Talk:M16 rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Service history...Wars[edit]

The Service history ...War section in the info box has officially gotten out of hand.

  • Vietnam War
  • Laotian Civil War
  • Cambodian Civil War
  • The Troubles
  • Fall of Saigon
  • Cambodian–Vietnamese War
  • Lebanese Civil War
  • Soviet–Afghan War
  • Salvadoran Civil War
  • Falklands War
  • 1982 Lebanon War
  • Invasion of Grenada
  • South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000)
  • Bougainville Civil War[1]
  • United States invasion of Panama
  • Oka Crisis[2]
  • Gulf War
  • Yugoslav Wars
  • Bosnian War
  • Somali Civil War
  • Operation Deny Flight
  • Operation Joint Endeavor
  • Nepalese Civil War
  • 1996 Gangneung submarine infiltration incident
  • Kosovo War
  • War in Afghanistan
  • Iraq War
  • 2006 Lebanon War
  • Mexican Drug War
  • 2010 Rio de Janeiro Security Crisis
  • Libyan Civil War (2011)
  • Syrian Civil War
  • Gaza–Israel conflict
  • 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
  • Iraq War (2014–present)[3]

It's one thing to say that the M16 was used during the Vietnam War or the Gulf War. However, is it really necessary to say that the M16 was used during the 1996 Gangneung submarine infiltration incident or the 2010 Rio de Janeiro Security Crisis? It's time to set some serious limits on this section. I think, it should say that the M16 was first used during the Vietnam War and then have a "see also" link to another page where editors can list every time that an M16 has been fired in anger to the hearts content.--RAF910 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. Not sure how to scale it back, though. Maybe just take the largest conflict of each of the last 5 decades, and limit it to that? ScrpIronIV 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

How about just limiting the section to the major American conflicts. Such as...

  • Vietnam War
  • Gulf War
  • War in Afghanistan
  • Iraq War

And, then we add a link to "Other conflicts and wars"?--RAF910 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine by me ScrpIronIV 14:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

DONE--RAF910 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The standalone list has no sources and no notabiility. This material doesn't need to be in the infobox. It is commonly listed in sections instead of being spun-off. Unless there's an objection I'll merge it back into this article. The alternative is to delete it outright, which doesn't seem as good. Felsic2 (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Terminal ballistics[edit]

A rifle doesn't have terminal ballistics. (Unless someone shoots a rifle out of a large gun...) Only a bullet does. 5.56×45mm_NATO#Performance covers the same ground as M16 rifle#Terminal ballistics. Since this is a very long article already, merging the material into one place would improve both articles. A short summary scould be left here. Felsic2 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Very astute. I would agree with that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I copied it to the talk page of that article. I don't feel qualified to summarize it, but I'd support someone else adding a paragraph on the topic. Felsic2 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is everybody displeased with the fact that M4 is not very damaging rifle? It's an automatic weapon. Not a heavy-caliber sniper rifle. It is not really required to devastate targets with 1-2 shots when you have 700 RPM and a goot accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

M4 accuracy.[edit]

The M16 has always enjoyed a reputation for excellent accuracy.[1][2]

  1. ^ Gun Digest Book of the AR-15, Volume 2 By Patrick Sweeney[page needed]
  2. ^ "The USA's M4 Carbine Controversy". Defense Industry Daily. 2011-11-21. Retrieved 2012-01-10. 

The USA's M4 Carbine Controversy: The M4 offers a collapsible buttstock, flat-top upper receiver assembly, a U-shaped handle-rear sight assembly that could be removed, and assortment of mounting rails for easy customization with a variety of sight, flashlight, grenade launchers, shotgun attachments, etc. It achieves approximately 85% commonality with the M16, and has become a popular weapon. It has a reputation for lightness, customizability, and, compared to its most frequent rival the AK-47, a reputation for accuracy as well. The carbine’s reputation for fast-point close-quarters fire remains its most prominent feature, however.

