M16/AR-15 Clones

[pmulcahy11b]

Do you guys have any idea of how many M16/AR-15 clones are out there? I've stopped putting them on my pages because of the repetitious nature of doing so. It's boring. I'm actually thought of putting up a special page for M16/AR-15 clones. but I think it would be no fun to do so. Sheesh!

Rant over.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

There's just too many of them to keep up with all of them.
My thoughts are that basically, the M16/AR-15 entry should just list the basic weapon and its stats and mention the most well known companies that offer clones (and the name of the clone).
I'd only list separate entries if there was a significant difference like say one version was more prone to dirt screwing up the mechanism or say it had a free-floating barrel and so on.

[Snake Eyes]

Ditto SSC's rec. I think it would be a waste of your time and considerable talent to bother with the insignificant nuances of all the AR-family clones, unless there is really some compelling non-cosmetic difference that needs to be underscored - especially since the game mechanics really aren't granular enough to take into account most of those subtleties.

[HorseSoldier]

Further agreement. I would only bother listing versions that do anything particularly special or unique. Like SnakeEyes said, the game mechanics can't really distinguish between a Colt or a Bushmaster or a Noveske or whatever, no matter how much electronic ink owners may spill debating the merits on various websites and such.

[B.T.]

Paul!

Complete agreement! I tried to figure out the main models. But over the years there have been so many variants of the original design (M177, Colt Commando, M653, M733, to name only the most prominent variants, that I use the stats of the M177 for in the game!) that it is nearly impossible, to list them all.

I think it would be very time consuming, difficult, and not worth the afford!

[Canadian Army]

There's just too many of them to keep up with all of them.
My thoughts are that basically, the M16/AR-15 entry should just list the basic weapon and its stats and mention the most well known companies that offer clones (and the name of the clone).
I'd only list separate entries if there was a significant difference like say one version was more prone to dirt screwing up the mechanism or say it had a free-floating barrel and so on.

I agree

[rcaf_777]

Our good friends at Wikipedia say that there are about 28 versions and clones that claim to based on the M16, thses seem to main ones, I am sure there are other in limited numbers

[Legbreaker]

What they said.

[waiting4something]

Yeah, I think that I wouldn't get to indepth with all the different clones out there. AR's are like AK's the variants and possiblities to mix and match most parts of one with another are endless. I would maybe note that some are not interchangable in certain areas. Like the non-law enforcement/military only Colt AR-15's that had larger holes in there receivers so you could only use Colt's parts. Or how some of the later Colt Match Target series had a auto sear block pinned in them to prevent you from putting in a auto sear. I would only add this because it makes the weapon less convertable to auto fire. Or if someone in the group is not a machinist who can make spare parts, it becomes worthless, if parts get damaged, lost, or worn out.
On a side note it's funny how the artist for the original Twilight 2000 Small Arms Guide used a Colt SP-1 for his model of a M-16A2 (atleast I believe he did). You can see the SP-1 written on the reciever and the front take down pin on the lower receiver has a screw instead of just the push pin.:p

[pmulcahy11b]

That, again, would merely take a note in the M16/AR-15 entry that most AR-15s and clones cannot be converted to automatic fire without damaging the weapon to the point that it will not fire (perhaps an Impossible: Gunsmith roll).

[Legbreaker]

Although the M16 (as a rule of thumb) can fire on automatic, the question remains as to why experienced soldiers would bother? In a post nuke world, ammo is scarce and what is about is not necessarily top quality with the brass probably having been reloaded a number of times. It may be that misfeeds are a big problem exacerbated by high rates of fire.
The M16, and assault rifles in general, are also too light to fire bursts with any real chance of hitting at reasonable ranges. Leaving the semi-auto version as a semi-auto while keeping an eye out for an auto may be the wiser course of action.
Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died within a few hundred kilometres of any one spot in Europe. While many of their weapons were vapourised by nukes, or left out in the field for the elements to destroy, many would have been salvaged by other soldiers or civilians. Sooner or later the opportunity to upgrade will come along (although why anyone would think getting a hold of an M16 of any type is an "upgrade" is beyond me!).

[Raellus]

There are times, though, when you just gotta rock 'n' roll.

