h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I noticed a couple of things:

Firstly, (and I'm being picky, I know) gunpowder hasn't (generally) been used as a military propellant for years, and I'm sure that the 5.56mm round uses smokeless powder.

Secondly, accurate ... range of up to 100 meters. I'm sure the rifle is far more accurate than that. Perhaps 1000 m was meant?

Konrad

yes, you are being picky about the powder thing. But I think you're probably right about the 100 m, especially if it to be used as a sniper weapon.

About the 100m accuracy range, well, the ballistics of the original long M-16 are so that you have a 6cm diversion when firing at a target a 100m away, and that's probably the reason it was mentioned.

A Perfectly Abnormal Guy

Quite. While the M-16 can be used at greater ranges than 100m, assuming proper sniper equipment, there are superior weapons for that sort of use. When used as an assault weapon, it's VERY difficult to be even remotely accurate past 100m.
Grim13, Master of Reverse Emoticons

Firstly, no one uses the M16 as a sniper rifle now. . .that lasted all of two days. . .rednecks in Alabama have more accurate long distances rifls than that. Secondly, According to SH (Student Handbook) 21-76 (the Ranger Handbook) max eff range for an area target is 800 meters, for a point target it is 550 meters. . .so you see that 100 meters is very effective yes. . but 1000 meters is rediculous. . .we wouldn't engage at a 1000 meters with such a small arm. . .and secondly, the only way you can kill at 1000 meters if the guy walks into it and he swallows it and chokes. . .I have seen instructers at ranges catch 16 rounds pass the area target points with their ballistic helmets with no worries.

the relevent field manual is FM 23-9
Cobra 2-6 out

mmmm,

Yes, I wasn't really claiming that it *was* 1000m range, but rather that 100m was rather short. Its an article about the weapon, not the users, so although I agree a battlefield 'assault' range of 100m is a reasonable guess (just look at the ranges in WWII) I would argue that this is true of any weapon used in that context.

As for myself, I've used .22 target rifles at 25m and 50m and hit pretty small targets (OK, specialist equipment, I know) and the SA80 at 100, 200, 400m, and as long as the sight is calibrated OK, even at 400m I'd suggest that its what I'd call 'accurate'.

Konrad

Well the M16 is an Assault weapon isn't it? ANy other use of it exceeds ts usefullness. . .As a user of this weapon for some years I learned what those deficiencies are. IT is an extememly well made weapon. . .to well made.. .and in the environment it gets cranky. Prone to double or even triple feeds. User is important. . that is one of the reasons that M16A1 was put out of commission and the M16A2/A4 were brought about with out the fully auto setting. The M16 is the smallest generic weapon in the Infantry Platoon. IT is the point weapon of the rifleman where as the other weapons in the Platoon (M203 grenade launcher, M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, and the M240 B HEavy Machine gun) are support weapons.

All the defieinceie of this M16 era weapons have thankfully been eliminated. Now, we soldiers of the US Army, carry the M4 Carbine. A more sutiable weapon for the changing face of battle.

We trained with the M16 with 50 m thru 300 m targets. But even user error aside, the munitions themselves are subject to a lot of interpretation. 5.56 is a wounding munition. it hits the human body and tumbles about inside it. Sometimes it can enter a mans chest and come out his Hamstring, taking bone and tissue with it. A 7.62 round has mulit purposes. Most weapons that fire this round are suppression weapons or are engineered to engage light skinned armor vehicles (I.E. THe Bradley, or BMP) BUt this bullet makes no presumptions about the wound. It hits and kills. I agree with the 5.56 assumptioned made earlier. You hit one guy, you take three out of the battle.

The M16 is a great weapon, don't get me wrong. BUt its problems were inherent. So much so now, that one, INfantry Divisions don't use them, and two, modifications are being made to switch to a HEcklar and Koch mad weapon (we won't see that one for 5 plus years since its still being tested at Red Stone Aresanal). The M16 has an illustrious history and fulfilled its responsibilities in the environments we used it.

Cobra 2-6 out

Even with the finest equipment, you have to be seriously good to hit someone from 1000 m.

When I went shooting at Bisley with a 7.62 TR I didn't even hit the target at 1000 m!

The SA-80 is very accurate for an assault rifle - I've seen people shoot a possible on ETR @ 300 m. The bullpup design is probably something to do with it. The new SA-80-A2 looks even nicer - especially when you add FIST...

As I believe Mr. O'Keefe said, the 5.56mm round's a tumbler: After around 200m, the round starts cartwheeling in the air (which makes it an inhumanly effective light support weapon calibre from such ranges).

The SA80, for all of its faults, is also a very accurate weapon: teething (and other) problems aside, it was designed by target shooters, and is a target weapon down to the most basic level: being bullpup (ie. magazine behind the handle), an SA80 of X length is more accurate than an M16 of X length due to the extended barrel. It is also, by default, fitted with a beautiful sight, and the barrels are well made, provided you're in a temperature and climate which the weapon's happy with.

The Sig 552 (the rifle the swiss use) is also accurate, and the Steyr Aug, which is the austrian rifle, which is also bullpup. This weapon is accurate and reliable, and - to give some idea as to how versatile it is - it's used by soldiers in australia. It's also VERY interchangable (the AUG denotation refers to three different configurations which the weapon can be fitted for, and it takes a very short space of time to change it from a 5.56 tactical assault rifle to a 9mm machine pistol.

Correct as always, Njan.

and in practice the 5.56t round is most under rated. . .bu8t when was the last time you saw that. . .on a human body

*nods*

well, it was - sadly - designed to burrow through the body on impact, so as to cause the most damage possible. ...which is a frightening prospect from any caliber.

shoot to maim. . or kill if your really good

Goodness, no. The entire mentality behind the 5.56mm round is that you /don't/ kill. It was purpose designed by the US military along the lines that a casualty takes three men out of action, and countless more behind the front line.

I doubt most of our enemies really care all that much about the caualties they take. I'd rather have something that killed.

5.56 round does not tumble in the air. It flies straight. It doesn't tumble until it hits something.

I still use an M-16A1.

I'm a target shooter, I'd far rather use .5 (12.7mm)

As far as I'm aware, it does tumble; it's what I've been instructed on several seperate occasions by several very well-qualified weapons instructors.

Okay, well everytime I've looked at a target, it's a small 5.56mm hole.

*nods* but then, you generally don't fire past several hundred metres, and rounds only cartwheel at past those distances (which is the objection which old british soldiers that tend to have, having been brought up on a diet of .303 lee enfield rifles and 7.62mm self-loading rifles.) It's another reason the calibre isn't seriously used by snipers. There was talk in the early days of the M-16 of a sniper variant, which lasted about two months.

The only precision weapon which comes to mind that is calibred in 5.56mm is one of the Sig family of rifles (a version of the 550, which is what the swiss military use). I think there are one or two more, but they're not very common, and they're not very accurate. 5.56mm loses any real use after 4 or 500 metres.. a .5 cal round will still almost work at 2km.

Past a few hundred meters I really don't care what happens to the bullet. If it's still traveling, it hasn't done it's job.