Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
10/30/2020 2:42:12 PM
Posted: 12/23/2003 9:40:13 PM EST
I was listening to G. Gordon Liddy a couple of weeks ago and he had Ollie North on. Mr. Liddy made a comment on the jamming M-16's in Iraq. Mr. North came to the defense of the M-16 saying he felt it was the right weapon for our troops. He said the whole time he was reporting over there with both Marine and Army units he never saw one M-16 jam. He informed Mr. Liddy that these were much improved weapons from the early models in VietNam and worked very well. Just found it interesting after hearing so many bad reports on the weapons.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 4:03:55 AM EST
i too find it interesting !!

i believe the stories of jamming M16s come from the liberal left wing media who hates any kind of weapon & will down play the rifle of choice if only one out of 250,000 failed to fire...!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 6:01:16 AM EST
Does G. Gordon Liddy like the M16?
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 6:35:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By 556Cliff:
Does G. Gordon Liddy like the M16?
View Quote


I don't know but I understand Mrs. Liddy does.[;)]
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 6:38:15 AM EST
I just had a great conversation with a young marine who got back from Iraq in July. I ask him if they had any probs witht he M16 jamming up on them. He said that at least in his company he never witnessed a single jam on an M16. But he allso added that they were gun cleaning freaks too. Every time they stopped they would clean thier rifles.

He said that weapon that was having the most trouble with the sand was the SAW.

Gunner45
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 11:36:43 AM EST
I heard that the M9 was the big jammer of the desert. I don't remember were I heard it though?
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 12:21:04 PM EST
I think its funny how people say the M16 is "improved" over the years when infact none of the parts have changed since the begining that have anything to do with reliability.  All they did was move the chrome plating around for budgetary concerns (all parts and barrel were speced to be chromed) and start cleaning the rifles.  We use the same Bolt, Carrier, Gas tube, etc design that have always been there.

3 round burst, new sights, thicker barrels, longer stocks, etc dont have anything to do with the weapons reliability in the sand.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 2:25:25 PM EST
Liddy got the idea because he has been listening to that egomaniacal jerk David Hackworth.  

Hackworth will do, or say, anything to advance his journalistic career and get his name and ugly face in the press or on the tube.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 2:40:05 PM EST
I think there downplaying the M16 because they wanted the XM8. A new toy, plus a budget to spend. I talk to people that were soldier's in the army and navy they tell me they do not like the M16, one went so far has to mention that he even use 30Wt motor oil! I think if a M16 is that bad to use motor oil the weapon had bad parts in it, he said he threw the weapon down, explains to me why the gun was malfuntioning.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 2:45:13 PM EST
TRUST ME, HACHETWORTH DOESN'T KNOW HIS ASS FROM HIS ELBOW!!!!!
JACK
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 2:55:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By DevL:
I think its funny how people say the M16 is "improved" over the years when infact none of the parts have changed since the begining that have anything to do with reliability.  All they did was move the chrome plating around for budgetary concerns (all parts and barrel were speced to be chromed) and start cleaning the rifles.  We use the same Bolt, Carrier, Gas tube, etc design that have always been there.

3 round burst, new sights, thicker barrels, longer stocks, etc dont have anything to do with the weapons reliability in the sand.
View Quote

chrome lining the bore and chamber are HUGE differences.  also the addition of the forward assist makes a difference.Also one of the other BIG differences between the modern M-16 series, and the older weapons, had nothing to do with the weapon, but the ball powder used in the rounds.
The ball powder was not spec to what the M-16 was designed for. Another consideration was the absence of enough cleaning equipment for the field soldiers. things are much different in todays M-16 series.
Link Posted: 12/24/2003 11:13:36 PM EST
The original spec called for chrome lined barrel and chamber, thats not new or tweaking.  We still use ball powder.  The forward assist has nothing to do with whether or not the rifle functions.  It can force a round in if there is a malfuction.

Like I said cleaning a gun is not "tweaking" or develpoing the weapon.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 5:17:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/25/2003 5:20:40 AM EST by coldblue]
Originally Posted By DevL:
I think its funny how people say the M16 is "improved" over the years when infact none of the parts have changed since the begining that have anything to do with reliability.  All they did was move the chrome plating around for budgetary concerns (all parts and barrel were speced to be chromed) and start cleaning the rifles.  We use the same Bolt, Carrier, Gas tube, etc design that have always been there.