The M4 has a reputation for accuracy. However the M4 is not the M16. Many factors affect the accuracy of a firearm. Barrel length if one of them. If the M16 has a significant reputation for accuracy, then it should be possible to find a source that says so directly. I deleted this source because it addressed M4 accuracy, not M16 accuracy. If we really want to use this source, we should say something like, "The M4, which is based on the M16, has a reputation for accuracy." But I don't know why we'd say that in this article. Felsic2 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Barrel length has less to do with accuracy than most people think.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but I don't think we can say that the reputation of one weapon extends to the other. For that matter, we shouldn't say "The M16 has always enjoyed a reputation for excellent accuracy" if the source just says, the M4 has a reputation for accuracy - it'd be inflating the praise. I assume the Sweeney book citation is really to Gunsmithing - The AR-15 Volume 2 2014. It has been tagged with a page request since 2012. I did a little searching on Amazon, using words like "accuracy", "excellent", "reputation", "known," and "M16".[1] Nothing jumps out. Maybe it's the wrong bok. I'm sure some good source somewhere says that the M16 is accurate, but I don't see anything about a "reputation for accuracy" in a general Google search. Maybe we should just cut the text. Accuracy is relative anyway. Do we have test data from the Army? 23:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC) (I can't find the The Gun Digest Book of the AR-15 (Vol 2), for some reason.) Felsic2 (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you will find a source that says "The M16 has always enjoyed a reputation for excellent accuracy", directly. Truthfully, versions prior to the A2 variant were not particularly accurate. The skinny barrel vibrated (barrel harmonics sucked), had poor rifling (meant to stabilize a lighter bullet) and was prone to damage internally (Military issue segmented cleaning rods) and externally. I hated the A1 for those reasons (and I used to sling in too hard and actually pull the barrel to the side when shooting). I loved the A2 because it was like a target rifle, but the trigger sucked because of the three-round burst feature. Now AR clones are a different ball game, they can be made extremely accurate with better triggers, better barrels, hand loads, etc. I have one where I consistently ring steel with it at 600 yards with open sights, but it's a heavy barrel and not that stepped down version like the M4 profile. I would say cut it for now. I doubt you will find reliable sourcing to back that up. Especially since most of what is out there regarding accuracy and these rifles will be from the civilian side and not necessarily the military guns. Then again, there is this tidbit:[2]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Unless someone can find a specific source, or produce a quote and page number from the Sweeney source, I'll delete the sentence. Felsic2 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's the Amazon copy of the Sweeney book: [3]. Felsic2 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

AR-15 accuracy[edit]

On February 19, 1959, Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company of Hartford, Connecticut purchased the rights to the AR-15 and AR-10 from Fairchild Stratos (ArmaLite)... This turn of events caused Congress to investigate why the Ordnance Corps had boycotted the AR-15. Subsequently, the Ordnance Corps set up the test without delay.

The test was concluded in November 1960. Three rifles were subjected to a light machine-gun test and two to accuracy tests. There were a total of 24,443 rounds fired. One rifle in the accuracy test delivered an amazing 10-round group at 100 yards that measured only 1.5 inches; any group under six inches at 100 yards being acceptable for an assault rifle. The rifle also performed admirably in the unlubricated, dust, extreme cold and rain tests. The final results indicated the AR-15 was superior to all competitors, including the M14. The rifle was then approved for Air Force trial.[4]

