i would run an m9 but i despise the trigger

I mean the m16 ran just fine during military testing back in the Vietnam days but when it was put onto the field soldiers faced numerous malfunctions with the gun. My point being you can't really use military testing as a way to judge whether a gun is good or not.

most of the reason it malfunctioned was bc the army told the users that it was made of space age aluminum and aircraft alloy and shit

and then the soldiers went “oop looks like we don’t gotta clean this shit no more”

and boom malfunctions

So being under fire, muddy terrain, etc had nothing to do with it gotcha

well no shit that was part of it

yeah, it really was mainly due to lack of maintenance

i’m just saying there were a lot of factors in play and that one is kinda cool and doesn’t get talked abt a lot

the official report on why the m16 was doing so poorly in vietnam was basically "soldiers don't clean their guns, most don't know how to even disassemble them, and bcgs are rusted nearly through on most of them"

it wasn't because the m16 was poorly designed, just nobody knew how to maintain them

Which fell back onto the manufacturer's for not properly training them in how to keep the weapon clean

instructions on how to clean and maintain the rifles were provided by stoner, they just weren't being taught by the military

+ the military shipped defective ammo to vietnam that was incompatible with the m16 extractor

Look the bottom line there is no one gun whether it be a rifle, pistol, shotgun that is better than the others if there was then everyone would use that said gun for each class of gun. And we as gun community really need to stop ragging on someone that doesn't like your preferences in guns. Some like sigs, some like berrettas, some like aks, some like ars, etc. What we should be doing is banding together to keep people out of the office that want to take away our guns.

i agree, but i fail to see how that relates to how the m16 performed in vietnam

I was using that as a reference point because it was stated that beretta fired 19k rounds with no malfunctions during military testing therefore it's better than a sig which led me to saying that military testing shouldn't be the sole example for choosing a firearm and using the m16 as reference point

true, but modern military testing is generally a decent reference point considering they now do dust and mud tests that they didn't do in the 60's

and when sig is like 1270 mrbf and beretta is 3200 mrbf i would say that's a clear enough distinction in regard to reliability

Look there both good guns but fact is most people buying a handgun aren't looking to put 19k plus rounds through them the general mindset is for self defense

Anywho I'm going back to boogaloo memes

@daddy vladdy what does mrbf mean?

in the shotgun world, i'm gonna go out and say the remington 870 is the best, and everyone should use it

@Comrade where are ya from my guy?

Georgia

Why you ask

We organize everyone by state so people can meet in their region and all that, brings a sense of togetherness @Comrade

we need to know in case we boog

@John Cavil mean rounds between failure, basically a failure being any type of malfunction where you don't have to replace parts

also, objectively, 1897 trench gun is best shotgun

Neato *also tfw "neato" autocorrects to "NATO" in all caps*

thanks @daddy vladdy ; btw, i want a Beretta 92fs. my wife wants a SW 5906 but with the hammer (and i can't remember off the top of my head which similar number had the hammer). so, i figured if i get a 92fs, i could give that to her in the place of the S&W since they both look very similar but i can get 92fs cheaper

i think cheaper anyway. at least it'll be new

1897 would be awesome

Nah blunderbuss

but you can slamfire the 1897

the 5906 is uggo imo

i can confidently say that the 92fs is a better handgun

@daddy vladdy it's what my dad used in the police (the hammer-version that i can't recall)

i think it's ugly too, but my wife seems to like it

also that reminds me, i need to try to slamfire my 1897 some time