3 round burst, new sights, thicker barrels, longer stocks, etc dont have anything to do with the weapons reliability in the sand.
View Quote


SInce I'm the guy that helped "improve" the A1 into the A2, I got to side with DevL on this one.
It was very frustrating to me during that period (1980-83) not to have done anything to improve reliability, but time, schedule, and $$$, and POLITICS would not allow it.  We didn't even have enough $$$ at the end to buy 7 new mags for every A2 we bought, so when my Marines got issued their brand new A2's, they had only their old magazines to use.
We were also "impaired" by concurrently funding what was called then (1980's) The Future Rifle Program (FRP), that was supposed to field an M16 replacement by the 1990's.  So the powers to be could rationalize not spending the really big bucks it would take to go far beyond what we achieved in 33 months and just about $1 million.
Of course, the FRP didn't field anything, but led to the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) program that also did not field anything new.  This then led to the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) that has also failed to field (as oringinally concieved with "bursting munitions") a replacement infantry battle weapon.
Now some of the good news.
At the end of the A2 program and then a little beyond (1983-85), we (USMC, primarily Maj Jack Muth at Quantico who also developed the original M4 Carbine) had developed the improved "green" magazine follower which eventually improved the system's reliability.
Also, the 3-round burst control proved to be more reliable than the A1's full auto, because the testing protocall demanded the A1 fire longer bursts than thew A2 was capable of, and consequently had more failures to feed, etc.  That was where the idea for the improved (green) follower came from.
Major Muth pretty much proved a rifle (20-inch barrel) limited to only 3-rounds per auto burst did not need the improved green follower, but his testing to define and approve the M4 Carbine showed the the green follower was needed for shorter barrel/gas tubed weapons firing longer bursts.  He also was there when the need for the M4 ramp angle changes were became evident.
This "M4" by the way is not what most of you readers are imagining, but a 14.5" barrel carbine on a standard M16A2 upper (but with ramp angle/feed ramp changes), so it had a fixed 3/800 meter rear sight.  The M4 nomenclature originates from Maj. Muth's mission to develop a 5.56mm replacement for the M3A1 .45 cal. Grease Gun, hence new "M4" nomenclature that Colt picked-up on; and the 14.5" barrel from the Marine Corps requirement for the M4 to support the standard issue bayonet.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 9:21:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By LocknLoaded:
I talk to people that were soldier's in the army and navy they tell me they do not like the M16,...
View Quote


Those Army guys were probably PAC bitches or pogues...  As far as the navy guys, most navy guys I know say they have never fired an M16....

When they were showing combat missions a couple years back, one of the navy seals that went on to the finals could not clear his weapon.  I never saw him perform sports.  He would slam the butt of his M4 on the ground, and this guy was a navy seal!!!
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 10:45:29 AM EST
Originally Posted By NoCompromise:
Originally Posted By LocknLoaded:
I talk to people that were soldier's in the army and navy they tell me they do not like the M16,...
View Quote


Those Army guys were probably PAC bitches or pogues...  As far as the navy guys, most navy guys I know say they have never fired an M16....

When they were showing combat missions a couple years back, one of the navy seals that went on to the finals could not clear his weapon.  I never saw him perform sports.  He would slam the butt of his M4 on the ground, and this guy was a navy seal!!!
View Quote


I remember that, but as I recall they were firing .22's and I have no idea whether they were dedicated 22 uppers or had some type of Ceiner kit, or if that even makes a difference in terms of correcting a malfunction.  I've never played with a .22lr AR before, but that was not a stock weapon.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 11:19:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By NoCompromise:
Originally Posted By LocknLoaded:
I talk to people that were soldier's in the army and navy they tell me they do not like the M16,...
View Quote


Those Army guys were probably PAC bitches or pogues...  As far as the navy guys, most navy guys I know say they have never fired an M16....

