Jump to content

Talk:M16 rifle/Archive 3

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

M16a4 weight?

M16a4 unload weight 3.26kg but full m16 weight 3.99 kg while 30 rounds 5.56 only .36kg and full magazine just .48kg. Mistake or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.245.11.141 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

is there a coversion that should be conversion? 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sakura Cartelet Talk 15:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 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) 10:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No M16 in use in the french Légion Etrangère

Very surprised to read that the M16 is used by the french "Légion Etrangère"... Maybe it has been the case punctually at some point in history, but I could find zero evidence of that, so I removed that line. For those interested, La Légion currently use the french FAMAS AR, nicknamed "Clairon" (french word for "Clarion") because of the handle which somewhat makes it look like an upside-down clarion. The FAMAS turned out to be a high maintenance rifle, which, in addition, fails to comply with NATO ammunition standards. It will be replaced by the german HK416F, next standard rifle for all french armies. The replacement process has started and should be complete in 2026. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:122D:C658:DCA6:47F4:8AB1:5EE3 (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe a modest number were supplied to French Foreign Legion forces in Vietnam via the MAP program. I have heard that they preferred the AR-10 rifle though, a few (paratrooper version) of which had been apparently acquired through other sources. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ceannlann gorm: French Foreign Legion (and all French units) left Vietnam after the Geneva Accords, in 1954.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Lack of sleep may be catching up with me; I could have sworn it was Vietnam where the Legion received a number of M-16s, but you are right, the timing doesn't fit. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Confusion about powder?

Under History > adoption, the following line exists:

In 1964, the Army was informed that DuPont could not mass-produce the IMR 4475 stick powder to the specifications demanded by the M16. Therefore, Olin Mathieson Company provided a high-performance ball propellant. While the Olin WC 846 powder achieved the desired 3,300 ft (1,000 m) per second muzzle velocity, it produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the M16s action (unless the rifle was cleaned well and often).

However under Reliability: the following is stated:

The M16 and 5.56×45mm cartridge was tested and approved with the use of a DuPont IMR8208M extruded powder, that was switched to Olin Mathieson WC846 ball powder which produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the action of the M16 (unless the gun was cleaned well and often).[1]

One or the other appears to be incorrect. Was it IMR 4475 or IMR 8208M that was originally specified?

--Cordianet (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It was IMR 4475 that was specified, although they tested various gunpowders. The WC 846 fouled the M-16 because it had too much Calcium Carbonate added to the gunpowder, so they lowered this to .25% in the later WC 844. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I should mention that initially Remington didn't want to make the bullets, they knew such a gunpowder change in a new weapon was fraught with peril. But a batch of WC 846 can be made in only 40 hours while it takes 2 weeks to make IMR 4475. Plus I've read that Olin had a huge amount of WC 846 left over from a deal that fell through and wanted to get rid of it. But nobody tested the new gunpowder change.... I smell a big, fat rat. A change in gunpowder would have to come from the OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense), so some civilian probably authorized the change without testing and got a fat job with Olin Mathieson later...75.4.34.74 (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
McNamara was Sec. of Defense and implemented cost-cutting from 1961 to 1966, and the cheaper WC 846 gunpowder was adopted in 1964. And apparently they tested the M-16 with IMR 8208M powder but were supposed to test it with WC 846. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Short description revision undone

@Fnlayson:, why did you revert the edit to remove the redundant word from the article's short description? You claim it was to "add clarity", but it is completely unnecessary, and potentially misleading since it implies that there are assault rifles designed for US civilians. Assault rifles are inherently military weapons. Oktayey (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I restored it to clarify that Assault rifle is military. Not everyone will know this and some may confuse it with assault weapon. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, I removed "military" from the short description as you had it. Done with this. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

M16 "billed as self-cleaning" not in citation

Hello, I have located an oddity in this article with respect to the M16's performance in Vietnam. There are two appearances in this article of the claim Colt sold it as "self cleaning", but in neither citation associated with the claim is such a claim evidenced. In the first example (In section "History" subsection "adoption"):

"However, the rifle was initially delivered without adequate cleaning kits[49] or instructions because Colt had claimed the M16 was self-cleaning. As a result, reports of stoppages in combat began to surface.[49]"

Citation 49 contains 4 instances of the word "clean/ing", in which the only relevant quote from citation 49 reads "Sadly, not only was the ammo left essentially as it was, but it took many months before sufficient numbers of adequate cleaning tools reached the front line troops. No excuse in the world justifies this outrage that borders on criminal negligence." - wherein it's clear the issue was a logistical failure to deliver cleaning tools after detailing ammo, material, manufacture, inspection, and other failures.

