*jams*

>>2821008

Fixed very early on.

>>2821008
Is there any reason to hold it by the magazine unless you have very short arms?

>>2821025
it barely has any recoil and they're in a prone position so it gives them more precision since they don't have to account for as much recoil as older weapons

File: hqdefault.jpg (38KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x360px

not even once

File: thinking extra large.png (198KB, 1190x838px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1190x838px

>>2821008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU&t=7s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyXndCxn9K4

The M16 failures were an example of extreme government bureaucracy, not a flawed design.

> Its the only good rifle the United States adopted sans the M1 Garand.

>>2821143
The ordnance corps boned it up because they were too busy pinching pennies to make sure the rifle worked.

>>2821162
Ordnance Corps were butthurt that their baby, the M14, was an obsolete hunk of junk, so they actively tried to sabotage the M16. It didn't help that Colt salespeople pitched it as a scifi gun that didn't need no maintenance.

>>2821183
Name one (1) thing wrong with the M14.

>>2821188
7.62x51mm, 20 rounds, pigfat, really hard to accurize, not as modular as the M16 (last point only really applies in the last 10 years though)

>>2821196
>bigger bullets
>bad

>>2821198
It is when you have 5.56x45mm which kills gooks just as well, lets you carry more bullets, and is more controllable in full auto.

>>2821211
There are a lot of accounts of 5.56 being too small to easily kill Taliban or African pirates

File: 1490058370849.jpg (40KB, 425x461px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 425x461px

>>2821224
Okay, how about you volunteer to get shot a few times with 5.56 and see how well that goes.

>>>/k/

>>2821025
No.

>>2821188
An infantryman can carry 330 rounds of 5.56 in M16 mags for the same weight as 100 rounds of 7.62 in M14 mags.

Also, it isn't even remotely controllable in automatic fire or bursts.

It isn't even the best battle rifle, it's worse than the G3 and FAL, to say nothing of the AR-10

>>2821234
No one likes getting shot but getting shot and living is preferable to dying

>>2821224
Size of the round isn't the issue there

>>2821224
It's the type of the round that the military uses, not the cartridge. Cops carry more lethal ammo than the military.

>>2821224
>There are a lot of accounts of 5.56 being too small to easily kill Taliban or African pirates

Accounts by idiots raised on TV and movies where the bad guys immediately drop and die when they get shot. That's not what happens in the real world.

Shot placement is key, regardless if it's 5.56 or 7.62, and unless you get a CNS shot, or nick a major vein / artery, your target isn't going to die instantly, and may not even stop what the fuck they're doing.

>>2821224
From my understanding, this is what happened:
>5.56 M193 is adopted with the M16, kills shit super dead
>NATO adopts the SS109 designed to kill commies dead even through their helmets at extended range, becoming the M855 ball in burger service
>M4 begins to replace M16 in Army service, the M855 does not like the reduced muzzle velocity. Kills shit less dead at range due to 'ice-picking', meaning that the bullet goes straight through without fragmenting or yawing
>Yanks adopt new bullets that kill shit far more dead than any previous 5.56mm bullets ever did

>>2821025
It's just one of like three+ different stances. This one allows you to support the weapon with your bone structure rather than muscles and is supposedly more accurate.
It's really your preference though and whatever you are best at with what ever gun you have.

>>2821025
No.

>>2821188
Heavy. Rots.

>>2821188
also the action is really open to dirt

>>2821382
The M855 could be really deadly, it was just really inconsistent.

File: Curtis_LeMay_(USAF).jpg (1MB, 1694x1935px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1694x1935px

>>2821008
>tfw Lemay had a hardon for the M16 and pushed for its adoption in the USAF
/ourguy/