The M-16 was very disappointing to me tsm. The hype that was poured out from REMFs was usually an indication that we were getting the shaft and that was the story with M-16s. The peek-a-boo cover and bolt helper were such blatant indicators of a Rube Goldberg contraption and myself and most others with me were very loud in our objections to the Mattel 16. I recall the laughter when we were told how deadly the rounds were because they tumbled on impact.
No purpose would be served by outlawing assault rifles other than a self serving, vindictive slam by the anti gun crowd on the left. The cultish fad will wear off the weapons sooner or later and they will become yard art. But weapons with magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds should be in the same category as machine guns.
But the M-16 was the emperors new clothes of the 1960s Pentagon. Some highly influential senator on the armed services committee pushed the weapon through to benefit Colt and ever since the military has played games to “improve” away its faults.
“Some highly influential senator on the armed services committee pushed the weapon through to benefit Colt and ever since the military has played games to “improve” away its faults.”
+1
Luckily for my brother, when he served in Viet Nam, he was somehow able to keep his M-14 when it was supposed to be swapped for one of the new trouble-plagued M-16s. Knowing how problematic the 16 was, and not wanting to be killed by enemy fire when it–inevitably–jammed, he somehow was able to hold onto his 14.
The main reason for adopting the M-16 in those days–aside from giving more contracts to the well-connected Colt company–was that the small South Vietnamese soldiers had a much easier time carrying and handling the largely plastic M-16. The older, much heavier (albeit superior) M-14 was too heavy for them to carry on long hikes.
Lots of guys complained about the early versions jamming,which they did with some regularity if subjected to dirt…which an assault rifle should be tolerant of. But I’d still prefer it to an M-1 carbine. I think that comparison was a stretch.
I could live with high capacity magazines being regulated the same as automatic weapons.
The m16 had a lot of advantages that any new rifle replacement must still encorporate. Light itself but with a small enough and light cartridge increasing carrying fire power capability. A flexible platform and most importantly…low recoil, even in full auto, so training times and skill could be reduced. It was important to get those scared little draftees out on the lines, spraying the jungle with .22.
The paranoid side of me. If you have a background check to buy a gun now you are in the database of being a probable gun owner…
"It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent."
How did they figure who had the guns? My understanding is that it was by previous registration.
My battalion armory had dozens of 30 cal carbines for issue to Kit Carson scouts and many of us checked them out and used them until forced to take the Mattels. Rumors said that the Air Force teamed up with Colt to back up the senator because the wing wipers were easily tired out walking the fences on guard duty stateside. I won’t waste the figurative ink and paper with anecdotal situations from long ago and far away but to myself and quite a few others the M-16 was one of many political minefields that were thrown in front of us by Washington politicians who were quite callous in their opinion that we were expendable while they were grand statesmen and bureaucrats.
@barkeydog
And again, the United States has never and will never ban the use of guns even the machine gun, as we know them…lthey license them for use. People who keep arguing agaisnt gun laws ignore that fact. England does not ban guns…you want a home defense gun like a shotgun, you get a permit that requires a background check. You want a pistol, you can still get one if and only if you have just cause which is highly unlikely. They just don’t allow people to play with guns in their back yard…go a gun club…but they do not ban home defense weapons.
The US is totally different culture and Licensing machine guns works for eliminating them from use by the average criminal…anyone who wants to play with one can. You just have go to a special place, or license it.
So, talking about banning weapons in the US is inaccuarte. Even the far lefties don’t get the distinction and use the word ban when the should say license.
Australia requires a permit…it does not ban guns. A waiting period, a reason to have one and safe storage. This not the US and no one has ever argued realistically for more then registration and background checks…
The m16 andit’s civilian version - ar15 are dangerous, because they allow so much EASY killing by untrained persons. It’s their ease of use along with their high capacity and firepower that makes assault weapons more dangerous. But the handgun reigns supreme as the mass murderer, for obvious reasons.
The early M16s jammed because they were touted as never needing to be cleaned, thus leading to jamming when the gun powder residue gunked everything up.