The second instance of this claim is under section "Reliability", "The M16 was billed as self-cleaning (when no weapon is or ever has been).[1]" - Citation 1 is the DTIC M16 review panel report, with 39 instances of "clean/ing", and absolutely none of them refer to a claim the M16 was billed as self-cleaning. Rather, like citation 49, it writes in conclusion "That various levels of command in both the Army and the Marine Corps have been negligent in failing to provide proper supervision in the care and cleaning of the rifle, as well as failing to distribute cleaning material and written instructions."

In my brief attempt to locate a source for the claim of the M16 being billed to the US military as entirely self-cleaning, I instead found multiple people discussing that this is a myth without foundation. Given I have no experience with modern Wikipedia, let alone editing its articles, let alone its ever increasing gargantuan rules, I leave it as a suggestion that perhaps adequate citations for the claim need to be found or the claim be removed entirely. Specifically as pertains to alleging Colt billed it as not needing a cleaning kit... when it was selling cleaning kits. 24.220.176.117 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing glitches?

It's impossible to edit the page at the moment, due to timeouts and the like when you try to save changes. What gives? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflicts.... Enjoyer of World💬 05:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Production History

The document used as a source for the period of time that the M16 was produced was dated to 1968 and declassified in 1984 so the source is REALLY outdated. Does anyone have a more recent source that could be used?

Now replaced with a source from 2011. Loafiewa (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Assault rifle

Perhaps @Jstar356: should read about the difference between assault rifle and assault weapon. FDW777 (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Also blogs such as Forgotten Weapons are not even remotely close to being a reliable reference. The M231 Firing Port Weapon is not a modern relative of the WW2 Krummlauf, since the Krummlauf was not even a gun but a bent barrel attachmment for the StG 44. They can't even get basics right. FDW777 (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

How to categorise Taliban usage?

Quite a few photos from the current debacle in Afghanistan show Taliban fighters with some M16s in addition to the more common AK series. I was thinking of adding the group to the Users list as a result, but the problem I have is one of categorisation. On the one hand, the logical choice should be to classify them as a non-state user (and indeed Taliban usage of M16s would seem to pre-date the current situation according to this), but on the other hand the fall of Kabul effectively means that they are now the new Afghan government, something which would make them closer to a state user of sorts; indeed, various articles here have been updated, presumably with good reason, to treat the Taliban as constituting the current government of Afghanistan as a result of what's been happening over the course of this month. How then should we treat the group for the purposes of the Users list?--Dvaderv2 (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

M16 in Vietnam

How does a USMC platoon have 70+ guys in it?? 149.115.60.141 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Picture of m16a4

I believe that the picture of the m16a4 with the removable carry handle in the vairants section is not an m16a4 but actually a civilian ar-15 lower reciever with either an AR 15 upper reciever made to look like an m16a4 upper reciever or an actual m16a4 upper reciever. I believe this because the lower reciever lacks the 3rd pin for the sear, which should be on the lower reciever above the safety. Unless I am mistaken, this is a semi auto civilian weapon made to look like an a4, not a real m16a4 128.198.99.168 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

M16 user

M16 was used by croats in limited quantities during Bosnia war True mikivublo (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You need a reliable, published source that shows this wasn't just incidental use of captured weapons. BilCat (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/novskain/uploads/2017/11/TIGROVI_24.jpg 2A02:A31D:23E:B980:A5F6:B4D4:7688:BF87 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

M16A4 picture again

I believe that the ‘M16A4’ (the one with the removable carry handle) picture may actually be one of an airsoft gun. This is because it doesn’t have the receiver fire selector markings that a normal M16A4 has. 220.245.13.254 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference #94 leads to a wayback link of an online Indonesian gambling website instead of a military pdf about the M16. It should probably be reviewed SSEdwards (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Magazine Section and compatibility

Regarding the Design > Magazine section on the "Enhanced Performance Magazine" its stated "to distinguish it from earlier, incompatible magazines." The item is a magazine, it is not compatible with another magazine. Earlier magazines are not incompatible with the rifle. The compatibility is not the distinguisher, the idea we want to get across is that they are tan with a blue follower to not their improved performance over earlier models of magazine. It makes much more sense in my opinion to reword the statement to "to distinguish it from earlier models of magazine" or "earlier design of magazine" 72.39.35.188 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, wasn't logged in, this is my topic Wozrop (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M16_rifle/Archive_3&oldid=1258158604"