|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M16 rifle article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
M16 rifle was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: September 27, 2006
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about M16 rifle. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about M16 rifle at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 12 months may be automatically moved.|
Use of M16 in US Army
While its true that Infantry and Cavalry units no longer utilize the M16, almost all support units, as well as Air Defense Units (which im a member of) still use the M16. These units make up the vast majority of the Army, so due to that, I think the part that claims the rifle isnt widely used in the army should be changed. Ive trained with Marines in Air Defense who also used m16's but I cant speak for the rest of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake.Harllee (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, unless you have a source stating this, it can't be added to the article as it is original research.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Then why dont we just take the section out that states this? The US Military releases no such numbers, so it doesnt make sense to put they arent in widespread use either without numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake.Harllee (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you're thinking about the sentence "The M16A2 is still a widespread rifle in the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force, while no longer in heavy use in the Army and Marine Corps", I see no problem with removing it, since that particular statement isn't sourced.--Sus scrofa (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The "users" section lists Estonia and Lithuania, but I am pretty sure the "World-wide users of the M16" map shows Lithuania and Latvia - could someone correct that?--126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of M16 rifle's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "autogeneratedmil":
- From Equipment of the modern Egyptian Army: http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/Egypt_10-67.pdf
- From Afghanistan: "Rising literacy in Afghanistan ensures transition | Article | The United States Army". Army.mil. Retrieved 4 February 2012.
- From LGM-30 Minuteman: "Factsheets : LGM-30G Minuteman III". Af.mil. 2010-07-26. Retrieved 2011-03-20.
- From 6.8 mm Remington SPC: "DTIC.mil". Retrieved 2011-09-15.
- From Afghan National Army: "First production MSFVs shipped to Afghan National Army | Article | The United States Army". Army.mil. 14 November 2011. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
- From Comparison of the AK-47 and M16: Procurement of Ammunition. Estimates for fiscal year 2005. Department of the Air Force. February 2004
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Wars & Uses
There is enough video & picture material that proves a largescale possession and use of M16 rifles in the Syrian Civil War. Like most of the aspects of the war, I cannot objectively quantisize their use, but video & picture material as well as Syrian Arab Army members suggest widespread use, as does the fact that since the start of the war, a very large part of the FSA-weaponry in general has western origins (illustrated amongst other things by the death of Gilles Jacquier due to an Energa). I therefore recommend adding the Syrian civil war to the wars where this weapon is used, and the Free Syrian Army to its users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- A reliable source is all that is needed (e.g. a newspaper article) and the information can be added. Knowing the extent of use is nice but not necessary for inclusion in wars/users sections.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the following info should be removed from the Muzzle device section as they are overly detailed, give undo weight to the Vortex Flash Hider and have a ring of marketing.
- The Vortex Flash Hider is a flash suppressor made by Smith Enterprise Inc. and has been called the "most effective flash hider available short of a (sound) suppressor" by writer and gunsmith Patrick Sweeney, when used on an M16 or AR-15. The Vortex made for M16 rifles weighs 3 ounces, is 2.25 inches in length and does not require a lock washer for attachment to the barrel. It is one of the earliest privately designed muzzle devices and was first developed in 1984. The Vortex Flash Hider is used by the US Military on M4 carbines and M16 rifles with the NATO Stock Number of NSN 1005-01-591-5825, PN 1001V. A variant of the Vortex has been adopted by the Canadian Military for use on the Colt Canada C8 CQB rifle. Other flash suppressors developed for the M16 include the Phantom Flash Suppressor by Yankee Hill Machine (YHM) and the KX-3 by Noveske Rifleworks.
- The threaded barrel allows sound suppressors with the same thread pattern to be installed directly to the barrel; however this can result in complications such as being unable to remove the suppressor from the barrel due to repeated firing on full auto or three round burst. A number of suppressor manufacturers such as Advanced Armament Corporation, Gemtech, Smith Enterprise, SureFire and OPS Inc. have turned to designing "direct-connect" sound suppressors which can be installed over an existing M16's flash suppressor as opposed to using the barrel's threads.
- I would disagree. The Vortex is mentioned because it has been described as the most effective and it was the first major improvement to a flash suppressor that came from the private sector. It was so effective that it is used on M16s and has its own NSN. Other types are mentioned and this gives the section balance. The superiority of the direct-connect suppressor is mentioned because full auto fire through the M16 can leave one which threads to the barrels virtually welded in place.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not opposed to the mention of the Vortex. I simply believe that the info provided sounds more like marketing than an Encyclopedia article. Also, that the Vortex is being given undo weight as only a small fraction of that M16s in current production use the device. Despite its effectiveness, the Vortex is primarily sold on the commercial market to civilians as an attachment to the semi-auto AR-15 rifle.
For example, in the design section it mentions the M68, ACOG and EOTech sights. However, the article does not spend a paragraph discussing the merits of each sight. See below...
- The current United States Army and Air Force issue M4 Carbine comes with the M68 Close Combat Optic and Back-up Iron Sight. The United States Marine Corps uses the ACOG Rifle Combat Optic and the United States Navy uses EOTech Holographic Weapon Sight.
Having an NSN does not make something standard use. The section on the Vortex flash hider needs a significant edit. Also, there is no proof that it is the most effective.