Mini 14 accuracy comparison

[eldomatic]

I think it's interesting that the Jan 06 issue of American Rifleman has a review of the Springfield SOCOM II derived from the same M1/M14 design that the Mini14 is based on.

The average accuracy of he SOCOM II for five consecutive five-shot groups at 100 yds from a sandbag is 2.75".

With a few simple modifications it isn't unreasonable to achieve 3" groups or less with your average Mini.

The MSRP for the SOCOM II is $1,948, the Mini14 is $800.

[Dorkface]

the Socom is an M-14 with a 16" Barrel and a slightly altered gas system. Not to mention it is chambered for 7.62 NATO and so much more.

The mini is chambered in 5.56 NATO and thats about it.

Compairing these two to each other on shot groups would be like compairing a VW Beatle to a 4X4 V8 turbo diesel just because they both have 4 wheels.


Dont get me wrong I have both a mini-14 and an M-14 but I just dont see what your getting at. Are you trying to say that the mini is better over a Socom :huh:

[faawrenchbndr]

Originally posted by eldomatic@Jan 9 2006, 09:19 AM


....average accuracy of he SOCOM II for five consecutive five-shot groups at 100 yds from a sandbag is 2.75".

With a few simple modifications it isn't unreasonable to achieve 3" groups or less with your average Mini.


I think he is trying to make a comparison of price vs accuracy

[Terry C.]

What I got from it is that no one is screaming bloody murder over the 'inaccuracy' of the SOCOM.

My best groups groups at 50 yards with my beat-up 180 series mini are about 1¾" (iron sights), so I'm not that far off the 3 MOA mark, and would probably be better if my old eyes worked the way they used to.

I'm satisfied, but some among us would call this grossly inadequate.

[faawrenchbndr]

Originally posted by Terry C.@Jan 9 2006, 04:18 PM
What I got from it is that no one is screaming bloody murder over the 'inaccuracy' of the SOCOM.

I can see you thinking that........I also agree.

[eldomatic]

Originally posted by Terry C.@Jan 9 2006, 06:18 PM
What I got from it is that no one is screaming bloody murder over the 'inaccuracy' of the SOCOM.
TerryC, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying, thanks!

There are certain AR types on this board who take every opportunity to put-down the Mini14 by bad-mouthing its accuracy compared to the AR15 class of rifle.

All I'm trying to convey is that the accuracy of the Mini14 can at least approach the ballpark of the highly regarded Springfield SOCOM 16 and SOCOM II.

No, Dork, of course I'm not saying the Mini is "better" than the SOCOM. The extra $1,148 that the SOCOM costs buys you a lot more firepower and many, many goodies standard.

In case anyone misses the point a second time I'll try to connect the dots:
We don't hear bitchin' about M1A-derived SOCOMS, so maybe the Mini14/30 platform with accuracy close to the SOCOM ain't such a bad rifle after all.

(My original post was basically a late reponse to all the negativity in the "Are Mini-14's that bad??" thread.)

[bwraven]

Personally, I don't get the 1 MOA crowd, when applied to "SHTF" rifles.

Our club is training to take the version of the AQT (Army Qualification Test) that Fred (http://www.fredsm14stocks.com/rifle.asp?ITEM=1) puts out.

The idea is to shoot 4 MOA in a variety of situations, none of it benchrest shooting. A lot of guys call this "minute of bad guy."

I guess if I wanted to shoot 1 MOA, or sub-MOA, I would get into bolt action rifles.

Nothing against you benchrest guys, it's just not my cup of tea, and it's not what the Mini, or the M1A SOCOM, are designed for.

[comeandtakeit]

Eldomoatic, this is off topic, but I dig your avitar. It's from Man on Fire, right?

[eldomatic]

comeandtakeit, yessir.

I like your's too.
What's that line from Hans Solo about "not needing any hokie religions as long as you have a good blaster at your side."

Molon Labe!

