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)

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.

Comments

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

Comments are closed