Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/26/2001 1:50:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2001 1:51:47 PM EDT by ttman]
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html interesting reading. parallels History Channel's documentary on the M16. they stated that Americans GIs died while trying to clear up/clean their jammed rifles, sometimes less than 10 feet from the enemy... yeah I know, the ball ammo & lack of chroming of the chamber was the culprit...
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 2:46:00 PM EDT
This article came up some month ago. The conclusion of the discussion was that Dick Culver's view of the M16 bases on the "Vietnam"-M16 and has nothing to do with the M16A2 which is now produced.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:04:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ttman: http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html interesting reading. parallels History Channel's documentary on the M16. they stated that Americans GIs died while trying to clear up/clean their jammed rifles, sometimes less than 10 feet from the enemy... yeah I know, the ball ammo & lack of chroming of the chamber was the culprit...
View Quote
I read already that article. It is anti M16 biased. The main problem of the M16 was the dimension of the cartridge chamber: too tight (there are clues of this fact inside the article...). The M16 was developed for a 223 with IMR powder, and the DoD instead adopted a ball powder more sticky that the original one. The proof of this is that the Garand has no chrome lined chamber and barrel, but you cannot say that is "unreliable". The Garand, after his adoption in 1936, had a bad reputation for stoppages: after the 7th round jammed most of the times!!! Garand had to redesign the gas system (from "gas trap" to "gas tap") in 1938. Since than no stoppages. The truth is that the M16 was put in service too early for political reasons. And this costed soldiers lives.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 9:07:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2001 9:09:56 AM EDT by 5subslr5]
Most of this has already been stated above. The M-16 was deployed without the chamber chromed, the Army switched powder without informing anyone including the manufacturer and the M-16 was hyped to a dead GI's "teeth" as a rifle that did not need to be cleaned. Also some where early in this mess the Army switched bullet weight - to a heavier bullet. The slow twist of the early barrels could not properly stabalize the heavier bullet. Brilliant, just f'ing brilliabt. The M16 was deployed with no forward-assist and no CLEANING KITS. One of my fav comments from one of Robert Strange McNamara's idiots...."if the chamber needed to be chromed "Stoner" would have had it chromed." PaoloAR15, I mean no flame here but in my opinion no article could possibly be enough biased to accurately represent what a piece-of-shit the early M16 truly was. This rifle's progress was measured on the piles of dead G.I. bodies. After all who really gave a shit at that time. Draft deferments insured that none of "their" sons were in those piles.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 9:33:45 AM EDT
I'm no expert, but the M16, upon development, seems to never have gone through proper field trials. It seems to have gone from nicely working prototype to the field. That is a disaster waiting to happen in anyone's book. Blame the pinheads that didn't properly shake down the system in field trials, not the original designer or the design. A similar situation comes to mind where this was done before. This one is arguably much worse than the early M16 fiasco. Remember the problems the magnetic torpedo fuses caused the Navy early in WWII. Entire submarine cruises were wasted as the essentially had no functioning weapons. Military hardware cannot be designed, produced and issued like toasters.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 9:43:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ttman: [url]www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html[/url]
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 9:56:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: I'm no expert, but the M16, upon development, seems to never have gone through proper field trials. It seems to have gone from nicely working prototype to the field. That is a disaster waiting to happen in anyone's book. -------------------------------------------- "It didn't and it was." ------------------------------------------------ Blame the pinheads that didn't properly shake down the system in field trials, not the original designer or the design. "The rifle was tested thoroughly by McNamara idiots at a picnic where they fired at watermelons. The original "inventor" was Eugene Stoner. Stoner was the guy that didn't chrome the chambers, advocated no cleaning kit necessary. Here the inventor gets to share the bodies. (I'm an ArmaLite collector and a "Stoner" fan but not in this time in history.) ------------------------------------------------ the magnetic torpedo fuses caused the Navy early in WWII. Entire submarine cruises were wasted as the essentially had no functioning weapons.
View Quote
Finally BuOrd was forced to succumb to the pictures/sounds of magnetically fused torpedos bouncing off targets but not exploding. During this period more than one submarine in three did not come home.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 10:05:57 AM EDT
what is the purpose of the forward assist thingamajig??!! is it to properly fit/push a cartridge into the chamber??? if so, how would u know when a "push" is needed? I have never used it...
