Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|4833|England
Which is better and why?

I've heard that the m16 jamms up alot an theres alot of problems with it is that true?
BeerzGod
Hooray Beer!
+94|4918|United States
I know we can do a lot better than the M16, but overall it's a well balanced gun from what I've heard/read. Although every program I ever watch on the military that makes reference to the M16 never has a lot to say about how good of a weapon it is.
Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|4826|Communist Republic of CA, USA
I know Nam era M16's jam alot, but from what I've heard the current ones are fine.  And the M16A4 I got to fool around with at Pendleton worked perfectly.  From what I've heard, the L85's melt if you fire them for too long and are inaccurate.
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|4833|England

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

I know Nam era M16's jam alot, but from what I've heard the current ones are fine.  And the M16A4 I got to fool around with at Pendleton worked perfectly.  From what I've heard, the L85's melt if you fire them for too long and are inaccurate.
Melt haha...love it + 1
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|5068|California

M16 has been battletested. Nuff said.
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|4833|England

stryyker wrote:

M16 has been battletested. Nuff said.
What do you think the British Are usin in Iraq an Afganistan...pitch forks?

The SA80 has been battle tested too so whats your point.
Megalomaniac
Formerly known as Missionless
+92|4676|105 RVK

LostFate wrote:

stryyker wrote:

M16 has been battletested. Nuff said.
What do you think the British Are usin in Iraq an Afganistan...pitch forks?

The SA80 has been battle tested too so whats your point.
Well those pitch forks have been battletested....
Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|4826|Communist Republic of CA, USA
Okay not the entire gun, but the plastic handgaurds.  It's a very common problem with Many Assault Rifles.  And that was from a survey of British Troops (I don't know when it was dated, could be before you started with the L85A2).  Either way, they both put holes in people.
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|5068|California

LostFate wrote:

stryyker wrote:

M16 has been battletested. Nuff said.
What do you think the British Are usin in Iraq an Afganistan...pitch forks?

The SA80 has been battle tested too so whats your point.
I think the M16 has actual battle experience. Like caught in a Charlie crossfire while elephants ate your squad in the jungle experience.
Megalomaniac
Formerly known as Missionless
+92|4676|105 RVK
lol plastic gun.. not the most scary thing to go into war with but its ok.
I think both guns are cheap mass-pruduction guns

Last edited by Missionless (2007-01-03 21:28:41)

Major.League.Infidel
Make Love and War
+303|4826|Communist Republic of CA, USA

Missionless wrote:

lol plastic gun.. not the most scary thing to go into war with but its ok.
I think both guns are cheap mass-pruduction guns
How much experience have you had with either?  Played with em in a videogame?  Is your idea of an awesome gun the G36?  Cause that's all plastic.  The M16 is Metal
ATG
Banned
+5,233|4877|Global Command
I say if it's 223 it's outdated.

Can't say I've fired the Brittish rifle, but I could drive nails with my Ar-15 @ 200 yards, stock.
ts-pulsar
Member
+54|4851
M16A4 has pretty much all the problems worked out of it, it only took the US 40 years, but they finally got the damn thing right.  Still a better track record than they 1903 Springfield, a WW1 era gun that they finally perfected in Vietnam with the 1903A3 variant .

Only complaint I've got with the M16 is the 3 round burst cam.  The way it's designed the first shot you do in three round burst may not be 3 rounds, you could get 1 or 2 or 3 depending on where the cam was situated when you changed the selector.  The H&K system works better for 3 round burst(think MP5 and G36), it will always be 3 rounds.

The other nice thing about the M16 is that it's modular, I know a couple troops in Iraq that have done an upper receiver swap on their M16 so it can shoot .50 Beowolf.  Not their primary weapon but something they keep around for base defense cause it can take out engine blocks whereas 5.56mm can't.  Getting ammo is a bitch though since it's not a military round.

I've never had an opportunity to handle an L85/SA 80 but from those I've talked to that have, it's got a lot of shortcomings, course I could never get them to go into specifics, biggest complaint I heard was that it wasn't an ambidextrous rifle, and managed to eject spent casings into you eyeball if your left handed.

