Talk:M16 rifle/Archive 1

message: Feel free to merge etc:
It soon became clear to the US that the British had been correct all along, and the M14 proved incapable of being fired accurately in fully-automatic mode due to heavy recoil and muzzle climb. This meant the US had spent a lot of time and money changing from one semi-auto system, the Garand, to another, the M14. Other forces found themselves with the same problem, leaving NATO with semi-auto weapons facing true assault rifles, notably the famed AK-47, being built by the Soviets and deployed world-wide. 
Into the story comes Eugene Stoner and the CONARC project to develop a new light-weight weapon for US use. His design combined the EM-2's carrying handle, the StG44's ejector port cover and hinged design, a gas-operated firing mechanism from a Swedish rifle, and a an inline stock for better control in automatic. Unlike most designs, where the stock is bent down from the barrel to raise the sights up to eye level, the new design had a raised sighting system. The result was the AR-15, firing a .223 inch (5.56 mm) round, which handily beat the other designs tested by CONARC. After special forces used it in Vietnam and worked out some early deficiencies, the new M16 rifle became the standard US weapon.
Dan100 12:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
regarding the sentence in CONARC :""Winchester entered a design based on their M1 Carbine and even Earle Harvey of Springfield attemptd to before his bosses refuse to consider such a design while work on the T44 continued"."
I believe it's an enumeration of other designs submitted for the CONARC competition. Winchester with a M1 variant. Earle Harvey would have entered a design but his superiors refused to divert work from the T44.
Edited to reflect these changes.
--Mmx1 01:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftovers from [[assault rifle]] 

message: That military nomenclature, for whatever, would be one of the places where simplicity and good organisation would be needed, to save lives. 
But no, they have to make everything SO DAMN CONFUSING.
:Heh heh, ask anyone in the military - that's SOP for us.  I'd like to think it's to make our minds sharper by keeping us from using shortcuts or 'the easy way' but in all honesty it's probably because no one really thought it through. 84.173.129.246 11:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You'd think 

message: When was it actually being used by the Army? Didn't the USMC adopt it slightly earlier? Or later? I remember reading earlier, but later would make more sense, given that the Corps usually gets the new stuff last...
-- The USMC did indeed adopt the M16A2 first.  They placed their first order in November 1983.  The US Army was holding out for something better, and did not place their first major order until March 1986. --D.E. Watters 00:24, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
-- I have no idea what I'm doing here, I'm a complete newbie here; so if I goof up, someone please erase whatever I may have done wrong.
My comment regarding the M16A+ is in reference to one sentence that, in the context of making the M16A2 a three-round burst, was something like "poorly trained soldiers would 'spray' on fully auto, wasting ammunition..." (not verbatim, it took me ten minutes to get to this point.)  While not entirely inaccurate, it doesn't fully explain the circumstances of the situation.
The term we used was "spray and pray."  And certainly, most of us were very inexperienced, but not necessarily poorly trained; and all of us were terrified.  But to put it into the proper perspective, it would more properly be termed as "supressive fire."  Try to imagine a city or farm kid from the USA who has never seen a jungle, fighting against an enemy to whom this is native turf.  They were invisible, for the most part.  Now, for a grunt unit taking fire without a visible enemy, the only option until you could call in air or artillery support was to "spray and pray" - fire on "rock and roll" in their general direction and hope you either hit someone, or at least keep them occupied enough so they couldn't get a bead on you or your buddies.  Selective fire requires a target; but the M16A1 fired on full auto by a couple of dozen people can throw thousands of rounds in the general direction of the bad guys in mere seconds and probably kill a few by sheer luck.
I don't recall the exact numbers of rounds expended to enemy KIA ratio, but it took a lot of bullets per kill.  It wouldn't be accurate anyway, because the enemy KIA ratio was never accurate.  
In Iraq or Afghanistan (never been there) I would imagine a three round burst would be more appropriate because you would probably have a target before you squeezed off.  
I'm just not comfortable with the wording of that sentence because it doesn't convey the reality of the situation.  Literally, it is factual; however I think a tiny bit of editing to be in order.  I'm not about to try this until I learn far more about this system than I have learned in just a few weeks.
VFW Loki 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  M16A2 