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 10:13:36 AM EDT
Even if Stoner did say that, I'd say that one could only hold Stoner accountable if he pitched that no trials were necessary. I'm sure that every inventor/designer thinks his "thing" can do things that it can't. As an engineer, he should be smart enough to test his hypothisis. If he wasnt allowed to, he's not guilty, if he pushed for no field trials, he's as guilty as you say he is....
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 10:26:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: Even if Stoner did say that, I'd say that one could only hold Stoner accountable if he pitched that no trials were necessary. I'm sure that every inventor/designer thinks his "thing" can do things that it can't. As an engineer, he should be smart enough to test his hypothisis. If he wasnt allowed to, he's not guilty, if he pushed for no field trials, he's as guilty as you say he is....
View Quote
Drift, Stoner invented the AR-15 ArmaLite sold the patents to Colt's as they had no money to build the rifle and no mil contracts. Stoner went to Colt's with the patents. Colt's was also broke. Colt's had to get the mil contracts and everyone - especially Stoner - had to help. Stoner helped McNamara and idiots were in power. Colt's/Stoner sold the idiots Colt's got the contracts. The military bought M16's Good men died. The M16 was improved Fewer good men died. I no longer have any taste for continuing this post. No one cares. It's all history now.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 10:29:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ttman: what is the purpose of the forward assist thingamajig??!! is it to properly fit/push a cartridge into the chamber??? if so, how would u know when a "push" is needed? I have never used it...
View Quote
ttman, with a dirty rifle the cartridge sometimes would not properly seat in the chamber. The forward assist is to force the cartridge into the chamber and continuing trying to save your sorry ass.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 11:05:11 AM EDT
Two points here... While the forward assist could be used to possibly chamber a dirty or dented round, its real benefit was tactical loading, allowing the rifleman to rid the bolt home instead of letting it slam shut. The writer of this piece, while being unquestionably well-experienced in the application of firearms, does not know squat about the functioning of the M16. In his passage, he claimed a chromed chamber would provide less friction for the case to grab on the chamber walls and thrust from the breech pressure would accelerate the bolt carrier to a velocity much greater than an unchromed chamber. Pure poppycock. The bullet is moving approximately 2400 FPS at the gas port and accelerates to 3200 FPS at the muzzle, taking the average (which is conservative), it moves at 2800 FPS over the 5" of barrel, giving rise to a port pressure with a duration of almost 1/7000 of a second or .147 millisecond! The bolt carrier moves about .23 inch to fully unlock. If there still is port pressure at the time of unlock, that bolt carrier is moving at 134 feet per second! With the average velocity of the carrier at one-half that, this would make the cyclic rate of the M16 to be over 8000 rounds per minute, discounting any buffer rebound. I give him a "B" for reporting and an "F" on technical. It reminds me of the NCO who claimed a 1911 was a "blowback" operated pistol.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 1:47:35 PM EDT
lols, don't burst a vein man!!! u obviously don't have very thick skin, that's not very healthy in today's society =)
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: ttman, with a dirty rifle the cartridge sometimes would not properly seat in the chamber. The forward assist is to force the cartridge into the chamber and continuing trying to save your sorry ass.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 2:08:36 PM EDT
The reason I went into a 5 minute detail on the absurdity if the claims is to show how easy it is to dispel the many myths of the M16, long associated with the Viet Nam conflict. While I find his historical musings informative, he misses completely the behind scenes scrambling at the DoD and the various proving grounds. In a nutshell, development and procurement of this then new rifle followed that of the M14 project, itself a major redesign of the M1 Garand. The M1 Garand was nothing more than an adaptation of the then accepted service round to a new type action. Before the M1, excluding the M1917 Enfield, there was the M1903A3 Springfield, a rifle requiring 3 major redesigns covering round, sights and bayonet. In the end, the detractors of the M16 blame the rifle itself without looking into the gross errors in development. The degrees of change from a wood-stocked, steel receivered .30 caliber rifle to an aluminum receivered, synthetic stocked .22 caliber were too much for the development experience at the time. Both the USMC and US Army have corrected all of these defects to make the M16 a far more reliable, cost-effective and battle proven rifle.