[comeandtakeit]

Molon labe is right!

I grew up in the 80's, so Han Solo was one of my first heros.

Say, speaking of Man on Fire, I just recently discovered that A.J. Quinnell wrote three other books where Creasy was the main character. I've found that they're hard to come by because they are out of print and A.J. Quinnell died in 2005, in October I believe. Blood Ties is supposed to be the next one in the series, and the cheapest one I've found so far is about $56 in England. Way off topic, but if you were a fan the movie, the book is good too.

[Jeep98]

Eldomatic: Very good point made on the Socom/Mini accuracy. The point of the Mini owners probably should be just to eliminate the fliers. ------------- bwraven: Understanding the capabilities of your rifle is more important than their MOA capabilities and understanding comes with working with the rifle. The old saying "beware the one gun man". As to SHTF, If their are no Marlin 39's and 10/22's on line come SHTF day, all will be lost, for if the neighbor with the 10/22 is not standing beside you on that day, it is over. jeep

[ryno_the_wyno]

Forget the SOCOM series, focus just on the Standard M1A, which is equivalent to an M14. I have shot several M14's ranging from stock to A1 and M25 specification and the most accurate rack grade M14 shot 4.5 MOA with M80 ball. The M14 is not the be all and end all of semi auto rifle accuracy, nor is anything derived from it.
While its possible to shoot 1 moa with a Mini 14 or M1A, it comes at a great cost both monitarily and in reliability. The AK47 is the most proficient and widely used assualt weapon in the world and it has killed millions. An AK in sub-Sahara Africa would be lucky to shoot 6 MOA, depending on condition and such....could be more like 5 or more like 8. My point is that in combat, its not MOA that matters. If your rifle will fire, reliable enough to keep doing so and accurate enough to hit a torso at 100 or 200 yards most of the time, your set. The Mini 14 and M1A meet this

requirement. Somewhere along the line, people got the notion that only sub MOA guns are up for combat or SHTF, when actually its the opposite. People don't scream bloody murder about SOCOM inaccuracy because they were smart enough to know it wasn't going to shoot MOA or because they didn't and they are embarassed about it....Ill take a Mini 14 or M1A that shoots 4-5 MOA all day long with whatever garbage I can chamber rather than a 1 MOA gun that is finnicky with ammo and requires much attention and special treatment. When I am running from the mongol hoards, I don't want to have to be worried about hurting my fragile rifle. Nor do I wan't to worry about where I am going to get M118 or TAP when the world ends because my rifle is all grief with no payoff minus specialty ammo. I would take my Mini 14 GB over a M25 any day of the week....

[stevekaw]

I agree with the above comments, but there are times when the .308 round's stopping power over the .223 or 7.62x39 comes in handy...

[darjeeling]

I know I'll catch a s%&@storm for saying this, but...

Quite frankly, 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 ball loads leave much to be desired, and the SS193 usually does more flesh damage and is more effective under 150yds than M80. The 7.62x39 is even worse than the 7,62 nato here. The 7.62 nato is at best an average man stopper in ball, and the 7.62x39 is marginal at best in ball. Out of common small arm rifle loads, the 5.56 Nato is (suprisingly) one of the best performers under 200yds.

The .308/.311 cal ball rounds take more rotary stress to fragment than a .224 cal bullet (simple physics), and when it comes down to it, a .30 caliber hole through both sides is not significantly better than a .22 cal hole. Of course, soft points tip it the other way, but military .223/5.56 loads do better in SHTF range than 7.62 loads, because 7.62's usually dont deform or fragment whereas 5.56's do much better here.

*runs for hard cover*

[Camera man]

Originally posted by darjeeling@Jan 11 2006, 08:48 PM
I know I'll catch a s%&@storm for saying this, but...

