| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:M16 rifle series: Difference between revisions
Orca1 9904 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 442: | Line 442: | ||
Hope this helps. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 02:26, 6 October 2011 (CDT) | Hope this helps. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 02:26, 6 October 2011 (CDT) | ||
:Don't forget that the M16A2 has semi/3-round burst as opposed to semi/full auto in the M16 (though you rarely see this feature used on-screen as most directors feel the full auto looks better than a 3-round burst). [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 04:15, 6 October 2011 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 09:15, 6 October 2011
Additional Variants
this is the marushin cap gun?--Kin93 07:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, it is, so this is one of the FIRST guns I need to photograph (a real one) and replace this Airsoft abomination. MoviePropMaster2008 07:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually thats a ICS airsoft M4 with the grip and laser box....
An airsoft gun and a cap gun aren't the same thing. LOL Spartan198 11:43, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
Interesting
...I seriously doubt anyone will ever see an underslung version of the M203 used in a film, all by itself, ...
but there have been stand alone M203 launchers (modified with a pistol grip and stock like the M79LF 37mm launchers) as well as the M203 being attached to guns other than the M16 (take Rambo III for example where they attached it to an AK). Having a section on the M16 w M203 on the M16 page makes sense since that is where people will look if they're curious about that particular combo appearing in a movie. But I like having a separate page for the M203 to address more detailed history of the launcher plus any applications where the launcher is used with other weapons. Just a thought...
- We do need a page where M203s are used as stand alone launchers, rare, but it has happened. But we should shift all M203s underslung to M16s to the M16 Page and have a note directing users to that page when looking for that combination on the M203 page. Just IMHO.... MoviePropMaster2008 01:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, that configuration. Also, there was a standalone M203 on Bones, and there might be others (sometime WAY in the future, when a director wants to use a "modern" version of an M79, like how James Cameron used the fictional roto-craft in place of the Huey).
Do well really need to have an "A2" and "A3" category?
MoviePropMaster2008 has already explained that just about all of the "M16A2s" used in movies are actually A2 uppers on A1 lowers, often with A1 flash hiders. By this definition, none of them are true "M16A2s", and might actually be considered M16A3s roughly. But since they're usually seen impersonating M16A2s, I say designate by receiver style only (both the A2 and A3 have what is usually called the "A2 receiver").
In other words, I think we should ditch the M16A3 category completely. It makes no sense to distinguish between A2s and A3s when basically all of the "Hollywood" A2s and A3s are the same type of gun. -MT2008 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I never got anyone's feedback on this, but...I decided to go ahead and ditch the M16A3 entry, for the reasons I explained above. It doesn't make sense to try and distinguish between "A2s" and "A3s" in movies when MoviePropMaster has explained that they're all basically the same thing - A2-style uppers on fully automatic A1 lowers. By that definition, none of them are true "M16A2s", but since they're obviously supposed to portray such rifles in movies, it makes more sense to call them A2s. -MT2008 01:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, because the M16A3 was made for Navy SEALs and SeeBees, no civilian hands hae touched them. -Winchester (1-26-09)
I believe the 1995 remake of Village of the Damned portrayed the National Guard using burst fire. --AdAstra2009 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(the above was in reply to a comment that the author deleted as i posted.) --AdAstra2009 03:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also I think Colt sold A3s to foreign entities, National police of allied countries, Elite units, etc. Any country with which we are friendly and Colt has sold weapons in the past. I've heard that A3s were sold as samples to France, U.K. and Germany (but that was a casual comment that I heard years ago). There 'could' be A3s in the armories of foreign movie productions. That is a completely grey area with which I have no one to verify anything. :( MoviePropMaster2008 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is strange. I posted a comment here a couple hours ago, asking how many movies are there were burst fire is portrayed? I know Black Hawk Down has one instant. Excalibur01 05:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen some films that had three round burst fire. I will try to get the titles and list them 205.172.16.102 01:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The caption to the M16A1 w/ M16A2 handguards...
I was in the National Guard in the early '90's and that's exactly what we had. I was also issued an M16A1 with A2 handguards in basic training. It turns out that it's simpler and--from what I heard--cheaper to replace the 'A1 guards with 'A2 guards because the 'A2's are less complex and you only need to stock one type instead of 'lefts' and 'rights'. Also, the 'A1'a in the national guard were freshly rebuilt, tested, and had the serial numbers laser etched into the bolt carriers. They were issued with all 'A2 furniture.
- Yeah, I've seen plenty of A1s with A2 hand guards elsewhere. In fact, if you ever watch footage of the current offensive into Gaza, you can see both IDF personnel and Hamas militants using them. The Israelis received a lot of M16A1s and have updated many of them with the M16A2 hand guards. Many of these rifles were passed into Israeli's "allies" in Fatah, and then Hamas stole plenty of them during their war with Fatah (some were also probably stolen from the IDF themselves). -MT2008 22:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
just for the record here is an M16A1 with A2 handguards in service
--AdAstra2009 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Mark 12 Special Purpose Rifle
Does anyone have an image of one? -User:AdAstra2009
- I put one on the Live Free or Die Hard page that I took from another site. -MT2008 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks I pasted it from that page but we should probably look into getting a noncopyrighted one. -User:AdAstra2009
- Well, you can ask MoviePropMaster2008 if he has a Mark 12 upper in his company's inventory. I imagine he also knows armorers at Cinema Weaponry (the guys who supplied the weapons for Live Free or Die Hard), so he might even be able to get us one of the same guns used in that movie. But he's very busy of course and has LOTS of other image requests to tend to, so it might be a while before he gets around to it. -MT2008
Rate of Fire on the M16A1
Does anyone know the rate of fire on the M16A1?Oliveira 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I assume it's about 800 rounds a minute Excalibur01 08:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- That would be correct, it's around 750 to 800 RPM. Spartan198 15:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
What is this?
It's not really from a movie, but a music video, and I havn't been able to figure out what this AR is yet, there are two others in the video, one's an M16A1, the other an A2, but I just can't figure this one out.
