Jump to content

Talk:M16 rifle/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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The "Future Replacement" segment is outdated.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)

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)

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))

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)

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

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

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)

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)
See archived talk note here -- Thatguy96 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
Firefox and IE is fine.--ZH Evers 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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))

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

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.

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)
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.
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Good question. I visited this site because I was trying to quickly confirm that the original M16 used a somewhere around 7mm round and it got reduced to about 5mm in the A1 version during the NATO incorporation. As for the A2... I know nothing except that it seems to be a superl33t sniper type thing that can handle lots of attachments.
My questions remain completely unanswered too. Admittedly I kinda got bored before reading all of the article, like you probably did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.134.243 (talk • contribs)
The AR-10 rifle predated the AR-15. Gene Stoner developed the AR-10 in 7.62mm T65, later standardized as 7.62mm NATO. Jim Sullivan scaled down the AR-10 to fire the .222 Special, later standardized as the .223 Remington. This was the 5.56x45mm cartridge, essentially. The M16A2 was, indeed, developed for the needs of the USMC however not as a reslut of experiences in Vietnam, rather it was developed as a result of Marine Corps leadership wanting the M16 with better sights for long-range marksmanship and a heavier barrel for the same reason though the reason they SAID they wanted a heavier barrel was to prevent bent barrels as Marines tended to be rough on their rifles. BTW, this is NOT a forum. You can ask this question on AR15.com and get a much better answer, I'm sure. --Winged Brick (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Woah there. I do not appreciate your "nit-picking" comment, nor your angels comment. Comments like that can lead to personal attacks, so I must ask you to refrain from such comments in the future. As for your comments, you directly said that the ROF depends on the model. Which was what I was asking about to begin with. Malamockq (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Asams seems to concede the point. The initial text seems to state that all models are within that range and that variations within such range occur depending on the given model, however; he later states that actual model-dependant variability is much larger than given in the quote that you challenge. I think this means he agrees its incorrect.

As for the meaningless of the number, that's an argument to not include the measure, not to not have it accurate. And if its an accuracy issue, then find appropriately precise measurements so that they are accurate. Again, if the number isn't accurate then make it accurate. That an accurate value would be so impercise as to make it meaningless seems besides the point.

And if it happens to be that the numbers mean nothing because the precision and conditions of testing are unknown, nonstanderdized, or unreported then again, this seems like a reason to not include the measurement at all, for the sake of the articles accuracy and as per verifiability concernse, rather than to retain an inaccurate or unverifiable one.--Δζ (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that ROF is immaterial. Looks like it needs to be referenced. What does the US Army Manual say? --Winged Brick (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable Stock (Sorry about my spelling)

I've got a picture of my uncle on an army base (it should be mentiond he's in the navy though) useing what looks like an M16A2 but it's got the stock of an M4 Carbine. I know it's not an M4 because it is way too long to be one. Does the US Military even use an M16 like that or is that a different weapon? If it's an M16 it should be mentioned the US Military uses ones like that in the article should it not? 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)PIGPIGPIG

Its most likely a M4 with a really long uper reciver. Im pretty sure the Military doesnt make any M16 like that BonesBrigade 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. An M-4 is just a shortened M16A2, so an M-4 with a "really long upper receiver", it would just be an M16A2. What it likely is, and I've seen this myself, is an M16 upper attached to an M-4 lower. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
In the past, Rock Island Arsenal (TACOM) has sent out nasty-grams to units where such hybrids have appeared, warning about the potential reliability problems caused by unauthorized modifications. Ironically, Rock Island recently put out a sources-sought notice for collapsible stock conversion kits for the M16-family. D.E. Watters (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then, should hybrids of this rifle be mentioned?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nearly impossible to list all of the possible "hybrids" that can be made by individuals modifiying their weapons. For example, one can modify the M16A2 in order to allow it to fire full automatic, but at that point it would no longer be an M16A2.Longrifle78 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You would also be in a world of trouble if you made such a modification. Really, it's not necessary to state that such modifications can be made, unless there is a specific design, i.e., if Rock Island were to release a collapsible stock converter for the A2. Every firearm can have "in the field" type modifications made to it, it wouldn't make sense to list every possibility. Parsecboy (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment was vauge (sorry bout me spelling) so I'll rephrase it. Should hybrids be givin a brief mention, something along the the lines of ... In recent years hybrids (including but not limited to collapsible stocks, (insert other mod here), etc) have begun to pop up in different units...?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, nevermind, that sounds stupid, unencyclopedic, and doesn't seem worth it.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Update countries that use the rifle!

Currently Georgia is also equipped with M16 rifles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.110.113 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as you have a source add them to the list of users.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and sorry this is late but... sign your posts.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Japan needs to be removed from the list. The Japanese Self Defense Forces never used the M16. Currently they use the Type 89, with the older Type 64 issued to reserves. And the M1 Garand as a ceremonial rifle. The Japanese police Special Assault Team also uses the Type 89, as well as various MP5 variants. (74.242.180.103 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Singapore's Singapore Armed Forces no longer uses the M16S1. It now uses the indigeneous SAR 21, so it should be removed from the list of users. By the way, the M16S1 is simply the M16A1 with a different designation. 8w4h4h4h4 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Something on the stock?

