Talk:M16 rifle: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Malamockq (talk | contribs)
1,038 edits
Asams10 (talk | contribs)
7,697 edits
Line 233: Line 233:


::You could say that for any rifle. Also, the wording of the ROF in the article, indicates that the ROF depends on the model. Meaning different models have different ROF. If this is incorrect, it should be removed, but as it stands it needs to be clarified. [[User:Malamockq|Malamockq]] ([[User talk:Malamockq|talk]]) 14:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
::You could say that for any rifle. Also, the wording of the ROF in the article, indicates that the ROF depends on the model. Meaning different models have different ROF. If this is incorrect, it should be removed, but as it stands it needs to be clarified. [[User:Malamockq|Malamockq]] ([[User talk:Malamockq|talk]]) 14:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:ROF is more variable on the M16 type of rifle because of the gas and buffer system. ROF goes from 650 up to about 1600 depending on the model and ammunition. I'll say it again, the number is arbitrary and nearly meaningless. You can find a source and come up with an average which would be around 900rpm but you're nit-picking and toying with a meaningless number. BTW, the answer is that 144,000 angels can dance on the head of a pin. --[[User:Asams10|Asams10]] ([[User talk:Asams10|talk]]) 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:33, 9 February 2008

Update Needed

The "Future Replacement" segment is outdated. It alludes to "early 2007" as the future, and in the intervening time the status of the SCAR and other contenders have changed. I don't have the expertise to do this myself, but I hope someone more up to speed on the issue will find the time to update the section. 129.171.233.26 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it hasn't progressed very much. I've heard rumors about Delta getting HK 416s, but that's just a rumor. I haven't seen any recent official documentation about SCAR or anything else. Parsecboy 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely the SCAR will be adopted(if it hasnt been cancled already) and be put in with special forces use nto standard use(ForeverDEAD 02:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

AR 15

Shouln't this article be moved to AR 15. since the M16 is a variant of the AR 15 not the other way around like this article says.

No. You'd have to move the "F-117" page to "Have Blue" and the "B-52" page to the "XB-52" article. The M16 is the AR-15. The AR-15 as we know it today evolved from the M16 that evolved itself from the prototype rifles then called AR-15's. The Air Force has M16's that are marked AR-15. Leave it alone, that's what it's called, sign your posts... please.--Asams10 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea i feel the M16 has enough differnces to warrant its own artical(ForeverDEAD 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

M16 is the official military version and more well known. -Fnlayson 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M16A4 with army ?

can any one tell me which army unit(s) use it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mayr (talk • contribs) 08:25, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

3ID deployed with them at one point. They even sent some of them to the AMU for conversion into the SDM-R. D.E. Watters 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence of Army M16A4 use can be found with this Google search. Note that the search results are limited to US Army websites only.D.E. Watters 23:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M16 with the iraqi army ?

I hear they are going to arm the iraqi army with M16s , do you know which variant ? --Max Mayr 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The US government had wanted to arm the Iraqis with M16s, but as far as I know, the Iraqis refused, and wanted AKs instead (they do, afterall, have most of the AKs from the Saddam-era Iraqi Army). So, unless this has changed, the Iraqis won't be using M16s as a standard weapon. Parsecboy 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See archived talk note here -- Thatguy96 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess Iraq belongs on the list of users; according to that article, they were issued 2,000, and that was 3 months ago. Parsecboy 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it was 3 months ago you'd probably better add JAM as they will have been passed on by now.Blackshod 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the M16 Pic so tiny

Just wondering.(ForeverDEAD 12:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Go to your preferences and change the thumb size to 300. That'll fix it. Parsecboy 13:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks(ForeverDEAD 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image:INDIA5.jpg

A Marine with an M16A4 (equipped with ITL MARS reflex sight and M5 RAS foregrip) in Fallujah, Iraq, December 2004 during Operation Phantom Fury