http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:RA_Rifle1.JPG http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:RA_Rifle2.JPG http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:RA_Rifle3.JPG http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:RA_Rifle4.JPG http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:RA_Rifle5.JPG
Looks like an M733, what is this from? Excalibur01 08:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- The gun in the first 'cap looks different from the CAR-15s in the other pictures. Maybe it's a fake XM177?-Oliveira 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's from the music video for Hero Of War by Rise Against, the main soldier uses it, his two buddies use an M16A1 and M16A2, I'm almost 100% sure there are only three rifles in the video. Yeah, I'm thinking M733 too... Alex T Snow
XM607 Commando Carbine
I do remember the weapon from Pink Caddilac an XM607, or an AR-15 modified to imitate one. The weapon may not have been officially adopted but kits were released to the public though:
Cutaway 18:54PM, 3/7/2009 (UTC)
- I changed the entry after I watched the trailer for the movie. The trailer is on YouTube, and the gun in question is visible at the 00:27-00:28 mark:
- That is definitely an older-model LaFrance Specialties M16K. It doesn't have the triangular front sight post of the XM607. -MT2008 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Photoshopped M16 images
Can people please stop posting the images of M16 variants that were edited using MPM's photos? There's a reason I've removed them before. We don't need to have every variant on the page, and many of them are inaccurate, anyway. The only one we allow is the XM16E1, because we don't have a good photo of one of those yet, and even that may get replaced. -MT2008
- The Colt 607 image I posted wasn't one of MPM's [unless someone stole it and re-hosted it], I got it from google. Only put it here because the page for the The World Is Not Enough videogame didn't have a 607 image. Vangelis 05:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have Colt Model 727 by itself
When the Model 727 is just the commercial Colt name for the M4 carbine? it doesn't make sense to have the exact GUN made by Colt with it's commercial name (for law enforcement sales or international sales) with a separate category, when it should just be merged in with the M4/M4A1 category. The M16 page is getting out of control. MPM2008
- I agree that the Model 727 should be merged with the M4 category, but it's not exactly a commercial name for an M4. The Model 777 is the commercial name for the very first M4 (the one that didn't have the detachable carry handle). The 727 and 777 are identical, but the 727 is safe-semi-auto and the 777 is safe-semi-burst. -MT2008
- Good point. But in the overall view, I think all that info (a) should be in the M4 category, (b) should be a footnote, NOT a separate category and (c) people are endlessly creating separate categories for weapons that are essentially the same guns as other categories. Experienced IMFDB users/Mods already know that most of the M16 variants seen in films are build ups of other guns. We usually just get the accessories and barreled uppers and put them on our full auto or semi auto lowers. Why spend thousands to get new guns when we're sitting on dozens and dozens of other M16s? Also, in VideoGames and Anime, again, they don't have to specify the new or commercial model unless it's specifically stated or named explicitly. Even then it can be a footnote in the original category.
Adding images
I'm getting a little annoyed with people adding images we don't need on the page, including many that are crap and which aren't necessary. Not to mention that half of them aren't even using the "br clear=all" command to ensure that the images won't drift into the next gun entry. So, I'm putting a stop to this now. No more without talking about it here first. Next person who doesn't respect my wishes gets a 1-week time out. -MT2008 17:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- They're still doing it. I have removed the custom A1 upper mounted on an SP1 lower with A2 handguards from this page several times. It is not a common real like frankengun (but it has happened). I originally built this and photographed it for the HEAT page until better screenshots proved that Wes Studi's AR15 was an A1 style lower, not an SP1. MoviePropMaster2008 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, for some reason, these users seem to think that every single picture of a gun needs to be on it's page. It especially frustrates me when they're sticking all customized guns that only appear in one movie onto a page, they may look cool, but they're not even standard configurations! All they end up doing is turning the gun page into a cluttered, sloppy mess of pictures, I mean just look at the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 pages.--Alienqueen11 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Would it be alright if I added the following image to the M4/M4A1 with M203 Grenade Launcher section?
Figured that since the other sections on the page have pics of the 'basic' and 'tricked-out' versions, why not this one? Orca1 9904 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any pictures of a heavily modified M4 style platform? ex- The Unit, BlackHawk Down, Tears of the Sun? Dirtdiver6421 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So why not update this page to include current issue M16A4 rifles?
(unless you don't know what they are....)
A Warm Thank-You
For years I have been trying to find out what the guns were Peter & Roger used in Dawn of the Dead. This site solved what the problem so many other "gun experts" on IMDb could not. Again, thank you.
- Thats what IMFDB is for =) --AdAstra2009 18:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's See If You Can Figure This Out
I couldn't find a real picture so I put this together. Its an M4A1 with the old style stock, and a straight (no cuts) 16" barrel; or its a Sporter (or one of those older three number ones like that) with a removable carry handle; take your pick. I was just wondering what it actually is...
P.S. Every detail is intentional and exactly how its supposed to be even though its not a real picture, just so everyone knows that. ;)
- It would be a hybrid commercial AR variant. It has an M16A1 style lower receiver, so it is NOT a Sporter I or II. Basically, it's an M4 Carbine with a flat top and detachable carry handle, with an old style buttstock and a civilian HBAR Carbine barrel outfitted with RIS forearms. Various manufacturers made similar guns to this design, like Bushmaster and a few others. Also many builders of AR15s made similar guns from parts kits from M&A, Patriot Arms, (the now defunct Nesard), Sun Valley, and others. With the advent of custom builds from aftermarket parts from dozens of manufacturers, the AR15 has become the ultimate "mutt". I can tell you this is NOT an issued military variant, so it would NOT have an "M" designation unless it was built from an M4 to begin with. Also nearly everyone uses the step down M4 style barrels for carbines, unless it's the ultra light. The HBAR Carbine style barrels are becoming rarer by the day since their heyday was the 1990s. MoviePropMaster2008 07:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, very informative answer. This is the "M4 Carbine" in Call Of Duty 4, and I've been trying to figure out exactly what it really is for a while. I didnt say where it was from because I figured the answer I'd get would be something like "its a videogame, so its probably not a real model", but I knew that ;) I like the look and have been trying to make it as an airsoft project, this helps a lot... too bad airsoft HBAR barrels are very hard to come by. Alex T Snow 07:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- How did you make that? At first I thought it was Pimp My Gun, but PMG doesn't have an M16A1 pistol grip yet. Spartan198 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, you thought right my friend, it is Pimp My Gun, I just used MS Paint to remove the little finger nub and made the HBAR barrel by copying and pasting the largest part of the barrel over the rest of it. That's all the "photoshopping" that I did. Alex T Snow 07:45, 13
February 2010 (UTC)
- If it's from CoD4, then blame lack of details on modelers that made that gun model. They simply saved some poligons for improved performance of the game. Same thing with lack of gas-block when front sight is removed. It supposed to be M4A1 and i'm 100% sure they had pictures of military issued M4A1's as a reference.
- I'm sure they wanted it to be an M4A1, but I've seen a lot of movies where HK94s were converted to be MP5s, or 92FSs were converted to be 93Rs and last I checked on this site we identify guns on what they are, not what they're supposed to be... Alex T Snow 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- If it's from CoD4, then blame lack of details on modelers that made that gun model. They simply saved some poligons for improved performance of the game. Same thing with lack of gas-block when front sight is removed. It supposed to be M4A1 and i'm 100% sure they had pictures of military issued M4A1's as a reference.
M16A1 series' portray
In the present, does anyone think that like the Ak47 and its variants, the M16A1 series is sometimes stereotypically portrayed as a bad guy's gun? I've seen the IRA, FARC guerillas, Mexican drug lords and some gangbangers use them. Overall is this true?
- In the real world, the USSR dumped millions of AKs into the hands of satellite states and insurgents around the world. In the Vietnam and immediate post Vietnam years the U.S. dumped millions of M16A1s to our allies. With the fall of Vietnam, all of the South Vietnamese M16A1s ended up in the hands of communist guerillas (as well as the AK). The AK and the M16 were the most prolifically distributed weapons of the last 50 years. There is no conspiracy to make them 'look bad'. They're in the hands of everyone so it is invevitable.
- Even Iran uses a variant of the M16A1, a copy of the Norinco CQ called the S-5.56, as their standard rifle. Spartan198 15:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
AR Series firing 5.7 Ammo???