But IMO this is the best assault rifle in the world
https://world.guns.ru/assault/sig550.jpg

Sig 550.  Good old swiss craftsmanship.  Pretty much took all the best features of the FAL, the G3, the M16 and the AK47 and threw it into one gun, very reliable, very accurate, and extremely durable.
beerface702
Member
+65|5041|las vegas
L85. ive shot my share of colt's, and i hate to say it but the L85 takes the cake from my exp


although i will admit i ve only shot a L85 once, when i was in finland years ago
Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|4737
L85, for having a proper scope

Unless we're comparing it to the m16a3/a4, which I think can have scopes?
and then, I'd say they're equal.

the l85a2 doesn't melt. the a1 used to get hot at the hilt, but then the m16 also had its fair problems with heat didn't it?
Longbow
Member
+163|4995|Odessa, Ukraine
L85A2 ( result of H&K attempt to cure L85A1 ) - huge problems with thin magazine receiver ; poor accuracy with iron sights ; still crap reliability ; will be out of service in 2010's .

M16A3 ( lets take this , as It is a base for M4\M4A1 ) - accurate , reliable , full auto ( not 3-burst , like M16A2 )  ; fully modular ; GL made for it isn't produced in other country ; able to carry folding stock - list may go on for ages

M16(A3\A4) > L85A2
Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|4737

Longbow wrote:

L85A2 ( result of H&K attempt to cure L85A1 ) - huge problems with thin magazine receiver ; poor accuracy with iron sights ; still crap reliability ; will be out of service in 2010's .

M16A3 ( lets take this , as It is a base for M4\M4A1 ) - accurate , reliable , full auto ( not 3-burst , like M16A2 )  ; fully modular ; GL made for it isn't produced in other country ; able to carry folding stock - list may go on for ages

M16(A3\A4) > L85A2
wtf? that aint the A2 variant my man.

the A2 comes with STANDARD ISSUE telescopic sight.
It was built by H&K yes, who were OWNED by British Royal Ordinance.
Since the A1 variant was release, NO problems were encountered with the thin magazine (that were not caused by improper maintenance of the weapon).

Also, the L85A2 is recognised as a very reliable and accurate... so I don't know where you got your info from?

This is probably the answer to this question:

wiki wrote:

In March 2005, the L85A2 was put through its paces in comparative testing against the M16, M4, AK-101, FAMAS G2 and G36E modern rifles. It outperformed all of them in accuracy (even without the SUSATs), reload speed (physically changing magazine on the move and static) and usability in urban and close-quarters combat (because of its shorter overall length and the ability to affix a bayonet). A2 upgraded versions also have a higher muzzle velocity. The AK-101 won on reliability on multiple terrain, weather and climatic scenarios. The ranks in the test were as follows:

SA80
G36E
M16 family
AK-101
FAMAS G2

Last edited by Sk (2007-01-04 03:06:48)

Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|4737
oh yeah.. and one more point... it's scheduled for replacement in 2015... not 2010!
Surgeons
U shud proabbly f off u fat prik
+3,097|4838|Gogledd Cymru

i remember hearing they had to redesign the standard accuracy tests when theyt brought the SA80 into service. i think
Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|4737

surgeon_bond wrote:

i remember hearing they had to redesign the standard accuracy tests when theyt brought the SA80 into service. i think
you are correct sir...

and not only that, in 2003's Bisley internation shooting meet, the British Army team won after firing over 62,000 rounds with no stoppages... goes a long way to prove how reliable it is


the more and more I read about the M16A2 and up, the more and more I'm starting to realise just how much better the L85A2 actually is..

I mean... I read this and had to go treble check it.. as I didn't believe that it was THIS bad:

wiki and other credible sites wrote:

The action was also modified, replacing the fully-automatic setting with a three-round burst setting. When using a fully-automatic weapon, poorly trained troops often hold down the trigger and "spray" when under fire. The U.S. Army concluded that three-shot groups provide an optimum combination of ammunition conservation, accuracy and firepower. There are mechanical flaws in the M16A2 burst mechanism. The trigger group does not reset when the trigger is released. If the user releases the trigger between the second and third round of the burst, for example, the next trigger pull would only result in a single shot. Even in semi-automatic mode, the trigger group mechanism affects weapon handling. With each round fired, the trigger group cycles through one of the three stages of the burst mechanism. Worse, the trigger pull at each of these stages may vary as much as 6 lbs. in pressure differential, detracting from accuracy.

