WAR

[Yogogamer]

That wiki page was still more evidence then you've shown. All you've done is say "I'm right, you're wrong. You have no proof, I have all the in the world but you don't deserve to see it.".

 

Also I couldn't care less about this conversation anymore. I haven't slept for 33 hours and I still can't go to bed!

Yes, Wiki isn't evidence, I already explained my evidence and haven't once said the above

Really? Because you haven't been doing much else besides making my day even crappier and trying to tell me I'm wrong with a wiki page

[sgtKraigO]

Your claims are not evidence. You haven't showed one piece of evidence. Also you call me lazy for not googling what war the M16 won, but you refuse to google "M16 jamming issue".

 

This isn't an essay, we're discussing an issue about a weapon, there's nothing wrong with a wikipedia page. Hell show me one that says the M16 won a war...

[Yogogamer]

Your claims are not evidence. You haven't showed one piece of evidence. Also you call me lazy for not googling what war the M16 won, but you refuse to google "M16 jamming issue".

 

This isn't an essay, we're discussing an issue about a weapon, there's nothing wrong with a wikipedia page. Hell show me one that says the M16 won a war...

*Facedesk* Oh my god....

I already addressed the jamming issue, you are going all out to start a flame war..

In any case, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, Stop trying to jam this "not an essay" bull down my throat

[MarchUntoTorment]

To be the voice of reason, yet again -

The M16 has some pretty serious reliability issues, but not as serious as they're made out to be. The primary issue in Vietnam was that US soldiers weren't issued cleaning kits and were told that it was 'self-cleaning'; this was a ploy by generals who disliked the M16 and wanted to stick with the M14. This is well-documented.

After a proper number of cleaning kits were issued, performance improved significantly. It's not a particularly good or bad rifle; not as reliable as the AK series, but more accurate than many of its competitors and a very versatile platform. While not as good as newer weapons such as the Steyr AUG or G36, it remains easily mass-producible and its reliability issues are not of note in A2 and later models.

THERE are the facts. All-around, it's not as good as most recent-generation assault rifles and will soon become dated (hence why the US have tried to replace it so many times), but remains easily mass-producible and is a competent weapon in its own right.

Basically, the M16 is used as the weapon by which all other assault rifles are judged; it's more or less middle-of-the-road in every conceivable aspect.

We done?

[Yogogamer]

 

To be the voice of reason, yet again -

The M16 has some pretty serious reliability issues, but not as serious as they're made out to be. The primary issue in Vietnam was that US soldiers weren't issued cleaning kits and were told that it was 'self-cleaning'; this was a ploy by generals who disliked the M16 and wanted to stick with the M14. This is well-documented.

After a proper number of cleaning kits were issued, performance improved significantly. It's not a particularly good or bad rifle; not as reliable as the AK series, but more accurate than many of its competitors and a very versatile platform. While not as good as newer weapons such as the Steyr AUG or G36, it remains easily mass-producible and its reliability issues are not of note in A2 and later models.

THERE are the facts. All-around, it's not as good as most recent-generation assault rifles and will soon become dated (hence why the US have tried to replace it so many times), but remains easily mass-producible and is a competent weapon in its own right.

Basically, the M16 is used as the weapon by which all other assault rifles are judged; it's more or less middle-of-the-road in every conceivable aspect.

We done?

 

LOL Calling the AK series the most reliable *Rollseyes*

Also, the AUG isn't a new weapon.

And I hope you are aware there a newer model M16 rifles, it's comptenet with the modern weapons...

[MarchUntoTorment]

I try to resolve things peacefully with facts, and this is what you respond with. No matter.

 

1) The AK series is one of the more reliable rifle designs in the world. They've been known to fire with enormous amounts of dirt and mud. While they tend to fall down in other areas - for starters, their accuracy is poor compared to current-generation SMGs, let alone assault rifles - they are abnormally reliable. Secondly, I never said 'the most reliable' - the 'most reliable' weapon in the world is, and will always be, a trusty knife.

 

2) The AUG is new compared to the M16 - the M16 entered production in 1960, whereas the AUG entered production in 1980. More significantly, the AUG was many years ahead of its time even in 1980 - it was designed with a highly ergonomic form, bullpup configuration allowing it an abnormally long barrel for its size and is extremely lightweight, as well as being very easy to reconfigure. It's a full generation ahead of the M16's design in every conceivable way - but, as I said before, its weakness is that its per-unit cost is roughly triple that of the M16.