I was in a gun shop in Michigan today and saw a weapon with an AR-15 type body but with the mag of a P-90 running along the rail. I asked the guy at the shop and he did confirm the weapon did fire the 5.7 round. Anyone have any idea who makes the weapon and what it may be called? Incidentally the store was The Firing Line in Westland Michigan. --Charon68 03:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- They sell those uppers here in California all the time. My local gun store has 5.7mm firing AR15 uppers that take the P90 magazine. But I never bothered to check who made it, that's what GOOGLE is for. I just never had an interest MoviePropMaster2008 07:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have seen examples of this conversion as well. It is actually a specially-made upper receiver that can be mounted onto pretty much any AR-15 style lower receiver. The magazine mounts along the top of the weapon as with the P90, and the original magazine well in the lower receiver becomes the ejection port with the spent brass falling down through there instead of being spit out to the side. As for the manufacturer, I can't quite recall who makes it, but it is definitely quite an interesting piece of hardware. Orca1 9904 07:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As long as my memory goes, is called the AR-57 and is manufactured by 57Center, or something like that --Yocapo32 15:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I remember when Impact Guns got those in. You can buy them here: http://www.impactguns.com/store/AR-57%20UR.html
- The manufacturer's web site, as Yocapo32 pointed out, is 57 Center. Their web site is here: http://www.57center.com/
- What's interesting is that the AR magazine well is where the brass gets ejected. The only problem I can see with having a P90 magazine mounted on top is that it leaves limited rail space on top for mounting accessories. You could have a scope or iron sights, and not much else. -MT2008 15:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info guys, again, I know this was not germane to the topic, it was just a little odd to see something like that as I had never heard of it before. --Charon68 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Stolen M4A1s
In real life is there ever any incidents where police have seized M4A1 carbines from criminials or terrorists during raids?
- Do you mean mil-spec M4s, as opposed to semi-auto AR-15 carbines that are patterned after the M4? I would doubt it. -MT2008 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Never, or else it has never been reported anywhere, ever. And I am talking about real select fire 14.5" barreled M4/M4A1 carbines. However, California has had a rash of MP5s and MP5Ks stolen out of police cars, which were left unlocked when the cops were in a strip club. Seriously. they have not shown up since....MoviePropMaster2008 06:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Suitable combat weapon
Which weapon is considered better for infantry? An M16A1/M203 combo or an OICW?
- M16A1/M203. The XM29 weighs damn near 20 lbs., compared to 8 or 9 lbs. for the M16 when fitted with a 203. Fire control system or not, the last thing I'd want to be stuck with on a 60 mile march is an F-ing 20 lbs. rifle. And sign your posts by typing four ~ after them. Spartan198 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The M16/M203 combo is definitely superior; it has been proven in real-world combat situations over the last 30-plus years, whereas the only live-fire situation the XM29 has seen at the most is at the Aberdeen testing ranges. The closest replacement the M16/M203 will likely see anytime soon is an FN SCAR/M320, and even then the SCAR is only in limited use with the 75th Ranger Regiment at present. Orca1 9904 05:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The real question is whether or not the XM8 Carbine is better than the M4A1/derivatives (H&K 416, REC7, etc). And we probably won't ever know.
Also, the OICW was more of a man-portable version of a Doom gun than anything that you would actually bother carrying on duty. 20mm airburst auto-loader, saboted sub-5.56mm rounds? What could you use that for other than trying to clear a drug cartel's fortified mansion by yourself?
- One of the many things that led to the death of the XM29 was its sheer size. The Army wanted it scaled down to the size of an M4 [1] and 14 lbs max (which an M4 with all its mods gets pretty close to), but with today's technology, it just wasn't possible. Maybe in 20 years or so it will be, but the XM29 is presently dead for the foreseeable future. Spartan198 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.ghostrecon.net/images_arms/xm29_1.jpg){kind=link}
Installation of a front Flip up/down Iron sights.
I was watching The Losers, and while I agree that those 4 characters all had M4A1s, they seemed to switch between fixed front sight and flip up/down iron sights. I was wondering how hard it would be to take an M4A1, remove the front factory sight and replace it with a flip up/down sight. I know it's pretty easy for the rear sight, but I wasn't sure about the front sight. (OK, I also want to ask this question because I, like many people, have played Modern Warfare 2 and seen the M4 with a flip up/down front sight.) --Gunkatas 03:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not really that difficult. Spartan198 04:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the process would involve removing the muzzle brake and the existing front sight/gas block assembly and replacing it with a gas block that has either a rail to mount your choice of front sight, or a folding front sight, then reinstalling the muzzle brake. You can find instructional videos for this process at various gunsmithing websites. Orca1 9904 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Forward Assist
Does anyone know when reloading if it is a good idea to hit the forward assist after hitting the bolt release or its ok just to start firing after hitting the bolt release?
- The idea behind hitting the forward assist after reloading is to ensure the bolt is fully seated and that the weapon is ready to fire. It's generally not really nessicary at the range, but when in a combat situation where you might have dirt or whatnot fouling the chamber, it's a good idea to do that to ensure that the weapon will fire when you need it to.Orca1 9904 23:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- The M16 series are the ONLY assault rifles (except the HK G41, which is made to be like the M16 and is no longer produced) in the world to have a forward assist. Why don't other assault rifles have a forward assist? (ie. the AK-74, G36 etc.) Because other assault rifles are more reliable and don't need it. :)
- Uh more associated with the design of the Bolt than being more reliable. The AK series have a bolt handle attached DIRECTLY to the bolt carrier as do many other designs. If there is debris or fouling in the chamber which keeps a round from seating properly you can just jam the handle forward (I've done this in the field when my AK / Garand / Galil / M 14 / etc jammed) I once had a tiny piece of bark (I was firing under trees) which fell from above and fell into the ejection port and made the round 'stick' really badly in the chamber so that it would not seat properly. The M16 design has no way other than the forward assist to nudge the bolt & carrier forward enough to fire and kick that crap free of the action. But I wouldn't bash the M16 as an "unreliable" rifle. I'd sure take it into battle right now. MoviePropMaster2008 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I understand. thanks for the extra info. I'm not saying the M16/M4 is a complete piece of crap, but it's definitely not the BEST ASSAULT RIFLE IN THE WORLD! like we Americans like to state all the time (*rolls eyes*). You and me both know the M16/M4 is no where as reliable as the G36 or the AK series. But at least it's better than the L85 series, now that's a piece crap rifle. :D *Edit: Well at least the L85A1, the L85A2 is OK. kinda like the M16/M16A1s sucks but the M16A2/A4s are good.