message: Against. Gene Stoner deserves a separate page simply because the AR-15/M16-series are not his only inventions.  --D.E. Watters 04:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Against. This was a tough one, but I feel that it truely does belong w/ the M16. It is a bit involved and specific for a biographical entry. Glaucus 19:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Eugene Stoner]] 

message: "it is often recognized as the best assault rifle of its time period and is the paradigm for assault rifles today."
Now, I know quite a few people that would say that about, for instance, the AK-47. Or any number of other assault rifles. It's clearly NPOV, despite the "often recognized" weaseling. 72.224.116.191 15:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, weasel wording, etc. 

message: Pettifogger, I didn't think the Colt 602 was the XM16.  I was pretty sure neither of these rifles were standardized, and that the XM16 the 604, and then when it was standardized as Type A it became the M16.  The purchase of the 602 appears to have been extremely limited, and I'm not even exactly sure who ordered them.  I've never heard to them referred to as XM16s either.  Also, I thought that the distinction between the M16A1 PIP and the M16A1E1 was more defined and that the two rifles should be considered seperate.  These were my understandings, that's all.  --Thatguy96 21:37, 29 November 2005
There is no reason to have separate columns for US Army and US Air Force designations, since they both used the same names. It also excludes the US Navy and US Marine Corps.
I felt that the Model 601 and Model 602 were different enough to have separate entries.
The XM16 was the Model 602, not the Model 604. "The 02 is the initial version of the M16 rifle. Some were marked with the US Property marking. These were referred to as the "XM16", with the "X" designating "Experimental." 
I changed S-1-F to Safe-Semi-Auto or Safe-Semi-Burst, since it is more obvious to the unlearned reader, and it reflects what is actually on the rifle. I don't know of any firearm publication that uses S-1-F. It does not significantly affect column width since "Trigger pack" was much longer than S-1-F.
The rifling twist was added, since that is different than profile.
The front sight type was added as a column since that does vary. For the M16 and M16A1, it was a round post with five positions. For the M16A2, it was a square post with four positions. The M16A2E1 Enhanced Rifle and Model 656 sniper rifle also had different front sights.
The open-ended three-prong flash hider and the birdcage were both used on the M16, XM16E1, and M16A1. The M16A1 was officially type-classified on February 28, 1967. The birdcage flash hider was used on all M16 production starting in January 1967. {{ref|BlackRifle}1}
The M16A1E1 is the same thing as the M16 Product Improved Program. "For identification purposes the PIP rifles were designated the M16A1E1.'  The next page has a picture captioned "One of the 50 Product Improved (PIP) rifles, called the 'M16A1E1'". Since the M16A1E1 was a transitional item, there are pictures of them with a mix of M16A1 and M16A2 features. 
#Stevens, R. Blake & Edward C. Ezell. The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective. Cobourg, Canada: Collector Grade Publications, 1994, 226.
#Shea, Dan. "SAR Identification Guide: The Colt Models," Small Arms Review Vol.1 No. 5. (February 1998).
#Stevens, 347.
Pettifogger 04:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: M16 Table issues

message: If we could find three good references this article would qualify for featured article status. Captain Jackson 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Alexander 007 03:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: The list of major users seems to be vastly overblown. A lot of the countries listed have their own weapons manufacturers and the standard issue rifle is not (and never was) the M16 (Germany, France, ...). Other countries have since moved on to other, more reliable rifles and are not using the M16 any more (Australia, New Zealand). I think this section needs a cleanup or at least some references. 130.123.225.69 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Major" Users 