[Legbreaker]

Don't get me wrong, there are times when the capability is useful, however those times are relatively limited. They don't occur often enough I believe to warrant risking destruction to an otherwise serviceable weapon.
Besides, how many PCs have only one weapon? Almost every last one I've ever known anything about has at least had access to a veritable cornucopia of armaments.

[waiting4something]

Auto fire really isn't the big issue I was stressing, although I think it is good to have if out numbered which most stragglers would be. What I was stating is how some of the lower receiver parts on the civilian Colt AR-15's out there can not use miltary M-16 parts or other civilian AR-15 parts if say like the hammer goes tits up. So it's more a parts replacement problem. Oh and yes M-16's rule!:firing:

[Legbreaker]

Oh and yes M-16's rule!:firing:
You've obviously got some mental issues...

;)

[waiting4something]

Come on you would have to be nuts not to like the best service rifle ever fielded.:D It's been around a lot longer then most and I don't see it getting phased out anytime soon no matter what new stuff they come out with. Hey SCAR where you at?:p The best part is you see more and more nations fielding AR type weapons. I remember when I was in Malaysia and the airborne dudes we where with had AUG's, and now I see they have UPGRADED to the M4. It takes some people longer to learn sometimes, but they get it sooner or later.;)
Come Legbreaker join us. Admit what is true. You will feel better about yourself.

[Legbreaker]

Just because a weapon has so many produced doesn't automatically mean it's the best weapon possible or available. The US has arguably the largest military forces on the face of the planet and do you really see the US military using anything that's not designed/produced within the US? How many otherwise excellent designs have failed miserably because of that?

No, based on experience I strongly believe now and always that the M16 and it's variants is not the best possible and doesn't even come close. Nothing in 5.56N can possibly match the power and lethality of a 7.62x51 round. Accurate shooting by a skilled marksman might close the gap somewhat, but 5.56 will never be as devastating to a target.

[pmulcahy11b]

No, based on experience I strongly believe now and always that the M16 and it's variants is not the best possible and doesn't even come close. Nothing in 5.56N can possibly match the power and lethality of a 7.62x51 round. Accurate shooting by a skilled marksman might close the gap somewhat, but 5.56 will never be as devastating to a target.

While my main strike against the M16 series is mechanical and that damn direct gas impingement system (actually, the main problem I've had with the M16 is extraction failure), I agree that shot placement is absolutely vital with the 5.56mm round.

[waiting4something]

Just because a weapon has so many produced doesn't automatically mean it's the best weapon possible or available. The US has arguably the largest military forces on the face of the planet and do you really see the US military using anything that's not designed/produced within the US? How many otherwise excellent designs have failed miserably because of that?

No, based on experience I strongly believe now and always that the M16 and it's variants is not the best possible and doesn't even come close. Nothing in 5.56N can possibly match the power and lethality of a 7.62x51 round. Accurate shooting by a skilled marksman might close the gap somewhat, but 5.56 will never be as devastating to a target.

Your right just because a bunch are produced doesn't make it the best, but when so many other countries start adopting it overtime it's hard to say it sucks. Would the U.S. buy a foreign weapon system? Yes, most are small arms today are from foreign designs like the M240, M249, M2HB, so adding something like the SCAR would just be another FN product we have. Sure we have an American FNH branch, but we can do that with anyone like HK, Beretta, etc. Hell even most are M-16's now days are made by FN. The M-16 just works and has a platform that so far really can't be beat. Don't like the direct gas impingement version huh? Well then try the short stroke gas piston models. The 7.62 vs. 5.56 fight is just a issue of what you are using it for I guess. Hey the AR-10/SR-25 fits the gap for a battle rifle too. It's just good man.:cool:

[StainlessSteelCynic]

One significant part of the reason for why many nations field the M16/M4 is that the US government has given them a price per unit that other suppliers can't match (either through concessions, cost savings through bulk manufacture, military aid packages and so on and so on). For example, nations such as Israel have often found it cheaper to buy M16s from the US than mass produce their own designs.