Quite frankly, 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 ball loads leave much to be desired, and the SS193 usually does more flesh damage and is more effective under 150yds than M80. The 7.62x39 is even worse than the 7,62 nato here. The 7.62 nato is at best an average man stopper in ball, and the 7.62x39 is marginal at best in ball. Out of common small arm rifle loads, the 5.56 Nato is (suprisingly) one of the best performers under 200yds.

The .308/.311 cal ball rounds take more rotary stress to fragment than a .224 cal bullet (simple physics), and when it comes down to it, a .30 caliber hole through both sides is not significantly better than a .22 cal hole. Of course, soft points tip it the other way, but military .223/5.56 loads do better in SHTF range than 7.62 loads, because 7.62's usually dont deform or fragment whereas 5.56's do much better here.

*runs for hard cover*
I hang around a lot of boys from Bragg. Most are SF and some are from behind the fence. And most have been over playing in the sand. And every one of them hates the 5.56 Nato. The guys that can pick up M1A's or even trade in there M-4's on a good AK. Like I said, this is coming from the guys have been there and are killing that.

[darjeeling]

Hey, I could be wrong. They are SF operators and probably know what is most useful for them, and I'm not suggesting what they should take with them into combat.

However, most studies show that the M80 Ball tends to overpenetrate and not expand or fragment. This means most of the energy from the round *leaves* the target, and could just as well be 5.56mm. If the round doesn't expand or fragment, most of the energy of a rifle round will usually exit human targets. Simply put, those extra 1000 foot pounds at muzzle and extra .08 inches of bullet diameter are all but wasted if the slug doesn't deform or fragment. That's the fundamental problem with military ball loads for rifles--they tend to overpenetrate and take a great deal of energy with them.

[Camera man]

A few other facts to toss out. The M-4 is not made for longer shots. Its great for shoot and scoot. Door to door, room to room work. I have done a lot of that. Out in the open, at longer ranges, the short bbl M-4, as a friend tells me, SUCKS. If you do get a round on target, it only ****es off the bad guy. He does not like having little holes poked in him. With the wind drift and lite bullet weight. Its harder to make longer shots with a 5.56. One guy I was doing some work with at a range said the last few guys he brought down with his M-4 took at least 2 or 3 rounds to do the job. One more point. Granted the bad guys are not all that smart. Most do not stand there and let our guys pop rounds at them. They tend to hide behind things. I know 1st hand what a 7.62 Nato can do to a block wall, let alone a mud hut. I'll take overpenetration any day. And, I'll take real world over a write up. Its worked for me so far.

[TwinRugers]

Originally posted by comeandtakeit@Jan 9 2006, 09:11 PM

Say, speaking of Man on Fire, I just recently discovered that A.J. Quinnell wrote three other books where Creasy was the main character. I've found that they're hard to come by because they are out of print and A.J. Quinnell died in 2005, in October I believe. Blood Ties is supposed to be the next one in the series, and the cheapest one I've found so far is about $56 in England. Way off topic, but if you were a fan the movie, the book is good too.
sorry, more off topic, but didn't creasy die in the end of man on fire? Excellent movie, btw...

And yes, it's quite odd people won't whine about a 3moa .308 that cost $1500

[cajungeo]

This thread is not Mini related. It is more like rifle talk. This new bd. was created just for this very thing. I left a link on the Mini bd so this thread will be easy to find for those wanting to comment.

[comeandtakeit]

Originally posted by TwinRugers@Jan 11 2006, 03:59 PM
sorry, more off topic, but didn't creasy die in the end of man on fire? Excellent movie, btw...


Yes, in the movie he dies. In the book he dies, well, sort of . . . don't want to spoil anything, so just read the book.

[Luv-My-Mini]

Not to open up the AR vs Garand debate, but did y'all see the American Rifleman this month? They had the new Socom and an AR-10 review in the same issue. The 16" AR shot an amazing sub moa, but it had 3 failures-2 were just failing to hold the bolt back, but one was a FT feed-the three gas rings on the bolt lined up. I think my next .308 will be an AR-10 anyway, just because it's lighter than the Socom (and not quite as $$), but still.

