StarDestroyer.Net BBS

As has been said, a DC-15 or T-21 blaster is a better analog with an M16.

Note that, not only will a DC-15 hit still kill at multi-kilometer ranges, blaster bolts experience no projectile drop or wind deflection. This is a gargantuan bonus: you don't have to worry about dialling in windage and elevation. Point and shoot!

Also, the topic uses the word "weak". I don't think there's any doubt about their power judging by Han's DL-44 antics in ANH's docking bay scene.


Btw, I'm just curious.. what's the mechanical accuracy of an issue M16A2 with issue ammo (in minutes of angle) at 500m, anyway?

Cpl Kendall wrote: Well then, my apologies Kartr_Kana, at least on the 500m point. 800m is still out to lunch though.

Actually as he claimed 500m for a head shot that's still bogus.

Batman wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote: Well then, my apologies Kartr_Kana, at least on the 500m point. 800m is still out to lunch though.

Actually as he claimed 500m for a head shot that's still bogus.

I knew I forgot something. I'll revise my earlier statement:

500m headshot=BS
800m=beyond the range of 5.56mm, therefore BS.

Off the top of my head, the 500m and 800m numbers were in some ballpark. And what they are is 500M is the maximum effective range for point targets, a human, and 800M for an area target, or a group of idiots standing around or a vehicle (which one bullet isn't gonna really do much to).

OK now I'm officially confused. Why would the CF have the maximum range against an area target as 600m but the US has 800m? Are we using different ammo?

Cpl Kendall wrote:OK now I'm officially confused. Why would the CF have the maximum range against an area target as 600m but the US has 800m? Are we using different ammo?

Different standards, most likely. I've seen "effective range" as everywhere from 400 to 600 meters. Vietnam-era users I know claim the M-16 was most effective within 200 meters, with energy dropping off rapidly beyond that range.

Because it's a derivative of the M4 or M16A4 -- notice that only the M16A2/3 have 800M as an area target. I don't know why the M16A1 doesn't but it just has shittier performance in general so they probably never bothered to write it up in time.

And I would only say "Cpl" cause it really should read "CPL." (at least by the US Army's anally-retentive standards)

The Dark wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:OK now I'm officially confused. Why would the CF have the maximum range against an area target as 600m but the US has 800m? Are we using different ammo?

Different standards, most likely. I've seen "effective range" as everywhere from 400 to 600 meters. Vietnam-era users I know claim the M-16 was most effective within 200 meters, with energy dropping off rapidly beyond that range.

Vietnam era M16's were A1's, a 7.62 rifle. I'm not sure where it is in the FM and I'm too lazy ATM to dig for it, but I've read in it at work one day (back when I had free time at work ) but the A1's rifling only spins the bullet so many times, every 5.56 rifled M16 spins the bullet a few more times, resulting in better accuracy. IIRC, the difference is about 4-7 more spins.

PFC Brungardt wrote:

The Dark wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:OK now I'm officially confused. Why would the CF have the maximum range against an area target as 600m but the US has 800m? Are we using different ammo?

Different standards, most likely. I've seen "effective range" as everywhere from 400 to 600 meters. Vietnam-era users I know claim the M-16 was most effective within 200 meters, with energy dropping off rapidly beyond that range.

Vietnam era M16's were A1's, a 7.62 rifle. I'm not sure where it is in the FM and I'm too lazy ATM to dig for it, but I've read in it at work one day (back when I had free time at work ) but the A1's rifling only spins the bullet so many times, every 5.56 rifled M16 spins the bullet a few more times, resulting in better accuracy. IIRC, the difference is about 4-7 more spins.

I could have sworn that it was the M14 that was 7.62. The rifling issue jives with my recollection of the A1, but I'm pretty sure its 5.56 from the times my unit goes out to the range with its obsolescent gear.

PFC Brungardt wrote:

The Dark wrote:Different standards, most likely. I've seen "effective range" as everywhere from 400 to 600 meters. Vietnam-era users I know claim the M-16 was most effective within 200 meters, with energy dropping off rapidly beyond that range.

Vietnam era M16's were A1's, a 7.62 rifle. I'm not sure where it is in the FM and I'm too lazy ATM to dig for it, but I've read in it at work one day (back when I had free time at work ) but the A1's rifling only spins the bullet so many times, every 5.56 rifled M16 spins the bullet a few more times, resulting in better accuracy. IIRC, the difference is about 4-7 more spins.

M16 has never been a 7.62mm rifle. The M16A1 used the 5.56mm NATO M193 round, while the A2 uses the M855. The closest direct predecessor to the M16 that was a 7.62mm rifle is the AR-10, which the AR-15 was developed from, which became the M16. The M16A1 had a 1-in-12 twist, while the A2 has 1-in-7.

PFC Brungardt wrote:Because it's a derivative of the M4 or M16A4 -- notice that only the M16A2/3 have 800M as an area target. I don't know why the M16A1 doesn't but it just has shittier performance in general so they probably never bothered to write it up in time.

