Site Notices
7/23/2014 4:06:00 PM
Page:  / 4
Author
Message
Andouille
Member
Offline
Posts: 140
Feedback: 100% (32)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/23/2008 8:56:11 PM
In May 1967, John Garand was interviewed about the problems the M16 was having in Vietnam. He noted that the M1 had also had problems in early combat. Production quotas had been ramped up so quickly that Springfield was forced to use parts that would have otherwise been rejected. He was quoted as saying "I questioned this and was told that it was better to have a gun jammed once in awhile than to have no gun at all. The answer shocked me."

Dewatters, I would be very interested to know the source of the Garand interview. That sounds like a very interesting read indeed.

Please and thank you.......
"There it is"

"LOAD AND BE READY!"
Ekie
Turd
Offline
Posts: 7039
Feedback: 100% (97)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/23/2008 9:29:22 PM
[Last Edit: 11/23/2008 9:44:38 PM by Ekie]
These threads are always more interesting with your participation dewatters.

As you pointed out, lack of chrome in the bore and chamber was a problem in the Pacific, and soon after chrome was required. It is much cheaper to chrome then to replace a rusted barrel later on.

At the same time, I understand this thread to be about having to pound stuck cases out of an XM16E1 barrel with a rod, not something I have ever to have heard to have a problem with the M1 Garand in the Pacific. If this was an issue with the M1 I would like to hear about it specifically.

Originally Posted By Morg308

I personally think a lot of it was the out of spec chambers.



A good argument can be made along these lines, especially considering Frankford Arsenal’ testing in November of 1967 showing the majority of chambers to be out of spec.

Originally Posted By Morg308

Culver speaks of weapons issued in '65 IIRC.


Culver’s negative experience was in 1967.

Originally Posted By Morg308

Basically, I don't think the weapon was quite ready for use on the two-way range when it was issued. I also agree the Army brass wanted it to fail.


The AR-15, M16, XM16E1 has all done well on two-way ranges for years prior to the trouble.
Ekie
Turd
Offline
Posts: 7040
Feedback: 100% (97)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/23/2008 10:09:28 PM
[Last Edit: 11/23/2008 10:10:24 PM by Ekie]
Originally Posted By BattleRife:

Exactly why the jamming problems occurred has been a topic of debate for decades. The official report by Sen. Ichord has little credibility to most people, so that leaves us scrambling for real answers that nobody has.



It is refreshing that we can dive into this topic while getting past the Ball powder controversy.

Originally Posted By BattleRife:
TBR notes that the severe problems with both the 603 and 604 (principally the 603, since they were used in combat a LOT more) began after Westmoreland promised that every combat soldier in Vietnam would have the M16. This meant two things:

- Colt would have to greatly up their production. Colt had produced about a quarter million AR-15s from 1959 to 1964, Now they would be expected to make 300,000 per year.

- A lot of rank and file soldiers who had very little familiarity with the M16 would be carrying it into combat.

Prior to 1966, the AR-15 was made fairly slowly and carefully, and was used by well-trained professional soliders such as airborne troops and special forces. By all acounts, these rifles worked very well and the troops were happy with them. It is worth noting that the majority of the ammo they were shooting was loaded with Olin WC-846 ball powder.



Good observation, although I see three big events that directly preceded the malfunctions. That was ramped production of BOTH rifle and ammo, and as you point out that the XM16E1 was no longer restricted in US Army use to ABN, Air Cav, SF, and the like.

Colt production chugged along at about 8,000 units per month till 1966 when production went up to 25,000 units a month by December of that year. At the time Colt’s requested numerous changes and waivers to ease the work load.