While waiting4something was having a bit of fun with the topic, a debate about the best service rifle is always going to be coloured by personal experience, national pride and a whole host of other biases and opinions. However, the debate about 5.56 vs 7.62 is one that I personally feel is best solved by asking what kind of war are you fighting.
In most conventional wars, smallarms account for a very small percentage of deaths & injuries (explosives & fragmentation account for the largest amount) so the individual rifle doesn't actually play a significant part in reducing the enemy manpower.

If you were involved in unconventional battles where you can't call in artillery, airstrikes etc. then personally I want something that's going to kill the enemy more often than not, something that 5.56 isn't so good at. The 5.56 round was introduced into service based on the rationale that if you injure one enemy soldier, it will take at least another two soldiers to remove the injured man from the battlefield therefore you have reduced enemy numbers by three for that fight.
It works fine with a conventional army that cares about its wounded but falls to pieces against an enemy that doesn't care about its wounded.
And the whole argument about 5.56mm weapons lighten the soldier's load - bollocks to that. Everytime they lighten the load of one thing, they find more crap for you to carry.

[Raellus]

Too continue the thread-jacking...

I also think that the 7.62mm round is a little too powerful for an automatic rifle/assault rifle. The recoil, especially during automatic fire, is stronger than 5.56mm and, for most shooters, this adversely affects accuracy.

I've heard it said several times that if the VC/NVA had been equipped with a 5.56mm weapon instead of the 7.62mm AK-47, they might have won the war years earlier. The average diminutive Vietnamese soldier had a hard time keeping the AK on target, especially on full auto. Many American and allied servicemen owe their lives to this phenomenon. This is also why a lot of British Army Ghurka units were issued with M16s instead of SLRs in the '80s.

Also, a rifle firing the 7.62mm round needs to be sturdier and that adds to the weight of the weapon. Compare an M14 to an M16, a G3 to a G36, or an FN SLR to an L85 and there's a significant difference in weight (and length). In built-up terrain (including jungle), the size of the weapon does make a difference and engagement ranges usually don't favor the 7.62mm weapon.

In open terrain were engagement distances are longer, then a 7.62mm weapon is preferable.

IMO, an intermediate round would be a good compromise. I'm not sure why this idea doesn't have a lot of traction.

[pmulcahy11b]

I've heard it said several times that if the VC/NVA had been equipped with a 5.56mm weapon instead of the 7.62mm AK-47, they might have won the war years earlier. The average diminutive Vietnamese soldier had a hard time keeping the AK on target, especially on full auto. Many American and allied servicemen owe their lives to this phenomenon. This is also why a lot of British Army Ghurka units were issued with M16s instead of SLRs in the '80s.

That may be why South Vietnamese troops preferred the M-2 and M-3 Carbines (though it was also what we were giving them at first).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While in almost all respects I agree with Raellus' comments regarding an intermediate round, I'd just like to add that although the AK might have been a handful for the Vietnamese with their slight build, it certainly isn't such a problem with Europeans and their larger physique. I had no trouble doing double-tap with a 7.62x51mm L1A1 and keeping both rounds in the centre of seen mass so an intermediate round like the 7.92x33, 7.62x39 or the 6.8x43mm would definitely by an advance over the 5.56mm or 7.62mmN in most respects.

[Legbreaker]

Double taps with virtually any calibre aren't all that much of a problem. Using any assault or battle rifle as an automatic weapon on a regular basis is just plain silly. They are inherently too light both in bulk and construction to soak up the recoil (as a dedicated machinegun is able to do) and deal with the heat buildup.
Some weapons handle the issues of high rates of fire better than others. The G11 springs to mind as a very good example of what can be done when conventional ideas are thrown out the window and the engineers are given the freedom to do it right. It's just a shame the money ran out (due mainly to the German reunification) before it could be issued on a wide scale.

[helbent4]

You could certainly argue that if the US government and military didn't push the AR-15 and M16 designs on its allies and clients whenever it can, it would not be as popular and thus by definition the "best" rifle in the world.

By the metric of popularity the Kalashnikov and its derived designs wins!

Tony

[copeab]

I've heard it said several times that if the VC/NVA had been equipped with a 5.56mm weapon instead of the 7.62mm AK-47, they might have won the war years earlier. The average diminutive Vietnamese soldier had a hard time keeping the AK on target, especially on full auto. Many American and allied servicemen owe their lives to this phenomenon. This is also why a lot of British Army Ghurka units were issued with M16s instead of SLRs in the '80s.


