Re: U.S. Army May Drop M-16 As Standard Rifle - JFK's Vietnam War.

John A. Stovall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 28 Nov 2003 07:02:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arnold
> Wolfcastle) wrote:
> 
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Laura Bush - America's kid-killer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
> >PROTECTED]>...
> >> "Karl Hungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> > BAGHDAD, Iraq - After nearly 40 years of battlefield service around the
> >> > globe, the M-16 may be on its way out as the standard Army assault rifle
> >> > because of flaws highlighted during the invasion and occupation of Iraq . .
> >> > .
> >> > 
> >> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2BB26D96
> >> 
> >> It's your typical over-engineered american product.  

It's actually a simpler mechanism than the AK.
An elegant, minimalist design in my opinion.

> >Thank LBJ & Robert McNamara for rushing it into production during
> >JFK's Vietnam War.
> 
> Apparently you've never read Ed Ezell's definitive history of the
> M-16, _The Black Rifle_ or you wouldn't write such nonsense.
> 
> http://www.ar15.com/content/books/BlackRifle/
> 
> Dr. Ezell know far more about the subject than you do.

I've fired both, and definitely prefer the M-16. The AK has bad
ergonomics, lousy sights, and in 7.62x39, a low-velocity cartridge
that lacks reach. With the M16, I have much greater confidence of
hitting what I aim at.

Smaller people might find that the AK fits them better, but i think
that given a choice, the average person would prefer the M16.

-SEan