As mentioned ammo production also increased. To meet demand both Lake City and Twin Cities came on line producing 5.56 in 1966.

valhalla
Offline
Posts: 136
Feedback: 100% (13)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/23/2008 10:33:26 PM
Poor quality control on the rapidly expanded production line is my prime suspect. Ball powder, while introducing a few issues (IMR burned more cleanly), has been used flawlessly since the issues were resolved, so I don't think it was a major contributor. The lack of cleaning kits is debunked (at least in part) by the cleaning rods taped to rifles (they obviously had cleaning rods). To top this off is the real combat experience prior to the jamming issues. The weapon had been in the field for several years before jamming suddenly appeared. To me it comes down to out of spec rifles (primarily the chambers) from being rushed while pushing to meet the demands of an expanding force in combat.
dewatters
Online
Posts: 475
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 11:35:20 AM
Originally Posted By Andouille:
Originally Posted By dewatters:
In May 1967, John Garand was interviewed about the problems the M16 was having in Vietnam. He noted that the M1 had also had problems in early combat. Production quotas had been ramped up so quickly that Springfield was forced to use parts that would have otherwise been rejected. He was quoted as saying "I questioned this and was told that it was better to have a gun jammed once in awhile than to have no gun at all. The answer shocked me."


Dewatters, I would be very interested to know the source of the Garand interview. That sounds like a very interesting read indeed.


Springfield Daily News, 22 May 1967

GARAND SAYS FAMOUS M-1 ALSO HAD JAMMING PROBLEMS
The inventor of the Army's famous M-1 rifle says it developed some jamming problems in the initial years of its use.

According to United Press International, John C. Garand, 79, whose rifle was the standard weapon from 1937 to 1957, said today that early production was rushed because of a great need, and occasionally discarded parts had to be used, causing the jamming.

"I questioned this and was told that it was better to have a gun jammed once in awhile than to have no gun at all. The answer shocked me."

Eventually Cleared Up -

But, according to the inventor, the problems ceased once the rush was over and production returned to a normal rate.

Recent reports from Vietnam told of complaints of jamming with the Army's new M-16 rifle. Military officials have generally defended the weapon. The rifle is not made at the Springfield Armory, but by a private manufacturer.

Although he is not familiar with the operation of the M-16, Mr. Garand said there are two possible factors that could cause the gun to jam: The blow-back action and general terrain conditions in Vietnam.

The 'blow-back' refers to the backward motion of exploding gases pushing toward the mechanism. This could force spent powders and other accumulated material from the rifle barrel into the firing mechanism, Mr. Garand noted.

Terrain Conditions -

He also feels that the general muck and slime in some places and large amounts of dust in others, is harmful to the gun's mechanisms.

"I can't condemn the M-16 because it is filling the bill in Vietnam. There might be some arguments to support the jamming complaints, but there might also be excuses if the manufacturers rushed. I don't know what the whole story is."

The main features of the M-16 are plastic fittings and use of a .22 caliber round, both of which make the weapon considerable lighter, and more efficient for jungle fighting.
Mr. Garand said that originally some considerations were given to making the M-1 a .22 caliber rifle, rather than .30 caliber, but "I was never very much in favor of a peashooter."

He does think, however, there are good reasons for the use of the smaller caliber in Vietnam. "Conditions over there demand a lot of firing at unseen targets. At short range, the .22 caliber is very effective," he said.

Began At Armory -

Mr. Garand came to this country at the age of 12 from his birthplace in St. Remi, Quebec, Canada. He first settled in Connecticut and, without having finished grade school, began working at the Springfield Armory in 1919.

He retired from the Armory in 1953 and now lives about two miles form the installation. Despite his lack of higher education, Mr. Garand holds an honorary doctorate of mechanical engineering degree, which he got form Lehigh University in 1949.


Please forgive any errors in transcription. I'm pulling this from another transcribed copy that has some misspellings.
dewatters
Online
Posts: 476
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 11:55:55 AM
[Last Edit: 11/24/2008 12:09:47 PM by dewatters]
Originally Posted By Ekie:
These threads are always more interesting with your participation dewatters.

As you pointed out, lack of chrome in the bore and chamber was a problem in the Pacific, and soon after chrome was required. It is much cheaper to chrome then to replace a rusted barrel later on.

At the same time, I understand this thread to be about having to pound stuck cases out of an XM16E1 barrel with a rod, not something I have ever to have heard to have a problem with the M1 Garand in the Pacific. If this was an issue with the M1 I would like to hear about it specifically.


I don't have any examples on hand, but then it is unlikely that word would have leaked out at the time given the heavy censorship of soldiers' letters back home. Dunlap's manuscript was seized and classified for over a year even though he had finished it after the war had ended.

