market.

>Fackler
You can fuck right the fuck off, that guy founded wound ballistics and the FBI protocols.
>>
>>38536943
>m-muh piston!
>>
>>38536874
I think anything that doesn't benefit from a extra barrel is best with DI.

Since if you're carrying 600 rounds or more realistically 300 you'll never get the benefit of piston operation. Whereas di is clean enough for probably 2-3k rounds with a little more protection from external debris.

Of course this is just my experience with machine guns, a2-a4 m16's,m4 and YouTube.

So I'd like to see more tests with piston surpressed before I wrote it off as inferior.
>>
>>38536943
The FBI is a joke
These are the same retards that asked for the failure that is the .40s&w, then rejected it. The same organization that has always worked directly in favor of left leaning politics instead of actually solving crime.
>>
>>38536284
The Muhreens came up the the A2 thus fucking the AR forever and ever
>>
>>38537112
Piston is nicer with suppressor (you don't get gas blowing back in your face), but both work.

Otherwise, I'd say you're right in how piston is far more important for guns which have to put up a large volume of fire, like SAWs and GPMGs.
"DI" is great for rifles, but fundamentally poor for machineguns.
>>
Nothing
>>
What gives the AR15 such good accuracy and low recoil?
>>
File: Colt715_C7Rifle.jpg (135 KB, 1200x318)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
>>38537194
The A2 isn't awful, just not nearly what it should have been, like, 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
>>
>>38537862
Fully inline action, the only moving part during cycling is the bolt, which moves straight back and stays in line with the bore, and into a stock that is fully inline as well. This recoil doesn't offset or climb upwards or anything, it goes straight backwards into your shoulder.

Also, the entire original concept was the AR10, to make 7.62mm NATO easier to shoot, scale that down for a cartridge like .223 Remington, which has pretty little recoil as is, and you're looking at something which is phenomenally easy to handle.
>>
>>38536284
Your dad didn't use a condom and your mother didn't swallow, that's what went wrong.
>>
>>38536831
Anything would be better than the A2, like the Colt 711.
>>
>>38538616
The 711/715 is basically the C7
>>
>>38539767
The 715 is the C7; both have the brass deflector and gubbamint-profile barrel; 711 is just A1 with A2 funiture.
>>
>>38536543
The m16 is an AR
>>
File: 1520943255753.jpg (16 KB, 293x323)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>38536831
>by far

no not really

I really don't know why you have such a hard on for the same exact gun in a slightly different configuration
>>
>>38540132
Because its Canadian and not american so it oozes quality
>>
>>38536921
>I don't see how, without a separate piston over the barrel, the bolt itself acting like a piston, you get 100% inline recoil.
It really doesnt make much of a difference. A short stroke pistion barely barely adds any mass.
>>
>>38536543
that one is the actual rifle armalite designed for the military tho
>>
>>38536623
Did they use the govt profile barrel for these?
>>
>>38540132
>same exact gun
>>
>>38540253
It does affect recoil and inherent precision, if slightly.

>>38540341
Pencil barrels.
>>
File: WP_20180430_009[1].jpg (2.53 MB, 3072x1728)
2.53 MB
2.53 MB JPG
>It's another "The only M16 in Vietnam was the A1, and the A1 was garbage" episode
Boring
>>38538616
They were going to do an M16A1E1 that was basically an A1 with a shell deflector, A2 handguards and flared slip ring. It was basically the perfect upgrade that would've done splendidly until M4s became the order of the day. And then the A2 happened.
>>
>>38536715
cringe
>>
>>38542219
More or less the C7.
>>
Unpopular opinion, the AK is just as good as the AR15. 60 years of civillian development have morphed the AR into the rifle we know today.

Arms companies are motivated to develop the AR in new directions thanks to the promise of highly lucrative Govt contracts. Also, the US has the biggest market for firearms in the world. Consumer demand drives innovation in the AR weapon platform.

AK development was controlled by Govt arms designers for much of its lifespan, and was left to stagnate. Soviet/Russian citizens had no opportunity to own these rifles, even in semi-auto format. It wasn't until the 90's when the govt monopoly on the arms industry ended. This is why you are just now seeing innovative AK designs coming out of Russia.

Much of this AK modernization has already been done by boutique AK builders like Krebs and Rifle Dynamics.
- Monolithic top rails for mounting optics.
- Deletion of iron sights and bayonet mounts
- Hinged top covers (Krinkov style)
- Match grade triggers
- Adapters for direct insert STANAG magazines
- Stocks with adjustable LoP
>>
>>38542631
Except the AR does all of those better, with more options.
>>
>>38542758

For now. This will change when more QUALITY US made AK's hit the market

There is nothing intrinsically interior about the AK's design and operating system.

I believe roller delayed systems like the HKG3 and its progeny are also due for a renaissance
>>
File: WP_20171118_003[1].jpg (2.09 MB, 3072x1728)
2.09 MB
2.09 MB JPG
>>38542631
>good examples of AK modernization
>Rifle Dynamics.
>>38542801
>For now.
Lmfao, this nigga thinks the AK will ever match the AR in ease of rail mounting, magazine insertion, and aftermarket
>There is nothing intrinsically interior about the AK's design
You have to be fucking high if you think the AK isn't leagues behind the AR when it comes to modularity and customization, and that's by virtue of its design
>and operating system.
More inherent recoil, more inherent inaccuracy
>>
>>38542801
>more QUALITY US made AK's hit the market
time to come back down to earth, anon. any chance of the AK seeing an american renaissance died the instant ARs could be had for $399
>>
>>38542921
>died the instant ARs could be had for $399
That's a funny way of saying
>when entry-level AKs hit $600
>>
File: 1530553698338.jpg (110 KB, 1024x1024)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>38542631
>just as good
>>
>>38542631
I would say it's almost as good, in the same way that the various AR18 derivatives today are almost as good.
Fundamentally it's a good way to do a rifle, and the AK74M does rifle things quite satisfactory I'd say.

The balanced recoil things seem pretty interesting, however, I'm thinking those could really be much closer to the AR15, combine with the typical compensator, and you have a gun that just barely recoils.
>>
>>38542801
>This will change when more QUALITY US made AK's hit the market
I don't think so. At best someone makes a good, but ultimately nothing special, $1000 clone.

If there's gonna be any kind of radical development of AKs, it's gonna come from outside the US and be imported, and currently sanctions are making this a problem.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.