Can someone tell me what's taped to the stock of the Marines' M16 in one of the pictures? I'm sorry, I don't know how to sign my posts b/c I don't usually post stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A inton (talk • contribs) 04:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sign your posts by typing 4 ~ (tildes).13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to be a sheet of paper with something written on it.--LWF (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like a playing card, maybe the King of Hearts? Kiwigpz (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Variant

I just added a section on a propsed variant that combines the advantages of the M-16 and a shotgun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andering J. REDDSON (talk • contribs) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting the entry. If you don't get it, ignore it. It's also being refrenced elswhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.120.56 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please provide references for Jeremy Jay Lee Austin-Skidmore and his proposed variant. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, it's just two (or one?) stupid kids with too much time on their hands. The accompanying picture looks like it was whipped up in Paint in about two seconds. Hayden120 (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I liked the blue strings (?) holding the shotgun onto the M16. Another favorite was the bit about semi-auto shotguns being against the rules of war. M1014, anyone? Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum and is not a place for such "proposals." -- Thatguy96 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
On a related note: The "blue strings" were actually 1/2" bands that I painted blue becasue the first pic didn't show them very well (it is as understandable mistake, it came out really bad after mutilpe copy and paste jobs between Wrod and Paint and Office Image Manager, and back around; the reason being, I didn't want it to be easy), but it's a photograph of a pair of Blueguns he chopped up to build the concpet prover.
The Army actually has a version, the XM-26, Which is bolt-action. This is intended for law enforcement, mainly, and was proposed just after the North Hollywood Shootout
Nukes4Tots keeps deleting it, however; ¿How do I file a vandalism complaint?
I did start this section; I must have been automatically logged out.Andering J. REDDSON (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Andy REDDSON
I deleted it too. Its not sourced, it appears to be original research, and it does not, in my opinion, fulfill the notability requirements. This is not vandalism. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I can second that, do not add it again, it is obviously not a picture of an actual weapon and even if it was it still needs a source. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this is totally unsourced, and it's nowhere near notable even if it is true. The photo is clearly fake, even with the explanation for the blue strings, the weapons aren't even to scale, the M16 forward hand grip is far too long, etc. Please stop adding it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll translate this for you reddson, that means you FAKED it and inserted it here as OR and spam. Further, looking at your talk page and history of contributions, this is not the first time you've done it. There are articles on the KAC Masterkey and XM26 as well as teh Benelli. Your 'information' is crap and will continue to be reverted/deleted if you continue to pursue this. You've been well warned in the past, read your talk page, and further disruptive editing on your part will warrant a ban. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine do it. I resign. Furthermore- I did NOT fake this, and those “warnings” were about allegedly infringed copyrights. Here’s what I did: I made new pics. I used wingdings for the star, and did the rest with very simple line drawings using MS Paint.Andering J. REDDSON (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)A REDDSON

Goodbye! --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Muzzle Velocity

...Okaaaay.......

Movin' on!

In the movie Basic with Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta, SLJ says the muzzle velocity of an M16 is 1100 meters per second (mps).

Is that true? Because, I've read a lot of different answers.

Appreciate it!

Gladiator 2 Contact 11:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First thing to remember, it's a movie, entertainment is the main purpose, not accuracy. Second, muzzle velocity depends on a lot of factors: the ammunition, humidity, temperature, height above sea level, and probably some other things that I've forgotten, or never knew in the first place.--LWF (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

License-Production

As with most other weapons articles, there is no mention of license production. There is discussion of related firearms, but none of the licensed production that occured in the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand. This is according to the 1979-1980 Jane's Infantry Weapon Systems book. Is this enough of a source to have it mentioned in the article? I will add it if I receive approval. I will implement this change in the production/users section unless there are any other suggesstions. It is a relatively small piece of information, so I think only a minor addition is required.SAWGunner89 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you need to peek at a newer version. Canada also produces a licensed version and there might be more. Other countries might also be licensed. Looking at the atricle, there is already mention of license production and a short section on unlicensed manufacture. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Units of Area in Project Salvo/research portion

Existing text:

"A new study, Project SALVO, was set up to try to find a weapon design suited to real-world combat. Running between 1953 and 1957 in two phases, SALVO eventually suggested that a weapon firing four rounds into a 20 in (508 mm) area would double the hit probability of existing semi-automatic weapons."


What is trying to be said here? The units given are for lenght, not area, and the conversion likewise is for in to mm. Should this read that the refrenced area has one dimension of 20 in? Or is it a 20 in square (20x20)? Or 20 square inches?