message: Good god the m16a2 section is POV. Someone apparently doesn't like it. I cleaned out some factually incorrect information there, as well as the most blatantly POV statements. I'm considering deleting the entire last paragraph of that section, as it adds nothing to the article whatsoever. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 16:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The significance of the Mellonics report is that it helps explain the mindset in certain Army circles against adopting the M16A2.   The Army did not order significant quantities of M16A2 until a couple of years after the USMC did so. --D.E. Watters 15:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy POV batman 

message: "Program Status. Fielding of the MWS began in FY 2003. and continues through FY
2007, for a total. of 59479 M16A4 and 10407 M4 weapons. Procurement Profile"
. There. 60,000 produced in a year, 50000 more than the m4 counts as significant numbers. As for the firing cycle: If you're seriously disputing that......... Please don't WP:DICK⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Procured does not equal received or fielded.  You state that the rifle has almost completely replaced the M16A2 in country, and you cite nothing to this.  To the contrary, reports I've gotten from the Marines is that they've got some, but are mostly using M4's.--Asams10 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I revised the section. The cycle of operation should NOT be in the initial paragraph.--Asams10 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for m16a4 information 

message: See Talk:M16#Requested Move M16 to M16 (disambiguation) --Philip Baird Shearer 14:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wikipdia:requested move on Talk:M16

message: I believe that if somebody were to get a screenshot of a scene in Blackhawk Down, then the fair use tag would allow us to use it to illustrate the M16 itself.  See Template:Film-screenshot and the justification, "...for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents," to comment on the use of the M16 in the film. However, I believe that it's a bit extreme to take the poster image down for the reasons given.--Asams10 01:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackhawk Down Poster 

message: Ranked dead last in lethality? From the report:  Is Faulty Ammo Failing Troops?
Field Report, Government Tests Raise Questions About Bullet For M-16 Rifle
The argument for the 5.56 was you could carry more rounds.--Paul E. Ester 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, a new US Army report would seem to challange that to a degree.
When are you ever going to shoot a person in a combat situation once and wait to see what happens?
-- Thatguy96 22:21 7 June 2006
The second study apparently merely compared commecial 5.56mm ammunition to military ammo.  No mention is made of comparison across calibers. Kensai Max 23:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are quite a few stories floating around the Army about insurgents using hallucinatory drugs to keep themselves killing as long as possible..  it's entirely possible that if you're high out of your mind you wouldn't notice the damage a 5.56 round will do, but it is most certainly lethal..  Just to be safe, though, I'd stick with a .50 caliber M2. :P 84.173.129.246 11:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The storys using drugs are true ive seen documentry where they talked about how they would use like painkillers and morphine so they couldnt feel pain. about 3 soiliders shot about a magizine in the is guy on the ground just laying their not dieing and it took almost 90 rounds to finaly make him die.(ForeverDEAD 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 5.56 less than lethal?

message: See page 57 of "The Black Rifle." --D.E. Watters 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Upon further research, I believe that it may have been the AR-12.  The AR-12 and AR-16 are very similar in appearance.  The AR-12 was originally supposed to be a stamped receiver alternative to the AR-10, complete with direct impingement.  However, after Fairchild sold the patent rights to the direct impingement system to Colt, Stoner modified the gas system to a short-stroke piston design.  The AR-16 is really a modified version of the gas piston-eqipped AR-12.  You can find detailed photos of the AR-12 in the March '96 issue of "Machine Gun News" and the January '98 issue of "Small Arms Review."D.E. Watters 01:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AR-16 Reference 

message: Forget inline citations, the vast majority of this article is compleatly unreferenced. How is anyone supposed to tell whether the five things at the bottom actually cover this increadibly expansive and detailed article? I also don't see any sign it was reviewed in the first place, which is problematic. Homestarmy 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, we can tell that the books listed cover this article by READING THE BOOKS.  If you want somebody to go statement by statement and reference EVERY point made, you can keep your "Good Article" status away from here.  It's referenced, it's just not an AMA article.--Asams10 05:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: Okay, now I'm confused.  How is it possible to have an XM16E1 if there isn't an XM16?  Shouldn't it have then been XM16?  How can you have a subvariant of a variant that never existed? -- Thatguy96 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Air Force version of the XM16 was the AR-15.  The Air Force didn't use Army terminology.  In reality, the XM16 existed, at least on paper.--Asams10 23:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that was sorta my point.  XM16 had to have at least been a "paper" designation, because there would be no way the Army would've gotten to XM16E1 without the distinction.  I guess I could still be wrong, but this would seem logical. -- Thatguy96 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No XM16?