All together, the M16A2s new features added weight and complexity to the M16 series. Critics also point out that neither of the rear sight apertures is ideally sized. The smaller aperture was described as being too small, making quick acquisition of the front sight post difficult; and the larger aperture was described as being too large, resulting in decreased accuracy. To make matters worse, the rear sight apertures are not machined to be on the same plane. In other words, the point of impact changes when the user changes from one aperture to the other. The rear sight's range adjustment feature is rarely used in combat as soldiers tend to leave the rear sight on its lowest range setting: 300 meters. Despite criticism, a new rifle was needed both to comply with NATO standardization of the SS109 (M855) and to replace aging Vietnam era weapons in the inventory
and the m16A4 only differs in regard to the pittancy rail... and still suffers from all these faults listed above

Last edited by Sk (2007-01-04 03:24:26)

Longbow
Member
+163|4995|Odessa, Ukraine

Sk wrote:

wtf? that aint the A2 variant my man.

the A2 comes with STANDARD ISSUE telescopic sight.
Since the A1 variant was release, NO problems were encountered with the thin magazine (that were not caused by improper maintenance of the weapon).

Also, the L85A2 is recognised as a very accurate
I'm sure that M16A3 with ASOG scope is more accurate then L85A2 with SUSAT . Without SUSAT scope - I can't deny the scope itself is great - L85A2 is nothing . Yea , I know that standart riflemen get SA80 equiped with it , but - artillery crews , engeneers and other support troops get iron sights .
Also L86A1\A2 is waste of money . It's too weak as a squad LMG ; UK armed forces use FN Minimi ( belgium analogue of M249 ) , as far as I remember .

And sorry for my poor english , I meaned  not the magazines , but : magazine housing , which had a thin walls that could be easily dented, thus blocking the magazine way . The manufacter reports that it was upgraded in L85A2 . So maybe -1 problem for L85A2

Sk wrote:

reliable
Facts please . From what I read & hear it is crap . SAS , for example , use M16A2\A3 instead of SA80 . Does this tells you anything ?

world.guns.ru wrote:

The upgrade program, committed in years 2000 - 2002, was completed by the famous Heckler&Koch, which was then owned by British Royal Ordnance company (German investors bought the HK back in the 2002). About 200 000 rifles were upgraded into the L85A2 configuration, out of total 320 000 or so original L85A1 rifles produced. While official reports about the upgraded weapons were glowing, the initial field reports from the British troops, engaged in the Afghanistan campaign of 2002, were unsatisfactory.

Sk wrote:

and the m16A4 only differs in regard to the pittancy rail
It is picatinny rail , not pittancy .

world.guns.ru wrote:

1994. Adoption of the latest variations of the M16 breed. Those include: M16A3and M16A4 rifles, with "flat top" receivers, that had a Picatinny accessory rails in the place of the integral carrying handle. The rail can be used to mount detachable carrying handle with iron rear sights, or various sighting devices (Night/IR, optics etc). The M16A4 otherwise is similar to M16A2, while M16A3 has a full-auto capability instead of the 3-rounds burst. Two other newest AR-15 offsprings are the M4 and M4A1 carbines, which are described in the separate article on this site.
M16A3 is full auto .

p/s I like how L85 looks like , but if I had to decide which one of this two to take and go fight in RL , I'd take M16 as more aproved weapon

Last edited by Longbow (2007-01-04 04:41:07)

Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|4737

Longbow wrote:

artillery crews , engeneers and other support troops get iron sights .
yes, they do, yet it is still more accurate at distance than the m16

one of many sites that state this:

www.reference.com/browse/wiki/SA80 wrote:

In March 2005, the L85A2 was put through its paces against the M16, M4, AK-101, FAMAS G2 and G36E modern rifles. It outperformed all of them in accuracy (even without the SUSATs), reload speed (physically changing magazine on the move and static) and usability in urban and close-quarters combat (because of its shorter overall length and the ability to affix a bayonet). A2 upgraded versions also have a higher muzzle velocity. The AK-101 won on reliability on multiple terrain, weather and climatic scenarios. The ranks in the test were:


#1 SA80
#2 G36E
#3 M16 family
#4 AK-101
#5FAMAS G2

Longbow wrote:

Also L86A1\A2 is waste of money
when it was first released, the difference in price between the M16 and the L85A2 was just £29.
The difference now is just short of £100, but that is due to the exchange rate flux... to create this weapon in the states would probably cost the same as the M16...