Of course, Frankford probably had a better handle on brass hardness specs for .30-06 back then given its long use in automatic weapons like the M1917, M1918, and M1919. The charging handle of the M1 is a lot more convenient to beat/kick open.

The M1 also had early problems with the bolt and op rod seizing during and after heavy rains once the lubricant was washed away. The popular press like Phil Sharpe dismissed this at myth after the war, but we now know of all of the experiments with different heat treating, altered cam paths, roller cams, and alternative lubricants. The ideal solution, the roller cam, was pushed aside because they were afraid of slowing down production to introduce it. Instead, they settled on the issue of Lubriplate grease.
Stahlgewehr762
Offline
Posts: 751
Feedback: 100% (12)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 12:24:31 PM
[Last Edit: 11/24/2008 12:49:59 PM by Stahlgewehr762]
I suspect this problem is multi-faceted. It helps to visualize the problem in context, both of the environment and the weapon/ammunition.

You have a rifle with a non-chromed chamber, fire "dirty" ammo which leaves a hydroscopic residue of burned gunpowder in the chamber, add lots of automatic fire to heat then cool the barrel, causing condensation to form in the barrel and chamber, leave a round in that dirty/moist chamber to "trap" the moisture in place, then finally don't clean the rifle for a lengthy time (for whatever reason) in the damp jungle. This naturally leads to a severely rusted chamber, causing "stuck" cases. ASSuming that the affected rifles didn't jam when new, there must have been something in the environment that changed them for the worse. That "change" would've been the rust in the chamber.

Chroming the chamber was a significant improvement which could, and did, derail the systematic train-wreck leading to a malfunctioning rifle.

EDIT to add: If the rifles already had "too tight" chambers due to a manufacturing or specification issue, then adding some rust to that tight chamber could've only made functioning issues worse. It could certainly be enough of a factor to make a "new" rifle work and a "used" one jam.
Thatguy96
Offline
Posts: 717
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 1:03:30 PM
Originally Posted By Stahlgewehr762:
You have a rifle with a non-chromed chamber, fire "dirty" ammo which leaves a hydroscopic residue of burned gunpowder in the chamber, add lots of automatic fire to heat then cool the barrel, causing condensation to form in the barrel and chamber, leave a round in that dirty/moist chamber to "trap" the moisture in place, then finally don't clean the rifle for a lengthy time (for whatever reason) in the damp jungle. This naturally leads to a severely rusted chamber, causing "stuck" cases. ASSuming that the affected rifles didn't jam when new, there must have been something in the environment that changed them for the worse. That "change" would've been the rust in the chamber.

How about foreign debris and other things. Add a quickly changing on the ground scenario where people are stuffing magazines into all available pouches to carry more ammo, because of the nature of the operations (usually not sustained away from supply points, water and food are shirked for more ammo). Now add this the dust, mud, water, grit, grime, and anything else, rotting gear, inappropriate gear (or gear that simply won't seal out these environmental factors for long), and who knows what else you're introducing to the ammo and therefore the chamber, every time you load up a fresh magazine. Furthermore, realize that the ammo, which might be dirty, out of spec, or whatever, has to get through this environment to you before its even loaded into said magazines, and that said magazines are likely experiencing their own issues because of the aforementioned environmental issues. If we're talking about rusting rifles, then rusting mags no doubt existed as well, and this seems even more potentially dangerous to me in terms of transfer of particulate matter and improper feeding and extracting.

Stahlgewehr762
Offline
Posts: 754
Feedback: 100% (12)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 3:51:56 PM
Originally Posted By Thatguy96:
Originally Posted By Stahlgewehr762:
You have a rifle with a non-chromed chamber, fire "dirty" ammo which leaves a hydroscopic residue of burned gunpowder in the chamber, add lots of automatic fire to heat then cool the barrel, causing condensation to form in the barrel and chamber, leave a round in that dirty/moist chamber to "trap" the moisture in place, then finally don't clean the rifle for a lengthy time (for whatever reason) in the damp jungle. This naturally leads to a severely rusted chamber, causing "stuck" cases. ASSuming that the affected rifles didn't jam when new, there must have been something in the environment that changed them for the worse. That "change" would've been the rust in the chamber.