message: I erased the "The 30-round magazine is not suited to sustained fire like the belted feed systems of heavier true machine guns, and the M16's lightweight barrel would overheat quickly under automatic fire." because of blatant bull. 
The M16 is issued as an HBAR, meaning HEAVY BARRELED AUTOMATIC RIFLE, therefore it automatically proves who ever wrote this doesn't know what he's talking about. 
The 30 round magazine is also VERY suited for sustained fire, especially because the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (Light Machine Gun) is capable of being belt-fed or fed through an M-16 magazines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.11.224.178 (talk • contribs).
:Once again, you read the section you removed incorrectly, Neither the M16 nor the M16A1 are heavy barreled.  The M16A2, A3, A4, the M4, and the M4A1 are all light contour under the handguard and overheat quickly. The reason for the 30-round magazine comment is that frequent mag changes required with the 30-round magazine make it unsuited for sustained fire use needed for suppressive fire. I'm putting the section back. Once again, sign your comments. --Asams10 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the M249 SAW was designed to accept standard 30-round or 20-round magazines AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE does not mean that the magazine itself is specifically designed for or practically suited for sustained fire..  Anyone who has EVER fired a M249 in the United States Army will tell you the same thing - loading a magazine into it is asking for trouble (ie jams).  Not that a 30-round magazine would last you long enough to make it worth the trouble of loading in the first place.  The SAW eats through ammo like a monster.  And it's designed for belts.  Don't get it twisted, our weapons aren't nearly as reliable as the manufacturers and defense contractors would like the general public to believe. 84.173.129.246 11:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M16 Barrels 

message: The first letter after a number is supposed to be capitalized and M4 Carbine...  What's the deal, eh? Deathbunny 10:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll see that alot in many, many articles.  See the Naming conventions. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 07:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't the R in Rifle capitalized... 

message: I went through and purged unnecessary, duplicate, and commercial links.  There are TWO lists of see-also's and many of these were also listed in the text.  Not very organized or efficient.  --Asams10 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Cleaning 