:emoticon(':usa:')
smilie

[PDF]

Camera man, your friends at Brag are provably desapointed with the 5.56 because the army use the belgian designed 5.56 NATO SS109 bullet that is heavier than the M193 of Vitnam era. The Army was looking in the early 80s a new 5.56 with more penetration capabillity than the one in use and in the prosses they lost the great fragmentation quality of the M193. The standar M193 fired from a 20 inch barrell performs very well out to 200 yards, more than that and it lost to much speed to fragment. Out from a 16 inch barrell the efective range is more like 150 yards. Any veteran of Vitnam could testify of the effectivity of the M193 round.
In other hand the new SS109 round is to heavy to frangment and it was patetically evident in somalia ageinst BG with hight concentration of narcotics in their sistem.
The russians had similar experince with their 7.62x43 and 5.45 in Afganistan and Chechenia, so the now built unstable bullets for both calibers that are designed to tumble at contac with target in that way busting its wonding capabillity.
Heare in Colombia the experience with the 5.56 M193 used in the Galils is satisfactory so far, but its true that in the bush it lacks penetration so is allways wise to have a 7.62 MAG for fire soport.
Civilians with 5.56 rifles for SD or hunting are more than well served unsing plain vanilla M193 rounds as well as police forces.

[darjeeling]

Thanks for elaborating PDF. BTW, SS109 should have much better terminal balistics out of (most) mini-14's than out of a M16A2 or M4. With 1-9" twist, SS109 is in much less stable rotation than out of a M16A2's 1-7" twist barrel. Thus, it will roll and fragment more easily in this application. Of course, it is also less stable, but SS109 should do fine in 1-9" twist barrels. The military went to 1-7" for their new tracer round, which is very long, not the SS109.

[Camera man]

In my world I'm not stuck with having to use FMJ's. All the 5.56 I buy is eather SP or HP. Because of all the reasons stated on this thread.

[stooxie]

Ill take a Mini 14 or M1A that shoots 4-5 MOA all day long with whatever garbage I can chamber rather than a 1 MOA gun that is finnicky with ammo and requires much attention and special treatment. When I am running from the mongol hoards, I don't want to have to be worried about hurting my fragile rifle. Nor do I wan't to worry about where I am going to get M118 or TAP when the world ends because my rifle is all grief with no payoff minus specialty ammo. I would take my Mini 14 GB over a M25 any day of the week....

I think that says it all, right there. Take what goes bang and you'll be well served.

-Stooxie

[gunrun45]

I've dug a few bullets out of a few bodies in my time in a fww different places in this world. Almost all go through and through. I'd hate to get in the way of a 30 caliber round.

It was best said by a man I knew who spent a lot of time in rice patty land. He told me that the 223 round hits a tree and says "sorry" and stops. The 7.62 round says "get the hell out of my way".

The 223 round doesn't do much to stop unless you hit something vital.

I had a Washington DC cop who was in 5 shootings tell me once that it didn't matter what you were shooting someone with as long as you hit them in the right spot. His department still issues out 9mm handguns and has one of the highest hit ratios in the US.

I don't think this is the right area for this post, but I figured it was the only way to say what I had to say.

[cw2go]

Whoa, this thread is a treasure-trove of misinformation. Darjeeling, you can't be serious. SS193 !?? :confused: Yeah, M193 had better terminal effect, but is not accurate. SS109 swaps terminal effect for range and accuracy, but is not very ineffective. And neither matters if the gun won't fire. Remember the captured women from the truck. The story was that every rifle failed, with one operating as a single shot only. The M16 was a POS when introduced in Vietnam (one of my buddies said his would usually jam twice in 20 rds when clean, and that guys in his unit would give anything just to have a Garand, let alone an M14). And it is still a POS, if you think a rifle should be able to shoot when dirty, as might happen in mud, or maybe sand. But it is fine shooting off the bench, as long as no jungles or deserts or shooting on your belly in the dirt are contemplated.... This wasn't the winner at some competive trials, but a forced conversion thanks to McNamara & his DoD whiz-kids... Lotsa guys in the desert, 30+ yrs later, think it is still a POS, and would be thrilled to trade for an M1A when there are long ranges available...... or dirt, dust, or sand.
If you want some background, read the long (but worthwhile) The Saga of the M16 in Vietnam by Dick Culver http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html and
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html

