Last edited by Pubic (2007-03-28 01:28:17)
where did you read that? lol, that is total bollocks my feathered friend, melting rifles? i was in the British army, never did my rifle melt, and also, its not innaccurate atall...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.
Given that you are the one calling people names and claiming that your experience trumps all, I would suggest that you first demonstrate your experience.Parker wrote:
a lot closer than you have youngster.Bubbalo wrote:
Uh huh...........so you've been in a combat situation with both an L85A1 and an M16?
oh, and answer the question......stop dodging it.
My torch melted (it was a Wolflite angle head with camo) - the camo became sticky.Sk wrote:
oh and the melting this is BSmanitobapaintballa wrote:
the l85's are more accurae the british military had to RAISE the mininmum markmanship score because it is so much more accurateMajor.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.
it was down to the insect repellent that was issued to troops reacting with the plastic in the butt.
New repellent was issued
bushman wrote:
Bushman 'Plus' & 'Ultra' Gels contain our proven 'DryGel' technology. This means that when applied to your skin they quickly dry to a point where you are no longer aware of them. Now you can enjoy longer lasting protection from biting insects for Hours Longer. Approved for carriage on aircraft.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2007-03-28 01:44:31)
i love when you are wrong and try to grasp at whatever you can to take the attention off of you.Bubbalo wrote:
Given that you are the one calling people names and claiming that your experience trumps all, I would suggest that you first demonstrate your experience.Parker wrote:
a lot closer than you have youngster.Bubbalo wrote:
Uh huh...........so you've been in a combat situation with both an L85A1 and an M16?
oh, and answer the question......stop dodging it.
Have you or have you not used both the weapons in question in a variety of combat situations?
this man knows what hes on about, no lie. i remember back in the first time i did training, second exercise, i played enemy while the guys did their fire and maneuver test.... my l85a1 was jamming every shot when i was firing BLANKS! and even with the gas on excessive, the l85a2 is a huge imrovement no matter what anyone sais.[=][=]DADDYOFDEATH wrote:
L85A1 is crap compared to the M16. L85A2 is far more accurate and better than the M16. The L85A2 now has better working parts (made by a famous gun company) that make is less prone to clogging up, and has a deflector which enables the ejected rounds deflect away much better, so as to prevent ejected shells between the ejection window,breech and working parts. Theres also no real need to 'forward assist' with the newer version of the l85 series.
1) not once did i state which of the two firearms i thought were better or preferred.Bubbalo wrote:
You have also made statements that you refuse to back up;
1) That based on experience, the M-16 is better, yet you apparently have none
2) That I am a child, which is false
When you admit that you can't back these up, or back them up, I'll be happy to back up my statement.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-03-28 05:14:46)
You sure about that? I have seen many brits trolling around with canadian made M4 varients.LostFate wrote:
What do you think the British Are usin in Iraq an Afganistan...pitch forks?stryyker wrote:
M16 has been battletested. Nuff said.
The SA80 has been battle tested too so whats your point.
When you look at how the grunts fought, you see why so many rounds went down range. Also the VC were very good at recovering bodies. Spray and pray will not get you very many kills. It will keep the heads down its the single shots you should worry about. Hence whyn the US went to 3 round burst. For a while the us was thinking of removing the 3 round burst capability and leaving it single or double. The first 2 rounds on burst are fairly close, the third round is oftena little high and either left or right depending on what hand its fired fromparanoid101 wrote:
I saw a program I think it as on the History channel about the M16 in the Vietnam war and the program said that most malfunctions of the M16 were caused by the soldiers using them messing around with the spring inside trying to lower the rate of fire and the rifle if treated right (which was hard during the Vietnam war) was really good.
It also said that it estimated that it took 50,000 rounds to kill one enemy solider in the all war.
You're wrong.Bubbalo wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible), US SF use, primarily, weapons other than the M-16 including the M-4 (which is currently being adopted as standard by the Marines as well?).