Is anyone having troubles seeing this picture within the article? It just shows up for me as a white box with a red cross in the corner and the caption over the top. Hayden120 00:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I see it just fine. Perhaps it's a problem with your browser. Maybe close it and open a new one? Parsecboy 00:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get an image with a question mark (Safari); the URL in question is the 180px one. Both wget and curl give me a "200 OK" status code and an "image/jpeg", but <html><head><title>Bad title</title><body><h1>Bad title</h1><p>The requested page title was invalid, empty, or an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title. It may contain one more characters which cannot be used in titles.</p></body></html>, and I get an actual image with 179px and 181px (and even 1px), I suspect it's a bad cache somewhere. ⇌Elektron 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox and IE is fine.--ZH Evers 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The INDIA5.jpg link works for me, but the 180px-INDIA5.jpg does not. Also, I don't see any links named '180px-INDIA5.jpg' on the M16 commons page. -Fnlayson 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your thumbnail setting size. View the page source, search for "/thumb/3/39/INDIA5.jpg/" and the first thing that comes up should be the image, with the thumbnail size in the filename. This is far more useful than posting what browser you're using — come on, it doesn't even work in curl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elektron (talk • contribs) 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, seems fixed now. This problem was happening on both of my computers, whether I was logged in or not. A week ago almost all of Wikipedia's images were playing up, but it seems to have settled down now. Hayden120 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature?

Why was "16" specifically chosen for the rifle's designation? I guess this is also a broader question regarding the military's nomenclature--Philip Laurence 07:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im fairly sure its that it was the 16th rifle adopted by the military after they put this designation into practice. You can see it eaisly like M14-M15(wasnt produced)-M16.(ForeverDEAD 11:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Esskater, you are correct. M15 rifle. Parsecboy 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divide this current article

  • Hey guys, this current arrangement here we have is really confusing, I propose we divide the M16 rifle article into 3 main groups, like the 3 main M16 variants that exits into the following articles: M16 (AR-15) - AR-16 included in the title since the M16 was originally derived from ArmaLite's weapon, then the M16A1 and all its variants and commercial models and then the M16A2 with it's derived weapons like the M4's, M16A4 etc. This would allow us to condense more information into those particular designs, and the history surrounding them then this giant amalgamation that we have that has little detail about the specific variants. I've already prepared the first portion of this proposed changed, namely the M16 (AR-15) article:

The M16 (AR-15) is an American 5.56 mm assault rifle, based on the 7.62 mm AR-10 rifle designed by Eugene Stoner in cooperation with Robert Fremont and L. James Sullivan at the California-based ArmaLite Inc. company. The rifle was developed to use the .222 Special cartridge, renamed in 1959 as the .223 Remington round. The first rifles, designated AR-15, were evaluated in 1958. Serial production of the rifle was launched in 1959 at the Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company (currently Colt’s Manufacturing Company), which acquired production rights to the rifle from ArmaLite. An initial batch of 300 rifles, known as the AR-15 (Model 01), was produced in December 1959 for export. By the end of 1961 the US military had placed an order for 1000 AR-15’s for American special forces unites engaged in combat in Vietnam. In May 1962 a further order for 8500 rifles was secured for the United States Air Force, followed by an order for the United States Navy (the elite SEAL unit). In October 1963 US Secretary of Defense McNamara authorized a contract to deliver 85,000 rifles (named XM16E1) which were issued to US ground forces and the Marine Corps as well as an additional 19,000 rifles (now known as the M16 (Model 02)) for the Air Force. The M16 rifle was supposed to replace several weapons (in the Air Force inventory): the .45 caliber M3 submachine gun, 7.62 mm M2 carbine and the 7.62 mm M1918A2 BAR machine gun. XM16E1 rifles (equipped with a manual forward assist) were fielded with American special forces, airborne and air assault units fighting in Vietnam, as well as the allied forces of South Vietnam.