As for Mini vs SOCOM, gimme a break guys. Yeah, the Mini is a nice rifle with good ergonomics, but it is not very accurate. M1As are -- they are the complete package. Overpenetration, yeah that's a real problem (Camerman got this one right) -- I can't imagine anyone hiding behind something like trees, dirt berms, walls, or other barriers. That would never happen in a firefight, would it....

I don't have a SOCOM, but my 18" M1A Bush had staggering accuracy right out of the box (~1.3 moa, Fed. AE 150gr FMJ BT). This was with NO work, budget ammo, battle sights, and a . With good ammo and a scope, it is moa. If you get any with the 1:11 twist, you will be very pleased.
The only SOCOM I saw at the range had just been bedded by a friend, and was shooting about MOA. When you test doing only five 5-rd groups, this is hardly a best-case scenario, as every shot counts. Most will shoot much better, but the SOCOM sights are less precise, oriented toward low light and faster time on target. BTW, the same friend has at least 3 M1As that shoot 1/2 moa 5-shot groups regularly (bedded, scoped, with M118LR or match ammo, but 2 started as $1500 Loadeds, and had most NM mods done later). Don't expect this with cheap ammo. And yes, I was there to see the targets for 2 of them. You get what you pay for with an M1A.

-- cw

[darjeeling]

You're missing the point I was making. For a battle rifle of any sort, doing better than 5 MOA at 100 yards is nice but not too terribly significant. The front post on a battle rifle is often larger than this, and people generally cannot shoot well enough in standing for this to be a significant differerence. In most shooting conditions (sub 120 yds.) a 4MOA rifle will do just as well as a 1MOA rifle simply cause most operators won't do better than that with irons. Anyways, I never made any claims on the accuracy of M193, although my mini shoots it much like it shoots everything else in .223/5.56NATO, 2MOA. All I said is that M193 has excellent terminal balistics for a FMJ small caliber rifle round (i.e. sub .50 cal)

When a bullet overpenetrates, all of this energy is in essense lost. This is one of the few reasons why anyone survives getting hit with MMG bursts or 50BMG AP rounds--a rather significant percentage of the energy is lost to blowthrough. Its great for shooting through walls and trees to get to people on the other side, but it's counterproductive when directly engaging people not behind cover that offers resistance.

Anyways, please don't give any pangerics about how the M14 platform was wrongfully dropped and the follies of using the M15--at the time of its creation the M14 was already horribly outdated. Any fool who had seen the trends of combat in WWII and Korea, as well as the AK47, should have known that it was time for a change. The M16 sure as hell had plenty of problems before they went to the A1 and A2 variants. But it is now reasonably reliable, extremely accurate, and boasts the finest ergonomics of any battle rifle out there. The M14 platform still has a supporting role to play. But at this point in time, it's a specialist weapon, and will remain so as long as it is in inventory.

[cw2go]

You're missing the point I was making. For a battle rifle of any sort, doing better than 5 MOA at 100 yards is nice but not too terribly significant. The front post on a battle rifle is often larger than this, and people generally cannot shoot well enough in standing for this to be a significant differerence.
I'm not missing the point, I'm rejecting it as lunacy. I guess you never shoot at 600 yds. 5 moa would be within a 30" circle, assuming no wind variability and perfect aim. A torso is about 13 - 14" wide. Last time I shot at a silhouette at 600, I got 20 of 20 with a 30 knot wind (the guy beside me had to take the scope off his AR because there wasn't sufficient windage). Can't do that with a 5 moa rifle -- you'd be limited to about 200 yds. Remember the wind and personal variability are also additive, and may be another 3 - 6 moa for many shooters, which would be all shots within 20" at 100 yds. A highly desirable trait is to be able to engage the enemy outside of the range of his weapons. Especially in an area with wide open spaces, like the mid east. Up close, it is more important that your rifle functions, expecially in a dirty or dusty environment. Ergos mean nothing if your rifle does not go bang when you pull the trigger. The M16 family is weak in both areas. And the width of the front sight does not destroy accuracy for most of us.

In most shooting conditions (sub 120 yds.) a 4MOA rifle will do just as well as a 1MOA rifle simply cause most operators won't do better than that with irons.
Errors are additive. A 5 moa error is not masked by 5 moa of user variance, it adds to it. Also the wind. If we were always shooting inside 120 yds, we should be using AKs.

All I said is that M193 has excellent terminal balistics for a FMJ small caliber rifle round (i.e. sub .50 cal)
It did once, before they changed the twist rate -- they traded it for accuracy ...

When a bullet overpenetrates, all of this energy is in essense lost. This is one of the few reasons why anyone survives getting hit with MMG bursts or 50BMG AP rounds--a rather significant percentage of the energy is lost to blowthrough. Its great for shooting through walls and trees to get to people on the other side, but it's counterproductive when directly engaging people not behind cover that offers resistance.
And yet, people (BGs) DO continue to hide behind trees, walls, and berms....
And I sure haven't heard of a lot of people surviving .50 BMG hits.

... at the time of its creation the M14 was already horribly outdated. Any fool who had seen the trends of combat in WWII and Korea, as well as the AK47, should have known that it was time for a change. The M16 sure as hell had plenty of problems before they went to the A1 and A2 variants. But it is now reasonably reliable, extremely accurate, and boasts the finest ergonomics of any battle rifle out there.
And yet the guys in the sand box are still swearing at them, just as they did in Vietnam. It still is not reliable in a dirty or dusty environment. That is a fatal flaw.

-- cw

[LonePathfinder]

Here in the 82nd Chairborne Internet Commando Division it seems to me that the trend over the last decade has been to require more accuracy out of a service rifle/battle rifle.

The "its good enough" arguement can be taken to extremes. Muzzel loaders were "good enough" in the civil war to kill the enemy. Technology has progressed to the point that expecting a sub 2 moa or sub 1 moa battle rifle is not unreasonable nor very expensive. You can still maintain reliability while keep accuracy. It is the twenty first century after all, we should be expecting more from our firearms than we did 50 or a 100 years ago.

While I respect an AK type's reliability, I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying one into battle. Why? Limited effective range. If the gun is 4 or 5 moa, and I'm in a highly stressful, fatigued state, that practical accuracy is going to be 10 moa or worse firing off hand in the standing position. Variations in accuracy add to one another as was pointed out the previous post.

I personally think a 1 moa, AK/Garand class reliability semi-auto rifle can be built *and* marketed for a ~500 dollar retail price. Now if I could find a couple million for start up costs I'd be set...

Edit:
Even the AR direct gas system is not really *that* bad to maintain. While Sam demanded white cloth cleanliness before accepting your issue weapon back into the armory, such level of cleaning is not neccessary for the rifle to function 100% in the field. Yes the cleaner the better, but its not as bad as urban myth has mad the AR platform out to be. If it were *so* bad do you honestly think the US military, which spends a 100 million per F-22 or 3 to 5 billion per aircraft carrier would continue to use the system for nigh on *forty* years now? They system could be improved to a small gas piston, but as is, it works just fine for a professional army. It does need preventive maintenance, but it really is not that much to ask given it other attributes.

