Interesting tidbit about ammo belt links

[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.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

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

I loved a weapon that most troops hated -- the M-60. It's a bit finicky too, but not nearly as much as an M-16 or M-249. I'd marry it if it was legal.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I loved a weapon that most troops hated -- the M-60. It's a bit finicky too, but not nearly as much as an M-16 or M-249. I'd marry it if it was legal.

Loved the SLR/L1A1, and I even used the old .303 a few times, loved it. Definitely a better choice than the L85A1. Heard the A2 isn't as bad, but never used it.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I loved a weapon that most troops hated -- the M-60. It's a bit finicky too, but not nearly as much as an M-16 or M-249. I'd marry it if it was legal.

I 'carried' (I was mechanized, so not much actual carrying, but you get the idea) and M60 on and off for 8 years. I loved that thing. Still do, it was sad to see it phased out.

[weswood]

I'm not particularly fond of the M16 myself. I've shot the M-60, but that was pretty much it, just a familiaization firing.

[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?

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by 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?

OT

Actually pretty good Paul. Its surprising accurate with many things (including the locations of real hotels and other places). Its particularly so when discussing Bangkok, but sometimes, not as strong when dealing with the rest of the country.

The only big points I object to are mostly opinion based -

1. The Royal Family being murdered.
2. The map of the city gives the impression its smaller than it is. Where I live it should be 100% urban, yet it shows jungle and emptiness.
3. Army units are too understrength (done for gameplay I guess).
4. Drug lord armies are too powerful (done for gameplay I guess).

Of course since it was technically a Merc2000 publication, there is little mention of Thailand's traditional enemies (Burma / Cambodia). In twilight I'm sure a couple engagements would be fought over something.

[fightingflamingo]

M16/M16A1 crap
M16A2 finiky but effective
M16A4 very nice, never had an operating malfunction

M249 is OK, too many parts for certain soldiers to keep track of

M14 DMR brings a smile to my heart

M60 vs M240B performance in the field is similar, but I'd rather carry the lighter M60 even if it is more prone to mechanical failure.

as far as cleaning weapons, and that affecting their operation, I may be an old school NCO, but grunts should be cleaning their weapons in the garrison, or in the field, no excuse for a fouling causing a malfunction. You just don't throw that many rounds down range in a firefight, and after you clean the weapon at the first opportunity, and there will be one.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes, I never had much problem with the M16A2, M249 or the M60 while in service, but like many here I have heard of some issues with each weapon. The thing is many of the weapons system don't have much tolerance when it comes to getting dirty. Hmmm that the trouble with having M240 being used as coaxial weapon. Sooner or later someone would get a brain to replace the M60 line with them for ease of replacement part in the system.

On the other hand, if troops clean their weapons regularly, they are some of the most accurate weapons. As oppose to the Soviet SKS/AK/PK family lines in which you could pour mud onto the weapon while firing, and they would keep firing.

Yes, Paul, I would tend to agree. The M16 should of never made it into the Army or Marines. As a former Paratrooper/Infantry I think I would of taken my chance with the M14 as the standard weapon. There are too many stories of the Carbines issued in WWII in which the round would be ineffective in killing the enemy. The M16 with lighter round seems to have similar, from what I heard have the same flaws in the field.

I never really brought the lighter round to give infantry more round to hump theory. I would rather see just one common round for Rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons, and Machineguns, that would kill. Then again that is just my opinion. As for Grenade Launchers at team level, it is nice weapon, and the combo weapon with a Assault Rifle is nice in which in theory they have essentially one weapon.

Well just some thoughts.