For the conversions to make sense it would have to be something like the above, i.e. not square inches but rather a square of 20 inches lenght and width or an area with one dimension of twenty inches.

But then the refrence to area would conflict with the quantity and dimensions/units (unless it was clarified it was refering to a 20x20in square, i.e. in which case it could be correct).

So what is this supposed to communicate? I'm guessing a 20in square or 20sq inches, but I don't know. If its the later then someone just messed up the conversions and if its the former then the description is poor and renders the provided figures useless due to the ambiguity.


Just thought this should be clarified so people know what is being said. Thoughts? Anyone have a source?--Δζ (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Project SALVO needs another source

"A team led by Donald Hall, director of program development at Aberdeen, reported that a .22 inch (5.59 mm) round would have performance equal to larger rounds in most combat."

What is the document name/number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.225.105 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

weight

what weighs 8.5 lbs? The M16? M16a1? M16A2? Someone who knows needs to clear this up. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

M16A2. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the M16A2,A3,A4 are heavier than the M16A1 because of modifications and that horribly heavy barrel. Makes it harder to shoot. 8w4h4h4h4 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

M16 vs which weapon?

Which weapon is similar or comparable to the M16.??--Coffeekid (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

About 50 different weapons. In order of numbers made, the closest competitor would be the AK-74. In terms of other 5.56mm weapons currently produced, there would be the AUG, SIG 550 series, HK G36, and, again, about 50 other models. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Which wepon of the mentioned ones has better ROF and caliber?--Coffeekid (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All but the AK-47 have the same caliber: 5.56mm; however, one size of caliber isn't necessarily "better" or "worse" than one larger or smaller. Different calibers (not to mention different loads for the same caliber bullets) have different ballistic characteristics, and therefore different strengths and weaknesses. ROF isn't really all that useful of a statistic; most of these weapons aren't full-auto, and even those that are one doesn't hold the trigger down until the magazine is empty. Again, most of these guns are very similar in capability. Trying to say that one weapon is "better" than another is highly problematical, as it depends on a whole host of variables, like whether you're trying to penetrate body armor/the condition of the weapon/condition and quality of the ammunition/etc., as well as other concerns, such as quantity of ammunition that can be reasonably carried/ease of use/etc. Parsecboy (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It depends. The Ak47 has much more recoil than other weapons though it is very reliable. The M16 doesn't have much recoil and is quite accurate, though it's hard to keep it clean because of the way it works. I don't know much about the SIG 550 though according to the article it produces noticable recoil. --Pattont/c 15:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The AK-47 was made in 1949 and the M16 was made in 1961. Still shouldn't the M16 have better characteristics than an older weapon such as the AK-47?--Coffeekid (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll never find a weapon that excels at everything; every weapon ever made has both good and bad points. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know that, but which weapon could have the similiar characrteristics of the M16?--Coffeekid (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You've come full circle and asked the same question. I don't think that this is a question that will improve the article. Go to AR-15.com and aske them the question. This is not a forum. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Weight

I'm pretty sure the infobox weight of 8.5lb is incorrect, off the top of my head I'm remembering something like 8.79lb from the Smart Book. Inseeisyou (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ye, you are correct. This is also mentioned in the book Jarhead. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You're both wrong. First of all, the fictional work, "Jarhead", was reading right out of the manual... but that's the loaded weight with 30 rounds and sling. Generally, firearm weight is listed either as empty weight or with both empty and loaded weights listed. --Winged Brick (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to add the loaded weight as well. My reasoning is that few people use an unloaded weapon, except for when snapping in. Thus 8.79lbs is the practical weight. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, practical weight, yes. But the convention is to list empty weight. I don't disagree that 8.79 is a practical weight, however I always had my cleaning kit in the stock too... Whatever else is listed, please don't mess with the empty weight. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. I simply added the weight with a fully loaded (30 rd.) STANAG magazine. And while many people do store their cleaning kits in their rifles, it's not mandatory, whereas it is neccesary to load your weapon to fire it.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Most standard reference works show the weight empty and the weight with loaded magazine. Others show weight of gun without magazine, empty magazine and full magazine weights, which list can grow long if magazines come in several sizes. Weight empty and weight with fully loaded standard size magazine should be listed. Standard issue equipment (sling, oiler, cleaning kit) carried in or on the gun are part of the soldiers burden and should be included in the weight. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Oiler? The M16A2 has a buttstock trapdoor to store a cleaning kit, however weights of all of the things attached to the rifle aren't relevant as they vary considerably with the choice of each rifleman and also apply to every comperable weapon out there. There is no point in trying to chase down figures for every rifle out there. Standard weights are NOT given with cleaning kits, full bottles of CLP, slings, duct tape, or whatever else might be on the rifle. The SOPMOD M4 has thousands of possible weights, NONE of which are relevant. Keep it simple, loaded weight, empty weight, we're done. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattel stamp on the M-16

Modern Marvels says that there were a lot of manufactures of the plastic parts over the years and one of those was Mattel toy’s. Snopes says other wise.

