Originally Posted by jawathehutt
Calling the M16 unreliable is like calling a hand grenade a nuke, its giving way too much credit. The only reason our soldiers used those ****sticks was because they were the cheapest gun. The barrels freaking rotted off, thats not unreliable, thats like a walmart gun quality. And I agree that our weapons arent that good with a few exceptions such as XCR. The europeans have SIGarms(1911, 226, 556), FAL(FN is the main one I know), H&K(Gs' decent sub machine guns) and then of course the RPK. After world war II the us pretty much lost it, although at least we've got working rifles down
I don't really understand why you still don't say that it was an unreliable gun.
M16 wassen't so bad when later in the Vietnam war, the government distributed lots of cartoons with nice ladies on it, that explaint how to maintain your rifle.
So after that it was pretty good.
And what you say about those guns. Yes we have better now but we don't use them on a large scale.
Many european countries still use a variant of the m16, I am talking about the Diemaco of the Canadians.
Fn FAL is hard to handle and the Heckler & Koch weapons are still in test fases. But very good though
If Europe wantswe could get even in every way but still there will be no EU army for the coming 2015.
We have now a fighter that can match the f 22 raptor but nobody but the Brits have them. (14 of them)
And still we drive in little low armored mercedes vans, and at the same time you drive on the roads with huge humvees an strykers and certainly not to forget and my favorite tank, The ABRAMS.
This conversation is not very important but it is fun though.
I'm waiting your response!!!