The overall accuracy and reload time vary depending on the user. So thats not a good argument.leetkyle wrote:
It depends on the action they are in. The SA80 reloads a lot quicker and has a sustainable accuracy. The M16, however, has a superior design, however I've heard COUNTLESS stories about its problems. Although as far as I know there is an A4 version out? I have also heard many problems with the SA80 so don't think I am a fanboy.
I'd go into battle with an SA80. But maybe that is because I am British.
When the US switched to the M14, it was becuase they wanted a weapon capable of firing fully automatic. It used the same ammunition as the M1 and M1A, and defeated the reloading problems inherent in the M1 (the much hated stripper clip). It was, and is, a fantastically accurate rifle. The army still uses modified M14's in shooting contests. Hell, you can buy one that's awesomely accurate from our friends at Springfield Armory.link52787 wrote:
I'm not in the military or have fired a M16 but bear with me here.
The reason the U.S. has switched to the M16 and still is the standard assault rifle is because in the 1950s the U.S. wanted a rifle that is automatic capable and can hold ammo that can pierce through helmets. The assault rifle was born, the M14, though it can fire full auto and fires heavy cartridges, the 7.62mm rounds( correct me if am wrong). It was not accurate because the heavy ammunition and the recoil. If you look at the M14, the stock and butt meet at a really steep dip. It made the rifle "rotate" at that pivot point causing it to move up thus, making it hard for the soldier to reset his sights on the target.
The M16, and its babies, were developed by Eugene Stoner. He was born in Indiana. The reason we went to the 5.56 round was that the army said that's what they wanted. A soldier could carry MORE (though not twice) ammo for the weight. The weapon's ?straightness? wasn't a selling point. The gun had less recoil becuase it fired a smaller, lighter projectile with less powder. The M-16 series is, in fact, less accurate than the M14 series. That's more to do with the round fired and length of the barrel than anything else, but it remains fact nontheless.link52787 wrote:
Then a German gun maker( correct me if I am wrong) developed the M16 design. The M16 is a straight gun, thus the recoils straight back, easier to handle and he ditched the 7.62mm rounds to 5.56mm so there is less recoil and a soldier can carry twice as more ammo at his disposal because its lighter.
Now, I'm not a soldier, but I do know that the little 5.56 rounds we fire will not pierce a modern helmet, nor a vest that has a trauma plate in it. It is much more likely to deflect off the helmet than pierce it.link52787 wrote:
The M16 can pierce through helmets, light armor, accurate and is able to be full auto.
In the Vietnam war it was battle tested but it got mixed reviews from the soldiers because jams alot but the problem was solved by regular weapon maintenance, if you don't maintain your weapon than your rifle has a greater chance of jamming. So the military gave soldiers proper cleaning kits, but some still neglect to clean their rifles and still have some disdain for the M16.
The previous rifle the SLR (Self Loading Rifle) according to my dad had a kick like an elephant gun! There was a fully automatic version (The FN) but that was'nt issued to British troops due to either money or the fact that a burst of 3 rounds from the rifle would have gone every where! There was a way of making the SLR automatic. It involved either a bit of chewing gum paper or a match stick. The only problem being is when you pulled the trigger you had to hold on to the rifle untill the magazine was empty!paranoid101 wrote:
As for the L85 A2 the program said that the earlier modal were full of faults, but this version has ironed them out and is one of the most accurate rifles in the world.
Just like to point out that the SA80 was the first rifle with full auto mode to be give out to the general British infantry man, before this all rifle's were either bolt action or semi auto, experts think this is because the British army has been a little bit backwards in the past about giving our troops a weapon with full auto mode because they thought our troops would use it all the time and much more ammo would be needed.
But that said our troops have always been trained to fire in semi auto.
Parker every time you post that video everyone is thinking "yes we have seen it before, it doesnt make you cool, it doesnt mean you realy know anything about it, so stop posting it". Basically your making a fool of yourself.Parker wrote:
still yet to state your point behind the statement. GG on not answering.
supplies were not what i was discussing. GG on taking things out of context again.
based on my argument you are a little kid who READS about guns, while i on the other hand have first hand experience with firearms you havent even dreamed of holding.
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/ … uzi009.flv
GG bubbs.