message: My modifications were the addition of the LSA and the poorly hardened 20-round magazine comments, based on my experiences in Vietnam, 1967-1970.
OOPS! The last comment was by Rhilliam 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research was removed. Good info, but without a reliable internet or written source, your anecdotal evidence is as good as anybody elses.  It's true, troops downloaded the magazines, but welding and riveting processes were to blame, IIRC, not heat treating.  --Asams10 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to argue if you're going to misrepresent the truth. You use the weapons, but are you an engineer?  The M16 magazine has three rivets to hold the steel reinforcement on the front and five spot welds along the rear.  You are violating Wikipedia rules and your edits will be reverted. If the information is that important, it certainly appeared elsewhere.  Frankly, I can't find were and I've got about every Magazine variation from that era for my own original research. --Asams10 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, could it be a lack of citations, original research, etc?  I don't wonder, myself. --Asams10 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: While you may find what you want using a Google search, it might not be apparent to readers to do a Google search.  It's best to find a source via Google and then use that to attribute your addition.  Wikipedia does not allow original research.  x42bn6 Talk 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Online sources may or may not be reliable, but see http://www.google.com/search?q=LSA+Semi-fluid+M-16 for the LSA claim, and http://www.google.com/search?q=M-16+aluminum+%28jam+%7C+jams+%7C+jamming+%7C+jammed%29 for the jamming. -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, it was challeneged. I'll explain in more detial.  The welds on the aft edge of the magazine were insufficient and tended to break under use.  Similarly, the rivets holding the steel plate in the front of the mag would rust and fail causing a catastrophic failure of the magazine.  In years of original and secondary source research, I have NEVER found anthing to substantiate ANY problems with the metalurgy of the magazine. Most of the failures were due to rough handling and overloading.--Asams10 00:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. And if some folks *did* have issues with the metalurgy, perhaps it's still documented someplace, right? --Kim Bruning 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I did the google searches for s&g, but nothing came up.  The LSA issue was not new for the AR-15 nor was it the important factor.  Proper cleaning fluid was availabe in supply, but wasn't issued as a rule.  Cleaning EQUIPMENT was another story. Stoppages were also not generally due to fouling (as the grunts thought) but rather to unplated chambers creating pits that the slightly tapered cases expanded into, exponentially increasing friction on the chamber walls.  I've got the original reports somewhere in my stacks. Too much to get into with this article, though.  Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with both the tone and content of the original research in question. --Asams10 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, no, it's welded ALUMINUM. Five spot welds on the rear.  There is a steel reinforcement strap on the front of the magazine tacked on with three rivets.  That's why there's a groove in the front of the mag well, to allow room for the rivets. I'm not talking about steel magazines, I'm talking about the Military Specification 20-round magazines issued to troops during Vietnam, replaced in the 70's with another welded magaznie.  WELDED... WELDED.  Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't attempt to debate the subject. This is tedious. --Asams10 23:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Perhaps some mention should be made of the flip-up rear irons on the A4 model in the article.  It's meant to be used with a scope mounted on all those rails hanging off it, but the irons installed should be mentioned in the article.  If I had my druthers I wouldn't use them as a -main- sighting system, but they do in fact work pretty well in my limited experience. Kensai Max 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that BUIS, even on rifles that have optics fitted, are far from standard.  In fact, the two pictures of M16A4s in this very article with optics fitted don't appear to have BUIS.  BUIS is not mentioned in the Army TM for the M16 series as being part of the included equipment either.  Standard rifle sights for the M16A4 are supposed to be provided by those on the detachable carry handle.  -- Thatguy96 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rear Sights on the A4 

