FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Behind USA... the M16 Conspiracy!!!





aceflooder
I think m16-m4 rifles has designed for wounding not for killing.
Dont get angry with me / M16s kill instantly in close range\ but i think the idea behind wounding is to kill more people

you ask how?

Let me explain...

When you kill a soldier in field no one will take care of him.
But if you wound someone ,two men will come to take him so they got 3 men dead or subtracted from army force.

this looks like a conspiracy but i think its true!!!!

So AK47 is more powerful but NOT.....

What do you think about this? Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
Rico
That’s a good theory. I heard the M16 was totally inappropriate for any kind of warfare that was not held in a dust-free urban scenario. So put a bunch of young guys in the jungle with a weapon that’s lovingly called “jamming jenny” against the utilitarian yet practical ak47 and those guys will get so frustrated they’ll turn to drugs.
toughtrio
Why is it that its inappropriate to be used in a dust-free scenario. Because of its recoil, low shooting range or is it something else.

My dear frihosters, i m just a lamer in these gun thingies, but still wanna know.

Warm Regards,
Rico
toughtrio wrote:
. . . used in a dust-free scenario


No I said not a dust-free scenario. Apparently dust makes it jam easily, that’s a step back in assault rifles technology. Rifles like the AK and FN-FAL that were built before the M16 had resolved the majority of jamming issues caused by dust. The closest thing to an assault rifle used by the allied forces in WW2 was the Browning Automatic Rifle. They say that dust made that thing practically useless in the battle for Iwo Jima.
ocalhoun
As for intending to wound rather than kill, it's not a conspiracy, the word I would use for it is good strategy.
The real reason is that it uses rather small bullets for an assult rifle, this lets it be lighter and carry more ammo in a clip.
You could also claim that trying to wound the enemy rather than kill them is more humane, and results in less deaths. (Since you're going to have to take the enemy out some way.)

As for jamming easily, that's what we get for using 'high tech weaponry'.
Ducksteina
That's not conspiracy, that is modern warfare!
They don't want to kill people, they want to make them unable to hurt other people. This has nothing got to do with the weapon.
RT Cunningham
The M16A1 was the one with all the problems, but the military kept using it until it was replaced by the M16A2. The A2 doesn't have any problems with dust at all and rarely jams. Clearing a jam takes all of .5 seconds when it does happen.

The purpose of any weapon is to produce casualties, not deaths. You take out the enemy any way you can so that you can either advance or defend your position.

Is the A2 better than the AK47? Nope. But it doesn't need to be.
datter
Ducksteina wrote:
That's not conspiracy, that is modern warfare!
They don't want to kill people, they want to make them unable to hurt other people. This has nothing got to do with the weapon.


That's almost true, but it's not about making them unable to hurt other people. If you kill an enemy he's dead and no longer anyones problem, if you wound one then the enemy is faced with not only retrieving him and moving him to safety but also with nursing him back to health. This uses time, energy and resources.

A dead enemy is dead and out of action... and while that may be beneficial for your side, a wounded enemy is not only out of action, he's also a liability to the opposing force.

datter
RT Cunningham
You're assuming that the enemy retrieves and takes care of its wounded. While this may be true for many forces, it's not true of all of them. I know of one in particular that would leave the wounded where the lie and the wounded either survived on their own or died from the wounds.

So, normally a non-death casualty is better than a dead casualty, but it's not always the case -- there's always an exception.
ocalhoun
Perhaps, but remember that the M16 was a cold-war weapon. The enemy they had in mind when they designed it was the USSR.
nathanuk
Guns are designed to kill people and that is what the m-16 is a gun and it kills. you can design and design but there cannot be such a thing as a humane gun not if it shoots bullets that is. Even the weakest gun in the world could kil if it hit in the right play e.g. heart or brain or critical artiry/vein(mind spelling...) And the one thing going throught us soldiers mind in a combat situation is "where can i shoot him quikly but not kill him" I personaly think this conspiriacy is a big fat LIE. it certainly isnt the best designed weapon in the world. But guns are designed for killing and that is exactly what they do. Armour and tactics will always change and make it harder for soldiers. plus if you where been attacked you would want to kill not "wound" so im sorry to say i dont buy ur conspiracy
ocalhoun
Aw, spare us the anti-gun rant please. (Given that the root of the word 'humane' is 'human', I would classify all instruments and methods of wonton destruction as 'humane'; it's one of the few things that seperate humans from animals.)
Rico
nathanuk wrote:
Guns are designed to kill people and that is what the m-16 is a gun and it kills. you can design and design but there cannot be such a thing as a humane gun not if it shoots bullets that is. Even the weakest gun in the world could kil if it hit in the right play e.g. heart or brain or critical artiry/vein(mind spelling...) And the one thing going throught us soldiers mind in a combat situation is "where can i shoot him quikly but not kill him" I personaly think this conspiriacy is a big fat LIE. it certainly isnt the best designed weapon in the world. But guns are designed for killing and that is exactly what they do. Armour and tactics will always change and make it harder for soldiers. plus if you where been attacked you would want to kill not "wound" so im sorry to say i dont buy ur conspiracy


I think knives should be banned, because knives kill people, also screwdrivers in fact all sharp objects should be banned because sharp objects kill people. All sharp objects should immediately be blunted to stop this destruction of human life. Baseball bats should also be immediately banned because baseball bats kill people too and rope . . . wait this could make a nice topic “All the things that need to be banned because they kill people”. The only thing that should not be banned are guns because guns don’t kill people bullets do.
coolclay
Yes the most common m16 caliber is the .223. This is an extremely small caliber when you consider the sizes of some. This small caliber is better, because its A. cheaper B. lighter C. carry more ammo D. smaller caliber=greater velocity and greater accuracy.

It also is better for penetrating armor and killing because of its higher velocity.
xMOBx Nor Cal
i used the m16.... it jams... ****** up... and unreliable.. now mader how well you clean it... but it does have distance and accuracy... but I got to say my fav. is the M4carbine... small easy to maintain.. less jams as the m16 but less affective range... but todays combat is mostly close quarters or inner city in which the M4 is better
hofodomo01
I know the original jams like hell, but didn't know the a2 is also like that...

lol, wounding, not killing? HELLO? they're frickkin guns! Lol funny and cute federal government Smile
RT Cunningham
I never had an M16A2 jam on me. I suppose there could be bad ones mixed in with the good ones. In my latter years in the service, my prefered weapon was the 9mm pistol. When I was in Desert Storm in 1991, I carried both.

I'm not sure what the M16 was designed for, killing or wounding. The rounds they use for training and the rounds used for combat are different. The rounds for combat are "bolt-tailed", whatever that means. When the bullet enters a body and hits a bone, it will bounce internally and come out somewhere other than the opposite side.

We used to have regular drills in taking the M16 apart and putting it back together again. A person who practices can do it in less than a minute. Someone who practices a lot can do it in under 30 seconds.

Unless it's broken somehow, an M16 suffering from whatever can be fixed very fast while in the field. The cleaning kit is in the butt of the rifle.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.