Longbow wrote:

It's too weak as a squad LMG ; UK armed forces use FN Minimi ( belgium analogue of M249 ) , as far as I remember .
negative!
The minimi is a NEW edition to the british army..
Also, the L85A2 was never a LMG, it was a LSW (light support weapon).. but it is now a DMR (or Designated Marksman Rifle - which must say something about it's accuracry )

Longbow wrote:

And sorry for my poor english , I meaned  not the magazines , but : magazine housing , which had a thin walls that could be easily dented, thus blocking the magazine way . The manufacter reports that it was upgraded in L85A2 . So maybe -1 problem for L85A2
that's ok.. we're not all grade 1 at english lit (and I knew what you were on about anyways).

Longbow wrote:

Facts please . From what I read & hear it is crap
read my posts, or google "l85A2 reliable" and you'll find many instances of this fact.
You will also find the government report about it too.

Longbow wrote:

. SAS , for example , use M16A2\A3 instead of SA80 . Does this tells you anything ?
yes.. it tells me that they want a fully automatic rifle... the thing they have wanted since 1910.

Longbow wrote:

It is picatinny rail , not pittancy .
I know.

Longbow wrote:

M16A3 is full auto
and is the only one in the AR-15 range that is...
however, it isn't standard issue in the US, so we can't be comparing a standard issue L85A2 to a non-standard issue M16A3.

Like I said.. the M16A4 suffers from a fundamental manufacturing floor, which makes it inherently inaccurate..
The L85A2 is for me (as I prefer to aim before shooting, rather than the "spray and pray" approach)


(ps.. what do you mean by more "approved"?)

Last edited by Sk (2007-01-04 06:37:53)

GorillaTicTacs
Member
+231|4722|Kyiv, Ukraine
Full auto on the 16 would be a moot point, your standard 4 clips would go quite fast (not to mention your time spent on weapon maintenance later).  Not a feature I respect and disappointed they made it standard on the A3.  If you want to flatten 5.56 ammo against large armored targets faster than ever, go with the M249 (that's my baby).  What the 16 does have going for it is the unit cost.  When I was hanging out in Israel after I got out I was quite surprised to see the IDF carrying M16A2's around instead of their awesome home-grown Galil SARs.  The explanation I got was that they could export their entire stock to gun collectors in the US at $1500 to $2000 a pop (bulk $1000/unit to friendly armies) and import M16's at less than $450/unit.

I am happy to see though that they decided to continue servicing the M16 to the next generation, as the buzz when I got out was that the M4 was replacing everything.  The M4 looked and felt like a child's toy even though everyone said it was "just as good".  The intimidation factor was a bit lacking, I'd rather have something mean-looking like the G3...or stick to my 249
manitobapaintballa
Member
+32|4967

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

I know Nam era M16's jam alot, but from what I've heard the current ones are fine.  And the M16A4 I got to fool around with at Pendleton worked perfectly.  From what I've heard, the L85's melt if you fire them for too long and are inaccurate.
the l85's are more accurae the british military had to RAISE the mininmum markmanship score because it is so much more accurate
Sk
stat padding is for girls
+41|4737

manitobapaintballa wrote:

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

I know Nam era M16's jam alot, but from what I've heard the current ones are fine.  And the M16A4 I got to fool around with at Pendleton worked perfectly.  From what I've heard, the L85's melt if you fire them for too long and are inaccurate.
the l85's are more accurae the british military had to RAISE the mininmum markmanship score because it is so much more accurate
oh and the melting this is BS
it was down to the insect repellent that was issued to troops reacting with the plastic in the butt.
New repellent was issued

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard