5 ms·

>So, I'm struggling with how the M16 would have been even a paper improvement over being "outgunned". The round it fires is more suited for the reality of comb

by qball 8y ago

>So, I'm struggling with how the M16 would have been even a paper improvement over being "outgunned". The round it fires is more suited for the reality of combat, which is that 90% of combat takes place within 100 meters and the last 9% happens within 300 meters of the enemy. In fact, you can't even see a normal target with non-magnified sights at 300m, much less a target that's trying its hardest to hide from you. The M14 is designed to be effective at 600-800 meters. And the cost to being effective at that extended distance is that you have to dump lots of energy into the projectile, which means that the shooter has to deal with a large recoil impulse. If you are taking a shot at 100m with an M14, your sight picture will be completely gone after you fire once. With the M16, however, the recoil impulse is roughly 1/3rd of the M14's (mainly due to the cartridge; the AK-47 uses a similar one energy-wise). Your point of aim doesn't meaningfully change from shot to shot, so if your first shot misses you now have the ability to try again multiple times (and can fire bursts effectively if needed). Maybe there's a slight chance you need to hit your enemy multiple times, but the cartridge makes getting that first shot significantly easier and you can carry more ammunition anyway.

oeuviz 8y ago
Being forced yearly to shoot at a target 300m away with non-magnifying sights: what makes you think that you cannot see such a target? FWIW: 17 out of 20 rounds have to hit the roughly torso-sized target to pass.
- jabl 8y ago
  In real combat targets are not standing still in the open wearing white clothes with concentric black circles? And yes, any infantryman in any army on the planet should be capable of hitting a roughly torso-sizes target with decent probability at 300m.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > In real combat targets are not standing still in the open wearing white clothes with concentric black circles? Neither are normal US military rifle range targets; they are drab green popup targets with límites exposure time on a semi forested range.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  found the Swiss...
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > what makes you think that you cannot see such a target? It's night, in the Vietnamese jungle, and they're popping up from the concealed tunnel entrance twenty feet away you just walked over.
- potta_coffee 8y ago
  During my last rifle qualification, I was able to hit 10/10 rounds on the 19" silhouette at 500m - USMC trains at a further distance. I've done this with iron sights and optics. It's not very difficult.
jandrewrogers 8y ago
This is incorrect on a couple accounts. First, one can easily see a normal target at 300m with unmagnified iron sights. US soldiers have to qualify on drab green pop-up targets at 300m on a semi-forested range and they routinely hit them. At 100m, the target is just a head and shoulders. Easy to do with an M-16 given a little practice. Second, the AK-47 is quite poor at preserving point of aim across successive shots due to its design. This is because the reciprocating mass (i.e. the piston) is far out-of-line relative to the point of shoulder contact, creating torque that pulls the barrel away from the point of aim even with a relatively low-energy cartridge. The M-16 action, by contrast, has an almost perfectly inline reciprocating mass that produces little torque, among the very best of all common assault weapons, which makes it unusually easy to control point of aim during rapid fire.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  For "normal infantry use" AK is still a massive improvement over anything firing a full power rifle cartridge. Sure the AR platform makes for a better shooter's rifle but that wasn't a high priority design goal of the AK. No matter how short your shorts are (I hope nobody here gets that reference) trying to lay down full auto suppressing fire with a FAL is going to be less effective than with an with an AK and its intermediate cartridge.
- jtuente 8y ago
  Your first point is trivial. Shooting a fixed point target from a fixed position is very different from shooting a moving target with an unknown position from an unknown position. The rifle qualification exists to establish that soldiers know how to aim the rifle, not to establish that they can hit a real target.
  - jki275 8y ago
    The rifle qualification for the USMC is 500 yards from a fixed point, Soldiers and Marines are generally expected to hit a man sized target from a supported position at 500-600 yards and non-supported at 200-300.

by qball 8y ago

oeuviz 8y ago

Being forced yearly to shoot at a target 300m away with non-magnifying sights: what makes you think that you cannot see such a target? FWIW: 17 out of 20 rounds have to hit the roughly torso-sized target to pass.

jabl 8y ago
In real combat targets are not standing still in the open wearing white clothes with concentric black circles? And yes, any infantryman in any army on the planet should be capable of hitting a roughly torso-sizes target with decent probability at 300m.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > In real combat targets are not standing still in the open wearing white clothes with concentric black circles? Neither are normal US military rifle range targets; they are drab green popup targets with límites exposure time on a semi forested range.
m_mueller 8y ago
found the Swiss...
ceejayoz 8y ago
> what makes you think that you cannot see such a target? It's night, in the Vietnamese jungle, and they're popping up from the concealed tunnel entrance twenty feet away you just walked over.
potta_coffee 8y ago
During my last rifle qualification, I was able to hit 10/10 rounds on the 19" silhouette at 500m - USMC trains at a further distance. I've done this with iron sights and optics. It's not very difficult.

jandrewrogers 8y ago

This is incorrect on a couple accounts. First, one can easily see a normal target at 300m with unmagnified iron sights. US soldiers have to qualify on drab green pop-up targets at 300m on a semi-forested range and they routinely hit them. At 100m, the target is just a head and shoulders. Easy to do with an M-16 given a little practice. Second, the AK-47 is quite poor at preserving point of aim across successive shots due to its design. This is because the reciprocating mass (i.e. the piston) is far out-of-line relative to the point of shoulder contact, creating torque that pulls the barrel away from the point of aim even with a relatively low-energy cartridge. The M-16 action, by contrast, has an almost perfectly inline reciprocating mass that produces little torque, among the very best of all common assault weapons, which makes it unusually easy to control point of aim during rapid fire.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
For "normal infantry use" AK is still a massive improvement over anything firing a full power rifle cartridge. Sure the AR platform makes for a better shooter's rifle but that wasn't a high priority design goal of the AK. No matter how short your shorts are (I hope nobody here gets that reference) trying to lay down full auto suppressing fire with a FAL is going to be less effective than with an with an AK and its intermediate cartridge.
jtuente 8y ago
Your first point is trivial. Shooting a fixed point target from a fixed position is very different from shooting a moving target with an unknown position from an unknown position. The rifle qualification exists to establish that soldiers know how to aim the rifle, not to establish that they can hit a real target.
- jki275 8y ago
  The rifle qualification for the USMC is 500 yards from a fixed point, Soldiers and Marines are generally expected to hit a man sized target from a supported position at 500-600 yards and non-supported at 200-300.