Fria Ligans forum

Much appreciated omnipus! I read the rules, get an understanding, and then I read this forum and my understanding gets changed and I go back to read the rules to double check and then I get confused on what I originally thought and how that changed... it's been a vicious cycle.

I can see how you'd be plenty confused looking in this thread specifically, with several different people throwing out rule suggestions and ideas that aren't actually what's in the book!

Except that you'd throw suppression out the window.

You point out something important. How come that as soon as fire hits a target — any target — it suddenly doesn't cause suppression?

That assertion is incorrect.
Getting hit causes a CUF check and damage. (Page P64, LC)
Getting suppressed just causes a CUF check.

Here's the text:

SUPPRESSION
If you are hit by enemy fire, or if one or more ammo dice (page xx) in
a failed attack against you show , you must immediately make a
coolness under fire roll. ...

Except that you'd throw suppression out the window.

You point out something important. How come that as soon as fire hits a target — any target — it suddenly doesn't cause suppression?

That assertion is incorrect.
Getting hit causes a CUF check and damage. (Page P64, LC)
Getting suppressed just causes a CUF check.

Here's the text:

SUPPRESSION
If you are hit by enemy fire, or if one or more ammo dice (page xx) in
a failed attack against you show , you must immediately make a
coolness under fire roll. ...

You didn’t read my next post, did you, aramis...?

"Original M16's were notoriously unreliable once fouled"
No, the powder specification was changed from the approved version without telling the designers so the appropriate modifications could be made.

Actually, the statement is correct. With the out-of-spec powder, the original M16's were unreliable. The issue was rectified in the M16A1, where pertinent changes were made, but it does not detract from the fact. Or the deaths it caused.

It was rectified with the ammo the weapon system was designed for, it's not a fault of the weapon as designed. (And none of the ammo was out of spec, the specification was deliberately changed.) The weapon performed without notable problems with the correct ammo in trials and when fielded to USAF security units and Special Forces. It was this specific logistical choice in the wide scale adoption that caused problems.
EDIT: The SAS embraced this weapon, too, and didn't report problems in the Falklands. The rest of the British army used it in lieu of the SLR in Honduras until the adoption of the SA-80.

The other fact of note here is that the high-pressure direct impingement mechanism of the M16 is intrinsically more sensitive to clogging than the low-pressure long-stroke piston mechanism of the AKM or FNC, or the delayed blowback of e.g. the G3 and others.

It's not, but, please, keep repeating MG Scales's S&W talking points. They are very informative. 8/

Feed it with industrially manufactured powder, and it's no problem — but feed it with cartridges loaded with a powder prone to deposit slag and residue, and it'll be a very different matter. And in this setting, lacking factory powder, people may start concocting their own ... of dubious quality. And here's my point: powder that could keep e.g. the Swedish a Ak 4 or Ak 5 firing pretty much indefinitely, could clog up the M16 variants in the first firefight. Nothing that couldn't be cleaned of course, but it would render the weapon pretty inoperable until it was cleaned.

The difference with the other referenced weapon systems is that no one randomly changed the specs for their ammo so we've never had a combat example of what happens.

"Original M16's were notoriously unreliable once fouled"
No, the powder specification was changed from the approved version without telling the designers so the appropriate modifications could be made.

Actually, the statement is correct. With the out-of-spec powder, the original M16's were unreliable. The issue was rectified in the M16A1, where pertinent changes were made, but it does not detract from the fact. Or the deaths it caused.

It was rectified with the ammo the weapon system was designed for, it's not a fault of the weapon as designed. (And none of the ammo was out of spec, the specification was deliberately changed.) The weapon performed without notable problems with the correct ammo in trials and when fielded to USAF security units and Special Forces. It was this specific logistical choice in the wide scale adoption that caused problems.
EDIT: The SAS embraced this weapon, too, and didn't report problems in the Falklands. The rest of the British army used it in lieu of the SLR in Honduras until the adoption of the SA-80.

The original M16 was specified for use with ammo with DuPont extruded powder, but the ammo was re-specified with cheaper ball powder before deployment — without re-certifying the weapon for the re-specified ammo! So, sure — the new powder was on-spec for the ammo. Doesn't change the fact that the new powder made the ammo severely off-spec for the weapon.

The SAS did indeed bring some original M16's along to the Falklands — not quite as many as M16A1's though, but still. But by then it was of course also very widely recognised that for the weapon to not fail you when you need it most, you need to stick to a strict maintenance routine ... something the poor sods who died in 'Nam, killed while trying to clear their jammed M16's, hadn't been trained for. Or even issued cleaning kits for, as it happens.

Bears noting that when HK made their own "version" of the AR-15, they dispensed with the direct impingement system altogether.

Let's just say that this is, and has been, an on-going discussion in a much wider forum than this one.
We're unlikely to resolve it here ... but I know where I'm putting my money. As do you.

Metagaming ammo:
If you only had 6 rounds remaining in a magazine (or belt), why would you NOT roll the full ROF in ammo dice? You increase your chance of getting a 6 (hit), and will eliminate all remaining dice in accordance with the rules on P 61 and still only use 6 bullets?

Do I understand the rules on emptying a magazine correctly?

Is the chance of a mishap calculated before or after removing excess ammo dice? Mishaps are mentioned on P62, which would imply that calculation comes after the excess ammo dice are removed.