Um, the 7.62mm rounds fired by the AK-47 and (FN) SLR are quite different, but you are implying they are the same thing.

IMO, an intermediate round would be a good compromise. I'm not sure why this idea doesn't have a lot of traction.

Funny enough, the 7.92x33mm round (on which the 7.62x39mm round is based) is an intermediate compromise round, compared to the 7.92mm Mauser rifle round and 9mm Parabellum pistol round.

[copeab]

Ditto SSC's rec. I think it would be a waste of your time and considerable talent to bother with the insignificant nuances of all the AR-family clones, unless there is really some compelling non-cosmetic difference that needs to be underscored - especially since the game mechanics really aren't granular enough to take into account most of those subtleties.

Even in GURPS (3e) which allows more variance in weapon stats, most 5.56mm weapons have virtually similar stats to the M16 (long barrel) or M4 (short barrel). The only stats that really vary are cost (which doesn't matter in most games) and weight (which tends to be a small variation).

[Raellus]

Um, the 7.62mm rounds fired by the AK-47 and (FN) SLR are quite different, but you are implying they are the same thing.

I didn't mean to imply this. My point is that the 7.62x39mm AK-47 round is more powerful and has a bigger kick than the 5.56mm N round. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Funny enough, the 7.92x33mm round (on which the 7.62x39mm round is based) is an intermediate compromise round, compared to the 7.92mm Mauser rifle round and 9mm Parabellum pistol round.

Um, if you really aren't sure what my point was, I meant an intermediate round between 7.62mm and 5.56mm. I believe that here in the U.S. (and maybe in other NATO countries) there was a push for, some time in the last few years, a 6.5mm (IIRC) round.

[natehale1971]

With the non-lateral and unconventional warfare we are seeing in today's world... wouldn't a 7.62mm bull-pup configured assault rifle with the stopping power of the larger caliber round be the best kind of small arm for infantry troopers in city fighting? Or would the 5.56mm round be better to limit the collateral damage of bullets punching through walls (and the like) hitting and killing civilians? Something that our opponents might not give a rat's behind about... but people like us, do?

Because this is something that is taken into account... Not only the safety of our troops in the field, but the civilians we are trying to save and are caught in the middle of the temper tantrums of tyrants, madmen and dictators who are tying to oppress others.

[copeab]

I didn't mean to imply this. My point is that the 7.62x39mm AK-47 round is more powerful and has a bigger kick than the 5.56mm N round. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

It does have a slightly higher muzzle energy, yes. Can't tell you about recoil.

[Legbreaker]

I've shot both the 7.62N (L1A1 plus a few hunting type rifles) and the 7.62S (SKS and SKK). The 7.62N definitely has the greater recoil, however it's also a much more accurate round.
In my experience, the 7.62S is more of a "spray and pray" type round - provided you can handle the recoil. Forget about trying to hit anything accurately at more than a couple of hundred metres (I was a fine shot in my day and found it quite difficult compared to the 7.62N).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just a couple of things to say, the whole idea of the intermediate round was based around the recognition that most engagements occurred within 300m and typically within half that distance. It was therefore considered that a longer ranged round wasn't necessary for most infantry troops as they wouldn't be shooting past 300m most of the time.
In regards to the Soviet M43 7.62x39mm round being based off the German 7.92x33mm Kurz round, I'd agree that it was certainly influenced by the German round but the Russians had been developing intermediate rounds almost in parallel to the Germans for about the same length of time if not longer. They both had numerous ideas resulting in various cartridge calibres and lengths but to say that the M43 was based off the 7.92mmK is a bit misleading.

[HorseSoldier]

No, based on experience I strongly believe now and always that the M16 and it's variants is not the best possible and doesn't even come close. Nothing in 5.56N can possibly match the power and lethality of a 7.62x51 round. Accurate shooting by a skilled marksman might close the gap somewhat, but 5.56 will never be as devastating to a target.

