slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
SlowDog wrote:
I have read this thoroughly, as I have been a solid lurker here for about 2 months now, and came across it in another thread.
I enjoy this guys input, and he is certainly very knowledgeable. However, in my experience, there are caveats that should be thoroughly discussed when considering round KE and ballistics.
A lot of people have made negative commentary about the M16/4, in consideration to the round, as well as the weapons operation. It is my experience that like a lot of normal people, there are sometimes some people who are "lazier than most" in units, or joined to be a specific doer of specific job instead of being what they are meant to be first, and that is a rifleman.
I have spent probably 40,000+ rounds through M16's, and easily 1k+ through M203's, and MK19 Mod 3's. I have also qualified on the M2, as well as the M249. My specialties however reside with the M16A2, M203and the MK19 Mod 3.
In my experience the M16 is simply put, one of the finest rifles you can ever fire. The sights are simple and effective, the weight is light.The magazine capacity is great, and the action is parallel to the barrel. I have however witnessed probably 100 or so soldiers at least, who simply refused, for whatever reason, to maintain their weapons. Anybody with a AR can attest that breakdown is simple, maintenance is easy,and key areas aren't that hard to clean. Furthermore, the ballistic qualities of the 5.56 are superb. Coupling that round, with Stoners system, is pretty much as effective a rifle as one can get. For those who are not aware, US Marines were investigated in Fallujah because the majority of opfor was killed by rounds to the head. It was simply found that coupled with the US Marine Corps training program, the M16/4 is simply put, the deadliest infantry rifle in the world, period.
What am I trying to say? I am saying that while the KE or ballistics of the rounds compared by the gentlemen in his analysis of cadavers is insightful, it may not tell the story of how "effective" a weapon truly is. The revelation that .45 ACP, and .357's were extremely effective does not shock anybody I'm sure. Nor does the effectiveness of the .38. For self defense purposes, the referenced rounds are great I am sure, but I am truly weighing out the options, and considering a "mouse" round now. With a bit of range time, I'm sure the Mrs. would do just fine with a 9mm for example. Heck, the more "fun" a weapon is to fire as opposed to "punishing", the more the Mrs. may want to go to the range with me.
Can't beat that wih a stick, am I right?
SlowDog wrote:
I have read this thoroughly, as I have been a solid lurker here for about 2 months now, and came across it in another thread.
I enjoy this guys input, and he is certainly very knowledgeable. However, in my experience, there are caveats that should be thoroughly discussed when considering round KE and ballistics.
A lot of people have made negative commentary about the M16/4, in consideration to the round, as well as the weapons operation. It is my experience that like a lot of normal people, there are sometimes some people who are "lazier than most" in units, or joined to be a specific doer of specific job instead of being what they are meant to be first, and that is a rifleman.
I have spent probably 40,000+ rounds through M16's, and easily 1k+ through M203's, and MK19 Mod 3's. I have also qualified on the M2, as well as the M249. My specialties however reside with the M16A2, M203and the MK19 Mod 3.
In my experience the M16 is simply put, one of the finest rifles you can ever fire. The sights are simple and effective, the weight is light.The magazine capacity is great, and the action is parallel to the barrel. I have however witnessed probably 100 or so soldiers at least, who simply refused, for whatever reason, to maintain their weapons. Anybody with a AR can attest that breakdown is simple, maintenance is easy,and key areas aren't that hard to clean. Furthermore, the ballistic qualities of the 5.56 are superb. Coupling that round, with Stoners system, is pretty much as effective a rifle as one can get. For those who are not aware, US Marines were investigated in Fallujah because the majority of opfor was killed by rounds to the head. It was simply found that coupled with the US Marine Corps training program, the M16/4 is simply put, the deadliest infantry rifle in the world, period.
What am I trying to say? I am saying that while the KE or ballistics of the rounds compared by the gentlemen in his analysis of cadavers is insightful, it may not tell the story of how "effective" a weapon truly is. The revelation that .45 ACP, and .357's were extremely effective does not shock anybody I'm sure. Nor does the effectiveness of the .38. For self defense purposes, the referenced rounds are great I am sure, but I am truly weighing out the options, and considering a "mouse" round now. With a bit of range time, I'm sure the Mrs. would do just fine with a 9mm for example. Heck, the more "fun" a weapon is to fire as opposed to "punishing", the more the Mrs. may want to go to the range with me.
Can't beat that wih a stick, am I right?