Based on the standard M16 (AR-15) rifle Colt developed a system of 5.56 mm small arms, known as the CAR-15 family, that includes: a carbine with a telescoping stock (Model 607), a compact “Survival” carbine with a fixed metal stock (Model 608), a carbine with a barrel shortened by 127 mm compared to the standard M16 (Model 605), a grenade launcher carbine and two types of Heavy Assault Rifle light machine guns equipped with a heavier (compared to the M16) barrel and a bipod, the first model – named the M1 (Model 606) – was magazine fed, while the second – M2 – was fed from a disintegrating link ammunition belt stored in a metal container with either a 50 or 120-round capacity that was fitted inside the magazine well. The M2 used a drum-type feeding mechanism driven by the bolt carrier. A small number of HAR M1 weapons were produced, which were adopted by several Asian countries (i.e. Singapore), and approx. 200 Heavy Assault Rifle M1s were purchased for use in the US Small Arms Weapons Systems (SAWS) tests in 1965. Less than 20 HAR M2 machine guns were made.

In June 1966 the US Army ordered 2815 CAR-15 carbines from Colt known as the Commando model, which were introduced into service with the Air Force (the Model 610 was classified as the XM177, but ultimately the Air Force designated the carbine GAU-5/A) and the ground forces (the Model 609 which was officially named the XM177E1). The weapons were fitted with a telescoping tubular metal buttstock and a slotted muzzle device called a moderator.

During production the M15 (AR-15) received several upgrades, changes were made to the bolt catch, charging handle, flash hider, the firing pin’s weight was reduced, the chamber dimensions were modified and synthetic components used in the rifle were died black.

The M16 (AR-15) uses the intermediate 5.56 x 45 mm NATO cartridge with M193 Ball ammunition and the M196 tracer round.

The M16 (AR-15) is a selective-fire automatic firearm that uses a direct impingement gas system. Ignited powder gases are fed from the barrel (through a gas port at the base of the front sight post) down a stainless steel tube (above the barrel) into a hollow gas chamber located inside the bolt carrier group. This system received patent protection in the United States (patent number 2951424); the author of this design is Eugene Stoner. This unique system eliminates the need for a gas piston and rod. Locking is achieved with a rotating bolt (rotated by a camp pin guided in a camming slot in the bolt carrier), which has 7 radial locking lugs that engage recesses in the barrel extension. The bolt contains a spring extractor and ejector. In the “SEMI” position (semi-automatic fire) the automatic sear is disengaged, located at the rear of the receiver, and the “AUTO” (auto fire) setting disengages the disconnector. The “SAFE” setting disables the trigger, and can only be used with a cocked hammer.

The return mechanism, installed in a cylindrical hollow tube inside the buttstock, consists of a buffer and return spring.

The weapon is fed from double-column box magazines (made initially from steel, then aluminum) with a 20-round capacity, and since 1969 – arching 30-round magazines. The magazine release button is on the right side of the lower receiver, just fore of the trigger. After discharging the last round from the magazine a hold open device locks the bolt carrier group in its rear position. The bolt release is placed at the left side of the receiver. To manually chamber a round the rifle has a charging handle (that remains static when firing), which has a T-shaped handle that is located at the top of the upper receiver - just ahead of the buttstock. The ejection port at the right side of the receiver is closed with a spring-loaded dust cover (that prevents dust and debris entering the sensitive internal operating system) when the rifle is stowed for transport. It springs open (downwards) automatically when the weapon is fired or charged.

The weapon has: a fixed buttstock, rear-mounted pistol grip, barrel heat shield (two separate covers), that also serves as the forearm (made from synthetics) and a carry handle.

Initial M16 (AR-15) rifles were manufactured with barrels that had 6 right-hand grooves at a twist rate of 356 mm, and since 1963 – a 305 mm rifling twist. The barrel has a 3-prong flash suppressor.

