M-16/M-4 in the NYT Blog
U.S. Army Spc. Peter Hurlock qualifying with the M16 in Korea. April 14, 2009. (U.S. photo by Staff Sgt. Christophe D. Paul/Released)
A couple of posts by C.J. Chivers:
How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
and
The M-16 Argument Heats Up, Again
Good overall views of the issue, though the increasing use of 77-grain Mk 262 ammunition with the Special Forces and the poor showing in US Army dust chamber tests against a trio of piston guns were not mentioned.
Also, he writes about the M855 not “fragmenting” as well as the M193. Didn’t he probably mean “tumbling”? Though they do sometimes fragment, I thought that was not the design intent.
Anyway, it’s nice to see decent coverage of this issue where it might get a little more visibility.
6 Responses to “M-16/M-4 in the NYT Blog”
Blogads
When comparing the AR to the AK, the obvious winner is the MN.
[...] from GunPundit.com U.S. Army Spc. Peter Hurlock qualifying with the M16 in Korea. April 14, 2009. (U.S. photo by Staff [...]
Nomenclature Pet Peeve: There are no hyphens or spaces in US Army small arms designations.
Check Page 9 of MIL-STD-1464A. You should be able to find it online.
Daniel E. Watters: Yeah. Those were in the linked article titles and I usually don’t change those.
Question: I believe that the space in “Mk 262″ is correct. Is it?
According to US Navy nomenclature standards (MIL-STD-1661), the spaces are used. The official format is MARK (number) MOD (number). However, the abbreviation MK is allowable in order to save space. Using upper/lower case (Mark, Mk, Mod) is considered acceptable for technical writing.
[...] Some news outlets are looking at the weapon’s reliability. [...]