Was this one biggest JUST in the 20th centuries

>>33619223
Probably. US Ordinance really fucked up with the issuing of the M16.

>>33619223
And just think, it was still better than the gun it replace.

>>33619223
It wasn't "shitty" powder, it was powder with a different burn rate designed for the 7.62x51

>>33619223
I cringe at the thought of having to use those iron sights in combat

>>33620990
Why? Have you ever used iron sights?

>>33620990
Whats wrong with the irons. its a peep sight much like the every US rifle since WWII.

No. The SA80 was, followed by the CETME-L.

The scandal surrounding the SA80 far outpaced the squabbling over the M16 rifle.
And the CETME-L was just a steaming pile of garbage.

>>33621004
>>33621015
It might have to do with my eyesight but while I can make decent groups at range with iron sights, there is no way I could effectively switch targets while under fire looking through that little peephole.

RDS/holographics on the other hand I can hit normally hit anything at a reasonable range.

>>33621004
Not him but the front sight post is pigfat and the aperture feels like its trying to be both good at point blank and distant range and therefore being only average at both.

Good enough considering the time. You can easily get on center mass of an exposed target at 200 m but getting at, for example, someone poking a bit of their head around a corner is a bit more iffy.

Probably less a knock on those specific sights and more a testament to how fantastic modern optics are.

>>33621045

tl;dr

You have no idea what you are doing.

File: chips.jpg (49KB, 589x519px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 589x519px

>>33621043
>SA80
this, extreme boondoggle

>>33621138
So what am I doing wrong? I'm open to constructive criticism.