Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: M-16 reliability (was Re: early bad press may be justified) Message-ID: <10181@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 13 Oct 89 02:39:53 GMT References: <10145@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 33 Approved: military@att.att.com From: gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) In article <10145@cbnews.ATT.COM> Henry Spencer writes: > > >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >This depends on who you talk to. M-16 reliability has gone from superb >(original Stoner AR-15) to dreadful (US Army "improves" design to produce >original M-16) to barely passable (later variants). I haven't heard a >recent report on the M-1. Do remember that the Army has a large vested >interest in portraying its decisions as correct and its weapons as great. >It's not uncommon for off-the-record interviews with actual users to tell >a very different story than that found in the official press releases. > While Henry's comment about vested interests is surely true, I must make a comment about the M16. I have been a Marine armorer for three years (albeit for a reserve unit; normal caveats apply). During that time, we have *never* had a mechanical failure due to manufacturing or design defects. The M16A2 has proven to be a very accurate, fairly easy to maintain service rifle. I would be interested in hearing your reasons for slamming it. This, of course, is the A2. The A1 was a problem child; I've never used the Stoner AR, so I can't comment. (just don't get me started on the Beretta 92F!) -Paul Robichaux CPL USMCR -- Paul E. Robichaux |"Collateral damage is the number of women Georgia Institute of Technology | and children you kill when attempting to do GT PO Box 30818; Atlanta, GA 30332 | something else."- Cap Weinberger. Internet: gt0818a@prism.gatech.edu | All opinions in this message are mine.