Who is right?

Thanks --OxAO (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not everything the History Channel says is gospel (they have ratings to consider, after all). It seems to me that the Mattel connection was more of a "gallows humor" amongst the grunts that grew into an urban legend. Achilles in Vietnam, a book written by a Vietnam veteran, jokingly refers to his M16 as a "Mattel toy". On Point, another veteran's memoirs, states that "the troops joked that the gun was made by Mattel..." Hearts and Minds states that "soldiers often called the M16s "Mattels" after the plastic toy guns produced by the Mattel Corporation in the 1950s and 1960s. It was one way of making a joke out of a grim situation." I'm not seeing anything in Google Books that states that Mattel actually made any components of the rifles. Parsecboy (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The light fiberglass, plastic and aluminum construction of the M16 contrasted with the substantial wood and steel construction of the military arms it replaced: the BAR, Garand, Thompson and carbine (which were often preferred over the M16 in Viet Nam). When soldiers compared them, the M16 came off as a "toy". Mattel made a plastic toy replica of the M16 that was realistic enough to be used as a background prop in movies. Supposedly in the movie Green Berets a Mattel M16 toy was used when John Wayne was required to smash a gun against a tree. "Mattel toy" sounds like a nickname the troops applied to the M16 and the nickname took on a life of its own. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

M16 Usage by Vietnam

Can anyone try to find a source that states that Vietnam still used the M16's captured from the Vietnam War. Anyone.--Coffeekid (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably, they still use british lee-enfield rifles which were left there in world war two / captured by the japanese there, so it stands to reason. 86.16.153.191 (talk)

Neat where did you find that they still use Lee-Enfields? If they still use Lee-Enfields they ought to use M16's. I've been trying to find all week pictures or sources that states that they still use M16's.--Coffeekid (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Plastic

"its handguards, pistol grip, and buttstock of plastics. "

Its specifically a Polyoxymethylene plastic called Derlin. This should be added. The M16 is made out of Derlin, the army claim its designed for battlefield survivability compared to the alternative of aluminium due to its durability and impact resistance, resistance to chemicals used in combat (e.g Orange) , and the fact that it is UV stable for outdoor use in sunny climates (Read: Vietnam)

Backed up by http://rmgrip.com/

86.16.153.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Actually, it is my understanding from books like "The Black Rifle" and "Black Rifle II" that the plastic furniture of the M16A2 and later models is made from a DuPont Nylon variant. The earlier models had fiberglass stocks. --D.E. Watters (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgian Army

The Georgian Army does not use the M16, only the M4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.105.180 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ammunition

James Fallows' book from 1981, National Defense, has an interesting chapter on the evolution of the M16 from the AR15, but none of the information from that chapter appears to have found its way into this article. In brief, Fallows' book argues that the AR15 was designed to use a specific type of ammo that actually lowered the muzzle velocity, causing the projectile to tumble and create truly nasty wounds. The article attributes this to a manufacturing mistake by Colt and glosses over the fact that the tumbling was always a design feature. Fallows notes also that one of the reasons that the M16 was so hard to get adopted was the attitude of the Army brass, which wanted all their soldiers to be Sergeant York type sharpshooters. The idea that soldiers could be more effective simply "hosing down" an opposing force with automatic fire was anathema to the brass, and they changed the specifications for the M16, and demanded that it use a type of ammunition entirely unsuited to the design, with more powder to produce a higher muzzle velocity. And that was why the ammo they supplied was so dirty, and fouled the weapons so quickly. I would like to see someone better acquainted with the topic than I am (it's been 28 years since I read the book) take a look at Fallows' book and absorb its lessons into the article.Theonemacduff (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather folks go to primary sources or credible secondary sources for this information than use tertiary sources like Fallows or Rose. At least Rose doesn't have an ax to grind. --D.E. Watters (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

M16A4 usage by US Army ?

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

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)
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)
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)

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)

Yeah, looking at pictures of troops in Iraq it seems the U.S. Army favors M4 carbines while the U.S. Marines like the M16A4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.0.64 (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's smaller and more compact, and in an urban environment ranges are going to be short so the lower accuracy and range won't matter as much.--Pattont/c 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
IIRC some units used M14s in open desert environments because they needed more range than the M16 could give them.--Pattont/c 11:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i can confirm about the M14. Ive seen some americans with them over there, not a whole squad though, just one or two (designated marksmen?) in both outdoor engagements and urban engagements with both the old (wood) ones and one which looked like it had a fiberglass buttstock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Relating to the use of the M-4 over the M-16 in the US Army: most units prefer the M-4 because it is more compact--easier to get into and out of vehicles--and lighter--until you end up adding five pounds of extra weight to the rails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.149.10 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Parallax problem

I have two questions about this.