- Uh more associated with the design of the Bolt than being more reliable. The AK series have a bolt handle attached DIRECTLY to the bolt carrier as do many other designs. If there is debris or fouling in the chamber which keeps a round from seating properly you can just jam the handle forward (I've done this in the field when my AK / Garand / Galil / M 14 / etc jammed) I once had a tiny piece of bark (I was firing under trees) which fell from above and fell into the ejection port and made the round 'stick' really badly in the chamber so that it would not seat properly. The M16 design has no way other than the forward assist to nudge the bolt & carrier forward enough to fire and kick that crap free of the action. But I wouldn't bash the M16 as an "unreliable" rifle. I'd sure take it into battle right now. MoviePropMaster2008 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have to completely disagree with what you say, i don't wish to come off as passive aggresive but you sound like a mall ninja that learned their weapons knowledge from seeing them perform in videogames or hearing public opinions on weapons from the news or other sources. The M16 family of rifles are both fine and fairly reliable weapons, while much of that view has been skewed by the fact they were portrayed as unreliable during conflicts such as Vietnam, is incorrect to a degree. The M16 is a reliable and capable weapon when cleaned and properly maintained, it simply lacks the ability to stay so when not properly serviced, as some other rifles such as the AKM can function fine without cleaning, the M16 can not. As for your comment on the L85 series, yes they were somewhat poor and unreliable weapons at first, coupled with poor grips and clumsy to handle for certain users, however the newer models have made large improvements and are very capable firearms. As i feel it needs to be said (or typed) a common mistake people make is assuming that militaries have access and funding to field their troops with the best weapons available, which is not always the case as most countries don't have the money to field an Army with rifles that can cost up to $5000-10000 per unit. Which is where the workhorses like M16's come in, you go for the "good" rifle not the "great" one. Also, although off-topic it somewhat pertains to the M16, most mall ninja's assume the AK-family is better because it is more reliable and fires a heavier cartridge, I've always asked "would you want a round that's going to pierce right through an enemy and leave an easy to treat wound, or have a round that hits an enemy and fragments inside them causing an ungodly bloody mess?" Hopefully esteemed imfdb members such as MPM2008 will agree with and share my viewpoint concerning this subject, as well as not condemn me for my long comment. Doc345 13:24, 06 March 2011 (UTC)
- The issues of jamming during the Vietnam War had more to do with ammunition and the lack of a chrome-lined chamber and barrel than the rifle's so-called "dirty" gas system. In 1964 the Army switched from stick powder to ball powder, which increased the rate of fire to over 1,000 RPM and left a lot of dirty residue in the weapon. This was only exacerbated by the lack of cleaning kits and training on how to maintain the weapon. They fixed the issue by fitting the rifle with a buffer system (which slowed the ROF down) and chrome-plated chamber. Training programs in weapon maintenance were instituted and an instruction book on how to maintain the rifle was circulated among troops. After further modifications resulted in the M16A1, many of the reliability issues disappeared (although even today, the weapon has yet to shed its bad reputation). The M16A2, A3, A4, and M4 carbine of today are an entirely different breed of warrior than the prototypes that were issued back in the 60s. While it may admittedly be a bit finicky, the M16 today is a good weapon. Spartan198 11:29, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
- Yeah but it's still a very fussy weapon, it's not very durable, and it has much more malfunctions/jams then say the H&K G36, but none the less it's still a excellent weapons platform, mostly. - Mr. Wolf 14:28, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
The comment about the SPR Mk 12 shooting full auto...
The design--at least the original ones--used a match grade trigger group that actually fired full auto.
If my Web Fu is correct, NSN 1005-01-562-0901 from Knight's Armament.
The original, intended purpose was to allow the uppers to be swapped out for a short barreled model initially so a marksman could use a short range weapon on the way in and out and the more accurate upper at the objective.
Sources: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=003aa7475e95c9b56d5814227cc5d4ec&tab=core&_cview=0
States the Special Purpose Receiver (Early designs) specifies:
"(C) OTHER PERFORMANCE GOALS: (1) Increased reliability, durability, corrosion resistance, ease of cleaning, lubricity/reduced friction; fully functional for a minimum of 15,000 rounds (Threshold)/30,000 rounds (Objective), performing up to the standards and firing rates to be published in the Solicitation, functional reliability exceeding that of the standard M4A1 carbine at high and low temperature extremes as well as other hostile (sand/dust/dirt/mud/surf) environmental conditions (2) Improved safety- delay cook-off, fail-safe features, fires/functions safely and without delay of draining in the Over-The-Beach (surf zone, weapon flooded with water) environment. (3) User Acceptance: operational suitability, increased live-fire hit scores, decreased live-fire engagement times, speed/accuracy of engagement, controllability in semi-automatic and full automatic fire, improved handling qualities, light weight, snag free in movement through vegetation and battlefield obstacles." (Accent added)"
Standard Issue M4 vs. M4A1
Does the Army issue regular infantry (i.e. 4th Inf. Div.) the three-round burst M4 or the M4A1? I always thought it was the M4A1 (and please forgive me if I got to the party late), but from what I've read, it seems like they issue the regulars the Model 920, leaving the 921 for Special Forces and the like. -
i think it all depends on the on-base armory. for example some armory's might still have some M4s. but i think the regular infantry does use the M4A1. however. Special forces dont use the M4A1 or the M4. they use the hK416/417. Dirtdiver6421 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- - Though I don't know for certain, I wouldn't imply Spec-Ops units use only the new HK rifles - As you've said, it all depends on what's around, and to a degree what the soldiers prefer (in the case of Special units). Though the aforementioned HK rifles are in inventory, that doesn't automatically cancel the M4s out - some personnel might still use 'em. Plus there are other weapons around, namely the FN SCAR series. Though I would agree use of the M4 with Special Forces probably isn't as common these days.
As for a regular-issue weapon, I agree that the M4 and M4A1 are both in use nowadays, with the A1 perhaps being more prominent. StanTheMan 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Stan, my understanding is that it's the opposite. The M4 is the most common version, not the M4A1. U.S. military doctrine still discourages full-auto for infantry rifles, so it seems unlikely to me that the M4A1 is going to be more common. As for the SCAR, SOCOM just decided this past June that they weren't going to order any more SCAR-Ls for the foreseeable future, which means that even amongst most SF units, the M4 will remain their standard weapon. -MT2008 01:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- - Well, I wasn't too sure, but I guess that does make sense to stick with the burst-fire M4. Good point. StanTheMan 01:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The only SF unit that uses the M4 (920) that I can think of is the Asymmetric Warfare Group, but that's only 'cause they had to hand in their HK416s. According to a book I've got, that decision went over like a lead balloon with the AWG. -
thank god. im not a huge fan of the SCAR-L i find it pointless. if you want to go with a new alternative to the M4/M16. why the hell would you take an unfamiliar weapon. alas the hK416. same rate of fire. same Picatanny rail, same attachments, same stock, same barrel, same trigger group, and extremely similiar internals. and Stan, i do agree. if i made it sounds like all SF use the hK416, i didnt mean to. i/we really DONT no what they all use. they pick their own. they could carry an AK-47 or a CAR-15 if they wanted to. we cant make generalizations about units that get custom made equipment. Dirtdiver6421 20:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- No prob, dude - I'm just glad you got what I was gettin' at. StanTheMan 20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
i would be shocked if they couldnt pick their weapons. their the best soldiers on the planet. it just doesnt make sense not to be able to. it would be like giving a star baseball player a 10 dollar glove. itll do but why wouldnt they get the best thats out there. Dirtdiver6421 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Reg army units use the burst M4, not the full auto A1. Spartan198 05:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
A couple of months ago when I was at a military base there were Marines conducting a weapons demo with the M4 carbine. It was the 3-round burst rifle, but a question came up about the M4A1. One Marine said that they got rid of all M4A1s and only have M4s. I personally don't see the need for a full-auto rifle and 3-round burst is fine because it forces the user to slow down and most of the time the user uses semi-only, combat or not, but that is my opinion. The M4A1 is still probabley used by the US Military, but I'm not sure, I haven't seen one in a long time.--MarineCorps1 23:29, 21 July 2011 (CDT)
Colt Accurized Rifle
After seeing several pages of real firearms appearing in only one film or game, I was wondering if I should expand this page with a new section for the Colt Accurized Rifle, which to my knowledge has only ever appeared in S.W.A.T. 4. Before I do that, I need to confirm two things:
- Is the Colt Accurized Rifle indeed another variant on the M16 line of rifles, or a separate take on the AR-15 design altogether? I suppose there's a reason why we don't include the Z-M LR 300 in the M16 page because it's the latter--I need to know if the Colt Accurized Rifle falls in that category.