And I would only say "Cpl" cause it really should read "CPL." (at least by the US Army's anally-retentive standards)

No the C7 is a M16A2 derivative, so I don't think thats it. It was adopted in 1986, so I'm pretty sure it's not a M16A4 or M4 clone.

The Dark wrote:

PFC Brungardt wrote:

The Dark wrote:Different standards, most likely. I've seen "effective range" as everywhere from 400 to 600 meters. Vietnam-era users I know claim the M-16 was most effective within 200 meters, with energy dropping off rapidly beyond that range.

Vietnam era M16's were A1's, a 7.62 rifle. I'm not sure where it is in the FM and I'm too lazy ATM to dig for it, but I've read in it at work one day (back when I had free time at work ) but the A1's rifling only spins the bullet so many times, every 5.56 rifled M16 spins the bullet a few more times, resulting in better accuracy. IIRC, the difference is about 4-7 more spins.

M16 has never been a 7.62mm rifle. The M16A1 used the 5.56mm NATO M193 round, while the A2 uses the M855. The closest direct predecessor to the M16 that was a 7.62mm rifle is the AR-10, which the AR-15 was developed from, which became the M16. The M16A1 had a 1-in-12 twist, while the A2 has 1-in-7.

You're right, I erred on the 7.62 part but I know I've read in writing that the bullet spun less and that's an easily attributable reason why the max. effective range is less than later versions of the M16. Globalsecurity's display of the FM is so jumbled, and the Army's website for forms won't let me see it ATM either, which is annoying as fuck.

edit: All the FM's, maybe they'll work for someone else. CTRL+F and look for M16 to pull up the appropriate FM.

PFC Brungardt wrote:Vietnam era M16's were A1's, a 7.62 rifle.

Sorry but that's garbage. The M16 was 5.56 from the word 'go'. In fact one of the primary reasons for its introduction was the lower calibre.

I'm not sure where it is in the FM and I'm too lazy ATM to dig for it, but I've read in it at work one day (back when I had free time at work ) but the A1's rifling only spins the bullet so many times, every 5.56 rifled M16 spins the bullet a few more times, resulting in better accuracy. IIRC, the difference is about 4-7 more spins.

Wrong again. ALL M16s are 5.56, the A1 had one spin every 305mm while the later models have one per 178mm so even for the latter it's a maximum of five or so spins total.

Batman wrote:

PFC Brungardt wrote:Vietnam era M16's were A1's, a 7.62 rifle.

Sorry but that's garbage. The M16 was 5.56 from the word 'go'. In fact one of the primary reasons for its introduction was the lower calibre.

I'm not sure where it is in the FM and I'm too lazy ATM to dig for it, but I've read in it at work one day (back when I had free time at work ) but the A1's rifling only spins the bullet so many times, every 5.56 rifled M16 spins the bullet a few more times, resulting in better accuracy. IIRC, the difference is about 4-7 more spins.

Wrong again. ALL M16s are 5.56, the A1 had one spin every 305mm while the later models have one per 178mm so even for the latter it's a maximum of five or so spins total.

Urm, you just said exactly what I did on this last point, that it spins 5 less times. Unless there's another primary difference between the A1 and other M16's, what are you attributing it's lesser accuracy to?

I have a question. Why is it that whenever it comes to firearms, on any forum on the internet, there are always people spouting truckloads of bullshit, trying to pass it off as fact and thinking no one will call them out on it?

PFC Brungardt wrote:

Batman wrote: Wrong again. ALL M16s are 5.56, the A1 had one spin every 305mm while the later models have one per 178mm so even for the latter it's a maximum of five or so spins total.

Urm, you just said exactly what I did on this last point, that it spins 5 less times. Unless there's another primary difference between the A1 and other M16's, what are you attributing it's lesser accuracy to?

It doesn't spin 5 less times. For the A2 and later it spins three times total. For the A1 it spins 1.6 times or so. While that is what attributes to the later models' greater accuracy your numbers are quite simply off.

Cykeisme wrote:I have a question. Why is it that whenever it comes to firearms, on any forum on the internet, there are always people spouting truckloads of bullshit, trying to pass it off as fact and thinking no one will call them out on it?

LOL, I dunno. I erred on the 7.62 part just cause I'm a knucklehead like that but I provided an actually relevant link that shows the ranges. I can read the actual FM when I get to work Monday, or if the website ever works, I'll read it online, instead of globalsecurity's summarized version of it.

I'm pretty damned sure that in the FM, it noted at the bottom of a page that the M16A1's lesser accuracy was attributed to less spins. But that's a peripheral argument, 500M is a center-mass shot, not headshot (leave that to snipers, though I doubt they train for headshots either), and 800M is a lucky shot but it is technically the maximum effective range.

edit:

It doesn't spin 5 less times. For the A2 and later it spins three times total. For the A1 it spins 1.6 times or so. While that is what attributes to the later models' greater accuracy your numbers are quite simply off.