[cw2go]

While I respect an AK type's reliability, I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying one into battle. Why? Limited effective range. [...snip...]
Edit:
Even the AR direct gas system is not really *that* bad to maintain. While Sam demanded white cloth cleanliness before accepting your issue weapon back into the armory, such level of cleaning is not neccessary for the rifle to function 100% in the field. Yes the cleaner the better, but its not as bad as urban myth has mad the AR platform out to be. If it were *so* bad do you honestly think the US military, which spends a 100 million per F-22 or 3 to 5 billion per aircraft carrier would continue to use the system for nigh on *forty* years now?
I agree with most of your post, except the part quoted above. Accuracy is desirable, and obtainable, but the key element is reliability. As I noted before, my opinion is colored by a close friend who'se brand new issue M16 in Vietnam would jam twice in 20 rds, on average, when freshely cleaned. He kept an AK for backup in his helicopter (he had a M60 in the door), and had choice words for the M16 he was forced to keep with him. If you follow the link I posted before, you will see he was not alone.
Yes, they are much better now, but in 2003, we learned of the ill-fated Jessica Lynch truck convoy were 11 were lost and 6 captured -- and my understanding is that ALL of the weapons were (or became) non-functional. This is a *gross* mismatch of weapons to mission requirements. It was unreliable then, and it still is now, and why a county that can afford better stays with something that is a DNF when used in dirty, dusty, or muddy conditions is totally beyond me. Lots of people of my age died with jammed weapons in Vietnam, and this is still going on today. So I am unconvinced. Great rifle for HP competition and shooting in clean areas, a POS when it comes to working reliably when working in dirty, sandy, or arctic conditions. The M14 does not suffer from these problems, is an effective round, and far outranges the AKs in wide open spaces.

-- cw

[LonePathfinder]

The last statistic I read recently was that 89% of troops polled in Iraqi reported confidence in their M16 or M4.

Another problem with military weapons in general is some units, like say a CSS Maint Company might get the old shot out, clapped out rifles from the back of the armory. I believe that Jessica Lynches weapon would have remained fully functional if she had proper training (ie maintained her weapon to the same standards the Combat arms guys were). All the point end types keep their M16's and M4's running in the same conditions. Its not a knock on her, its on the system.

I'm sure you know the problems in vietnam were extreme climate, different ammo that the weapon was designed around (dirtier) and a weapon (and institutional knowledge on that weapon) that had not yet matured with all the features we have today to keep it more reliable.

Point is that the M16 has been proven to work in all environments. That said, it is not forgiving in extreme climates. You can get away with a wipe down/spray down in a temperate climate to keep it operational, but there are always local methods to keeping M16's working in extremes. Lubes, no lube, dry lube, a drop of lube. A lot of the professional tricks are not taught in a systematic way, and only retained by in-unit-knowledge if that unit had recently been deployed. As time goes on the tricks and tips get lost.

Yes it can be better. I favor just buying new gas-piston uppers. They retain the accuracy, and modularity of the AR platform, and it keeps most of the internals and support infrastructure the same. Lienter Wise and POF already offer these to civilians. HK used to but I think they have so modified their design that it is no longer a drop in upper reciever (must use a HK built lower).

[cw2go]

The last statistic I read recently was that 89% of troops polled in Iraqi reported confidence in their M16 or M4.
Something makes me think that the 11% with little confidence are those that are spending the most time shooting on their belly in the sand, or exposed to the most dirty / dusty conditions.

Re: Lynch & Co., I would think it worth the extra few seconds to keep most of the rifles in something like a large, thin trash bag that can be secured against dust, but ripped off in 2 - 3 sec. I have no real knowledge of the theater, but have been in a lot of dusty areas where the fine sandy dust just gets in everywhere. Frankly, I do not think any of the AR-types are at all appropriate for those conditions. AK-types and Galils are appropriate. HKs and M14s should do fine. (Even a Mini would function. Someone previously posted parts of an article from SWAT magazine, March 2002, article titled: “Ruger Mini-14 vs. the AR-15” -- they tested resistance to operating when contaminated with dirt, and found the stock Mini worked without a hitch, while the expensive custom AR fired two or three rounds.)