How about foreign debris and other things. Add a quickly changing on the ground scenario where people are stuffing magazines into all available pouches to carry more ammo, because of the nature of the operations (usually not sustained away from supply points, water and food are shirked for more ammo). Now add this the dust, mud, water, grit, grime, and anything else, rotting gear, inappropriate gear (or gear that simply won't seal out these environmental factors for long), and who knows what else you're introducing to the ammo and therefore the chamber, every time you load up a fresh magazine. Furthermore, realize that the ammo, which might be dirty, out of spec, or whatever, has to get through this environment to you before its even loaded into said magazines, and that said magazines are likely experiencing their own issues because of the aforementioned environmental issues. If we're talking about rusting rifles, then rusting mags no doubt existed as well, and this seems even more potentially dangerous to me in terms of transfer of particulate matter and improper feeding and extracting.



Those are all factors that can, and do, affect combat rifles of all types and to varying degrees. They are also factors which are unavoidable in a combat zone, and which prevailed even after the adoption of the Product Improved M-16A1. For several reasons though, the M-16A1 did not experience the issue of "stuck" cases as commonly as the earlier XM-16E1. I would suspect that this is in great part due to the fact that the M-16A1 had its chamber (and bore) chrome plated, while the XM-16E1 did not. I am not implying that the rusty chambers were the sole problem, nor the chrome plating the sole solution, but the chrome plating did have a significant impact on the reliability of the rifle in humid climates.

dewatters
Online
Posts: 478
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 3:53:38 PM
Then you have the guys who insist on taping their magazines together. If I remember correctly, Rep. Bray mentioned that when the Ichord Subcommittee visited Vietnam, he saw up to six magazines taped together. Going prone into sand or muck, combined with the unsupported feed lips on the 20rd mags, can't bode well for the ultimate reliability of the system. They were also some enthusiastic souls who insisted on lubricating their ammunition and magazines, picking up even more debris. Lubed ammo wouldn't help matters with regard to chamber pressure and bolt thrust either. The resulting increase in pressure/bolt thrust can be equivalent to firing a proof load. Even wet ammo (from rain or fording a stream) can ramp up pressure/bolt thrust.

Of course, aluminum magazines wouldn't rust; they would exfoliate. The experimental steel magazines were withdrawn after their failure in the 1963 USMC tests. Anyone know if they also saw use in the late 1962 Army testing? It would explain some of the AR-15's problems beyond the interference of certain test center staff. Springfield Armory supposedly developed an improved steel magazine design in 1963, but it never went anywhere after they submitted it.
F4ENUT
Member
Offline
Posts: 37
Feedback: 100% (16)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 4:36:58 PM
[Last Edit: 11/24/2008 4:37:30 PM by F4ENUT]
I have to say I had more problems with GE M61A1's than I had with M16's the year I was in country.
fakahatchee
Offline
Posts: 4
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 9:05:15 PM
Here's my experience with M16's in country. Late '66 we had our M14's exchanged for XM16E1's. We were given no formal training or cleaning kits. We were told to go out on the perimeter and fire our weapons to famillarize ourselves with there operation.
Me along with a few other guys in my squad had owned guns at home and knew we had to keep them clean. We got all the guys up to speed on that. We used brass brazing rods for cleaning rods. I never saw a chamber brush to I bought my own SP1 after I got home. When we could we would break the weapons down and clean them in gas with some motor oil mixed in.
In Jan. or Feb. of '67 We swapped out our buffers for new ones with a heavier spring and buffer. I assume the original ones were edgewaters.They told us this was to slow down the rate of fire on auto, which it did.
I must say even with the lack of training and no cleaning kits I saw very few cases of our rifles not functioning. Maybe the earlier M16A1's had problems but our XM's did not.
EagleArmsHBAR
Member
Offline
Posts: 3247
Feedback: 100% (34)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 9:53:55 PM
Originally Posted By fakahatchee:
Here's my experience with M16's in country. Late '66 we had our M14's exchanged for XM16E1's. We were given no formal training or cleaning kits. We were told to go out on the perimeter and fire our weapons to famillarize ourselves with there operation.
Me along with a few other guys in my squad had owned guns at home and knew we had to keep them clean. We got all the guys up to speed on that. We used brass brazing rods for cleaning rods. I never saw a chamber brush to I bought my own SP1 after I got home. When we could we would break the weapons down and clean them in gas with some motor oil mixed in.
In Jan. or Feb. of '67 We swapped out our buffers for new ones with a heavier spring and buffer. I assume the original ones were edgewaters.They told us this was to slow down the rate of fire on auto, which it did.
I must say even with the lack of training and no cleaning kits I saw very few cases of our rifles not functioning. Maybe the earlier M16A1's had problems but our XM's did not.


