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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

Oh and yes M-16's rule!

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. 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? 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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by copeab

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.

Originally Posted by copeab

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.