- Including it on this page would make it the first Designated Marksman Rifle variant here. So far I only see assault rifles or carbines here. Would including a DMR in this page be a problem or not?
If there are no real problems, I'll make a new section for it, but I have no idea where I'll get a non-copyright infringment image of one. --Mazryonh 01:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- It'd be the second DMR on the page. Spartan198 05:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, but can someone confirm that the Colt Accurized Rifle is indeed descended from the M16 line of assault rifles and not a separate take on the AR-15 design like the aforementioned LR-300 is? I still have no idea where I can get a photo of this DMR that respects copyright. All I have are game screenshots. Some help here, please? --Mazryonh 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Removeable Carry Handle for Colt 9mm SMG?
Does such a Gun exist?
- Not as a production gun (Colt's website makes no mention of one, anyway), but the modular nature of the AR system makes such a configuration entirely possible. Spartan198 14:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do we have a Colt AR-15 SP1 category that is separate from the M16/SP1 category?
The guns look the same, sure the SP1 had a design change in 1978 (three prong flash hider was changed to birdcage, rear sling swivel was changed to A1 style and the color went from greenish grey to straight grey) but unless we see the stamp on the side that says "Property of U.S. Government" we can't tell if it's a real M16 (which WERE sold via Title II dealers to armories) and a Colt AR15 SP1 which was converted to full auto (which was done A LOT prior to 1986). MoviePropMaster2008 19:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
About M4 Commando and M16A4 Full Auto
Full Auto M16A4 (Model 905) is Model 901
Model 933 is M4 Commando (Full Auto)
Manufacturer's site says it all.
Colt Model 653 barrel length
Am trying to pin down what a gun is for a page I'm working on. It has a forward assist but no deflector, A1 rear sight, M4 length tubular handguard, 16" barrel with birdcage flash hider and a solid stock. Basically it matches the gun in the picture for the Model 653 on the main page, apart from having a solid stock but that is easily changeable. However, every source I can find about the 653 says that it has a 14" barrel. Was the gun made in different barrel lengths but kept the same designation, and if not, anyone know what the gun is that is pictured as a 653? Also, while I'm on the topic of obscure colt carbines, does anyone know of a model that will match a 725 (original C8 without the flat-top) but has an A2 rear sight? Thanks, --commando552 18:16, 16 April 2011 (CDT)
Can anyone figure out what this is?
I found this hidden in my computer, I think it's a Colt Canada C7A1 as a base, I can tell it's C7 because of the Canadian leaf on the the lower receiver, it would be an A1 because of the removable carrying-handle. What the heck is that hand-guard? - Mr. Wolf 01:02, 28 April 2011 (CDT)
- Colt Model 750/Diemaco C7 Light Support Weapon - A modified C7 with an enlarged gas tube (hence the square handguard) and a heavy barrel for sustained fire in the squad automatic weapon role. The C7 LSW is not used by the Canadian Forces but has seen service with the Dutch and Danish militaries. --Markit 01:34, 28 April 2011 (CDT)
- Ha! I thought so, thanks. :) Should I remove this section or keep it. - Mr. Wolf 13:53, 28 April 2011 (CDT)
- Colt Model 750/Diemaco C7 Light Support Weapon - A modified C7 with an enlarged gas tube (hence the square handguard) and a heavy barrel for sustained fire in the squad automatic weapon role. The C7 LSW is not used by the Canadian Forces but has seen service with the Dutch and Danish militaries. --Markit 01:34, 28 April 2011 (CDT)
- That's not Colt LSW, that's Colt Automatic Rifle. Follow the link and you will see that the image is the larger version of the official one. Meanwhile, Colt LSW has optional folding carry handle. --Masterius 09:09, 29 April 2011 (CDT)
- Thanks guys. :) - Mr. Wolf 12:02, 29 April 2011 (CDT)
- Just to clarify, the Colt automatic rifle, LSW and LMG are all the same weapon. The original version that looks like the one above was the Colt Model 750, which featured a fixed A2 carry handle and barrel mounted bi-pod, and the newer version above is the current production Model 950, with the relocated bi-pod and A4 rear sights. As you said, the folding carry handle is removeable, and the picture on the Colt website is just one without it fitted (note the longer centre vent on the top of the handguard is the mounting point for the handle). --commando552 02:48, 1 May 2011 (CDT)
- The original version was based on M16A1:
- Just to clarify, the Colt automatic rifle, LSW and LMG are all the same weapon. The original version that looks like the one above was the Colt Model 750, which featured a fixed A2 carry handle and barrel mounted bi-pod, and the newer version above is the current production Model 950, with the relocated bi-pod and A4 rear sights. As you said, the folding carry handle is removeable, and the picture on the Colt website is just one without it fitted (note the longer centre vent on the top of the handguard is the mounting point for the handle). --commando552 02:48, 1 May 2011 (CDT)
- The one you described was based on M16A2:
Guys, remember back in the 1980s when Colt was trying to vie for the SAW role? Sure the FN Minimi was never knocked off its perch, but Colt came out with a Colt light Machine gun that looked a lot like this. They were selling the barreled uppers on the market for a while in the early 1990s (I know a few friends who have them, but I never got one). This looks like that reincarnated!!! LOL!MoviePropMaster2008 15:24, 29 April 2011 (CDT)
- Well, that's all written on Modern Firearms :P
- Ah yes, you only read about it monkeyboy ;) I was handling and firing that sucker! LOL MoviePropMaster2008 03:11, 1 May 2011 (CDT)
- Oh, and I've found articles of why AR is more advantageous than SAW to US Marine Corps:
- Interesting reading, methinks :) --Masterius 03:13, 30 April 2011 (CDT)
Heat Dissipation Performance of Carbine Barrel Types?