Try telling those Korean store owners during the King riots in CA that they could get by with only 10 round magazines, or a double barrel shotgun. Or the guy who fended off 4 would be home invaders in broad daylight
I agree
As an average home owner, I get home invasions all the time. Usually a little borax around the foundation takes care of those invading ants. And, there are thousands of them.
Let’s take a poll of all the regular posters who are regular guys living in regular cities and towns, who has been a victim of a home invasion of hordes of armed murading minorities that all of us are so fearful of; so many that he has needed more then a 911 call. When you get to the number “one”, I’ll order my flame thrower.
Until then, I’ll leave my Glock at home when i go for a walk through the woods around my desperate environment and open my umbrella on a neighbor hood dog who may come out to spray me. It works every time and I don’t wake the neighbors and “The dog whisperer” recommends it. AK Umbrellas are the best for self defense.
We need LAWS and Claymores and SAMS and whatever other fire power that the SEALS have to protect ourselves from OURSELVES… Yeah, that’s it. More guns. NO,those people who were rioting in the streets of LA after Rodney King was brutally beaten by the police seemed to have a good reason to complain. The beating was a common occurrence, wasn’t it? And a cover up by the police was the usual result, wasn’t it? So what does LA need? More shop owners with machine guns or an honest and equitable city government with a police department that hires officers with some self restraint? If the Kenyans ran the police in your town and looked for and jumped at every opportunity to harass and beat YOUR people what would you do?
I qualified on both the M14 and M16 and I’d be happy with the M16. The early ones had problems but by my time they were fixed but just susceptible to blowing up with mud in the barrel.
Some good thoughts here. But in this country, we don’t need to “need” something before the government decides we can have. Wanting it is all that matters. We should covet this.
I don’t think most people have a problem with background checks, but the line needs to be drawn period. In Minnesota they were talking about annual visits by the police to check on guns. Sorry no way no how, period. Isn’t that how the Nazis started? Got a list of guns then later confiscated them. Isn’t that what happened in England? You can use your gun if we give you a permit, just go down to the police station and check it out. My gosh.
Who else but the Feds should be in charge? Anyone but the Feds should be in charge in my view.
And none of what is being proposed at all would prevent the mass killings which is what started all this. So lets start with how we realistically can protect our schools and public places first. That means we need to deal with the mentally ill first.
Sorry but finally, if the feds were serios, why don’t they investigate the current problem. Over 70,000 people were rejected last year trying to buy guns, but the feds only investigated less than 200. We should be asking why.
"Ask why"
They tend to investigate by offense. White collar criminals may be rejected . They also cross check with those already under investigation. They also turn a big number of investigations over to state and local authorities…many of them do get investigated by other agencies…lastly, a number are repeat attempts at buying. There are a plethora of reasonse why with limited resources they would triage this number.
It’s good to know you have so little respect for federal law inforcement. Sounds like you would rather want the paroles to do background checks on their buddies. If they came from federal prisons that would make them more qualified ? I guess parolees don’t have as many Nazis tats as the Feds.
Don’t mean to lump all Feds in the same basket but they do have their own set of one size fits all rules. I have much more confidence in local law enforcement, especially the Sheriff and those who are elected and accountable to the public. I remember the 60’s with the response to protests and other behavior deemed unruly.
The problem though, like civil rights, these laws won’t be applied equally if the imidiate locals use the resources but aren’t held accountable. Right now, our state police uses rederal resources to do CWP permits and they are working with other states for resiprosity. But, the state is trained by the FBI and held accountable. IMO, that will be how they (universal) will be conducted. Follow up on failures are now a state prerogative. If they get a failure do to a federal crime, it then gets referred back to FEds for further investigation. That is where the difference in 70k vs 200 i feel most occurs. So everything is in place to do it now…Who better to do it then law enforcement ?
In general now, fed resources train state police, who help train local and Sheriff departments. Locals and sheriffs aren’t there yet, especially with all the cut backs in training the last ten years.
I remember the response of sheriffs in the 60s also, Bing. They made a movie about the sheriff’s department in Neshoba County Mississippi and how quickly local law enforcement responded to the unruly, A great many people yearn for a return to those good ole days. Some of us don’t.
“none of what is being proposed at all would prevent the mass killings which is what started all this”.
