30 rounds in an M16 magazine? Urban Legend?

[JR47]

"Really? Are you sure? Where did I respond about qualifications to state which weapons system were related to length of service, or combat time before"

Short memory have you?

"Just to throw a little fuel into the fire, one of my old unit's men is an MOH winner. His opinion of the M16 is that it made a great target rifle, but a lousy combat rifle."


"Please, try to remember who posted what before you embarrass yourself again."

Do you feel embarassed?

Try again, if you note the progression of posts, they are numbered, you'll find that the referred quote by me was in post number 63, while yours was in post number 61. Can you explain how I started talking about what someone's length of service did? As I asked before, did you read the posts?

An E5 who did maintance in my old unit and the Sgt major who retired now almost 20 years ago were 2 of a handful of survivors from the batallion in vietnam (Airborne unit all volunteers, all enlisted professional soldiers). Never in their careers did either blame the M-16 or its design for a single problem, both maintained their weapons constantly and religiously, both knew the new design had a few weak points, both maintained to prevent those weak points from causing a problem.

Followed by:

Both loved the design later of the M-16A2 and raved about the design faults being fixed.

Pick one there, buddy.

I read that test with the M-4, in it the USGI mag was used. Id like to see the test done again with magpul mags, with all of the rifles tested in the sand test, compare results.

I'm sure that you would. However, unless and until P-Mags are issue, the entire idea of "it wasn't fair" is pretty stupid. The guns were tested with the magazines offered with the system. As I said before, the magazine has been the weakest point in the system. Apparently, you agree, or you wouldn't be asking for non-issue items.

 

[JR47]

Horse.

Those are USGI magazines. HK and FN both claim their newer STANAG magazine designs are improvements, and HK claims their G36 type mags are also superior to USGI magazines . . . so, yes, per my original statement (whether you like it or not) it's an apples and oranges issue.

So, the fact that the issue magazines of the systems were compared alongside each other somehow makes it an apples vs. oranges test? It would appear that HK and FN are both correct as to the superiority of their offerings, wouldn't it?

The test, no matter how you want to portray it, was to see how the various systems stacked up against one another. SYSTEMS include magazines issued with the guns. To somehow exclude the magazine, unless you're testing the rifles as single shots, is ludicrous.

Really? Care to point us towards a cite that shows where anyone -- armed with an M4, AK, or anything else -- had a combat experience that mirrored the dust test? I'm curious, since the people who conducted the test noted that it did not replicate real world conditions or combat conditions (assuming we go by their actual report, though who knows, the evil M16 Conspiracy may have gotten to them, too . . . ).

Well, as I'm not the one claiming to know why the tests were performed, or how they were specifically designed to foil the apologists, it would be incumbent on you to provide proof of something besides your opinion. The results of the test, the methodology, and the specifications are all public knowledge at military.com. The political aspect, and the whining about magazines, is all coming, without verification, from you. Step right up and lay on some written proof.

Actually, no. If the intent was to compare rifles, then one would take efforts to eliminate any other variables like, say, magazines.

Now there's the apologist we all knew was there. Magazines are part and parcel of a weapons system when testing it. It's hard to achieve MRBF figures without shooting the guns with the issue magazines. To try to explain away the test with that lame an excuse really shows how little credibility there is.

Which seems to be exactly what has happened with that particular test data . . . which, in turn, seems to reinforce the earlier statement that the point was not meaningful analysis, but to placate some squeaky wheels in Congress.

Actually, the only people that seem to be spinning the results are the Army, who immediately stated that the figures didn't REALLY reflect THAT MUCH problem, and people who are trying hard to belittle the fact that the M4, and it's magazines cannot compete in the MRBF venue against other systems. It's is still evident that YOU would opine that the test was arranged by Congress, but have presented no proof of such.

 

[61chalk]

Game Over?

 

[Owen]

actually, the sand and dust test for the M4/XM8/SCAR, etc was requested by Congress.

 

[Mtn395]

I filled my 30 round milsurp mag and emptied it as fast as I could and it didn't jam

 

[John Parker]

If it works with 30, it will work with 28.