I was wondering, does anyone know what kind of effects the 'cuts' (originally meant for the mounting of the M203 grenade launcher) in the barrel of the M4 and similiarly-styled M16 & AR-15 series carbines has on the heat dissipation performance of the barrel? Do the cuts help the weapon release heat from prolonged firing better than a barrel that has a uniform thickness, or does it hamper that? Any input anyone can provide on this would be greatly appreciated. Orca1 9904 17:46, 8 May 2011 (CDT)
- The step down for the grenade launcher is actually pretty negligible in terms of cooling (although it does create a point of weakness to bending), as what you can't see is the fact that as soon as the barrel goes under the handguard it is reduced down to the same narrow diameter as in the cut out, which creates a much bigger effect on cooling. The narrower profile sections have the effect of cooling down the barrel quicker, but they also conversely mean that the barrel heats up quicker, and the heat has a larger effect on the accuracy of the gun. The main advantage however is that it reduces the weight quite a bit. The original reason that the M4 barrel reduces in size behind the handguard is based on the M16A2, which does exactly the same thing where its heavy barrel is actually only thicker past the front sight. This was due to a cock up in the design, where they designed the gun with a full thickness straight barrel, and found that they could then no longer clamp the M203 to the barrel, so the barrels were simply turned down from behind the front sight post. The front of the barrel was left thick due to the fact that the thinner barrels on the M16A1 were being bent at the front from being used as pry-bars to get the loading bands off of shipping pallets. --commando552 04:53, 6 June 2011 (CDT)
- There is a heavier "SOCOM-profile" barrel that maintains the same diameter beneath the handguards as the standard M4-profile barrel does around the M203 cut and it can mount the M203 just fine.[2] Spartan198 11:40, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
![[2]](http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/v/vspfiles/photos/BCM-URG-M4-14SOCOM-2.jpg){kind=link}
can you tell me what model of m16/car 15 this is
sorry i do not have a pic but i can tell you what is like. me and my dad were talikng about some of the guns he used in the army and he was telling me about this one he said was like an carbine version of the m16a2 and it was like the m4 but had a fixed carring handle and it was used befor the m4 it had safe semi and burst and he said it just had ar15 on the side.-Steviebleckley
- Sounds like the first batch of M4s that were delivered. This is the Colt Model 777, which is basically an M4 with a fixed carry handle, and 3-round burst as opposed to full auto. It is the brother of and visually identical to the 727 mentioned on the main page, where the 727 as full auto as opposed to the burst. If it didn't have the M4 profile barrel though, god knows. Probably a model 654 on an M16 lower receiver or something. --commando552 15:02, 13 June 2011 (CDT)
yes it had the same profile as the m4. i gess it was the 777.I will show him the pic of the the 727 since there the same well the 727 is full auto thanks for the info - Steviebleckley
Question about the buffer tube
I'm not one hundred percent sure what it does, and (like the forward assist) that almost no other guns have it. If someone could just clarify, what does it do, why does this rifle series have it, and why don't others/what replaces the buffer tube in other rifles? Thank you in advance. --Rebusdi 07:27, 12 July 2011 (CDT)
- Basically, it was installed in order to slow down the rate of fire. The very first M16s ended up using a different ammunition powder than they were designed for, which caused a higher rate of fire than desired (about 800 to 1000 rpm I think), leading to excessive fouling in the chamber, and hence lots of stopages. From the M16E1 onwards a buffer tube was added to slow the rate of fire to about 600-700 rpm, and a chrome lined chamber and barrel was added as well. --commando552 11:47, 12 July 2011 (CDT)
I'm not sure if this is practical in any way, or even possible, but is their a way to increase the rate of fire on an M16 without the problems of the carbon build-up in the chamber?--MarineCorps1 23:29, 21 July 2011 (CDT)
- Why would you want to increase the rate of fire? - Mr. Wolf 00:40, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
No reason, just wondering if it's even possible with a full-auto M16.--MarineCorps1 08:09, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
- Probably, I see no reason why you couldn't. - Mr. Wolf 13:40, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
- I'm assuming the reason that the high rate of fire caused fouling was that the rate of fire was so quick that the bolt was unlocking and opening before all the powder was fully burnt in the chamber, leaving residue. I'd imagine that you could increase the rate of fire by removing the buffer, and just make sure that whatever powder you were using was fully burnt in the time it takes the bolt to open. --commando552 14:29, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
- That would make sense, since I heard the nightmare version of that was when the gas pressure was still holding the spent case in place while the extractor was trying to eject it, which tended to result in Horrible Things happening to the case while it was still inside the rifle. Evil Tim 21:08, 27 July 2011 (CDT)
This might be a silly question, but why is it that the AR-15 design required the buffer tube, and other rifles do not? Is it just located differently, and if so why? It just strikes me that the lack of a folding stock option is a poor design, especially when compared to most assault rifles designed today, SCAR, ACR, etc. --Rebusdi 18:57, 27 July 2011 (CDT)
- I'm guessing here, but from what I've read it's that the rifle had already been designed, so they had to work inside the box, as it were. The only options were either to make the components of the action a lot heavier so their momentum prevented the weapon cycling too fast (which would rather defy the point of using a lightweight aluminium receiver and suchlike) or add something on to slow it down, which is what they did. Rifles designed since have been designed from the ground up to avoid this kind of problem, so don't need to have a tube attached to a hole in the back of the receiver to fix them. Evil Tim 21:08, 27 July 2011 (CDT)
- The buffer tube does two things: 1) contains the buffer and spring and 2) allows the bolt carrier to recoil part of the way into it. The combination means that the AR15-series rifles are functionally a long-recoil design where the bolt does not slam into anything rigid during recoil and stops based on the pressure of the buffer spring. This--in turn--enhances the straight-line recoil and therefore controllability during automatic fire or rapid semi-automatic fire. It also allows the AR15 design to use the rear of the bolt carrier to actuate the automatic sear meaning the probability in this design that you can set a round off with the bolt unlocked during automatic fire is nil. (Look up some of the problems with the "Lightning Link" to get a better idea of why this works the way it does.)
- Other designs often do incorporate additional recoil buffers in the stock, the FN FAL's without folding stocks do this and the plastic-stocked SAW's, but the AR15 design simply trades the ability to fold a stock for enhanced recoil handling... The idea behind the design was to make a weapon where the entire recoil force is in a direct line between your shoulder and the end of the barrel with as little jarring as possible. This is also one reason for the use of a direct gas impingement system and one reason why gas-piston AR's tend to eat the front of the buffer tube and buffer tube area of the lower receiver due to bolt carrier "tilt". The "lateral" forces of the piston tapping the top of the bolt carrier misaligns the bolt carrier off its straight line path and pushes that chunk of steel into the aluminum.
- Oh, and the forward assist is to compensate for not having a rigidly connected bolt handle. (Like someone already mentioned). The reason why is the design is meant to be operated in a manner where you ONLY use the charging handle for initial loading and then unloading at the end (administratively). Every other time, you actuate the bolt using the bolt release on the left side of the weapon... --Deathbunny 01:28, 11 September 2011 (CDT)
Noob Question
Ok I have a really dumb question, what is the difference between the Colt M4A1 and the Colt M4A1 Carbine? Or are they the same exact thing? The only reason I asked is when I was looking at the page, the M4A1 and the M4 Carbine look exactly the same, so how can you tell one from the other? - User:1morey July 22, 2011 11:21 AM (EST)
- The M4A1 and M4A1 'Carbine' are the same thing, the 'carbine' is just optionally showing the proper firearm type. As for the M4 and M4A1, well it does say the difference in the section but to answer - the M4 has Safe-Semi-Burst fire selection ala the M16A2/M16A4, the M4A1 has full-automatic instead of burst, ala the earlier M16s/M16A1/M16A3. Otherwise they're pretty much identical appearance wise (The M4A1 also has a heavier barrel inside the handguard, which of course you can't tell from the outside). It also notes some commercial AR-15 carbines are given an 'M4' moniker, but aren't the same as actual military M4s. StanTheMan 12:17, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
Colt or not?