When they were showing combat missions a couple years back, one of the navy seals that went on to the finals could not clear his weapon.  I never saw him perform sports.  He would slam the butt of his M4 on the ground, and this guy was a navy seal!!!
View Quote


Regular NAVY "Sailors" for the most part, do not get much exposure to the M16, or really any other weapons training, not like the ARMY or MARINES.  The NAVY now a days is mostly comprised of "Technical Specialists" (electronics techs, airframes techs, ordnanceman, missile / fire control techs, mess specialists, crypies, photograpers...the list goes on)A lot depends on NEC/Job/Specialty.  There have been long periods when NAVY boot camp didn't even provide any M16 training, just pistol, and this was usually quite limited. I've always seen this as highly UNSAT, but it's all been policy set by BIG NAVY.    As for the SEAL on TV that couldn't clear, well, it happens.  I received some outstanding M16/M4/9mm(Sigs)training and instruction from 3 SEAL Snipers and a non Sniper SEAL Chief Petty Officer down in PANAMA (FT Clayton), and we never had any malfunctions, despite thousands of rounds going downrange, and a lot of full auto firing.  They know their weapons.  I don't know what "PAC bitches or pogues... " are, as you referred, but keep in mind the one team one fight concept.  I really like the M16 / AR platform, and hope they keep improving on it rather than replace it completely.  
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 11:37:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By NoCompromise:
Originally Posted By LocknLoaded:
I talk to people that were soldier's in the army and navy they tell me they do not like the M16,...
View Quote


Those Army guys were probably PAC bitches or pogues...  As far as the navy guys, most navy guys I know say they have never fired an M16....

When they were showing combat missions a couple years back, one of the navy seals that went on to the finals could not clear his weapon.  I never saw him perform sports.  He would slam the butt of his M4 on the ground, and this guy was a navy seal!!!
View Quote


...And if the extractor tears a chunk out of YOUR brass and the rifle quits working how do YOU clear the chamber?
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 12:02:06 PM EST
The heavier buffer that replaced the original edgewater buffer also increased reliability by slowing the opening of the bolt and the cycle of the action.

This was a vietnam, not A2 change.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 12:10:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By DevL:

...And if the extractor tears a chunk out of YOUR brass and the rifle quits working how do YOU clear the chamber?
View Quote


[B)] That's gonna leave a mark!
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 12:37:01 PM EST
[b]quote:  I heard that the M9 was the big jammer of the desert. I don't remember were I heard it though?[/b]

I was in Iraq during the assault...the pistol was totally unreliable.  Well, the magazines were unreliable.  We disasembled our magazines and cleaned them 3-4 times a day and they still malfunctioned.  

What happened was that dirt/sand got into the mag and the grains of dirt jammed the springs and prevented the springs from forcing the round up.  We would remove the magazine and the rounds would literally fall out of the magazine.  

Definitely a failure to feed problem.  I did not experience any problem with the pistol though.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 12:53:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By ch11x:

Regular NAVY "Sailors" for the most part, do not get much exposure to the M16, or really any other weapons training, not like the ARMY or MARINES.  The NAVY now a days is mostly comprised of "Technical Specialists" (electronics techs, airframes techs, ordnanceman, missile / fire control techs, mess specialists, crypies, photograpers...the list goes on)A lot depends on NEC/Job/Specialty.  There have been long periods when NAVY boot camp didn't even provide any M16 training, just pistol, and this was usually quite limited. I've always seen this as highly UNSAT, but it's all been policy set by BIG NAVY.
View Quote


ch11x,

You're absolutely correct. The NAVY still does not teach the use, care and firing of the M16 in bootcamp. Even the pistol training is relegated to a quick familiarization course and a one time FAM firing of the weapon. The only Navy personnel that have any extensive training with the M16 or M9 pistol are those that serve with the Marines (primarily FMF Corpsmen) and Seabees. And, like you said, its UNSTAT....
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 1:04:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By ChrisLe:
You're absolutely correct. The NAVY still does not teach the use, care and firing of the M16 in bootcamp. Even the pistol training is relegated to a quick familiarization course and a one time FAM firing of the weapon. The only Navy personnel that have any extensive training with the M16 or M9 pistol are those that serve with the Marines (primarily FMF Corpsmen) and Seabees. And, like you said, its UNSTAT....
View Quote


Chris, its great to see you back here!  Happy holidays and God bless.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 1:11:42 PM EST
Originally Posted By kilowhiskey:
[b]quote:  I heard that the M9 was the big jammer of the desert. I don't remember were I heard it though?[/b]

I was in Iraq during the assault...the pistol was totally unreliable.  Well, the magazines were unreliable.  We disasembled our magazines and cleaned them 3-4 times a day and they still malfunctioned.  

What happened was that dirt/sand got into the mag and the grains of dirt jammed the springs and prevented the springs from forcing the round up.  We would remove the magazine and the rounds would literally fall out of the magazine.  

