First off......that sight is really hard to read anything on with all the crap on the sides, the narrow text field and stuff bouncing up and down.

Secondly, I didn't see anything new, everything is old news and well documented and the author mainly list all the well known issues from the early deployments. As the war went on most issues were corrected which left problems mainly due to lack of care and basic maintenance.

And the usual "M16 maintenance and handling is too much for basic recruits" and is "hard to learn" is total BS. Pop a AR15 apart in front of a non gun person and watch the expression on their face, total amazement that the rifle came apart so quick and easy.

The AR15 is like any other weapon, some like it some don't, there is a correct usage and a non-correct usage. Know of idiots who went wild boar hunting with a 9mm and wondered why the hog ran off, me I take a Ruger Alaskan in 416 Ruger, and no, they do not run off on my shot.

Gunner

--
https://www.instagram.com/41gunner/
41 Mags rule, Baers rock!

I remember a story in a gun magazine a long time ago. Of course back then everybody was prejudiced against .223 as a military weapon because it was primarily used on woodchucks and prairie dogs. This magazine did a series of tests of .223 vs. .308 which at the time was the standard NATO caliber. I don't recall much of the story but test 1 was to shoot through a standard GI steel helmet- the .308 went through, the .223 didn't. In hindsight I find this unusual because the high velocity .223 has a reputation for damaging steel targets. The second test involved shooting through an array of wooden dowels, to mimic shooting through forest cover. Of course the .308 went through but the .223 fragmented. The last test involved shooting at a large canvas target at 1000 yards, since older battles were sometimes fought at similar ranges. What they found was that the small .223 projectiles wouldn't penetrate the canvas target at 1000 yards. Of course the writers had a lot of fun with this one. I know a lot of highpower ranges won't let you shoot standard weight bullets for the longer distances (up to 600 yards) because they won't maintain supersonic and they apparently can deviate quite a bit when they transition to subsonic. If they become subsonic before 600 yards, they wouldn't be very effective as a military weapon at those ranges.

I've fired an A1 pattern rifle a lot in high power competition. I find them accurate and easy to shoot. They seem to be very reliable but they can be picky about being kept clean. I've never shot anything more than a heavy paper target with one so I don't know about effectiveness on other targets.

Never fired a shot in anger from an M-16. I will say during basic in 1968 I can remember no malfunctions or misfires in my class. That's not saying much but it is what it is.

That may have been me that snarked about the M203... My apologies. Byron, I have been very pleased with the AR, after spending a lot more time with them. They are a bit addictive... I have purchased assembled several and like them to be as lite and simple as possible... Jan's little SIG "Pistol" in 5.56. It has a Aimpoint on it these days...

My.300 AAC. , now Both are favorites...

--
Of the Troops & For the Troops