The weapon uses mechanical iron sights, that consist of an adjustable (in elevation only) front sight post and a flip-up aperture rear sight (installed inside the carry handle) with two range settings for 0-300 and 300-500 yards (1 yard = 0.9144 m). The carry handle is designed to accept optical sights, such as the Colt Realist.

Standard equipment supplied with the rifle includes: a sling, cleaning kit and M7 blade bayonet. The rifle can also use a barrel-mounted bipod, blank firing adapter and a 40 mm under-barrel grenade launcher (after replacing the handguards) like the XM148 (it has a weight of 1.27 kg, length – 419 mm, barrel length – 254 mm, projectile muzzle velocity – 73 m/s and a firing rate of 12 rounds/min). The M16 (AR-15) is designed to be able to launch rifle grenades with the use of the M195 grenade cartridge.

The weapon’s design features many advanced fabrication methods and materials, i.e. the receiver housing is an aluminum forging.

The M16 rifle – in both its rifle and light machine gun variants was license-produced by CIS of Singapore.

A modified version of the M16 (AR-15) is known as the M16A1.

  • Similar article will follow for the M16A1 and M16A2 main pages if I get approval. What do you guys say? Cheers. Koalorka 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the variant changes are significant enough to warrant separate article for each. It'd be better to rewrite some long sections here in more of a summary fashion. -Fnlayson 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While they are each different, they are not different enough to warrant separate articles. Also, WP:GUNS#"Target" versions applies here as the newer variants of the M16 remain just M16s. In other words, they should remain in the same article.--LWF 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of summarizing some of the long sections, I see the following sections as areas for possible improvement.
  • The Summary subsection of the History section is a duplicate of the Introduction section. These should be merged under the Introduction.
  • The Project SALVO subsection should be moved to a separate article on Project SALVO.
  • The Eugene Stoner subsection needs to be moved into either the Eugene Stoner article or the AR-10 article.
  • The Overview and Background subsections of the Future Replacement section can be merged.
  • The Summary section listing the specific model numbers and their characteristics need to be diverted to the AR-15 variants article. D.E. Watters 04:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why do we have a CAR-15 page or several other minor variant enntries? Why is there an entire page dedicated to the M249 when there's a huge article about the FN MINIMI (M249 is just a licence-built MINIMI) etc... Koalorka 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article's fine; splitting it up would only make a few useless stubs. There really isn't enough to write about when you're explaining the differences between an M16A3 and a M16A4. The difference between a CAR-15 and an M16 is a lot greater. Hayden120 06:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The M16A3 will be under M16A2 since it is an M16A2 with a extra fire selector switch. Trust me I have a LOT about each version, enough to make a strong page. I see your point though, you fear that it will result in a few useless stubs, that's NOT what I'd like to do. I showed you my first piece above on the early M16 alone. I have similar articles for the M16A1 and M16A2+variants. Koalorka 06:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Critisms of the M16

Perhaps we can devote a section to this entirely? The shortcommings of the rilfe have been peppered throughout the article. Perhaps they need their own section? Also, I have heard that the plastic stock of the M16 makes it impossible to equip a bayonet. Is this true, and if so, why is it not mentioned? --65.70.109.0 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, the bayonet does not attach to the stock, and even to the handguard which is what I think you meant. It attaches to a very suitable rigid lug below the sight triangle which has been a standard feature since the rifle was first issued. -- Thatguy96 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a critism section of the article Skate&Create 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate criticism section just be a magnet for unbalanced biased additions. -Fnlayson 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icon