Definitely a failure to feed problem.  I did not experience any problem with the pistol though.
View Quote


KW,

I hear you regarding the M9 magazines:  They suck.  I realize that some are better than others, especially w/ modified floorplates that don't crack or shatter when they hit the deck.  I haven't had any trouble w/ the pistol.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 1:57:27 PM EST
Originally Posted By ChrisLe:
Originally Posted By ch11x:

Regular NAVY "Sailors" for the most part, do not get much exposure to the M16, or really any other weapons training, not like the ARMY or MARINES.  The NAVY now a days is mostly comprised of "Technical Specialists" (electronics techs, airframes techs, ordnanceman, missile / fire control techs, mess specialists, crypies, photograpers...the list goes on)A lot depends on NEC/Job/Specialty.  There have been long periods when NAVY boot camp didn't even provide any M16 training, just pistol, and this was usually quite limited. I've always seen this as highly UNSAT, but it's all been policy set by BIG NAVY.
View Quote


ch11x,

You're absolutely correct. The NAVY still does not teach the use, care and firing of the M16 in bootcamp. Even the pistol training is relegated to a quick familiarization course and a one time FAM firing of the weapon. The only Navy personnel that have any extensive training with the M16 or M9 pistol are those that serve with the Marines (primarily FMF Corpsmen) and Seabees. And, like you said, its UNSTAT....
View Quote


I thought I heard recently that NAVY boot camp is now doing limited training with the M16, not certain though.  For NAVY, it seems these get more training than most:  SPECWAR(SEALS) / SPECWAR OTHER/ SPECOPS, Special Boat Unit (SBU), EOD units, Combat SAR (CSAR), Combat Aircrew / Combat Reconnaisance Crews (CAC's / CRC's), SECURITY FORCE, and like you mentioned, Corpsmen attached to Marine units and SEABEES.  More on topic, I personally beleive that most problems and bad reports stem from "operator error" - due to unit / sub unit weapons training deficiencies, .  I don't hear or see Top-Tier units broadcasting/having as many woes with the M16 weapon platform (not suggesting 0 problems either). These are just my humble opinions.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 2:34:56 PM EST
Originally Posted By HiramRanger:

Chris, its great to see you back here!  Happy holidays and God bless.
View Quote


Hiram,

Thanks. I'm not home yet. I'm still on Active Duty down at CLNC. But at least I'm no longer in Iraq...
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 2:39:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By ch11x:
I personally beleive that most problems and bad reports stem from "operator error" - due to unit / sub unit weapons training deficiencies, .  I don't hear or see Top-Tier units broadcasting/having as many woes with the M16 weapon platform (not suggesting 0 problems either). These are just my humble opinions.
View Quote


I happen to agree with you whole heartedly. I heard horror stories about the failure of the M16 in Iraq, yet the 500+ Marines I went to Iraq with had reported zero problems with their M16's under combat conditions. Coincidence? Probably not. It all hinges upon proper training, meticulous maintenance, and knowing one's weapon....That's my opinion....
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 2:41:09 PM EST
Originally Posted By ChrisLe:
Originally Posted By ch11x:

Regular NAVY "Sailors" for the most part, do not get much exposure to the M16, or really any other weapons training, not like the ARMY or MARINES.  The NAVY now a days is mostly comprised of "Technical Specialists" (electronics techs, airframes techs, ordnanceman, missile / fire control techs, mess specialists, crypies, photograpers...the list goes on)A lot depends on NEC/Job/Specialty.  There have been long periods when NAVY boot camp didn't even provide any M16 training, just pistol, and this was usually quite limited. I've always seen this as highly UNSAT, but it's all been policy set by BIG NAVY.
View Quote


ch11x,

You're absolutely correct. The NAVY still does not teach the use, care and firing of the M16 in bootcamp. Even the pistol training is relegated to a quick familiarization course and a one time FAM firing of the weapon. The only Navy personnel that have any extensive training with the M16 or M9 pistol are those that serve with the Marines (primarily FMF Corpsmen) and Seabees. And, like you said, its UNSTAT....
View Quote


In the post 9-11 environment this is changing in the Navy. The renewed emphasis on Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, especially for ships' company personnel is resulting in a lot more guys standing watches with guns and getting a lot more training. I have 2nd Class Personnelman working for me who just came from a frigate where had received extensive training in the M-16, M-9, M-60, M-2 and shotgun, along with how to clear/recapture/control spaces aboard ship in response to a terrorist attack, deal with vehicle/personnel searches, etc.