Army or USMC? Who did you serve with and what part of the country? Thank you for your service.
fakahatchee
Offline
Posts: 5
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 11/24/2008 10:14:19 PM
I was with the First Cav Div. in the Central Highlands. Base camp was LZ English near Bong Son.
EagleArmsHBAR
Member
Offline
Posts: 4083
Feedback: 100% (34)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/10/2009 7:00:07 PM
bump to keep out of the archives...
anjong-ni
Member
Offline
Posts: 103
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/10/2009 11:58:20 PM
Having been in the Army at the time, I noticed that ALL of the military equipment was inferior because of compromise. My M16 would ony fire a few rounds between jams. Use of any lube was forbidden - it had to stay clean and dry. We used M151 swing-axle flip-over 1/4 tons and M38 Jeeps side-by-side. The Jeep was superior in every way. Our duece & 1/2s ate transfer cases and front axles. The 5-tons blew the head gasket rings right out the side of the block of the multifuel engine. Any of you guys remember the "Tornado" OHC engine in the 5/4 pickup? What a disaster. The air-cooled V12 s in our M48s leaked more oil than they burned. We learned never to walk alongside as the oil spray from the cooling fans doused everything. The Detroit 6V53 in the Sheridans and 113s was impossible to access. We had an M4A3 Sherman yard goat with a 30-cylinder Chrysler A57 gas engine. Enough about that. We build "retro" rifles in homage to the soldiers that bet their lives on them. I hope that our guys have better stuff today. Bless-'em. Phil 63H40 70-74
coctailer
Member
Offline
Posts: 6648
Feedback: 100% (80)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/11/2009 12:41:45 AM
Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
bump to keep out of the archives...


I toggled the archive bytton on this thread. It won't drop off into the archives.
Run with scissors!!!!
Beel
Offline
Posts: 871
Feedback: 100% (35)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/11/2009 3:16:05 AM
Originally Posted By anjong-ni:
Having been in the Army at the time, I noticed that ALL of the military equipment was inferior because of compromise. My M16 would ony fire a few rounds between jams. Use of any lube was forbidden - it had to stay clean and dry. We used M151 swing-axle flip-over 1/4 tons and M38 Jeeps side-by-side. The Jeep was superior in every way. Our duece & 1/2s ate transfer cases and front axles. The 5-tons blew the head gasket rings right out the side of the block of the multifuel engine. Any of you guys remember the "Tornado" OHC engine in the 5/4 pickup? What a disaster. The air-cooled V12 s in our M48s leaked more oil than they burned. We learned never to walk alongside as the oil spray from the cooling fans doused everything. The Detroit 6V53 in the Sheridans and 113s was impossible to access. We had an M4A3 Sherman yard goat with a 30-cylinder Chrysler A57 gas engine. Enough about that. We build "retro" rifles in homage to the soldiers that bet their lives on them. I hope that our guys have better stuff today. Bless-'em. Phil 63H40 70-74