message: Okay, short lesson in heat conductivity. This discussion is limited to autoloading rifles. Fully-automatic firearms fire at a rapid enough rate that the heat generated by firing a cartridge is transferred to the bore directly by friction, heat transfer, and pressure and indirectly through the 'whipping' of the barrel as the projectile goes down the bore. The 'whipping' of the barrel causes heat in the same way as rapidly bending a piece of aluminum back and forth will cause it to heat at the crease of the metal. This heat moves to all metal parts of the barrel and firmly contacting the barrel including the chamber, sights, receiver, and bolt face when it's in contact with the barrel.  This heat is also transferred to anything that is directly adjacent to the barrel through infrared heat. There are a few other minor mechanisms for heat transfer I'll leave out. Heat is removed from the firearm through several means as well.  Among these, there is the aforementioned infrared radiation but direct contact with the air is the major means of cooling a barrel.
Common materials for cartridge casings do not transfer heat to the chamber wall in any significant quantity. They have the following thermal conductivity expressed in celsius (W/m K): Brass= 109, Steel= 46, Aluminum= 250, Plastic (PTFE)= .25.  Now, the mass of the metal also counts. While aluminum transfers heat better, there is significantly less mass (weight) in an aluminum casing. Observation of ejected cases will note that both steel and brass are hotter than aluminum or Plastic.  The plastic is, indeed, cooler, however the other materials are just as hot, the Aluminum cooling down quicker might not seem as hot though.
The above observation has led to the logically incorrect leap that casings pull heat from the chamber.  This is incorrect.  In fact, the casing heats up to significantly higher temperatures than the chamber due to direct contact with combustion gasses. This is true until heat from the bore of the firearm transfers heat to the chamber area after, say, 100-200 continuous shots.  At that point, the chamber will be hotter than the freshly fired case. Counter-intuitively, the case of the cartridge acts as an insulator for the chamber and prevents it from being in direct contact with the heat and pressure of combustion. Except for heavy machineguns, modern autoloading rifle cartridges utilize their casings for insulation rather than heat absorbtion. In this respect, all of the metal casing materials fail. While they absorb a small portion of heat from the chamber, this heat is not significant enough to cool the barrel even in this instance as they generate more heat from the next shot than they remove from their contact with an already overheated barrel.
Adverse effects from excess heat start with safety.  There is a danger that a cartridge left in the chamber after a long string of full-auto fire will heat to a point high enough enough for what is called a cook-off whereby the priming materials in the primer detonate without being struck by the firing pin. Again, brass is a less-than-optimum choice as it transmits heat built up in the chamber readilly to the primer. Rather than lessening the chance for a cook-off, it increases those chances as do the other metalic material choices.  In the end, there is no special advantage or disadvantage in terms of thermal transfer with regard to various metalic choices.  While PTFE cases offer advantages, they have numerous disadvantages as well, not the least of which are their shelf life and the need for a larger chamber.--Asams10 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...ok? Parsecboy 15:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw no point in your post. It seemed you were posting your comment for the heck of it. You never connected it to an edit you made in the article. How, praytell, did I get into "a fit" about the M16A1 issue above? Because I disagreed with you and provided sources to support my position? Perhaps you shouldn't take things so seriously. Parsecboy 17:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still lost as to how you say that I got into "a fit". Because I rightly stated that using you own experiences, not reliable sources, is original research? That you have as much a burden of proof to support your claims as does Thatguy96 does? Perhaps you need to break it down for me, because I obviously do not understand your logic. But back to the point. I posted my original reply to your original post in this thread because you made no connection between it and an edit you made. Perhaps you should try a phrase like "Here's the reason I made the edit..." as opposed to just posting a seemingly irrelevant comment to no one in particular. Parsecboy 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's not really in practical service anymore. The Army National Guard maintains around 80,000 of them, but they're classified as "outmoded, and non deployable" (and this was in 2003, so the number is 4 years and all of OIF old). Parsecboy 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermal conductivity of in semi-automatic firearms 

message: im just what everbody thinks bbut shouldnt this really be added to AR15, i mean it basicly the same thing as how the ak47 artical is named most people dont even know the differnces. but anyway im just wondering what you people think. and i read somewhere in kipedia things should be named by common names, is that how it works in acutal enxelopedias
:Dude, I have no idea what you just said. --Asams10 23:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Translation" Shouldnt this artical be changed to the AR15, its like the AK47 people dont really understand the differnces and i was wondering what you guys think. also i read somewhere on wikipedia things should be named common names, is that how it works in actualy published as a book encyclopedia's?" :} as you can see im fluent in good and bad grammer(ForeverDEAD 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AR15 

message: Just read that the US Government will donate around 3.000 rifles (both M16 and M4) rifles to the Leb. Army. Should it be included in the "operator" panel?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/21/lebanon.haddad/index.html Then to the left there is a video called "U.S. to ship humvees, rifles and ammo to Beirut".
:If you go down to M16_rifle#Production_and_usage you'll see that Lebanon is already mentioned, because they are a user of the M16A1, supplied by US forces during the 1970s.  The users in the infobox are a product of people putting their own nations in (at least I suspect) and non-notable users (pretty much everyone but Israel on that list) should probably be removed.  -- Thatguy96 14:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanese Army will recieve this weapon

message: The section on M-16 being used by so many armed forces is totally wrong: The link says that those countries have been customers of the Colt Co. for various weapons or weapons systems. It does not say that those nations purchased the M-16, letalone procured them in their artillary. Remove that huge list please. Tri400 17:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:M16_rifle#.22Major.22_Users -- Thatguy96 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M-16 deployment worldwide 

message: I see the Iraq part was reverted.  I'm going to change it back since it is planned and in the process of happening (albeit very slowly), but not without posting the following news story here.  This was reported by most of the major players (BBC, CNN, etc).  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6665759.stm -- Thatguy96 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraqi forces rearming with M16