Bing, you are exactly right. Personally, as I’ve stated before, I think it’s time we stopped focusing on controlling guns and started focusing on controlling violent crime. That is really where the big problem is. Our legislators and our judicial systems have failed us miserably on this issue. The penal systems can’t be blamed; they’re only doing what they’re being ordered to do.
Do you suppose that violent crime has anything to do with access to guns ? How many mass killings have been committed by machine guns, the only difference being registration and licensing on the federal level…that’s it. Prior to this registration, machine gun violence was happening regularly with larger numbers of people being massacred… It immediately stopped with machine gun registration enforcement…that’s what is being proposed for assault weapons…Has your life changed because you can’t have a machine gun without a license ? Those are the facts…states with stronger laws have less gun violence…but we refuse facts and just accept fear because anti gun legislation people have among them the most fearful people there are. Controlling violent crime includes controlling access to guns by the criminal.And, registration does not limit your access to guns, any gun …unless we guys are … afraid of the paper work, being inconvenienced, or what ?
…semi auto assault weapons in commercial form with high capacity clips are designed to mimic the function of machine guns from a semi auto plat form…like the Glock pistol, which half cocks itself so it can be fired at a higher rate then a regular double action relvolver or standar DOA (typo) DAO) auto. .All of these types of guns are designed to circumvent the machine gun law…
How many have died, in the last 30 years(from 1983 until 2013), in mass shootings? Just slightly more than Chicago had killed last year.
dag, it’s been proven in other countries; registration leads to eventual confiscation. Hell, look at the crap the permit holders in NYC went through when that newspaper published their information.
And why are they going after the sporting rifles? Even when including every kind of rifle, there were only 300-some deaths last year. Not the slaughtering massacre that the anti-gunners seem to tout, especially when 5 times as many people were murdered with knives in that same year.
..semi auto assault weapons in commercial form with high capacity clips are designed to mimic the function of machine guns from a semi auto plat form...like the Glock pistol, which half cocks itself so it can be fired at a higher rate then a regular double action relvolver or standar DOA auto. .All of these types of guns are designed to circumvent the machine gun law..
lolwut? Is that a quote from Feinstein’s website? A semi auto cannot mimic a full automatic in any way other than looks. No one’s finger can move fast enough to mimic full auto fire. And what in the world is a standar DOA auto?
Personally, as I've stated before, I think it's time we stopped focusing on controlling guns and started focusing on controlling violent crime. That is really where the big problem is.
Exactly. Even if you took the guns out of gun violence, you’re still left with violence.
“is that quote from the Fiensteine web sight.” excuse me…typo it’s DAO ( double action only) I apologize for that.
No, that is my opinion as the present owner of a Glock with a conceal carry permit and past owner of Ruger DA (dual action) older versions, as a retired policeman, as a past service man trained on M16 and the opinion of my brother in law who spent 20 years as a small arms instructor in the service and a gunsmith for 15 years since leaving the service. He can fabricate and install necessary parts to make many semis of this type full autos. It isn’t that hard but isn’t that necessary because they need to register machine guns and you still fail to make a comment on that success. As do all those who repeat fear monger statements. you assume that many of those in favor of stricter gun control are untrained and uninformed. I feel the opposite is true.
Check “how to shoot semi automatic, full automatic” on utube.
Assault weapons are more capable of doing it…that shows you what their design capabilities are ! But, the Glock feature does make it more capable of rapid fire in double action mode and requires no safety. Assault weapons with their features are absolutely more capable of higher rates of firing with more firepower then tradition hunting semis. These capabilities are only needed by people who live their lives in fear not in fact.
You are using Boggie Man logic and repeat the lines of all of the most fearful to which I refer…I am still next waiting for any of you to tell me how many times you were assaulted by a mass of gun toting minorities in a home invasion
If you support these weapons being easily available to anyone without a license to own one, then you support their possible use with the Conn. massacre cababilies of firing 154 round in less then 5 minutes to execute school children.
I Am Not In Favor Of Supporting Criminals And I’m Not In Favor Of A National Background Check System. The Problem Is That I No Longer Trust The Federal Government In Its Current Configuration. I’m Not Alone. Look At The Congressional Approval Numbers.