...Ok, first, I'll note that one of the things a country boy oughta practice--at least according to my old man--is shooting at very close range, since that's kind of where snakes like to be dangerous. If you're aiming at something three feet away, the distance between point of aim and point of impact for even a handgun can be significant--so, yeah, the problem is real...

But is it actually called parallax? I thought that "parallax" was what made the crosshairs in a scope move when you move your eye. Is this some second, specialized definition I haven't heard of?

Ok, looks like it could fall under this one:

the difference between the view of an object as seen through the picture-taking lens of a camera and the view as seen through a separate viewfinder.

Makes good enough sense and all; just a little odd to see the same word used in the same context to mean two different things (this would mean that "parallax" describes two completely different mechanisms at work in your optics). My other question is if we shouldn't note that this only matters if your target is about the size of a golf ball.

Is there any modern military rifle that doesn't have a similar problem? ...they all seem to have pretty high front posts.

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Ok, that has to be right. I'll go tinker with that article on parallax to see if I can't add something to address what we're talking about in this case. J.M. Archer (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

you should delete and redo this article i asked for a m16 not a whole different page, sperate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.182.218 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Faster Rate of Fire for M16

I read in a gun magazine that the faster rate of fire for the M16 was intentional, that the military upper brass wanted the rifle to shoot faster, hence the new gunpowder, and that this higher rate of fire is what caused the guns to jam, that the original design and rate of fire made it actually a reliable weapon. And the 20 round magazines were supposed to be kept clean and dry and properly maintained to prevent jamming. I doubt the different smokeless powder was the cause of the rifles jamming, after all, machine guns were made possible when they stopped using black powder and switched to smokeless. Black powder leaves a lot of gunk. But who knows, there could have been some additive in the new gunpowder that left a residue but you'd think they would have done trials to find out. Also, when they replaced the M14 in Vietnam with the M16, they kept the M14 as a sniper rifle. Anyone know if they still use the M14 as a sniper rifle? As for the short three-round bursts, I heard that this practice was started so that troops in the field could identify friend from foe by hearing the three round bursts, indicating friendlies. The M16 is supposed to be more accurate than the Ak-47, anybody got any data on this? It would certainly make the M16 the better weapon. And I've heard the smaller calibre M16 round was supposed to tumble and inflict serious wounds so that enemy troops would be thus hampered by having to carry off many more wounded from the field of battle. In Vietnam the troops would designate the M16 as "made by Mattell", the toymaker because of the plastic stock, and I think a lot of mistrust of the M16 came from this use of plastic rather than wood since the fathers of Viet Vets used the Garand, a very reliable weapon in WWII because the bolt and receiver group of the Garand were enclosed and protected from dirt and moisture. Garand, by the way, said he never made a dime off his rifle design and on top of all that they never pronounced his name right. -71.154.158.134 06:04, 12 April 2010

  • I found a source about the M16 bullet tumble, also noted for spiked bullets: "The Swiss draft Protocol on Small-Calibre Weapon Systems", link: Cambridge-org-624. BTW, how should "Garand" be pronounced, as "Gair-and" or "Gah-rahnd"? -Wikid77 04:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing decorative flags to shorten edit-preview

I have removed the numerous vanity flags from the section titled "Users" in the article. That section has been adorned with numerous decorative flags that list 65, or 88, or 143 templates in the transclusion list during edit-preview of the article. Each flag has been accompanied by the nation's title, so the flags are purely decorative images, and not essential for a weapons article. There has been considerable re-editing of the article to adjust those flag images, which was more distraction diverting the focus away from the content of the article. That is a typical problem of distraction, when there are numerous decorative images in an article. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The flags are a significant visual aid in the user lists; they make the individual countries much easier to find and identify in the lists. The quality of the article itself takes priority over the edit preview. The "considerable re-editing of the article to adjust the flag images" was due entirely to your changes. You should have discussed the edit beforehand, because the user lists in every firearm article on Wikipedia use the flag images. I have reverted your edit to the previous version until it's discussed here and consensus is achieved to remove the flags. ROG5728 (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Who cares about a long list of templates in the edit preview? How does that matter at all to our readers? The article is better with the flags, as all these weapon articles have been for a long time. And preview time isn't noticably different with or without the templates, so what's the concern? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.204.5 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jamming of M 16

