any combat weapon that sees moderate use ( needing to be fired in the field under combat conditions) that cannot reliably function under those conditions for days without having to be maintained & combine with a poor performance round is a p.o.s. in my book.
It took congressional hearings to get the military to adress the problems with the M-16, perhaps many are to young to know this fact. I also base my opinion on conversations with good friends from Nam in 65 right thru to Somalia and Desert Storm.Almost allhad a less than stellar opinion of the weapon under combat experiences. I don't care what it does at the range,IMHO in the field if it can't be used alot , dropped in the mud etc, be pi$$ed on to clean shook off and get back into th fray it's not worthy.
Govt issue 1911's and AK 's both fit that description, the M-16 doesn't.