The M16 is ****

[.:iGi:.U.G.H.]

My experience now is with the G3/AK, it's 2 single shots and they drop 95% of the time. With the M16/QBZ it's more like 4 single shots 95% of the time and the time that takes usually means they have 1 or 2 shot killed me. It's got to the point where I no longer really enjoy playing as USMC/PLA as I always play medic/SL/officer so never have a decent weapon as USMC/PLA.

I find the QBZ especially bad. It feels and sounds like a peashooter to me.

The L85 is OK but not a patch on the G3. The G3 is just so good! Wish I could use it on everymap.

[DaedalusAI1]

Really, I've read differently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56

From my understanding it works best at hight velocities because it fragments. So the length of the M16 barrel helps it achieve those velocities and fragment in the shorter ranges. At longer range since the bullet is light, it loses velocity and there fore doesn't fragmen and cause extra damage.

As mentioned in the article that was a short coming of the M4, though it was designed for cqb and since most urban fights happen at less then 100m it is still effective. It is at the longer ranges that it loses potential. Hence the short barrel.

We use to qual at the farthest, 500y in the Marines, and at that range, yeah it was weak. Wind greatly affected it because it lost energy. At 300y it started to be affected by wind a bit. Bellow that it seemed to fly pretty true.

[dunkellic]

actually the bullets coming out of an m4 are even less effective below the 100m than those of the m16

[DaedalusAI1]

dunkellic']actually the bullets coming out of an m4 are even less effective below the 100m than those of the m16

Was that in reference to my comment? If it was, what I was saying is yes the M4 is less effective compared to the M16. At 100m because of the velocity that bullet can reach, it does splinter appart doing more damage if you read that link I put on.

So in essence the M16 has more power, (energy measured in joules, j= kg x m(squared)/s(squared). So what you are saying is correct that a bullet from an M4 is less effective than an M16 at the same range, but regardless they are still effective at close range becuase at 100m they reach the velocity at which when they impact on something it breaks apart. If a 4.6 x 30 mm, from a 180mm barrel bullet can go through a kevlar helmet and blow a hole out the back at 50m then a 5.56 x 45m from a 508mm on M16 and 368.3mm on a M4 surely can

I'm not saying it is more powerful than other bullets, would suck using in a sniper rifle, but it does what it was designed to do, maximized the damage potential while reducing recoil with an emphisis on reducing recoil. I would prefer a 5.56 x45 for cqb as compared to 7.62 for recoil reasons. But would want a 7.62 x 51 for long distance areas. The reason why larger bullets are used for sniper rifles are

1. Ensure the hit does a lot of damage
2. Make sure the bullet isn't off from it's mark due to wind.

[18Zulukiller]

@Hauler Thank you for the insults nothing was aimed at you which you should of been able to figure out considering not at any point did i quote you.

DukeMeister']Yeah you might also want to think about pissing off a MOD who knows exactly what both of those words mean and will not hasten in banning your arse if you tell me too look up any more words in a dictionary.

Pffft go for you life if this is the way your gonna run your forum i'll be deleting the link now anyway.

V.. or .i.. take your pick lol.

[A.J.Sawyer]

I'd appreciate it if you'd show a little more respect for all of PRs staff.

You're current attitude is completely unacceptable.