I was in the Vietnam War from 1968 to 1972 with the U.S. Air Force and as I recall the "jamming" problem with the M-16 was because the new gunpowder, with its increased rate of fire, caused the extractor to shear right through the lip of the brass cartridge, leaving the spent cartridge in the chamber. I've actually seen this happen. It makes sense if you consider that the increased rate of fire was because of increased gas pressure, which would give more force to the extractor, allowing it to shear through the brass. I don't think the new gunpowder left a "dirtier" residue, but maybe it did. Also, I was told that the new gunpowder threw off the balanced operating parameters, which makes sense--by analogy, if you put a bigger engine in a car it will probably destroy your transmission. And we were told that the new gunpowder increased the rate of fire from 750 to 900 rounds a minute, not from 850 to 1,000 as per the Wiki article. One of the reasons the Air Force adopted the weapon, we were told, is that the bullet shoots fast and flat, so that you don't have to be an expert rifleman to shoot the rifle (taking into account bullet drop and windage), which suited the Air Force since we were concerned primarily with aircraft. We needed a "point and shoot" small arms weapon. By the way, a friend of mine had a civilian AR 15 and he said he could make it go full auto just by taking out a small spring and metal plate (some sort of interrupter mechanism).****Incidentally, that comic book the article mentions about keeping your M16A1 rifle clean was drawn by Will Eisner (DA Pam 750-30, 1 July 1969). There's a picture of a good-looking babe telling the grunts in the field to keep their rifles clean, so maybe a few pictures from this comic could be used entertainingly to illustrate the Wiki article. The comic says to clean your M-16 three to five times a day, which is ridiculous for grunts in the field, and grunts I've talked to said that they didn't clean their M-16's that much, that it was pretty reliable. So maybe the reliability issue does relate to the gunpowder. As for the "parallax" sights, I wondered about that, but at close range you're not going to use the sights, you're going to shoot from the hip, and at longer ranges the parallax evens itself out when you sight in. Hope I provided some helpful insights.71.154.158.134 (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock

Is that in the article? If not, it should be; he definitely knows what he's talking about. I just want someone to add the critisms section, and then add this to the reason they jammed in Vietnam, or add it to the M16A1 and XM16E1 section. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Proper Pronunciation of Garand

On page 161 of "War Slang", 2nd edition, by Paul Dickson, Bristol Park Books, 2007, it states that "Garand" is pronounced with the accent on the first syllable, rather than the second. I guess that makes it GAIR-and. And sure enough, it states that Garand never made a dime in royalties off his M-1. "War Slang" is a great research book, by the way, with lots of fascinating historical facts and explanations about the military.

Wikipedia is not a forum. This talk page is dedicated to discussing improvements to the M16 article. If you have suggestions for improving the M1 garand article they should be posted at the talk page there. ROG5728 (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that is not important to the M16. The M1 Garand talk page would be a good place for that. Good to know though I've pronouncing it right all along. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

¿Missing Image(s)?

I could swear at one time there was an animated gif of the M-16’s firing system… Maybe I’m mistaken, but if it was here, ¿could it be put back up?152.121.19.13 (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

Ballistics

Wouldn't it be appropriate to include some info about some of the more unique factors with this firearm, like the larger oomph from the large amount of new powder in conjunction with the design of the projectile itself causing it to tumble upon meeting resistance shredding the target. This led the Viet Cong to refer to this rifle as the "Meat Axe." This is all well documented and a source should be easy to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.145.10 (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism 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)

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)

I see no point to bayonets these days.(Steve4529 (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

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

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

If you are going to create a “critisms” section for one option, it should apply to all equally. Since no one’s going to do it to ‘certain alternatives’ to the AR-Series, it should not even be discussed. Contributions/152.121.19.11 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC) A REDDSON
Didn't you quit? I'm sure this means you quit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndering_J._REDDSON&diff=214121615&oldid=214039797 A REDDSON says, "I resign". Go ahead, follow the link. Are you unresigned now? You were under alot of heat for stealing images at the time. I hope you've changed your ways and are going to try to contrubute to the process now. This conversation was resolved 1.5 years ago. BEFORE you resigned. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
¿And? ¿So? It doesn’t change the point- That what is applied to one should be applied to all exactly equally, or admit there is an absolute bias. 65.100.56.249 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON

Just remove the scattered criticisms and clump them up in a new section. 8w4h4h4h4 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is excellent excepting its' glossing over the controversy and critique of the M16 from its inception to the A3. The article nearly entirely omits the level of objection by both combat troops and the brass. It omits the involvement of the Johnson Administration in its' forced procurement as well as the intense behind the scenes politics. With those exceptions however this article far outclasses the average wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creid999 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As does most others. Were not talking about the [4] here (which itself does not have such a section). The section is political grandstanding. Period. 65.100.56.249 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)A REDDSON
This article is not about a plastic toy. It is about a machine whose failure results in the death of the operator. As such, a separate "Criticism" section is essential and is not a mere opportunity for some people to rant. Any negative characteristics of the machine should be openly, critically, and seriously mentioned.Lestrade (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Actually, that's exactly what it is- Pointelss ranting. The failures were over a very limited time due to changes in the charge (gunpowder) and lack of cleaning kits. Once such kits were issued out, the "failures" disappeared. Bringing it up now, when it's no longer applicable, IS granstanding. PERIOD.174.25.4.28 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)You Know Who It IS. ¿Why BOTHER?

