A Conversation for The Colt M-16 Assault Rifle
Ioreth (on hiatus) Started conversation Sep 1, 2001
I spent two weeks doing fake 'army' stuff for american wannabes, only the exciting part is I learn to clean all the regular old guns they keep around israeli army bases, mostly just the m16.
I'd also agree to the 'mostly harmful' bit.
silverygibbon Posted Sep 1, 2001
'mostly harmful' is a very good description.
The M16 was designed to be a light, simple and easily maintained combat weapon and was relatively sucessful in these areas. It's selection came hand in hand with that of 5.56mm cartridges over 7.62mm Nato Standard rounds.
The smaller lighter round was chosen by the US military for 2 predominant reasons.
1. The obvious weight saving and increased numerical carrying capacity.
2. The 5.56 round was considered to cause significantly higher casualty / fatality rates than the 7.62. It was considered that the time and resources consumed by the opponent while caring for the seriously wounded would prove a significant advantage to US troops in any conflict. (It takes much more to care for an injured man than a dead one.)
Having just written this, it occurs to me again how often I'm sadly suprised by humanity's inhumanity.
Ioreth (on hiatus) Posted Sep 1, 2001
The Geneva conventions actually has limitations about this, and forbids the use of ammunition of such a low caliber. This sadly failed to make M16 use less common.
Aaron O'Keefe the anti-pajama man (ACE) Posted Sep 2, 2001
Well, the US is a separate entitiy from the Geneva Convention. . .and alwasy will be (thank god)
Key: Complain about this post