Hi, I noticed an anonymous editor had added the flag icon to the infobox in seeming contradiction of the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Flag icons and of the Manual of Style on flag use, WP:MOSFLAG. I removed it but I see it was restored with an rvv edit summary. I have raised the inappropriateness of this with the user in question, and, so far, received no reply, nor has he commented here or at the centralised discussion. That being the case, I would like to invite suggestions here or at the centralised discussion for reasons why we should keep the flag, in terms of encyclopedic utility. My own opinion is that it adds nothing, and is distracting from what is otherwise a very good encyclopedic article. --John 06:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a discussion that was had and no concensus was reached... you were involved and it seems you were the only one pushing for removal and, if you want a tally, it's 2 for, 2 against. Please don't spread the argument out, continue it on the firearms page that you joined mid-discussion... this and your edit history suggest you're not a firearms article editor but rather somebody who just hates flag icons. [1][2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asams10 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments: First of all I don't agree that it is 2 against 2; we don't count to establish consensus, but rather we look at the arguments. So far we have, against, me, User:John, quoting policy and usability, Gnevin who mentions WP:PRETTY, AKRadecki who agrees the flag is decoration, and User:Arthurrh, who finds the flag distracting. On the "keep" side, we have you, Asams10 (no actual reasons given, although you first claimed to be unable to find the MoS I was referring to; presumably you have found it now), Jack The Pumpkin King who thought it would help disambiguate the different Germanies, but didn't respond when I pointed out that at least two of the flags are indistinguishable, and User:I already forgot who made some interesting (though not in my view compelling) arguments for keeping flags (to do with visual thinking; these have been more than adequately answered at the MoS discussion page), and then went and got himself indefinitely blocked and so is no longer part of the equation. So, numbers-wise, if it was a vote (which it isn't), we are more like 4-2; looking at the quality of discussion and the points raised I think it is overwhelming.
Finally, I have to answer your point about my contributions; I love flags, I just think they should be reserved for certain articles, as determined by consensus. At the moment they are way overused, and there is a broad consensus that this is the case. Look at all the edits I made yesterday, removing inappropriate flags from infoboxes, and look at the messages I got about it (zero) and the number of my edits which were reverted (one, later restored by other users after a talk page discussion; it was John Howard, if you're interested, plus your 'rvv' on this article). That should tell you how the larger community consensus lies on this issue.
You're out of line with the project's thinking on this. Please revert yourself. --John 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment before we start "jack the pumpking king is me, but anyway i stoped discusing not becuase of lack of things to provide i just forgot about the disscusion. its been nagging at me though.Esskater11 04:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already stated, this discussion is being conducted on the firearms project page, not here... and you're still wrong but I've said that on the firearms page and bowed out of the discussion. You can carve whatever niche that agrees with you out of the 'greater' community, however the firearms community is apparently for their use which you might/could find out if you address it THERE instead of here. --Asams10 17:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it looks like the centralised discussion I initiated has reached a conclusion. I see no evidence from that discussion that "the firearms community" supports the indiscriminate use of flag icons in this way. Neither have I seen any coherent arguments from you, either here or there for keeping the flags. Merely saying you think I am wrong does not carry much weight unless you can support that with encyclopedic arguments. If you are "bowing out" of the discussion, I take it you will not continue to revert me if I remove the icon again then? Your removal of it from this article was the only reason I raised it here. --John 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've bowed out of the discussion and it concluded without a conclusion. Nobody from the firearms community but me made statements, IIRC. Once again, take it up there. You seem to have some sort of personal vendetta against flag icons though the style manual is a suggestion, not the rule of law. --Asams10 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have bowed out of the discussion without (as far as I can see) making any substantive arguments. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, having made my edit and had it reverted, I have tried to discuss with you (centrally at the project talk page, on your talk page where I notice you blanked my comment with an uncivil edit summary, and now here). WP:BRD is a fundamental principle of how we operate here. It is also a fundamental principle that, unless content can be shown to add value to an article, we remove it. We are now at the stage, I'd say, of either reaching a conclusion (which I'd say we have), or moving on to dispute resolution. Which it is to be really depends on the answer to my question above, which I notice you have not answered. Will you continue to revert if I remove the flag icon from this article? If so, with what justification? You seem to be in a minority of one on this issue, and in the absence of any substantive arguments in terms of policy, consensus or common-sense utility to the reader, I am having trouble understanding what your issue is here. --John 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France in the list of users