I know that this fails to address all the points raised above, but as I understand the style guidelines, the preferred technique is to spread criticism throughout an article, as appropriate. That is, if you do lump it all into a single section, someone will eventually come along here to point out that it should not be crammed together at the bottom, but "peppered throughout." In any case, what is really accomplished by moving a few sentences around? As to whatever politics were involved in the acquisition of the weapon, I would suggest that this be left an article about the weapon itself. J.M. Archer (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Parallax Origin; Raised Sights

Here's what I understand to be the situation with the high sights on the M-16: since the shoulder stock goes straight back, presumably to help prevent muzzle rise on firing, the sights had to be elevated in order for the person firing to be able to sight. Otherwise, even burying your nose in the stock, it would be impossible to sight down the barrel. Hope this explains the why of the elevated sights. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

a couple of things

Yeah, the bayonet works just fine. The stock while plastic is hard as hell. Anyway, the rifling was used to accomadate the new round. The SS109 has a steel penatrator in it. That is what the faster twist is for. It isn't to stabalize a longer round. Many rounds longer have slower twists. It is because of the penatrator. And many heavier rounds don't have a twist that fast. The M855 was made for the SAW first, and the barrell twist adapted for commonality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.21.47.50 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ar-10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction: M16A3

There is an apparent contradiction re:the M16A3; under the "Introduction" heading it's claimed that the rifle has a fully-automatic trigger group and a flat-top receiver similar to the M16A4 (that and an anon added the unsourced claim that the Israeli military uses it). However, under it's own section in the Variants part of the article it is stated that the rifle has an A2 style upper. I was under the impression that the latter was correct, but which one actually is? LostCause231 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the A3 model is the latter - an A2 upper with a safe-semi-fully automatic trigger group. I don't now if the contradiction is still there now, but I'll look into it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

US was not the inventor but the developer

I always research information randomly And I saw an article that the inventor of the m16 rifle was a Filipino named Armando Malite. Although he was not credited for the invention of the m16. But I know in my heart that he was the real inventor of the m16. I wish the credited inventor of the m16 could share his credit legally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.106.90 (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Eugene Stoner stole the entire thing from some poor Filipino guy, with a name suspiciously similar to the corporation that Stoner worked for and developed the rifle for, Armalite. 99.72.53.109 (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claims under "variation" section

Someone keeps posting unsourced information on M16A2 which I recently deleted (for the second time, if I'm not mistaking). Nobody really cared, apparently, and gossip seems to become more tolerable. 88.78.101.207 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

M16A4 built by FN?

The article mentions that Colt currently has the M16A4 contract, but I am almost positive that FN held the initial production contract, carried over from their 1988 contract producing M16A2s. [[5]] 50.123.75.83 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

haiti?

haiti is listed as a country that uses it -- the haitian army was demobilized in 1996. of course the ex-army rebels used m16s as their primary weapon but those were obviously unofficial and paramilitary. remove from list? or mention that they only used it in the past? 68.193.168.7 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can source this information, I suggest adding that it is a former user.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in M16 rifle

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)

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?--92.206.42.65 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 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 82.211.221.204 (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)

Muzzle devices

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.[53][54] 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.[55] 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.[56] A variant of the Vortex has been adopted by the Canadian Military for use on the Colt Canada C8 CQB rifle.[57] Other flash suppressors developed for the M16 include the Phantom Flash Suppressor by Yankee Hill Machine (YHM) and the KX-3 by Noveske Rifleworks.[58]
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.[59] 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.[59]

--71.22.156.40 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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.[71][72] The United States Marine Corps uses the ACOG Rifle Combat Optic[73][74] and the United States Navy uses EOTech Holographic Weapon Sight.[75]

--71.22.156.40 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

JessAveryJA (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Direct Impingement

The MAS-49_rifle states that the (MAS-49) direct impingement system "Similar direct impingement designs include the Swedish AG-42 Ljungman semi-automatic rifle adopted in 1942 and the US M16 select-fire rifle adopted in 1963." Similar statement is made in Ag_m/42. Shouldn't this page have a similar sentence? Something on the lines of "The M16 rifle uses a direct impingement system similar to that of the Swedish AG-42 Ljungman semi-automatic rifle adopted in 1942 and the French MAS-44 and MAS-49 rifles, the later adopted in 1949."

Now if the case is made the direct impingement system used in the M16 is completely original and not copied/derived/inspired by those toher rifles, I beleive the entries for the MAS-49_rifle and the Ag_m/42 should reflect this lack of relationship with the M16. SupremeDalek (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Future replacement

"Replacement of the M16 family has been proposed at various points, and its longevity is in part due to a series of failures in projects meant to replace it, driven largely by the requirement for a significant improvement. Previous attempts by the U.S. military to replace the M16 were unsuccessful or only supplemented it."

The only weapons currently replacing the M16, are the M4 and H&K 416. Both of which are M16 variants. And, both of which are mentioned in the main body of the article.

Therefore, this entire section serves no purpose...except, to list one failed attempt after another to replace the M16. Even the title "Future replacements" is misleading, as most of the info provided goes back decades.