With that said however, it is still true that small arms training is for the most part NOT a part of Navy culture. Regrettably.

BTW...parochial shot here...what's with the quotes around the word Sailor?  As if they really aren't? A fella could wind up in scrap for saying that the wrong way in certain parts! [:)]
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 3:08:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By Slurpie:
In the post 9-11 environment this is changing in the Navy. The renewed emphasis on Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, especially for ships' company personnel is resulting in a lot more guys standing watches with guns and getting a lot more training. I have 2nd Class Personnelman working for me who just came from a frigate where had received extensive training in the M-16, M-9, M-60, M-2 and shotgun, along with how to clear/recapture/control spaces aboard ship in response to a terrorist attack, deal with vehicle/personnel searches, etc.
View Quote


That's good to hear. Too bad small units and their leadership have to play catch up and teach their personnel the basic weapons handling they should have learned in boot camp.

Also, a friend who recently went to boot camp relayed to me that they only fired one mag each for the M16 and M9 to familiarize themselves with the weapon. The remainder of their weapons 'training' was conducted on simulators that used pneumatic air to simulate the cycling of the weapons....
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 3:11:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By Slurpie:
Originally Posted By ChrisLe:
Originally Posted By ch11x:

Regular NAVY "Sailors" for the most part, do not get much exposure to the M16, or really any other weapons training, not like the ARMY or MARINES.  The NAVY now a days is mostly comprised of "Technical Specialists" (electronics techs, airframes techs, ordnanceman, missile / fire control techs, mess specialists, crypies, photograpers...the list goes on)A lot depends on NEC/Job/Specialty.  There have been long periods when NAVY boot camp didn't even provide any M16 training, just pistol, and this was usually quite limited. I've always seen this as highly UNSAT, but it's all been policy set by BIG NAVY.
View Quote


ch11x,

You're absolutely correct. The NAVY still does not teach the use, care and firing of the M16 in bootcamp. Even the pistol training is relegated to a quick familiarization course and a one time FAM firing of the weapon. The only Navy personnel that have any extensive training with the M16 or M9 pistol are those that serve with the Marines (primarily FMF Corpsmen) and Seabees. And, like you said, its UNSTAT....
View Quote


In the post 9-11 environment this is changing in the Navy. The renewed emphasis on Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, especially for ships' company personnel is resulting in a lot more guys standing watches with guns and getting a lot more training. I have 2nd Class Personnelman working for me who just came from a frigate where had received extensive training in the M-16, M-9, M-60, M-2 and shotgun, along with how to clear/recapture/control spaces aboard ship in response to a terrorist attack, deal with vehicle/personnel searches, etc.

With that said however, it is still true that small arms training is for the most part NOT a part of Navy culture. Regrettably.

BTW...parochial shot here...what's with the quotes around the word Sailor?  As if they really aren't? A fella could wind up in scrap for saying that the wrong way in certain parts! [:)]
View Quote


Slurpie,

You're right!  NAVY SECURITY training has improved, and must continue to do so. Good on the PN2 for getting those quals.  Regarding the quotes thing, well an earlier thread reply mentioned that he..."talk to people that were soldier's in the army and navy they tell me they do not like the M16,... "    Not to cause any discord, but the "soldier's in the NAVY" thing is why I did it that way.  Merry Christmas
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 3:18:11 PM EST
I don't know if G. Gordon Liddy likes the M16, but I heard him on Crossfire once, and he said he believed the 2nd ammendment protected individual citizen rights to own modern weaponry necessary to the defense of a free state, or something like that.  He was talking about his book, When I was a kid, this was a free country...I havent read the book, but needless to say, regardless of what G. Gordon Liddy thinks of the M16, he likely believes we have the right to own them.

Just thought I'd share that.
E (Qiii)
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 3:31:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By ChrisLe:
Originally Posted By Slurpie:
In the post 9-11 environment this is changing in the Navy. The renewed emphasis on Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, especially for ships' company personnel is resulting in a lot more guys standing watches with guns and getting a lot more training. I have 2nd Class Personnelman working for me who just came from a frigate where had received extensive training in the M-16, M-9, M-60, M-2 and shotgun, along with how to clear/recapture/control spaces aboard ship in response to a terrorist attack, deal with vehicle/personnel searches, etc.
View Quote


That's good to hear. Too bad small units and their leadership have to play catch up and teach their personnel the basic weapons handling they should have learned in boot camp.