Ohhhhh, sorry. Okay but I admitted I was going off long-term memory, I was right in that that is a primary difference?

I'm sorry, I read that FM one day in September and my memory is not all that good.

Cykeisme wrote:I have a question. Why is it that whenever it comes to firearms, on any forum on the internet, there are always people spouting truckloads of bullshit, trying to pass it off as fact and thinking no one will call them out on it?

quite simple most people in the Net, know very little of fire arms yet think that good fire arms skill a really cool.

I'm going to withdraw from this thread, due to the info I was provided in the CF being wrong and my attempts to find supporting info leading to a bunch of conflicting info.

So Kartr_Kana you have my apologies for coming down on you. No hard feelings I hope and welcome to the board, and enjoy the Corps.

Cpl Kendall wrote:So Kartr_Kana you have my apologies for coming down on you. No hard feelings I hope and welcome to the board, and enjoy the Corps.

He's been registered since Nov. 2004, why are you welcoming him?

As for the o.p., he has never made any assertions or claims that associates with the title of this thread. Therefore, I ask that he present his case before us as he should've already in the o.p.

Kartr_Kana wrote:Preface: I am a US Marine and its been about 4 months since I last posted. I qualified on the M16A2 service rifle and am currently a student in the School of Infantry. I will begin traing with all sorts of weapons, rocket launchers (SMAW), grenades, machinguns, etc.


Off the top of my head the M16A2 fires a 5.56mm round. And is accurate enough to hit a man in the head at 500m, in the torso at 800m. Its rounds include the HEDP which is used to destroy light armored vehicles (2inches steel IIRC)

The E-11 has a Maximum range of 350m IIRC. Its blast is a lot more damaging though.

I will bring the stats of the M203 issued to us and describe its blast when I log on next. Since that seems to be the weapon that comes closest to the E-11.

The E-11 is a carbine, the M-16 an assault rifle. A better comparison would be the DC-15 the clonetroopers use, which we seein AOTC has a phenominal range. Besides, as a marine you know that the primary limitation on range is stability of the firing platofrm - how well you can hold it.

Besides, in terms of power, SW small arms are great. An M-16 round has an energy IIRC of 300 kilojoules. We routinely see SW weapons vaporize chunks of metal (Bespin walls, the plating on battledroids) pointing to a yield in the low megajoules.

@PFC Brungardt:
Just in case you didn't notice I'm one hell of a nitpicky bastard.

Kartr_Kana wrote:Preface: I am a US Marine and its been about 4 months since I last posted. I qualified on the M16A2 service rifle and am currently a student in the School of Infantry. I will begin traing with all sorts of weapons, rocket launchers (SMAW), grenades, machinguns, etc.


Off the top of my head the M16A2 fires a 5.56mm round. And is accurate enough to hit a man in the head at 500m, in the torso at 800m. Its rounds include the HEDP which is used to destroy light armored vehicles (2inches steel IIRC)

The E-11 has a Maximum range of 350m IIRC. Its blast is a lot more damaging though.

I will bring the stats of the M203 issued to us and describe its blast when I log on next. Since that seems to be the weapon that comes closest to the E-11.

Apart from the fact the only way you could hit someone in the head at 500 metres with an M16 is if you use the force, and the fact if you hit him in the chest at 800 metres you better hope it's not winter cos in heavy clothing or body armour he very well may not go down.
There's also the point that the M16A2 does NOT include an HEDP round. I believe the M203 greanade launcher, that one man in each fire team has attached to his M16 does (and the ammo carried is quite limited), but if the US Marines have a 5.56mm HEDP round that penetrates 2 inches of steel consider me fucking impressed.

And to be fair, you should be comparing the E-11 with the M4.

Cykeisme wrote:I have a question. Why is it that whenever it comes to firearms, on any forum on the internet, there are always people spouting truckloads of bullshit, trying to pass it off as fact and thinking no one will call them out on it?

Because everyone's an expert nowadays.

Another problem is that weapons are nowadays mostly described with names and numbers like M-16, AK-47 and so on. So people get the different makes and models confused. Someone bringing up an M-16 could mean the A1, A2, C7, M-4, CAR-15, Colt Commando and others. If you bring up a Henry Repeater, there's no doubt among those familiar with the Old West what you're talking about.

PayBack wrote: Apart from the fact the only way you could hit someone in the head at 500 metres with an M16 is if you use the force, and the fact if you hit him in the chest at 800 metres you better hope it's not winter cos in heavy clothing or body armour he very well may not go down.

And that's garbage again. 5.56 NATO will happily penetrate heavy clothing at that range providing you actually manage to hit.
The limiting factor WRT effective range usually isn't penetrating power, it's accuracy.

There's also the point that the M16A2 does NOT include an HEDP round.

No rifle ever manufactured includes ammunition. It comes seperately, hence the evolution known as loading. Your reasons for the impossibility of 5.56x45 HEDP would be?