A Review of the M-16 Rifle

First off, a laying down of one's credentials is in order. Yes, I have shot an M-16. However, it was only one time and it was in Air Force basic training (but it still counts).

Second, for an item like the M-16, most of the pertinent information is gleaned from ballistics data and mountains of anecdotal information. So, someone who has never even shot the firearm, or any firearms for the matter, would probably be qualified to comment if he or she could back up what is said.

Last, for the purposes of this article the term "M-16" will refer to the entire family of "Black Rifles", the M-16, AR-15 (semi-automatic version), the M-4 carbine (short barreled version), and the innumerable "clones" that have followed since the rifles introduction in the 1960s.

Before I give the pros and cons of this rifle a bit of an understanding is in order. The M-16 was built on several principles that were novel in the 1960's. First, the rifle utilizes synthetic materials for part of its outward construction. For those not familiar with gun jargon and euphemism, "synthetic" means plastic and rubber. Many felt that the idea of using plastic parts for an infantry weapon is weird and inappropriate. The practice is common now but not then.

Second, the cartridge the weapon was chambered for, the .223/5.56mm (no, they are not exactly the same cartridge but if you already know the difference you probably do not need this article), was revolutionary. It was much smaller than most rounds of its time. The standard infantry rifle that it replaced, the M-14, shot a bullet more than 2.5 times the weight of the .223 bullet. The rounds are smaller and lighter and so is the weapon. Due to its reduced size and recoil, one can shoot more rounds quicker and more accurately. The bullet travels over 3,000 feet per second out of the barrel; that is very fast. Consider that your average police side arm shoots out bullets that travel between 1,000-1,200 feet per second. The .223 round is now common for militaries and law enforcement worldwide but in the 1960's it was not.

All bullets are traveling at high velocities and are thus somewhat unstable. However, at the hyper-velocities that the .223 travels bullet performance, once it enters a human body, becomes unpredictable. Some bullets mushroom, some fragment heavily, some yaw, some ricochet off bones, and some just punch straight through. This is all using the same exact round out of the same exact gun. Change the make up of the round slightly (different length or weight of the bullet) or change the barrel, thereby making it longer or shorter, and the bullet performs differently. The M-16 tries to take advantage of the extra damaging affects produced by hyper velocities and succeeds part of the time.

This is a "con" of the M-16. It cannot consistently produce a killing wound on man size targets. Beware of the man, or industrial military complex, that tells you that your bullet must tumble in order to do its job!

Hopefully, you will understand some of the thought process behind the M-16 so that you can understand its pros and cons. Given its lack of power in the bullet-meets-man department, the M-16 still manages to be a decent rifle.

I can attest that the M-16 is highly ergonomic. It feels natural in your hands. Its recoil is light and it easy to use. Magazines pop in and out quickly. One of the distinct features of the M-16 is its recognizable "A frame". This is where the M-16 really shines. The sight is placed much higher than on most rifles. This lends itself to easier and quicker target acquisition. The front end of the sight adjusts easily.

The M-16 is extremely accurate. Of all the complaints that have been leveled against this weapon, accuracy is not one of them. I qualified on the range even though I had never fired one before (a good instructor who knows how to site one of these makes a huge difference). I landed 19 out of 40 shots (15 was qualifying). Actually, I landed 15 out of 40 shots but my instructor gave me 19, because . . . Four of the rounds out of the 40 were never fired due to jamming. This leads me to another point.

The M-16 has a history of being unreliable and my day at the range demonstrated that. A few things should be mentioned in the M-16's defense. The weather that day was the worst for qualifying at the range; it was just above freezing and raining sporadically. A thin film of mud built on the wood floor that we were shooting. Also, we were shooting bottom of the rung M-16's. They showed their age and I imagine they were the dropped-30-times model that is given to green recruits. All this aside, the rifle still jammed.

This problem has plagued the rifle ever since it first saw action. Soldiers in Vietnam complained of horrendous reliable rates with the M-16. This is about the time some idiot chimes in with the tired line "but if you just maintain the weapon properly, it will work". Who wants to be the person to tell a seasoned, Marine Corp sergeant that he is not maintaining his rifle properly? No, in the 1960's the M-16 had some very real internal problems that contributed to high failure rates. Some tweaking back at the drawing board improved things significantly but a higher than desired failure rate remained. A design characteristic that helps make up for its lack of reliability is its ability to clear a jam easily. If a round jams or misfires, one must simply pull back on the bolt and your back in action.
For hunting, jamming is a nuisance. In a firefight, it is death. Here the M-16 gets a big thumbs down.

I give the M-16 a qualified thumbs up. If one is hunting small animals (point of fact - hunting deer with the .223 is illegal in many states), then the M-16 could perform well. However, given its lack of power, and its reliability issues, this would not be my first choice for combat/defense. It is not my opinion either. Go here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kOWI_QoR7I&feature=related - to hear gun experts Richard Venola and Dr. William Atwater (combat veteran) tell you that if a post-apocalyptic scenario ever unfolds they are grabbing an AK-47.

It should be mentioned that the designer of the M-16 was Eugene Stoner. The company that first produced the M-16 was Armalite. I hope this article helps and happy shooting.