Which is better and why?
I've heard that the m16 jamms up alot an theres alot of problems with it is that true?
I've heard that the m16 jamms up alot an theres alot of problems with it is that true?
Melt haha...love it + 1Major.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.
What do you think the British Are usin in Iraq an Afganistan...pitch forks?stryyker wrote:
M16 has been battletested. Nuff said.
Well those pitch forks have been battletested....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.
I think the M16 has actual battle experience. Like caught in a Charlie crossfire while elephants ate your squad in the jungle experience.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.
Last edited by Missionless (2007-01-03 21:28:41)
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 MetalMissionless 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
wtf? that aint the A2 variant my man.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
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)
you are correct sir...surgeon_bond wrote:
i remember hearing they had to redesign the standard accuracy tests when theyt brought the SA80 into service. i think
and the m16A4 only differs in regard to the pittancy rail... and still suffers from all these faults listed abovewiki 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
Last edited by Sk (2007-01-04 03:24:26)
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 .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
Facts please . From what I read & hear it is crap . SAS , for example , use M16A2\A3 instead of SA80 . Does this tells you anything ?Sk wrote:
reliable
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.
It is picatinny rail , not pittancy .Sk wrote:
and the m16A4 only differs in regard to the pittancy rail
M16A3 is full auto .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.
Last edited by Longbow (2007-01-04 04:41:07)
yes, they do, yet it is still more accurate at distance than the m16Longbow wrote:
artillery crews , engeneers and other support troops get iron sights .
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
when it was first released, the difference in price between the M16 and the L85A2 was just £29.Longbow wrote:
Also L86A1\A2 is waste of money
negative!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 .
that's ok.. we're not all grade 1 at english lit (and I knew what you were on about anyways).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
read my posts, or google "l85A2 reliable" and you'll find many instances of this fact.Longbow wrote:
Facts please . From what I read & hear it is crap
yes.. it tells me that they want a fully automatic rifle... the thing they have wanted since 1910.Longbow wrote:
. SAS , for example , use M16A2\A3 instead of SA80 . Does this tells you anything ?
I know.Longbow wrote:
It is picatinny rail , not pittancy .
and is the only one in the AR-15 range that is...Longbow wrote:
M16A3 is full auto
Last edited by Sk (2007-01-04 06:37:53)
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.
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.