If a M4 or M16 variant is listed on a page, should it by prefixed by Colt? I've noticed some people doing this but isn't it incorrect as the term M16 is the army designation as opposed to the Colt name (for example the Colt Model 603 for the M16A1). Either way, I would imagine that quite a few M16s or M4s in movies are manufactured by companies other than Colt, and even the US military rifles are not necessarily made by Colt these days. --commando552 17:43, 3 September 2011 (CDT)
- I am curious... if the military M4 and M16 are not made by Colt these days then by whom? --Masterius 14:58, 6 September 2011 (CDT)
- There was a stretch in the 1990s when Colt lost the military contract and all the M16s were built by Fabrique Nationale (FN). Though many companies build AR15 platforms, only the company who has the contract with the Dept. of Defense can call the M16 theirs. If there ARE any other manufacturers being represented on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, someone needs to find out. I certainly don't have any contacts who would know information which is THAT current. :( MoviePropMaster2008 15:48, 6 September 2011 (CDT)
- FN have stated that “the vast majority of M16A2, A3 and A4 contracts as well as spare parts contracts for these systems since 1989”, and they had a $7 million contract to make M16A4s between 2005 and 2008. Sabre defence also won a contract for a minimum of 4,952 M16A3 and 702 M16A4 rifles in July 2008 for the US navy/Marine corps respectively. Having said that FN also stated: ”...never was FN Manufacturing LLC, or any other small arms manufacturer, awarded M4 contracts. The M4 cannot be competed and always has been awarded sole source to Colt because of licensing rights restricting full and open competition until 2009” although it has stated its intention to bid for M4 contracts past this point. The US government took ownership of the M4 design on the 1st July 2009, so the M4 can now be manufactured for the government by other companies, but I don't know if this has actually been done yet. Regardless, M4 and M16 are government designations, so surely calling a gun a "Colt M4" is incorrect? --commando552 17:09, 6 September 2011 (CDT)
- There was a stretch in the 1990s when Colt lost the military contract and all the M16s were built by Fabrique Nationale (FN). Though many companies build AR15 platforms, only the company who has the contract with the Dept. of Defense can call the M16 theirs. If there ARE any other manufacturers being represented on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, someone needs to find out. I certainly don't have any contacts who would know information which is THAT current. :( MoviePropMaster2008 15:48, 6 September 2011 (CDT)
- Just checked the United States Army official website. It lists M4 Carbine as being manufactured by Colt and M16 Rifle by Colt and Fabrique Nationale.
- Oh, and take a note of M16: "The M-16A3 is identical to the M-16A2 but has a removable carrying handle that is mounted on a Picatinny Rail (for better mounting of optics) and is without burst control. The M-16A4 is identical to the M-16A2 except for the removable carrying handle and Picatinny Rail."
- United States Marine Corps websites: [3] [4] don't mention the current manufacturer for M16 Rifle. So I am not sure about them. --Masterius 02:24, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
- Just to throw a bit of confusion in here, there are actually a number of different rifles designated as the M16A3 by the US military. The first is the Colt Model 646, also known as the M16A2E3, which was introduced in small numbers at the same time as the M16A2 and is an A2 with an A1 lower. Then you have the flat-top Colt Model 901 which was introduced at the same time as the M16A4 (in 1994 I think) and I'm assuming this is the version that the above page refers to. You also have the Colt Models 941 and 942 which are the HBAR and HBAR LMG models respectively, but I don't know if they are used. Not that any of this really matters as we identify all these guns as A2/A4 anyway. --commando552 03:24, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
- Well, that's because armorers don't have access to military M16A3s, so they just slap A2/A4 uppers to A1 lowers (correct?) because what Hollywood film director would want fixed burst firing gun (ignoring the fact that that's what soldiers and marines use) ? Or modify civilian semi-automatic replicas to fully automatic fire. In which case the weapon is to be identified as such. --Masterius 03:54, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
- Didn't mean to imply we are doing anything wrong, just that the definition of the A3 models isn't that important as they don't appear. Having said that, the original M16A3/M16A2E3 was just an A2 upper on an A1 lower, so this is actually what a number of movie guns are, but I understand that they are going for a standard A2. Regardless, back to my original question, do we call them Colt or not? My opinion is no obviously, as it seems that some if not the majority of M16s are manufactured by other companies, and there is the future possibility of this with M4, and regardless it is a military designation of a rifle that goes by another Colt name. --commando552 05:31, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
- My opinion: M4 & M4A1 should remain as Colt. And so should older M16s. Modern M16s (M16A3 & M16A4), since they have at least 3 official manufacturers (Colt, Fabrique Nationale and Sabre Defence), should go without Colt. --Masterius 06:37, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
- Well, that's because armorers don't have access to military M16A3s, so they just slap A2/A4 uppers to A1 lowers (correct?) because what Hollywood film director would want fixed burst firing gun (ignoring the fact that that's what soldiers and marines use) ? Or modify civilian semi-automatic replicas to fully automatic fire. In which case the weapon is to be identified as such. --Masterius 03:54, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
- Just to throw a bit of confusion in here, there are actually a number of different rifles designated as the M16A3 by the US military. The first is the Colt Model 646, also known as the M16A2E3, which was introduced in small numbers at the same time as the M16A2 and is an A2 with an A1 lower. Then you have the flat-top Colt Model 901 which was introduced at the same time as the M16A4 (in 1994 I think) and I'm assuming this is the version that the above page refers to. You also have the Colt Models 941 and 942 which are the HBAR and HBAR LMG models respectively, but I don't know if they are used. Not that any of this really matters as we identify all these guns as A2/A4 anyway. --commando552 03:24, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
How to NOT shoot an M16 rifle!
[5] - Seriously, this is either really funny, or just painful to watch... you decide. --ThatoneguyJosh 00:19, 25 September 2011 (CDT)
- Wow, that was bad. Glad that guy's alright! - Mr. Wolf 20:46, 25 September 2011 (CDT)
- Also, notice how many times the gun clicks and the guy keeps saying it's a "bad primer". And then he keeps hitting the forward assist, pulling on the charging handle (which is seen ejecting the unfired rounds) and hitting the bottom of the magazine even though it's already back in the gun after he kept taking it out and putting it back in prior (Someone else in the video even says 'Jesus [name withheld], you don't know how to load these.' and the shooter responds with 'I didn't load these, [name withheld] did.'). I think that could have been a contribution to the gun exploding in his hands. But then again, I'm not the expert on M16 rifles, I'm only guessing. Anyone else got a better explanation? --ThatoneguyJosh 17:05, 26 September 2011 (CDT)
- It was the shooter saying that the guy who came to help didn't know how to load them, and then that assisting guy said it was someone else. There is nothing wrong with tapping the magazine even when it appears to be seated correctly, as it makes sure it is all the way into the well. Although he did hit forward assist unnecesarily once or twice, I don't think it would have done any harm or contributed to the kaboom. The file description and all the comments say that this was a squib, and it was all the shooters fault for not identifying it and checking the barrel (there are also quite a few people that seem to think it is possible the load 2 or 3 rounds into the chamber at a time by repeatedly pulling the charging handle, but this is Youtube after all). But I don't think it was, as on the first misfire there was only the click of the hammer, and when he pulled the bolt back a round was ejected which wouldn't have been chambered if the previous "bang" was a squib. I've never fired a round with primer but no powder, but surely there would still be an audible "bang" rather than just the click of the hammer? When exactly did the bullet get stuck in the barrel, or am I missing something? Regardless, I would never use ammo I hadn't loaded myself, particularly not done by a friend of a friend. --commando552 17:33, 26 September 2011 (CDT)