I am wondering if France should be added back into the myriad of users listed because of images such as these: Pic 1, Pic 2. They only use Carbine members of the family, does this count? Does anyone have a PD image that we might be able to add to the article, if only for some additional flavor? -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction in video games

I find it odd that in video games, when people reload an M16A2 or M16A1, the characters in question flick something at the right side of the sight. What's that supposed to do? 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're probably referring to either the magazine release or the forward assist. The magazine release's function should be pretty straightforward to understand; the forward assist's function is to ensure that the bolt is seated properly to fire the weapon, although it usually isn't necessary to actually use it, unless the weapon is malfunctioning. Hope that helps. Parsecboy 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M16A4 usage by US Army ?

What is the extent of the M16A4 with the Army ?--Blain Toddi (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gradually replacing the M16A2 as the M16 Modular Weapon System. If you have been issued an M16 with a flat top receiver and rails you most likely have an A4. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no likely, it would be an A4. A3's don't have the Piccatiny rail on the receiver top. Parsecboy (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Army doesn't even issue the A3 nor does it have any in inventory, so that is a moot point. Though it could be an A2 fitted with a new receiver and rail system. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at various pictures from Iraq, it seems the Army prefers the M4 carbine over the m-16 for some reason... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.234.232 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fact for you

A little off topic I know, but I found this interesting. The person who created this M16 page was Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. It was created at precisely 23:00, 1 October 2001.[3] I don't know what he's talking about here however, "A cocking lever was omitted from the earliest models to prevent entry of dirt, but it is on the right side of modern models." Maybe he's getting mixed up with the forward assist? -- Hayden120 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol jimbo should keep off the firearm articles Esskater11 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to "Anyone can edit"? That was truly interesting, Hayden, thank you. --John (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this experience?

The development of the M16A2 rifle was originally requested by the United States Marine Corps as a result of the USMC's combat experiences in Vietnam with the M16 and M16A1.

After that it waxes on about detail about how the A2 is different from the original, but never explains what these experiences were or how the A2 was modified to fix these problems except in passing. I would like a paragraph or two devoted just to the problems of the original model. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

burst fire useless?

In the book One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer, Captain Fick notes that the burst fire option on M16A2 and A4 is useless except in ambushes or CQB, as the recoil from the first shot sends the other two rounds right over an enemy's head. Has anyone else ever heard about this? If so, it should probably be noted somewhere in the article. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the m-16

the m-16 is one of the most powerful guns there are in the marines and army. they are the basic guns used in combat. Tis gun is highly accurate and can only miss if object moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.9.210.12 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please refrain from further comments like similar to above. This talk page is about improving the article, not discussion forum on the M16 itself. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of fire

" 800-900 rounds/min, cyclic depending on model"

Lets put what model correlates to what rate of fire. Malamockq (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need, this is an arbitrary number to begin with. ROF changes as the rifle ages and the port opens up. ROF also changes shot-to shot, top of magazine to bottom of magazine, lubed and unlubed, tracer to ball, hot rifle to cold rifle, outside temperature, altitude, and even how tightly the rifle is held. If you're looking for a magic number, good luck, you won't even find an average that's reliable. --Asams10 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that for any rifle. Also, the wording of the ROF in the article, indicates that the ROF depends on the model. Meaning different models have different ROF. If this is incorrect, it should be removed, but as it stands it needs to be clarified. Malamockq (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ROF is more variable on the M16 type of rifle because of the gas and buffer system. ROF goes from 650 up to about 1600 depending on the model and ammunition. I'll say it again, the number is arbitrary and nearly meaningless. You can find a source and come up with an average which would be around 900rpm but you're nit-picking and toying with a meaningless number. BTW, the answer is that 144,000 angels can dance on the head of a pin. --Asams10 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M16_rifle&oldid=190241088"