This source is discussing the accuracy of the Colt AR-15. Is the Colt AR-15 the same firearm as the M16? If so, we should merge the two pages. If not, we shouldn't confuse them. We could summarize this source by saying something like, "The AR-15, a predecessor to the M16, had admirable accuracy." Felsic2 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It was not called the M16 until it was approved by the ordnance board and accepted as a military service rifle. Those sample rifles would have been Armalite AR-15s built by Colt with a full auto sear and selector.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
OK. But we have articles on the Armalite AR-15 and the Colt AR-15. If this source is talking about one of those then we should move this text to the right article. The idea that we can just a source talking about any one of them in this article seems crazy. Furthre, the test occured in 1960 and the M16, according to our article, didn't enter into service until 1964.
How about this text: "Beginning with an Ordnance Corp test in 1960, the AR-15 and its derivatives have been considered accurate firearms." Does that sound right? Felsic2 (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be a part of the history of all three rifles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Which article covers the history of all three rifles? There's a lot of duplication between aricles covering the various AR-15 derived rifles. The bottom line is that the test wasn't done on an M16 and it's misleading to imply that it was. None of the three sources say that the M16 has always had an excellent reputation for accuracy. Let's stick with what the sources actually say. If there's no objection I'll swap in the proposed text. Felsic2 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The conclusions of the test were as follows:

The ARI5 rifle has the advantages of light weight, light recoil, favorable handling qualities, - -i convenient disassembly and assembly, and good endurance, -_ !but a deficient magazine conttibutes to a high 4 - imalfunction rate when the magazine is loaded to i iits capacity. An extremely light barrel, a short -2- sight radius, a large front sight, a lack of convenient sight adjustment, and a heavy trigger pull contribute to poor accuracy characteristics. [5]

This source was added as a citation for the claim that the M16 has always had an excellent reputation for accuracy. Am I misreading it? Felsic2 (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes you the whole report instead of taking a quote out of context. That section was referring to a different report that was refuted by this report.--RAF910 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a very long report. I searched for "accuracy" and this is the only discussion of accuracy that I found. Can you quote the text you're citing? Felsic2 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I recommend that you do your due diligence and read the entire report. No matter how long it is. Especially, all those tables at the end of the report, that show individual (by serial number) standard issue M16 rifles shooting 1.5 inch groups at 100 yards.--RAF910 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I did my "due diligence". I didn't find anything that says the M16 has always had an excellent reputation for accuracy. Just the opposite, I found text which said the AR-15 had poor accuracy. The burden is on you to prove your claim, not me. Drawing your own conclusion from raw data is an example of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Felsic2 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
According to the this discussion, you are still very confused about the ArmaLite AR-15, Colt AR-15 and M16 rifles. Even after many months of discussion on many talk pages. Where many editors have tried in vain to explain it to you. Perhaps you should just read report, you might even learn something. Because, franking after many months answering the same questions over and over again. I'm exhausted and you are clearly not listening. So, I will no longer humor you.--RAF910 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what any of that has to do with this source. Since you can't find the material which supports the text in question, I'll remove it. Felsic2 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The accuracy section in the article has multiple sources for the M16. There's no need to focus solely on the source listed above here, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If it's not needed then we can cut it out. It clearly doesn't support the claim. I'm not sure which citations do support the claim directly. Felsic2 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Derivatives - Heckler & Koch HK416[edit]

Heckler & Koch HK416 got deleted from the list of derivatives,[6] and I restored it. The HK416 uses many of the same components, although a different action. Overall, it It was based on the M16 with changes so it seems like an appropriate entry in the list. The entry explains how they're different. Felsic2 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

IOW, an AR derivative does not have to use direct gas impingement. "The HK416 shares many design similarities with piston driven AR’s from other makers but Heckler and Koch has one big leg up on the competition."[7][8] Felsic2 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
H&K also seems to regard it as an M16 on "Read More". Felsic2 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

M3 bipod[edit]

It seems to me that the paragraph on the XM3 bipod is wholly incorrect.

I have an FM 7-7 document from 1985 which mentions that the M16A1 can be used from the bipod, and a M16A1 manual from 1983 which mentions the M3 bipod, suggesting the bipod design has left the experimental stage and was actually adopted (Hence the M instead of XM).

Since there is no citation for the paragraph, I believe it should be changed.

Thom430 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, correct it based on your sources and cite the source(s) in reference brackets (<ref> </ref>). Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)