 

3) The newer variants of the M16 are, by and large, minor improvements on a design that's been around for some sixty-odd years. It's a good design, don't get me wrong, but the design of the rifle has remained constant over the last sixty years, and it's starting to show relative to newer, more advanced weaponry.

 

I'm not saying that the M16 is a bad rifle. I am saying that it's not the best assault rifle in the world, and that it's an old design beginning to show its age.

[Yogogamer]

I try to resolve things peacefully with facts, and this is what you respond with. No matter.

 

1) The AK series is one of the more reliable rifle designs in the world. They've been known to fire with enormous amounts of dirt and mud. While they tend to fall down in other areas - for starters, their accuracy is poor compared to current-generation SMGs, let alone assault rifles - they are abnormally reliable. Secondly, I never said 'the most reliable' - the 'most reliable' weapon in the world is, and will always be, a trusty knife.

 

2) The AUG is new compared to the M16 - the M16 entered production in 1960, whereas the AUG entered production in 1980. More significantly, the AUG was many years ahead of its time even in 1980 - it was designed with a highly ergonomic form, bullpup configuration allowing it an abnormally long barrel for its size and is extremely lightweight, as well as being very easy to reconfigure. It's a full generation ahead of the M16's design in every conceivable way - but, as I said before, its weakness is that its per-unit cost is roughly triple that of the M16.

 

3) The newer variants of the M16 are, by and large, minor improvements on a design that's been around for some sixty-odd years. It's a good design, don't get me wrong, but the design of the rifle has remained constant over the last sixty years, and it's starting to show relative to newer, more advanced weaponry.

 

I'm not saying that the M16 is a bad rifle. I am saying that it's not the best assault rifle in the world, and that it's an old design beginning to show its age.

 

I try to resolve things peacefully with facts, and this is what you respond with. No matter.

 

1) The AK series is one of the more reliable rifle designs in the world. They've been known to fire with enormous amounts of dirt and mud. While they tend to fall down in other areas - for starters, their accuracy is poor compared to current-generation SMGs, let alone assault rifles - they are abnormally reliable. Secondly, I never said 'the most reliable' - the 'most reliable' weapon in the world is, and will always be, a trusty knife.

 

2) The AUG is new compared to the M16 - the M16 entered production in 1960, whereas the AUG entered production in 1980. More significantly, the AUG was many years ahead of its time even in 1980 - it was designed with a highly ergonomic form, bullpup configuration allowing it an abnormally long barrel for its size and is extremely lightweight, as well as being very easy to reconfigure. It's a full generation ahead of the M16's design in every conceivable way - but, as I said before, its weakness is that its per-unit cost is roughly triple that of the M16.

 

3) The newer variants of the M16 are, by and large, minor improvements on a design that's been around for some sixty-odd years. It's a good design, don't get me wrong, but the design of the rifle has remained constant over the last sixty years, and it's starting to show relative to newer, more advanced weaponry.

 

I'm not saying that the M16 is a bad rifle. I am saying that it's not the best assault rifle in the world, and that it's an old design beginning to show its age.

1. It's also a wooden rifle, Wouldn't hold up well at all in a rainy envoirment,

 

2. They are from around the same period basically! The newer rifles anyway

 

3. Minor improvements? I'm guessin you don't know the changes

[kingwilfre16]

All this guy asked for was a simple bodies everywhere mod with absolute chaos and you turn it into a flame war over SgtKraigO voicing his opinion, and then rip MarchUntoTorrent a new one for trying to be the mediator for this inane argument!

[Uragan907]

For the issue of WW2:without Russia you would've been by now..... non existent.

Get one thing straight:Soviet Russia won that war.Not US and certainly not the lazy fly boys from UK.

By 1940 Germans had them surrounded.

Yes Hitler-brainless-fart made a huge mistake by attacking USSR.But that is all just history now and like my

favorite Seven Of Nine says:irrelevant.

 

On the topic:I want war!!!Automatic weapons,crossfire and firestorm!!!

Hell in Mohave!!!

[sgtKraigO]

 

1. It's also a wooden rifle, Wouldn't hold up well at all in a rainy envoirment,

 

 

The wood would be treated so it wouldn't rot.

 

For the issue of WW2:without Russia you would've been by now..... non existent.

 

I will agree that Russia's scorched earth tactic was very effective, but also keep in mind that the UK held off German attacks until the US entered the war. It was an ALLIED victory, one nation did not win that war by itself. They all played an equal role in it example being; 40% of the pork (it may be beef, I can't remember) eaten in Britain during WW2 was from Argentina, with out their contribution the UK would have starved, if the UK fell the USSR would have had to deal with even more troops and luftwaffe raids.