 

[JR47]

Really, as I mentioned many posts ago, the current magazines aren't giving any problem with being fully loaded. Nor is the current M4 the same rifle issued in 1966-67.

It's also obvious, from the available systems out there, that it's a bit long in the tooth as fielded by the military. There are better systems, in better calibers, available.

actually, the sand and dust test for the M4/XM8/SCAR, etc was requested by Congress.

Not quite, Congress requested a side by side evolution of the competing systems, in real-world conditions where we were currently involved. Congress DID NOT mandate the particulars, the Army set them up, and conducted the testing. That's quite a difference. It would appear that, either the Army was hoping for the results they got, or they are truly incompetent to conduct such tests. You pick.

 

[CZguy]

It would appear that, either the Army was hoping for the results they got, or they are truly incompetent to conduct such tests. You pick.

I don't want to be limited to just one choice...........I think it's likely both.

 

[HorseSoldier]

So, the fact that the issue magazines of the systems were compared alongside each other somehow makes it an apples vs. oranges test? It would appear that HK and FN are both correct as to the superiority of their offerings, wouldn't it?

Not really, or more exactly their numbers fail to show us what parts of the system work better. Due to the way the test was set up, neither HK nor FN can show that their rifle is exclusively however many percentage points (or tenths of points) better than the M4 because they've also got their redesigned magazines in the mix. It's simply shoddy/poor methodology if you really want to generate hard and relevant data, particularly when we know this is a valid issue -- lots and lots of M4s out there with HK steel mags pained with them, and in my last unit guys with HK416s ditched their HK steel mags for USGI mags as soon as the flaws in HK's mag started becoming obvious.

 

[JR47]

lots and lots of M4s out there with HK steel mags pained with them, and in my last unit guys with HK416s ditched their HK steel mags for USGI mags as soon as the flaws in HK's mag started becoming obvious.

What, pray tell, is the obvious flaw(s)? According to SOCOM, and the Army Infantry School, they are more reliable than the M16 magazine.

Not really, or more exactly their numbers fail to show us what parts of the system work better.

I sure hope that you aren't involved in any testing. When a system is tested, it is tested in it's issued form. Special parts are specifically excluded, as they do not fall under "issue".

Due to the way the test was set up, neither HK nor FN can show that their rifle is exclusively however many percentage points (or tenths of points) better than the M4 because they've also got their redesigned magazines in the mix. It's simply shoddy/poor methodology

This is simply unbelievable. Again, I'm certainly glad that you're not associated with systems testing. The "redesigned magazines" are part of HK's and FN's offered system. They would be included in the pricing, and so on. What you suggest is that the rifle be tested without regard to the existing magazine, and it's issues, even though they are part of the M16 as issued and maintained. That is patently wrong, and the only thing shoddy here is your harping on the "redesigned magazines". If the buffer assemblies had proven a problem, I have to assume that you'd have figured a way to attempt to have them removed from the test, as well.

A system includes all issued items given to the soldier. That would include rifle, magazines, issue optics, bayonet, and cleaning gear and sling. The magazine is critical for the operation of the rifle, and the only acceptable piece for a systems test would be the proper issue unit. Anything else would be shoddy test procedures, unless, I guess, you're talking about the M4 system, and then all bets are off.

If you haven't done so, and obviously you haven't, there was a bit more than a few tenths of a percentage point between the M4 and the others.

The M4 is also far more maintenance intensive than the competing systems.

While fighting a Fifth World enemy, with no air, artillery, or armor, you can assume that you'll have plenty of time to clean the weapon. However, fighting another modern military won't guarantee you that luxury. That's why the Stoner System has run it's course, unless you like catastrophic casualty rates. The rifle, and it's cartridge, need to be either dragged kicking and screaming into the light of the 21st century, or pushed into the dust-bin of history.

 

[Aw4g63]

One time I had a mag follower get stuck sideways. Got about 5 shots off, dropped the mag and there was no tension on the remaining rounds. Dropped it and it fixed it's self.

 

[mljdeckard]

For what it's worth, I just spent a LOT of time on the range with a marine rifle company, they all used Brownell's and Pmags.