As to the system, the equipment, training, and deployment must be considered together, and sending people in harms way with weapons which will probably not work after a long truck ride in dusty conditions is unconscionable, even if they are clerks and cooks. Just my opinion.

Re: " All the point end types keep their M16's and M4's running in the same conditions. Its not a knock on her, its on the system."
I agree. People know that they will probably have a non-functional weapon if it gets dirty would, and *should*, be *obsessive* about cleaning. Personally, I would not trust anything that had to be kept that clean to function, since thing like driving, blowing dust, and shooting on your belly DO introduce contaminants.

Re: "Point is that the M16 has been proven to work in all environments."
I disagree emphatically. It is unreliable in the mud, in dusty environments, and generally non-functional in arctic climates.

... That said, it is not forgiving in extreme climates. You can get away with a wipe down/spray down in a temperate climate to keep it operational, but there are always local methods to keeping M16's working in extremes. Lubes, no lube, dry lube, a drop of lube. A lot of the professional tricks are not taught in a systematic way, and only retained by in-unit-knowledge if that unit had recently been deployed. As time goes on the tricks and tips get lost.

Yup, and you can kludge a Nambu to make it work, but you can take a normal M14, AK, or HK and shoot 1,000 rounds in the dirt and dust and it will keep shooting. Equiping people with M16-type rifles, in their existing configuration, in my admittedly biased opinion, is just plain stupid. I'm sorry to sound closed-mined, but I would not want anyone I cared about going in harm's way with something that regularly jams up when it gets dirt in it. There is no reason for it when better rifles are commonly available at lower prices.

-- cw

[Luv-My-Mini]

I would not want anyone I cared about going in harm's way with something that regularly jams up when it gets dirt in it. There is no reason for it when better rifles are commonly available at lower prices.
-- cw

This is exactly the point. It is allegedly possible to make an AR work by religiously cleaning the thing after every magazine, but why? The FAL, G3, M 14, G36, piston upper AR, AR 18, AK, AUG, and every other assault rifle ever made do not require you to clean it in the midst of a firefight. AR apologists argue that you will always have time to clean it after 300-500 rounds, but what about the rare occasions (Mogodishu?) when you don't? And anyway, why should our troops have to? No other weapon requires that level of maintenence. :angry:

[Camera man]

One of my SF buddys said it best. While he was over playing in the sand. He had to clean his M-4 before he ate every meal. He said the Iraq's did the same thing with there AK's. The only difference. They only ate 2 or 3 meals a week. :lol:

[LonePathfinder]

AR apologists argue that you will always have time to clean it after 300-500 rounds, but what about the rare occasions (Mogodishu?) when you don't? And anyway, why should our troops have to? No other weapon requires that level of maintenence. :angry:

I know of quite a few AR's of my buddies' that will run several thousand rounds before needing cleaning. I've seen them do it over the course of a day w/o cleaning.

Its been a while since I've read BHD or associated reports, but I never heard of jamming weapons in that battle.

Its not a great system to be sure. It works for the US Military because we use professional (disciplined) soldiers. I have never heard of a M16/M4 jamming in combat on a wide scale by front line troops since the Vietnam era. Yea the Iraqi's may have AK's but ask them to engage targets 500m away with them:lol:

Seems like there is just as much prejudice against the AR from the AK/Mini-14 crowd as there is from the AR crowd against all others. Point is its "good enough" for the US Military. Personally not so much for me, but well I plan on getting gas piston conversions done when I save the money.

[Dorkface]

Wow this thread took off on a tangent lol. It went from talking about the accuracy of the SoCom and mini to the M-16 vs M-14 debate! :lol: For the record all I'm going to say is I'll keep my M-14. ;)