How many hits does it take to kill someone with an M16 IRL?

1 shot in the right place can kill you , the pros in 5.56 its the low recoil you can shoot multiple shots without losing sight of the target .

Terminal balllistics is a complex matter. 1 shot from any firearm can kill. 30 can fail to do so.

Weapons like the M16 are designed to maim efficiently, with killing as a completely acceptable secondary effect. The theory behind it, first proposed after WWI, is that wounding an enemy soldier inflicts a greater burden on the enemy than killing him, since he must be retrieved, evacuated, and provided with medical care; and, that, tactically, wounding many enemies degrades thier ability to fight more than killing fewer would.

The idea behind the light, high velocity bullets and three-round burst of the M16 is to maximize the chance of at least one hitting and inflicting a debilitating wound. Higher-velocity bullets also have a flatter trajectory, making them more accurate at longer ranges. So the M16 has a theoretical advantage at both long range and close engagements.

Anytime gun nuts talk about weapons, though, there's a lot of debate. The nato .223 round used in the M16 is notorious for being deflected by light cover, and controversial for 'tumbling' (which imparts more energy on the target, much like 'expanding' bullets, which are against the geneva convention). Some complain that it lacks 'stopping power' or 'penetration' relative to older rounds, like the 30-06.

The Special Forces Combat Assault Rifle H (also called the Mark 17 Mod 0 or SCAR-H) is one of the best infantry rifles in the world in 2014. (The United States military presently has very limited use of it as well.) It has a twenty round magazine and fires what the M-14 rifle used: a 7.62 x 51 millimeter round.

You can talk to old Marines and many people who used rifles that fired the 7.62 x 51 and you probably won't hear them complain about the round. A 147 grain bullet is traveling at about 2,500 feet per second out the end of the muzzle when fired from a Mark 17 rifle. Compare that to an M-16 round: a 62 grain bullet traveling at about 3,025 feet per second muzzle velocity.

The 5.56 x 45 round was designed to wound. The 7.62 x 51 cartridge was designed to kill.

First, it depends entirely on the location of the hit. A head shot with either weapon is likely instantly fatal, but a hit in the chest with the 5.56 round might well do little more than punch a nice, neat hole in you.

Secondly, the range between the muzzle of the weapon and the target has some import.

Basically, the M-1's round is many times heavier than the M-16's round, and does significantly more damage.

The M-16 was designed by Eugene Stoner of the arms companmy Armalite, and was first fielded in 1964 by the US Air Force, and began to be massed produced in 1965 after being adopted by the US Army and then some time later, by the Marines. Production was standardized and increased in 1967 to meet the demands of the expanding military role in Vietnam.

I have carried a number of weapons on the battlefield, and have hunted with the Garand. I dislike the subcaliber, hyper velocity 5.56 round the M-16 fires, and greatly prefer either the 7.62 x 39 ComBlock AK round or the 7.62 NATO round.

During the fighting in Mogadishu, US Army Delta Force guys complained bitterly that the M-16 rounds were failing to stop the Somali fighters, even when they were hit multimple times.

the m16 was actually a model developed in the 50's but not used untill the vietanm war this was where they tested them rigourisly after the tests were completed they made a new model called the m16a4 wich is the one in serculation now. you could kill someone with one shot from one just about anywhere in the chest. it shoots .22 cal bullets that have been made longer and more efficient. you can actually buy an m16a2 assault rifle for around 600 dollars and the m1 garand is the earliest large caliber assoult rifle used it had a 8 round clip and could only be reloaded after being shot 8 times otherwise you would have to take lots of time to reload once again though one shot to the chest would be suficent

One hit, center mass = D.R.T. (dead right there) even with the 'wimpy' 30 cal later version M1.

Was it a guy named Stoner that came up with the M16?

Like the M1 to a degree, (if the M16 works when you try it) one shot, center mass, again, D.R.T. even with the wimpy tiny little 55 grain .223 bullet, that little hunk a lead is screamin' downrange at 3,600 feet per second. With that round its all speed at impact, not so much mass as with the M1 (particularly the .30-06 version, a big ol' bullet and it's haulin' azz as well)

For both rifles, shoot in the heart, he's dead. Eugene Stoner created the AR-15, from which the US Military got the M16. Hope I helped.

M1 Garand uses bigger and stronger round, so better body armor penetration, but less ammo and much heavier.

Hey "oldmarine" you have got that one right...

Trained with the M-14 then they gave us

that "Matty Mattel" piece of sh*t...

Hit them in the Head "One Shoot" will do it...

The original M16 was the "Stoner" which

the AF adopted for Pilots etc...

It was never meant as an Infantry Weapon...

The problem they had in Vietnam with them

was once again an REMF General on an EGO trip...

THe Powder we had would not work in the M16...

it was to dirty causing Jamming of the weapons and

to foul up etc...so instead of buying the correct

Powder he had the Ammo made out of the

existing stock piles.

Hence about 10K KIA's due to his Arrogance...

Of course nothing ever happened to him...

Think that is called Premeditated Murder...???

Yeah. It really depends on where you hit them.

BUT!! the m1 has way more stopping power than and M16. Its a larger bullet

You're all a bunch of armchair warriors. Living in the comfort of a free country...

USMC 1968 to 1972. If you had been where I have been, you would appreciate your freedom.