- I think it's safe to say that the idea of unintentionally loading 2 or 3 rounds into the chamber of an M16 rifle is an overstatement and pretty much absurd (I've NEVER heard of such a thing happening with the M16 rifles). But one person's explanation in the comments is that when the hammer struck the primers of the "squib" rounds, the 'click' in question was the popping of the primer, which popped with enough force to lodge the bullets into the barrel of the gun, but without the 'bang' sound since the powder of the "squib" rounds were bad. So when the explosion happened, it was because the hammer struck a perfectly fine round, or one with enough charge in it's powder load, and that bullet impacted the other bullets stuck in the barrel, which caused a high-pressure situation ending with the magazine blowing apart, and leaving the M16 rifle damaged (probably for good). Talk about good craftsmanship going to waste! But at least the shooter in the video was not injured in any way. --ThatoneguyJosh 05:51, 30 September 2011 (CDT)
- I could be wrong as have never done it myself (I am not a moron) but I am fairly sure that a primer going off with no powder in the round makes a louder noise than just a click, which is all that is heard in this video. Anyone know how loud just the primer from a .223 would be? --commando552 07:05, 30 September 2011 (CDT)
- Apparently this is a .308 primer. Now bear in mind how far down the audio is turned (as you don't have to wear ear protection when he fires), I can kinda see that might end up sounding like a click. Evil Tim 07:52, 30 September 2011 (CDT)
- Yeah, most of the time all cameras (except for maybe the professional ones used by filmmakers) capture certain sounds differently. It is possible for the primers of "squib" rounds to discharge with enough force to lodge the bullets into the barrel of whatever gun it's fired from (and sometimes it will stay there until the owner disassembles their weapon and removes the lodged bullet), and most of the time, the "popping" sound of the primers sounds like a "click" when captured on a camera similar to the one used in the video of the M16 blowing up in that guy's face. --ThatoneguyJosh 00:28, 1 October 2011 (CDT)
- Apparently this is a .308 primer. Now bear in mind how far down the audio is turned (as you don't have to wear ear protection when he fires), I can kinda see that might end up sounding like a click. Evil Tim 07:52, 30 September 2011 (CDT)
- I could be wrong as have never done it myself (I am not a moron) but I am fairly sure that a primer going off with no powder in the round makes a louder noise than just a click, which is all that is heard in this video. Anyone know how loud just the primer from a .223 would be? --commando552 07:05, 30 September 2011 (CDT)
- I think it's safe to say that the idea of unintentionally loading 2 or 3 rounds into the chamber of an M16 rifle is an overstatement and pretty much absurd (I've NEVER heard of such a thing happening with the M16 rifles). But one person's explanation in the comments is that when the hammer struck the primers of the "squib" rounds, the 'click' in question was the popping of the primer, which popped with enough force to lodge the bullets into the barrel of the gun, but without the 'bang' sound since the powder of the "squib" rounds were bad. So when the explosion happened, it was because the hammer struck a perfectly fine round, or one with enough charge in it's powder load, and that bullet impacted the other bullets stuck in the barrel, which caused a high-pressure situation ending with the magazine blowing apart, and leaving the M16 rifle damaged (probably for good). Talk about good craftsmanship going to waste! But at least the shooter in the video was not injured in any way. --ThatoneguyJosh 05:51, 30 September 2011 (CDT)
- It was the shooter saying that the guy who came to help didn't know how to load them, and then that assisting guy said it was someone else. There is nothing wrong with tapping the magazine even when it appears to be seated correctly, as it makes sure it is all the way into the well. Although he did hit forward assist unnecesarily once or twice, I don't think it would have done any harm or contributed to the kaboom. The file description and all the comments say that this was a squib, and it was all the shooters fault for not identifying it and checking the barrel (there are also quite a few people that seem to think it is possible the load 2 or 3 rounds into the chamber at a time by repeatedly pulling the charging handle, but this is Youtube after all). But I don't think it was, as on the first misfire there was only the click of the hammer, and when he pulled the bolt back a round was ejected which wouldn't have been chambered if the previous "bang" was a squib. I've never fired a round with primer but no powder, but surely there would still be an audible "bang" rather than just the click of the hammer? When exactly did the bullet get stuck in the barrel, or am I missing something? Regardless, I would never use ammo I hadn't loaded myself, particularly not done by a friend of a friend. --commando552 17:33, 26 September 2011 (CDT)
- Also, notice how many times the gun clicks and the guy keeps saying it's a "bad primer". And then he keeps hitting the forward assist, pulling on the charging handle (which is seen ejecting the unfired rounds) and hitting the bottom of the magazine even though it's already back in the gun after he kept taking it out and putting it back in prior (Someone else in the video even says 'Jesus [name withheld], you don't know how to load these.' and the shooter responds with 'I didn't load these, [name withheld] did.'). I think that could have been a contribution to the gun exploding in his hands. But then again, I'm not the expert on M16 rifles, I'm only guessing. Anyone else got a better explanation? --ThatoneguyJosh 17:05, 26 September 2011 (CDT)
- I've seen this video before, looks like the guy was pulling a half-assed SPORTS drill several times while the weapon was malfunctioning on him. But yeah, shooting custom-loaded ammo with no reliable means of quality control is definitely not a good idea, as this video clearly demonstrates. Orca1 9904 23:52, 4 October 2011 (CDT)
Not working
Why is the M16 page not working. It locks up my computer, and the network wont respond. It takes about 5 to 10 minutes before it will work.Gunner5
- It might be your browser and / or RAM is having trouble with the size of it; this is the largest page on the site. What's the spec of your PC? Evil Tim 00:03, 5 October 2011 (CDT)
Difference between original M16 and M16A2
I know how to distinguish XM16E1s, M16A1s, and M16A4s from each other, but how are both the M16 and the M16A2 different visually? Both rifles have no forward assist or removable carrying handles and the M16 can also appear with a "birdcage" flash hider. - Kenny99 00:34, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
- I'll try. Also with the caveat that I have to replace the movie M16s on the site. An IMFDB member whom I am eternally grateful for, pointed out that I had A2 lowers on A1 uppers. Though that works, it's also not correct. I have to replace the M16 pics with exact versions of each one, but that will take time. I just point this out to make sure that people know I'm aware of it.
1) M16: original USAF contract in Vietnam and in the U.S. slab side upper and lower, 1st pattern duckbill three prong flash hider, original buttstock with foldable rear sling swivel. Early models had counter-turning screws in stead of pivot pins to attach the upper and lower receiver.
1) XM16E1: 2nd pattern three prong flash hider, Chromed bolt, exposed mag release button (no ribbing) but there is a partial rib for the front pivot detent pin and spring, old M16 style buttstock and rear sling swivel, tear drop forward assist.
2) M16A1: Birdcage Flash hider, Phosphate bolt but chromed chamber, mag release button ribbing to protect against accidental mag dump and full ribbing to the front pivot detent pin and spring, A1 style buttstock with fixed rear sling swivel (with stowaway compartment in the buttplate)
3) M16A2: A2 style flash hider with no holes on the lower part, ring washer instead of lock washer, heavy barrel, round forearm, full ribbing on mag release button and front pivot detent pin and spring, front part of lower receiver is beefier and thicker as well as the rear part near the base of the tube ring. Updated and longer (by about 1") rear buttstock and thicker buttplate, slight finger ledge on the pistol grip about midway down. Adjustable rear sights with elevation control as well as side to side. A2 does NOT have a detachable carry handle.
Hope this helps. MoviePropMaster2008 02:26, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
- Don't forget that the M16A2 has semi/3-round burst as opposed to semi/full auto in the M16 (though you rarely see this feature used on-screen as most directors feel the full auto looks better than a 3-round burst). Orca1 9904 04:15, 6 October 2011 (CDT)