For example, "Immediately after the introduction of the M16, the Marine Corps sought to adopt the Stoner 63.[citation needed] Although they found it superior in most ways, it was still at an early stage of development; the Marines chose the technically inferior but mature M16."

It serves no purpose to mention that 50 years ago the USMC tried to replace the "technically inferior" M16 with the Stoner 63. It's nothing more than historical trivia, attempting to convince the reader that the M16 is an inferior system that needs to be replaced.

Therefore, this entire section should be removed.--RAF910 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Project SALVO & SPIW sections

Project SALVO & SPIW sections had nothing to do with the development of the M16 and should be removed.

One might be able to argue, that 30 years later, Project SALVO led to the development of the three-round-burst mechanism on the M16-A2. However, the section makes no such claims. Even if it did, it does not justify 6 detailed paragraphs in the history section. It would only need to be mentioned in a sentence or two in the M16-A2 section.

As for the Special Purpose Individual Weapon section, the only connection to the M16 was the development of the under-barrel grenade launcher and the eventual adoption of the M203 grenade launcher. However, the section makes no mention of grenade launchers.

Therefore, I recommend that both section be removed as irrelevant trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that SALVO came to the conclusion that an intermediate 5.56 mm cartridge in a fully-automatic rifle should be adopted as a new service rifle? Did the project have no bearing on the adoption of the M16?--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Project SALVO spent most of it's efforts on "fléchette" and "duplex load" cartridges. In essence, they concluded that a well aimed short burst of automatic fire (3 to 5 rounds) was more effective than a single well aimed shot.

"Final Report - Small Arms Cartridge" concerning its fléchette development efforts. The report claims that a high velocity 10 grain fléchette is equally lethal as the .30 M2 rifle bullet out to 600 yards. Yet in terms of cartridge weight, five rounds of the saboted fléchette cartridge could be fired for each individual .30'06 cartridge."

It was General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) that recommended the development of a .223 caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle in 1957. Based on "Report No. 593. An effectiveness study of the infantry rifle. Ballistic Research Laboratories. Maryland. by Donald L. Hall. March 1952", which recommended the development of a small-caliber, high-velocity cartridge. The Army rejected this request, as they were committed to the M14 rifle and 7.62 NATO cartridge. It was not until the Vietnam war, when battlefield reports indicated that the M14 was uncontrollable in full-auto and that soldiers could not carry enough ammo to maintain fire superiority over the AK-47, did the Army relent and begin development of the AR-15/M16 rifle.--RAF910 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

SALVO and the other text in the section may not directly related, but they seemed have setup things for the M16. I suggest keeping the text as background, but summarize it. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I also recommend that we remove the AR-10 and CONARC sections, as that information is now summarized in the new Background section. I see no need to reason to repeat the same info over and over again.--RAF910 (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M16 rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on M16 rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Service history...Wars

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? Scr★pIronIV 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 Scr★pIronIV 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)

M4 accuracy.

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".[6] 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:[7]--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: [8]. Felsic2 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

AR-15 accuracy

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.[9]

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.

[10]

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 are....read 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)
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

Heckler & Koch HK416 got deleted from the list of derivatives,[11] 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."[12][13] Felsic2 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
H&K also seems to regard it as an M16 derivative.click on "Read More". Felsic2 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Terminal ballistics

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 195.138.94.100 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

M3 bipod

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)
I've changed the M3 bipod section, any criticism is more than welcome Thom430 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on M16 rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy

I have some issues with the accuracy section:

The M16 rifle is "accurate beyond description".[100] where the quoted source reads "The M16 makes a man a crowd, allowing him to lay down a fantastic 100 to 120 rounds per minute, providing he can change the 20 or 30-round magazine that fast. Accurate beyond description - a soldier 300 yards away can get an endless grouping in a foot-square target - the M16 fires a .223 cartridge."

I find this to be a bit sensationalist. Never mind the fact that 100 to 120 rounds per minute figure is a bit misleading - this can't be done indefinitely - the M16 is by no means accurate beyond description. As the Kjellgren paper points out, it achieves 4.3 inches at 100 metres, much like the G3. This figure seem to hold true to this day, as the M16A4 has an MoA of 4.5 inch, as per a relatively recent Marine Corps Times article: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2015/02/16/deadlier-rifles-and-ammo-may-be-on-the-way/

Then, on to the next: "They are also more accurate than their predecessors and are capable of shooting 1–3 inch groups at 100 yards."

Again, this is in contradiction to the Kjellgren paper used in the table, and the Marine Corps article. Is a free-floated civilian AR-15 capable of 1 MoA or below? Yes, absolutely. Is a military issue, mass-produced and worn M16, with non-free floated barrel? Not so much.

Thoughts?

Thom430 (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

But in real life, accuracy is quantifiable.

"Accurate beyond description"? C'mon, that's standard mechanoporn exaggeration, PM and PS have to sometimes be toned down a bit. Anmccaff (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M16_rifle/Archive_2&oldid=1136366434"