Thank you Phil, for your service, and for putting things into proper perspective.
It thrills me to see the "un-authorized modifications" of my days ('87-'94) and much more being standard issue today!
That must be what the framers of this great nation had in mind. Someone somewhere must have came to the conclusion that,"Hey, this is a really good piece of gear! Let's buy several thousand of them, and issue them to the troops!"
That beats the shit out of McNamara's whiz kids making across the board decisions from a desk with no input from the troops or the inventor of the weapon itself.
"Barrel time", the bullet passing the gas port before the pressure drops to a reasonable level. (Yes, the great ammo controversy). Add "tolerance stacking", and you can come up with:
1- this rifle rips the rim off the case and leaves the case stuck in the chamber.
2- this rifle runs like a raped ape.
3- this rifle with it's chrome chamber actually "squirts" the case out of the chamber, cycles way too fast, and beats itself to death.
Oh, and BTW, I would never have thought of this on my own. The major's detailed report put these thoughts in my head!
Beel 63W10-20 '87-'94

shamayim
Offline
Posts: 7905
Feedback: 100% (11)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/11/2009 7:44:05 AM
Since I have neither the time nor the patience to read thru everybody's "my daddy (uncle, cousin, whatever" srories, some of what I'm posting below may have already been covered, but for anyone who is interested in more tham first person rumors, here's what happened w/the early M16s.

1) The change from the original batch of extruded powder to Ball powder had two undesirable effects. First, it changed the pressure cycle, using the Edgewater buffer, such that that operating (cyclic) rate of the piece was significantly speeded up. This was not a good idea for functional reliability, or durability.

The second problem came about because the powder used was recycled WW2 made stuff. Calcium Carbonate is used to leach out impurities when ball powder is produced. In the stuff that was being used from WW2, the Calcium Carbonate had been left in the powder. It had no effect on burn rate, and all it in there was to make the operating rod faces of the M1, and the chamber of the M14s a bitch to clean (I was in the M1/M14 Army.)

But when this stuff got distributed inside the gas tube of an M16; sooner or later it would clog the thing up––––which is where those now unnecessary overlength pipe cleaners came from.

Finally, the unchromed chambers of the first issue M16s would rust and pit in certain parts of the RVN––-places where a lot of our guys were humping it. That, combined w/the early BS stories that you didn't need to clean the M16, and a lack of cleaning equipment in the first days, all contributed to the malfunctions that haunted our guys.

And Marines were not the only people who lost men because of Robert McNamara's isistance that the '16 be immediately adopted w/o further testing. Plenty of my brother soldiers also paid the priice for that decision.
Andouille
Member
Offline
Posts: 162
Feedback: 100% (32)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/11/2009 9:59:55 AM
Insert sounds of cheering and clapping in response to Shamayim's message here __________________ . You Numba One, G.I.!
"There it is"

"LOAD AND BE READY!"
Thatguy96
Offline
Posts: 772
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/11/2009 11:19:36 AM
Originally Posted By shamayim:
And Marines were not the only people who lost men because of Robert McNamara's isistance that the '16 be immediately adopted w/o further testing. Plenty of my brother soldiers also paid the priice for that decision.

I still question this widely held view of completely laying of blame at McNamara's door. Of course it would be unreasonable to say he wasn't culpable in the matter, but there were a lot of factors. Firstly, the Army had tested the AR-15 as early as 1958, and the AIB declared it then to be immature, but a suitable replacement as the standard infantry rifle should all the kinks be worked out. What happened next between the AIB and the AR-15 more or less saw that when they were finally overridden on account of the trashing the M14 was getting in the reports, selective reading on the part of civilian and military authorities, to include McNamara (but not just him), saw only that it had already been deemed acceptable, not that there were perhaps still bugs in the system. The system then go put through the military procurement system, in which the powder decision was made, compounding the issues already known. Many of those issues were unclear, because the extent of the rigging of tests by Springfield Armory and the AIB meant that even legitimate faults were taken with a grain of salt by proponents of the system.

All of this is made even more complex by the fact that McNamara as late as 1963 was still hoping the SPIW would be ready by 1965. He was looking for ways to get it field tested in Vietnam, and was denying requests left and right by MACV for AR-15s. The AR-15/M16 was never intended to be more than an interim weapon. If McNamara can be faulted its for continuing to support the SPIW even after it became clear the thing was doomed. As a result, the M16s, which were intended to serve as a replacement for the derided M14 only in front line areas, and were expected to themselves be in service for less than a decade before being replaced by the uber-SPIW, which would revolutionize everything, etc etc.
dewatters
Online
Posts: 538
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/11/2009 3:03:46 PM
Originally Posted By shamayim:
1) The change from the original batch of extruded powder to Ball powder had two undesirable effects. First, it changed the pressure cycle, using the Edgewater buffer, such that that operating (cyclic) rate of the piece was significantly speeded up. This was not a good idea for functional reliability, or durability.

