That was sort of a Commonwealth default. UK Marines ended up giving the point guy a M16 as an anti-ambush measure (and UK SF did that in Borneo in the 1960's) particularly in jungle/bush environments.
US semi-auto rifle program in the 1920s yields intermediate or SCHV cartridge
That was sort of a Commonwealth default. UK Marines ended up giving the point guy a M16 as an anti-ambush measure (and UK SF did that in Borneo in the 1960's) particularly in jungle/bush environments.
Just a quick question was the m16 ever given an l no. In commonwealth service?
A lot of the patrol forces used the M16 - for example the Arctic and Mountain warfare cadre of the RM used the M16A1 and Bren gun instead of SLR and GPMG as they were lighter - and today the 43 Commando Fleet protection group use the Colt Canada C8 one of only none SF units to do so
In the series 'Behind enemy lines' filmed in the 80s one of the training staff said of the M16 that it was light and accurate with the only criticism was that the bullet 'went through people' whatever that means?
I do not recall ever seeing one for the M16A1s (always called AR-15 for some reason) - I suspect that they were bought in smaller numbers off the shelf so to speak - but the Demarco/Colt Canada C8 are called L119A1/L119A2
The M16's were probably bought as a UOR, UK MOD uses that to buy "odd" or non-standard kit. They did that to buy Sig P226 and Sig P228 pistols for forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, they then went through a full procurement process and bought Glock 17's to replace the Sig.
That's what I thought
The UKs full procurement process for the Glock 17s took less than 2 years - they obviously knew what they wanted!
marathag
Banned
The job of any bullet is to transfer its KE to the target to cause tissue and organ damage. Larger diameter helps with that, as does nose profile. Flat points transfer more than spitzers, but have much worse accuracy
FMJs aren't great for hunting since they don't expand, leaving a wound channel as they drill on thru, unless a Bone it hit. Drilling a hole can be incapacitating, and can bleed out. Nobody wants to get shot, even with a needlegun round
Early .223 lethality was based on the bullet tumbling or at least yawing after impact, that would increase the size of the wound channel, to at best the bullet fragmenting, which would then dump most of the KE to the tissue.
Deleted member 1487
I think that was after the switch to the M855 bullet, which was designed not to fragment easily and in fact penetrate body armor, which has started to become more available to Soviet forces. The bullet was also heavier, so was supposed to retain energy out to longer ranges as well, maintaining penetration performance on kevlar body armors at 600m. This cause the problem of the bullet penetrating too well and simply poking holes instead of tumbling or fragmenting like the original bullet design did.
Them and a lot of other sneaky people who could get their hands on them like Naval Gunfire F.O. parties, and Royal Marines Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre. They also had other weapons not on general issue like M79s and M203s. The SAS even had some Stinger SAMs.
The British were issuing M16's to Infantry units doing Jungle Warfare training at the time, probably at one peer section.
Firstly, the Australian did not use the Stirling (except silence version for SF). The Owen “machine carbine” was the SMG. The F1 was to replace the Owen, but was only starting production in the late ‘60s.
NZ used the Stirling and L7. But as they were attached to Australian forces, they used the Owen and M60 in SVN.
The L4 is a 7.62 NATO Bren. The standard weapon at that time was the L1A1 SLR.
The lead scout and section commander of the rifle section carried SMGs from ‘42 until Long Tan (Aug ‘66). After that battle were old 9mm ammo failed, a search for a replacement was sort. L2A1 (the SLR HB with selective fire, mixed L1 & L2 parts etc) were trialled.
The conclusion of these studies by 6RAR was the M16A1 was a suitable replacement. It was freely available (with ammunition) from the Americans.
Only infantry replaced their SMG with M16s. Other Corps retained SMGs, however RAA FOs etc “”aquired” M16s as there were little 9mm used in the battalion (except pistols).
By the end of the conflict, the section of 9 had 2-3 M16A1s (one or both scouts and SC), as well as a M16/M203 for the No1 rifleman (formly SLR and M79).
Army recruits were taught SMG and SLR till the ‘80s. M16 was strictly a RAInf weapon.
As SMGs go it was very good and reliable from what I understand
It was to the Owens SMG what the Sterling SMG was to the STEN - although many Australian WW2 veterans didn't think it was as good as the Owens but from an armorer's POV the F1 was better its parts built to a better standard and interchangeable unlike the Owens which had to be hand finished and were not - also like the Sterling the F1 was staggeringly easy to field strip and clean - the Owens not so much.
But at the end of the day it is a heavy SMG firing a hot 9mm PARA and a lighter M16 is always going to be better than any SMG and firing a better bullet
It did serve into the 90s but then so did the M3A1
The Owen uses a totally different set than either the F1, Sten or Stirling. The spring is separated by a washer arrangement, so no mud can jam it. Owens therefore are nearly unjammable.
The F1 is basically a Stirling with the magazine rotated. One advantage over the Stirling was a SLR non reciprocating cocking handle WITH cover. There was no open slot for dirt, BUT an large open ejection port. At least dirt “should” work it’s way out with gravity!
Yes stripping the F1 was just press and 90 degree turn of the the butt and the bolt and spring fell out. Removing the trigger group required the removal of two tiny “non captive” pins. Not a great idea after dark.
The Owen was a much better weapon.