The brass cased cartridge is a very mature technology ("stagnant" is another term) and so at this point everything is really just about deciding which set of strengths and weaknesses you want to accept. 7.62x51 undoubtedly hits harder, but at the cost of a smaller basic load of ammo (both reducing overall staying power in a fight as well as the number of potential engagements), a heavier overall weapon, and weight/recoil issues that make weapon handling speed slower than intermediate weapons.

5.56mm more or less doubles practical basic load, and is a much faster handling cartridge (all other things being equal), but it certainly gives up thump. I'm comfortable with what the round can do (and what it cannot do), but feel that the sweeter spot in terms of trade offs is more in the range first proposed by the British after WW2, with 7mm-ish and 110-130 grain kind of bullet weight. 6.8x43 Remington SPC just about reinvented the 280 British round that got shot down by US advocacy of 7.62x51 (which is really just "30-06 Short"), though with a somewhat lighter bullet at higher velocity due to the limitations imposed by the AR-15/STANAG magazine and mag well dimensions.

Of course, exactly where that sweet spot is in terms of modern training and technology is an open debate. Some of the advocates of 6.8 Rem SPC are now working without the limitation on case overall length and are proposing a 7x46mm round that looks even more like 280 British (130 grains at 810 meters versus the originals 139 grains and 770 m/s).

[Gorbag]

As was stated in an earlier post, shot placement with the 5.56 is essential. IMO, the round's lethality problems can all be traced to the "green tip" projectiles (the M855). The projectile itself is intended to punch holes in body armor at a distance, and this just leads to "ice picking" on those unfortunate enough to be hit (basically just poking little holes through). I saw Somalis get up and run away after taking a pretty sizable burst from a SAW, and others drop with one or two rounds that hit center of mass and popped a critical organ or blood vessel. The capabilities of the cartridge have been enhanced somewhat with the new Mk262 projectiles, but cost is keeping that stuff from general issue.

The cartridge at its basic form is plenty lethal. It's just not geared towards one-shot-stops of human sized organisms. But, truth be told, I and others I knew never just put a single round into a target. Not emptying magazines in one gloriously satisfying burst of sheer, barrel melting mayhem, but two or three (or four or five, depending on how amped up we were) quick shots on semi. I think the cartridge is hamstrung by the projectile design, and the whole Hague Convention limitations that force the FMJ to be used. I think the engineers could maybe focus on re-designing a better projectile, borrowing from the data available from the hunting community (as they test their stuff on live targets every year), while still adhering to the Hague Conventions. Or just ditch the Hague Conventions, as how is it more humane to get shot by a non-expanding projectile rather than blown up by an IED?

[Raellus]

I heard an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air" recently with the author of a relatively new book called, IIRC, The Gun, about the history of the AK-47. He talked a little about the development of the M-16 and apparently the government ran secret tests on human cadavers (purchased from India) back in the early '60s to compare the effects of the 5.56mm round and the 7.62mm x 39 round. From what the author said, the conclusions were that both rounds equally messed up flesh and bone. In other words, there was little qualitative difference between the damage inflicted by the 5.56 and 7.62 x 39. I can't remember how the author put it but it was rather amusing. Something like "Well, both rounds did what you'd expect to a human skull. The 5.56 destroyed it and the 7.62 destroyed it. You couldn't really tell the difference. Either way, you ended up with a shattered skull."

The government covered up the tests because they didn't think that the American public (or the int'l community) would react well to the nature of the tests. Apparently, some info did leak out and that lent to the early and inaccurate stories about how the 5.56mm was some sort of super round that could kill with a limb shot.

[Legbreaker]

But, truth be told, I and others I knew never just put a single round into a target. Not emptying magazines in one gloriously satisfying burst of sheer, barrel melting mayhem, but two or three (or four or five, depending on how amped up we were) quick shots on semi.
Which rather defeats the idea of the 5.56 allowing more rounds to be carried and thereby increasing the combat stamina of the soldier...
7.62N - one shot, one kill. You might only be carrying half the ammo, but you don't have to waste time (with additional shots) and ammo making sure the target stays down.

[Raellus]

So, back in the '80s, the M16A2 eliminated the full-auto fire capability in order to prevent "spray and pray" ammo wasting, correct?