The second problem came about because the powder used was recycled WW2 made stuff. Calcium Carbonate is used to leach out impurities when ball powder is produced. In the stuff that was being used from WW2, the Calcium Carbonate had been left in the powder. It had no effect on burn rate, and all it in there was to make the operating rod faces of the M1, and the chamber of the M14s a bitch to clean (I was in the M1/M14 Army.)


Several points here:

1. The Edgewater buffer would have been problematic no matter the powder used. The rings tended to seize up when wet, whether from water or oil, eliminating their buffering value.
2. The unchromed chamber would have also given problems due to corrosion no matter the powder used.
3. The name "Improved Military Rifle" is just a brand name. It merely signifies the change from DuPont's earlier "Military Rifle"-brand extruded powders which used straight nitrocellulose to IMR's deterrent coated nitrocellulose. IMR as a brand is actually older than Olin's Ball Powder types. The specific type used, IMR 4475, was actually introduced back in the 1930s. To somehow suggest that DuPont was not a full-fledged, card-carrying member of the Military/Industrial Complex and had any less of a cozy relationship than Olin is patently ridiculous.
4. Keeping the original IMR 4475 would have undoubtedly given problems due to pressure excursions once Remington could no longer cherry pick acceptable powder lots. The rounds were already dropping primers in testing, imagine the fun once you hit a warmer climate. DuPont's follow-on candidate, CR 8136, was also twitchy with regard to lot-to-lot pressure specs.
5. The commercial case specs adopted for the original M193 TDP would have still been a problem in combination with the chamber corrosion and pressure excursions of the two DuPont powders.
6. Speaking of the DuPont powders, remember that contrary to popular conspiracy theory, the Army was not standardizing solely on Olin Ball Powder. DuPont's CR 8136 was approved for use in 5.56mm at the same time as WC846. DuPont's third adopted submission, IMR 8208, was conceived from a recently-completed Army research contract for a more temperature stable extruded powder for use in 7.62mm NATO. While the latter powder performed well in 5.56mm, the grain size was not conducive to trouble-free insertion into the smaller case, so it was reworked until it did. If the Army had wanted to go solely to Ball Powder, it seems strange that they would have approved two additional extruded-types for 5.56mm after dropping IMR 4475, and sponsored additional research for yet another extruded type for 7.62mm.
7. The Calcium Carbonate was added during the manufacture of Ball Powder to neutralize remaining acids from either the nitration process of virgin nitrocellulose or acid leached from the nitrocellulose in surplus powders. This also helped to slow the decay of Ball Powder in comparison to other powder types like IMR. Ironically, Olin discovered in the '50s that the recycling of surplus powder containing deterrents like IMR actually created dirtier burning powder than those which had been recycled from a surplus powder made from straight nitrocellulose.
8. In retrospect, it is unclear how much surplus powder was actually being recycled to manufacture new Ball Powder. In the early '60s, there was a controversy over Olin overcharging the military for ammunition containing Ball Powder. It seems that their pricing had been based upon the sole use of virgin nitrocellulose. Instead, it had been found that Olin had used both recycled and virgin nitrocellulose to manufacture the Ball Powder used for the contract.