Also, a friend who recently went to boot camp relayed to me that they only fired one mag each for the M16 and M9 to familiarize themselves with the weapon. The remainder of their weapons 'training' was conducted on simulators that used pneumatic air to simulate the cycling of the weapons....
View Quote


Simulators are a great training aid to prep  for the range (covering safety, courses of fire, etc), but that's it.  Some weapon malfunctions/failures can be induced as well, but a quick "tap-rack-bang" usually clears them up.  From what I've observed, personnel that qualify in the trainer, usually also do so at the range (talking about new guys).  But I've also seen quite a few "EXPERT"s in the Trainer result in "Sharpshooter" or Marksman" at the range.  
An HM SEAL buddy of mine went to a school where they stabbed a goat and they had to keep it alive.  What is that called? (something like 14 or 18 DELTA)

Yeah, we're quite off now from topic of Ollie & M16's
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 3:41:42 PM EST
It's the US Army's 18Delta course. Her's a brief description of who/what they are and do (copied from another site):

. They employ conventional and unconventional warfare techniques in providing medical care and treatment. They utilize the latest in field medical technology and are capable of managing just about any battlefield trauma. The medical sergeant is also responsible for the medical readiness of the detachment. In addition he provides medical screening, care, laboratory, and pharmacological needs for indigenous patients. The SF medic is an important part of any civic action operations, bringing medical treatment to native populations. He is versed in pediatric, dermatological, infectious, obstetric, dental, and even veterinary medicine. Every 18 Delta can train, advise, or lead indigenous company sized forces.

Each 18 Delta must first go through the Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) where they have to swim in boots and BDUs, run an obstacle course, and take long treks with a loaded rucksack. During this time they are assessed on their ability to work as a team member. Upon selection they then enter the Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC or "Q Course").

SFQC is divided into three phases, The Individual Skill Phase, The MOS Qualification Phase, and The Collective Training Phase. The first phase lasts 40 days and includes land navigation, patrolling, and an obstacle course. In the qualification phase, which lasts 53 weeks, they are trained  in advanced medical procedures, consisting of trauma management, surgical, dental, and veterinary procedures. Upon completion of training they are paramedics. The third phase lasts 38 days and consists of Special Forces doctrine and organization, unconventional warfare operations, direct action operations, airborne and airmobile operations, and methods of instruction.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 4:34:16 PM EST
Originally Posted By DevL:
The original spec called for chrome lined barrel and chamber, thats not new or tweaking.  We still use ball powder.  The forward assist has nothing to do with whether or not the rifle functions.  It can force a round in if there is a malfuction.

Like I said cleaning a gun is not "tweaking" or develpoing the weapon.
View Quote



Dude, I agree with just about everything you said. IIRC we never did switch from ball powder to the original powder---just began chrome lining the barrels and chambers. The forward assist, IMHO, is a foolish device. Why would you want to FORCE a round into battery? Doesn't that indicate something's wrong? Yeah, ram it (rhymes with "jam it") in there!

One thing you didn't mention is that the gas port on M-4's has been opened up a few thousandths from previous specs for more reliable functioning. That is something that has plagued short-barrelled AR's since the days of the CAR-15.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 7:06:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By NoCompromise:
Originally Posted By LocknLoaded:
I talk to people that were soldier's in the army and navy they tell me they do not like the M16,...
View Quote


Those Army guys were probably PAC bitches or pogues...  As far as the navy guys, most navy guys I know say they have never fired an M16....

When they were showing combat missions a couple years back, one of the navy seals that went on to the finals could not clear his weapon.  I never saw him perform sports.  He would slam the butt of his M4 on the ground, and this guy was a navy seal!!!
View Quote


Not completely sure on this, but I remember that show and on the last episode with the three finalist they were using a clear mag instead of the usual USGI. Maybe one of those clear plastic Eagle mags. I rememeber the guy banging the crap out of the mag trying to get it to seat and it didn't seat properly. Later they said it jammed because the mag didn't seat, and the bolt was shaving little bits of brass and metal off the rounds each time he tried to clear it, only making it worse. That guy got screwed..
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 7:51:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/25/2003 7:52:20 PM EST by JustL00king]
The m16 is fine as long as you run a patch down the barrel, clean out the carrier, and keep your ejection port cover closed.

