Interesting tidbit about ammo belt links

[pmulcahy11b]

I am reading the current issue of Small Arms Review. In the mid-1990s, the Spanish pitched the Ameli to the Thais when they were looking for a SAW. (The Thais did not choose the Ameli, however.) The Thais, however, chose links for the belts that were originally designed for Stoner system, for whatever reason, instead of standard NATO links; the Stoner links aren't compatible with weapons designed for standard NATO links, and the Spanish had to jigger the Ameli's feed mechanism a little. It sort of makes you wonder what other non-standard links are being used these days (I don't mean with really old weapons, but with weapons firing modern ammunition).

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I am reading the current issue of Small Arms Review. In the mid-1990s, the Spanish pitched the Ameli to the Thais when they were looking for a SAW. (The Thais did not choose the Ameli, however.) The Thais, however, chose links for the belts that were originally designed for Stoner system, for whatever reason, instead of standard NATO links; the Stoner links aren't compatible with weapons designed for standard NATO links, and the Spanish had to jigger the Ameli's feed mechanism a little. It sort of makes you wonder what other non-standard links are being used these days (I don't mean with really old weapons, but with weapons firing modern ammunition).

WoW.
The Stoner system was bad ass imho

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

WoW.
The Stoner system was bad ass imho

The biggest problem with the Stoner 63 system was one that seems to have plagued several Stoner designs -- intolerance to dirt, wear, and tear. Eugene Stoner designed weapons that were highly-accurate, light in weight, and didn't kick much, but they also used very close tolerances that meant just a little dirt could gum up the works, and he tended to design his weapons for specific types of propellants (he preferred IMR's line of propellants in particular). Knock something out of line through even normal use, and the weapon could just stop working. (In my experience, for example, the most common problems with the M-16 are related to feed failures or extraction failures -- that tiny little extractor spring had a nasty tendency to stick and not kick the spent case out, and the older magazines wore out pretty fast, especially the feed lips.)

In short, Eugene Stoner designed excellent rifles -- but they are simply not soldier-proof. The M-16 never should never have been issued beyond the Air Force Security Police for which it was designed; an even better use would be a civilian target rifle or varmint hunting rifle. (I know it's a controversial opinion to many, but that's what I think.) The Stoner 63 system was well liked by the SEALs, and it was a better weapon than the M-16, but it still had problems with dirt -- it's saving grace was actually the SEALs themselves, who made a virtual religion of weapon maintenance.

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The biggest problem with the Stoner 63 system was one that seems to have plagued several Stoner designs -- intolerance to dirt, wear, and tear. Eugene Stoner designed weapons that were highly-accurate, light in weight, and didn't kick much, but they also used very close tolerances that meant just a little dirt could gum up the works, and he tended to design his weapons for specific types of propellants (he preferred IMR's line of propellants in particular). Knock something out of line through even normal use, and the weapon could just stop working. (In my experience, for example, the most common problems with the M-16 are related to feed failures or extraction failures -- that tiny little extractor spring had a nasty tendency to stick and not kick the spent case out, and the older magazines wore out pretty fast, especially the feed lips.)

In short, Eugene Stoner designed excellent rifles -- but they are simply not soldier-proof. The M-16 never should never have been issued beyond the Air Force Security Police for which it was designed; an even better use would be a civilian target rifle or varmint hunting rifle. (I know it's a controversial opinion to many, but that's what I think.) The Stoner 63 system was well liked by the SEALs, and it was a better weapon than the M-16, but it still had problems with dirt -- it's saving grace was actually the SEALs themselves, who made a virtual religion of weapon maintenance.

Hmm I never had any problem's with my M-16.

[Legbreaker]

Every M16 I've ever had the misfortune to lay my hands on was rubbish. Give me a good, solid L1A1 any day in preference to that plastic little toy!

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Every M16 I've ever had the misfortune to lay my hands on was rubbish. Give me a good, solid L1A1 any day in preference to that plastic little toy!

L1A1 is a good rifle imo. I like the M-14 myself.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Every M16 I've ever had the misfortune to lay my hands on was rubbish. Give me a good, solid L1A1 any day in preference to that plastic little toy!

I know I've said it many times before on this forum but the L1A1 (SLR) is my weapon of choice. Great for smashing people with, excellent knockdown ability with the 7.62 round, decent accuracy. And top of my list, I had more military training with that weapon than any other so I would be able to maintain one properly if I owned one.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

Hmm I never had any problem's with my M-16.

I would say that falls in line with the law of averages. Just like how someone could smoke all their life and never get cancer.

[pmulcahy11b]

This is OT for this thread, but I've always wanted to ask you something, Fusilier: How does the Bangkok Sourcebook compare with the actual city?