anjong-ni
Member
Offline
Posts: 104
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/11/2009 10:09:51 PM
This is a fascinating thread. Seems like the AR platform just wasn't well suited to the environment it found itself in, SEA jungle. I read that the "M4" just failed a test, sand I believe. It bothers me that the present Pentagon assumes that all future wars will be fought in open deserts, or Middle Eastern cities. Remember, when Stoner conceived the AR, it looked like we'd be fighting the Russians in Berlin! Hell, the next war may be in Antarctica.
Like my Dad says about the Battle of the Bulge in Dec '44, we didn't want to "massacre" the Germans, we just wanted them to get lost so we could occupy their territory. Fill the air with lead so the enemy will leave - that's where the AR succeeds....
modelo57
Offline
Posts: 3
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/12/2009 4:13:16 PM
I'm new here, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I had 2 cousins in Nam (Marine infranty, Army door gunner) and several friends, neighbors and coworkers in the military in Nam and every other "hot spot" in the world. They all argree the M-16 in all its incarnations is a darn good weapon. Is it the right tool in the right place? Sometimes no. Did it have teething problems? Does everything intvented perform perfectly right out of the gate? NO! The bottom line is these people beleived in and depended on the M-16. It is my personal favorite rifle and I've shot many rifles in the last 30 or so years.
Shawnmt6601
Equine Education Cadre
Offline
Posts: 3587
Feedback: 100% (25)
Link To This Post
Posted: 6/12/2009 5:26:34 PM
Originally Posted By BattleRife:
I like the Dick Culver write-up. I have seen it before, and while he clearly has some issues remembering timelines, I think he has reported things as he remembers them.

Exactly why the jamming problems occurred has been a topic of debate for decades. The official report by Sen. Ichord has little credibility to most people, so that leaves us scrambling for real answers that nobody has.

I have formulated my own theory based principally on stuff written in The Black Rifle, Culver's comments, and info posted on this board by RKI's such as Ekie and Capt. Richardson.

TBR notes that the severe problems with both the 603 and 604 (principally the 603, since they were used in combat a LOT more) began after Westmoreland promised that every combat soldier in Vietnam would have the M16. This meant two things:

- Colt would have to greatly up their production. Colt had produced about a quarter million AR-15s from 1959 to 1964, Now they would be expected to make 300,000 per year.


- A lot of rank and file soldiers who had very little familiarity with the M16 would be carrying it into combat.

Prior to 1966, the AR-15 was made fairly slowly and carefully, and was used by well-trained professional soliders such as airborne troops and special forces. By all acounts, these rifles worked very well and the troops were happy with them. It is worth noting that the majority of the ammo they were shooting was loaded with Olin WC-846 ball powder.

Starting in early 1966 the AR-15 was made at a much higher rate and used as often as not by draftees and some very average grunts. Quite often, the first time they ever saw an AR-15 was the moment they were handed one to take on patrol. Problems arose almost immediately.

Was some of the problem operator usage and maintenance related? Certainly, it had to be. The quality of the operators was taking a big hit at this point.

But, based on Culver's write-up and some notes in TBR, I think the quality of the rifles coming from Colt was the bigger problem. It was very interesting that some of Culver's people found they could make a bad gun good by honing the chamber. Especially when you look at TBR pg 293, where there is a table showing that of 150 M16A1 rifles surveyed in the fall of 1967, the vast majority had out-of-spec chambers, with 77% being out of spec in the rearmost diameter. They do not say how many were undersized or oversized, but a chamber that has an in-spec front dimension and an undersized rear dimension is going to have reduced taper, and taper is one of the most important factors in reliable extraction. Admittedly, the chambers were chromed by this point in time, so it is hard to say what dimensions earlier chambers would have had based on this, but it shows that Colt did not watch such things closely.

That is my arguement. Sloppy quality control at Colt was the principal cause of the problems. It did not help that the rifle was also suddenly being issued to some of the most disinterested and uninformed soldiers the US Army has likely ever produced. Ball powder was used successfully prior to 1966 and has been used successfully ever since, so it was definitely not the problem.










from what I have read/studied the ball powder was the main issue. not becasue it was ball. but because of the flas suppressant addded to the powder to cut flash and to reduce cyclic rate. the formula reacted to the humidity and sweat etc etc to make a hard carbon lining. the percentage of the formula was changed and this stopped the ammo problem. The ammo was the main casue in my opinion, why else was the spe re wrttien from a slower rate, to a faster RPM to account for the ball powder, the gun was meant to use extruded powder originally

FWIW my dad was in Nam in 67-68 with a 602 and he cleaned his twice by dipping in solvent wiping it off and oiling it. He says he fired over 10K rounds with never a failure. but he did dry his ammo every night
Picking up a Colt 1911 is like shaking hands with an old friend

Thanks to Peepshowal and CTbuilder1 !!

"only fear and lack of skill drives men to want bigger calibers." -stormwalker
Page:  / 4