The only gun with real problems was the magazines for the beretta m9 pistol get jamed up with sand. The followers dont push the bullets up, if you tip it over all the bullets just dump out on the ground. Now those mags are a real POS that can cost lives.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 8:15:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/25/2003 8:20:32 PM EST by Troy]
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 9:28:00 PM EST
Troy,
   They were not using Simunitions. They were using lasers attached to M-4's for most of the missions, I specifically remember one mission where a team was disqualified because they rescued a hostage, placed a blanket over her to treat her for "shock", and were disqualified because it covered the laser sensors that each person wore on a harness.  On the final challenge they were not shooting at each other but running through a shoot and move obstacle course, so I believe they were using live ammo then. If I remember correctly they were grading shots fired to drop a target, which is why they were using the clear mags.....
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 9:38:13 PM EST
Originally Posted By DevL:
Originally Posted By NoCompromise:
Originally Posted By LocknLoaded:
I talk to people that were soldier's in the army and navy they tell me they do not like the M16,...
View Quote


Those Army guys were probably PAC bitches or pogues...  As far as the navy guys, most navy guys I know say they have never fired an M16....

When they were showing combat missions a couple years back, one of the navy seals that went on to the finals could not clear his weapon.  I never saw him perform sports.  He would slam the butt of his M4 on the ground, and this guy was a navy seal!!!
View Quote


...And if the extractor tears a chunk out of YOUR brass and the rifle quits working how do YOU clear the chamber?
View Quote


I don't know how HE does it, but that's what I do.  In fact, I think you were there when I did that on more than one occasion.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 9:43:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By ABNAK:


Dude, I agree with just about everything you said. IIRC we never did switch from ball powder to the original powder---just began chrome lining the barrels and chambers. The forward assist, IMHO, is a foolish device. Why would you want to FORCE a round into battery? Doesn't that indicate something's wrong? Yeah, ram it (rhymes with "jam it") in there!

View Quote


I disagree.  I had to use the forward assist on my AR a few times yesterday shooting in 5 degree weather with snow.  The gun was so cold it did not want to close the bolt fully on the initial charge. The gun functioned flawlessly afterwards through 200 rounds of xm193.  I like the feature.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 10:13:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By DevL:
The original spec called for chrome lined barrel and chamber,
View Quote


Got a reference?
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 10:41:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/25/2003 10:44:06 PM EST by JustL00king]
Originally Posted By DevL:
I think its funny how people say the M16 is "improved" over the years when infact none of the parts have changed since the begining that have anything to do with reliability.  All they did was move the chrome plating around for budgetary concerns (all parts and barrel were speced to be chromed) and start cleaning the rifles.  We use the same Bolt, Carrier, Gas tube, etc design that have always been there.

3 round burst, new sights, thicker barrels, longer stocks, etc dont have anything to do with the weapons reliability in the sand.
View Quote


Originally Posted By DevL:
The original spec called for chrome lined barrel and chamber, thats not new or tweaking.  We still use ball powder.  The forward assist has nothing to do with whether or not the rifle functions.  It can force a round in if there is a malfuction.
View Quote


The original M16 diden't have a chrome lined anything. They were using stick powder which burned clean so chrome lining was not needed. Stoners original specs **DID NOT** include chrome lined chambers or barrels.

The military switched to ball powder because they wanted to get more range out of the M16's 5.56 ammo. The ball powder burns dirty, more fouling = more jams. With the new ballpowder they needed a chrome lined chamber and barrel but the military diden't change this until close to the end of vietnam. This should have been done anyway to prevent corrosion in the chamber that jams up weapons. (they learned that in WW2)

The troops back at home were trained on the m14 rifle, when they get shipped off to vietnam they were told to take the m16 and fire off a few bursts out by the wire. Thats all the training they got with the M16 rifle, so a lot of the jams were the SOLDERS FALT.

On top of it all the military said it was a self-cleaning rifle, dident issue cleaning kits and because nobody could clean their weapon that caused most of the jams.

The m16 got a bad rap because of the governments stupidity and solders using a weapon they were not trained to use.

Even in the military today they teach you how to field strip the weapon, they dont teach you how to take the bolt carrier apart and clean it. This is crucial in keeping your weapon functioning.