Has full auto fire capability been brought back for the M4 and the current version of the M-16? It seems to me that I've seen Iraq and Afghanistan footage of soldiers firing M4s on full auto and, IIRC, U.S. Marines firing "long" M16s on full auto. Come to think of it, in rereading Generation Kill and Thunder Run, it was strongly implied by both authors (neither one of them soldiers) that M4s were fired full auto. Can anyone definitively answer this question for me?

(I'm feeling too lazy to do the research myself right now...:o)

[dragoon500ly]

Colt is introducing a new combat rifle prototype, it will use a short barrel and the 5.56mm round for urban fighting and if the infantryman needs to make a long range shot, he just pulls out the longer barrel, installs it and slaps in a magazine of 7.62mm...

I had to set down and read the article three times. In the quest for a more lethal round, Colt, the premier firearms maker, actually is trying to sell a rifle that will have the PBI loaded down with a second barrel, and a set of different mags in a different caliber.

DEAR GAWD!!!!! The sheer brillance of this idea has knocked me senseless, its the perfect answer! And it can be so used with every other weapon systems. Just think, the SAW gunner gets to hump 5.56, as well as an extra barrel and 7.62mm and for those special occasions, he can hump a third barrel and a couple of belts of .50!!!

And forget the debate about 20mm, 30mm or 40mm grenades. Let the grenadier hump three different barrels, not to mention three basic loads!

AND the PBI can also carry the full set-up for Land Warrior as well, after all, whats an extra 30-40 kilos?!? :rolleyes:

Engineers, whenever they design field gear, they should have a veteran whose had to hump the latest, standing right behind them...holding a sledge hammer!

[Snake Eyes]

My project for the winter is to build an AR chambered in .458 SOCOM. I'm sure there's no shortage of opinions on that.

[HorseSoldier]

The M4 and M16A4 used by the conventional US Army and USMC respectively both retain the three round burst (tech fixes for training problems are always dubious to me). The M4A1 used by SOCOM is full auto, as is the M16A3 issued in limited quantities by the USN (and the SPR as well). The Army is finally starting to switch over to the M4A1 for non-SOF units within the last few months.

[waiting4something]

My project for the winter is to build an AR chambered in .458 SOCOM. I'm sure there's no shortage of opinions on that.

Yeah, here's my 2 cents get a reloader, or plan on having a nice wall piece. I know a guy who has a .50 Beowulf AR and that's what he found out. The ammo is rare and cost like 4 bucks a shot.:eek: It's cool for close up stuff and will kill anything on this earth I'm sure. But, I would avoid rounds like those unless you are going to use them on living things. The ammo just cost to much for shooting paper. That's what stopped me from getting one. Impressive rounds, but good lord that's a lot of money to punch a hole in a paper target.:(

[HorseSoldier]

I had to set down and read the article three times. In the quest for a more lethal round, Colt, the premier firearms maker, actually is trying to sell a rifle that will have the PBI loaded down with a second barrel, and a set of different mags in a different caliber.

The PBI mostly rides these days in up armor humvees or MRAPs or whatever (and yet they get so very upset when I point out that the US Army should probably roll the 11 series MOS's into 19D, since they're just dragoons . . .). A lot of our ODAs rolled with multiple uppers for their M4s, since those were purchasable at the unit level with op funds, but I doubt the Big Army would spring for everybody in an infantry unit to have multiple caliber components for their weapons and don't think it's likely that they'd ever select 7.62x51 for theater wide use or anything. Where I do think they'd get some economy of scale would be common parts shared between general service rifles and DMRs/sniper rifles, as well as reducing retraining requirements for guys transitioning from general to specialist weapons (rather like the M4/M110 allows at present).

My project for the winter is to build an AR chambered in .458 SOCOM. I'm sure there's no shortage of opinions on that.

I've been thinking that one in 458 in an SBR format (12" barrel) would be a great bear gun for up here in Alaska (Teppo Jutsu has one on their website with an even shorter barrel if I remember right). Ammo price would be way up there like waiting4something said, but you could build relevant muscle memory shooting 5.56 (and since the lower would be the registered SBR and you can specify multiple calibers on the paperwork, a matching 12" 5.56mm upper would be good to go) and just do a little familiarization with the big bore rounds to get a feel for how the recoil effects handling and split times and such.