The firearm has changed a lot, heavy barrel, A2 upper, A3 upper, the millions of options for parts, inside of the bolt carrier is chrome lined, chamber and barrel are chrome blah blah blah.  
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 5:29:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By Tweak:
Originally Posted By DevL:
The original spec called for chrome lined barrel and chamber,
View Quote


Got a reference?
View Quote


There is no reference to be referenced as not chroming the chambers was an original design error.

Of several 'questionable' decisions (light weight buffer, weak extractor spring, thin cartridge rim), all could have been corrected by going back to the powder for which the AR15 had been designed - IMR Powder.  Only the lack of chrome chambers couldn't have been corrected by returning to the correct powder.

Jim Sullivan has acknowledged the lack of chrome chambers being his and Bob Fremont's design error.  

5sub
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 5:49:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 5:51:41 AM EST by HeavyMetal]
Originally Posted By Jasba:
Troy,
   They were not using Simunitions. They were using lasers attached to M-4's for most of the missions, I specifically remember one mission where a team was disqualified because they rescued a hostage, placed a blanket over her to treat her for "shock", and were disqualified because it covered the laser sensors that each person wore on a harness.  On the final challenge they were not shooting at each other but running through a shoot and move obstacle course, so I believe they were using live ammo then. If I remember correctly they were grading shots fired to drop a target, which is why they were using the clear mags.....
View Quote


Yes, they were using simunitions, the guy who had the troubles replied as much on a web board a few days later.  There was a big debate about it here untill someone found that post and that ended it.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 7:50:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
There is no reference to be referenced
View Quote


[lol]Geez sub, I was trying to be diplomatic. I also read Stoner's comment that he didn't believe the bores/chambers needed chroming due to the "high quality steel" they used in the design.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 6:27:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/26/2003 8:33:19 PM EST by Hydguy]
Originally Posted By JustL00king:
Even in the military today they teach you how to field strip the weapon, they dont teach you how to take the bolt carrier apart and clean it. This is crucial in keeping your weapon functioning.
View Quote


In what branch? In Marine Corps bootcamp, we field strip the M16, and then take the bolt carrier out, and remove the bolt. We even removed the extractor.

In the fleet, we were not supposed to remove the extractor, because the spring could come off and get lost, and then the armorers had to do some work.

When we turned in our rifles, they would inspect them with clean swabs, and if they came out even slightly dark, you went back and cleaned some more (unless you hooked up one of the guys at the armory to clean if for you).
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 6:46:01 PM EST
Originally Posted By JustL00king:
Even in the military today they teach you how to field strip the weapon, they dont teach you how to take the bolt carrier apart and clean it. This is crucial in keeping your weapon functioning.
View Quote


Since when?  I know they did 20 years ago.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 6:58:56 PM EST
I was talking to a client earlier today about this very issue.  He is a former Ranger and SpecOps type, now retired due to a bad encounter with an AP mine.  He said that the M4 and A2 were excellent in combat conditions, even with negligable cleaning.  I was pretty suprised to hear him say that.  He has been issued AK's in the past as well, and had no bad things to say about the A2 or M4.  Interesting......
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 7:52:24 PM EST
I have a good friend of mine home on Christmas Exodous from Ft Jackson SC. You know the Basic Training that Jessica Lynch graduated from.

Anyway, they have aparently beefed up Basic Combat Training, at least at Jackson since the whole "The thingy on my gun jammed" comment on her news interview. The Drill Sgts are pissed and embarressed that she actually graduated from their training.

Every time someone makes a stupid comment or makes a mistake they yell out "Lynch".

Now I went to Basic back in 1990 at Ft Leonard Wood MO. All male BT, but he said they have mixed male and female training there.(Jackson) Plus I have always heard of FT Jackson as relaxin Jackson because that is where most support MOS soldiers train for basic.  Never been there myself, just what everyone calls it. Maybe they should have stepped up training years ago....

[img]http://carrasco.home.texas.net/mastpara.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 9:13:29 PM EST
OK my bad.  I meant the A1 to A2 transition did not change anything and the A1 called for all chromed parts not the XM16E1.  They went from totally chromed chamber, barrel, carrier and bolt to just the inside of the carrier and bolt after the A1.  We have long discussions as to why this was done.  Yes, the original XM16E1 did not have any chrome lined anything and was supposed to use stick powder.  I also understand changes made to the carbines but the baisic design of the M16 from A1 to A2 to A4 has not resulted in any changes to the bolt, carrier, gas tube, etc.  

The changes we will see in the next generation of rifles and carbines will finally be what they should be.  
Top Top