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 3:47:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J: The reason I went into a 5 minute detail on the absurdity if the claims is to show how ..... While I find his historical musings informative, Musings, musings ??? You find his musiongs informative. ?? Both the USMC and US Army have corrected all of these defects to make the M16 a far more reliable, cost-effective and battle proven rifle.
View Quote
Far more reliable, battle proven, cost effective ?? I could delinate all the micro failings of your posts but why ? Obviously you know nothing of the subject at hand. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 4:00:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ttman: lols, don't burst a vein man!!! u obviously don't have very thick skin, that's not very healthy in today's society. How, exactly how did you measure the thickness of my skin ??? Do I appear to be a GUY interested in being societally healthy ?? As for bursting a vein .....my first heart felt fuck you? ttman, I would suppose you're one of those noncombatants that has done nothing, not one fucking thing that relates to combat or even those who might have been in combat. To you may I offer my most heartelt "phucck youu."
Link Posted: 12/27/2001 4:02:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: Military hardware cannot be designed, produced and issued like toasters.
View Quote
dont forget about the god awful chocaht that practly shot it self apart when they chambered it in 30/06 not to mention the damn thing was a POS to begin with
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 5:29:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2001 5:41:02 AM EDT by ttman]
I can't believe you're part of team ar-15. u obviously don't have the credentials, mentality, or maturity needed. U seem the type to go POSTAL over a parking space. don't have a heart attack man! NOTHING on the net is worth losing a hair over... don't get your panties in a wad. ur only making urself look bad.
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By ttman: lols, don't burst a vein man!!! u obviously don't have very thick skin, that's not very healthy in today's society. How, exactly how did you measure the thickness of my skin ??? Do I appear to be a GUY interested in being societally healthy ?? As for bursting a vein .....my first heart felt fuck you? ttman, I would suppose you're one of those noncombatants that has done nothing, not one fucking thing that relates to combat or even those who might have been in combat. To you may I offer my most heartelt "phucck youu."
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 5:48:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: Far more reliable, battle proven, cost effective ?? I could delinate all the micro failings of your posts but why ? Obviously you know nothing of the subject at hand. [:D]
View Quote
While I've never taken an M14 into combat, I have fired many rack-grade M14 and M1 Garands's (only mod was bedding) and have had far more malfunctions with these than any M16/AR15 I have ever shot. I've had extractors and ejectors fail, sights that "adjusted" themselves, sprung op rods and leaky gas systems that wouldn't operate at lower temperatures. Quite different experience even with my M16A1 in BCT. As far as knowledge base, I guess 45B means nothing to you unless you were a Joe. You sound like a 76Y that took the 5 minute arms room course and passed the security clearance.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:57:12 AM EDT
If the M-16 had been issued as designed with [b]ammunition as designed[/b], we would not be having this conversation. Is the design faulty because it wouldn't function reliably with improperly prepared ammunition? A little anecdote for your consideration: During WWII (The Big One) a manufacturing lot of .30-06 ammo was improperly manufactured; it was loaded with artillery blackpowder. Ask an artillerist what that is and why they use it if you don't already know. This faulty ammunition was shipped to the Pacific theater of war where it promptly buggered up the gas-operated M1 Garands. Recoil operated arms such as the Johnson AutoRifle, Johnson LMG, and Browning machine gun were better able to deal with the faulty ammunition. Conclusion? Obviously, the M1 Garand is a miserable piece of shytte that costed Marine lives since it was unable to handle the faulty ammunition. You can, to this day, bugger up M1's and M-14's by using too heavy bullets or otherwise departing from the ammunition with which the piece was designed to function. There are things that are debatable about the M-16 series, but if we are going to fixate on this aspect of it, we might as well criticize every automatic rifle for not being able to handle indiscriminately manufactured ammunition.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 11:35:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ultima-ratio: This article came up some month ago. The conclusion of the discussion was that Dick Culver's view of the M16 bases on the "Vietnam"-M16 and has nothing to do with the M16A2 which is now produced.
View Quote
My biased view on this subject is that I had an M-14 issued to me in '66', in '67' i was re-issued a useless piece of shit M-16 that jammed when you need it most. A lot of good men died before anyone did anything'. I taped a cleaning rod underneath the handguard with a shell ejector attached. In my 15 month relationship with this weapon was ugly. And no one did anything about till the Hamburger Hill story's had Congerss hopping, because they loss face when it hit the news. If cops were dying by the thousands trying to clear jammed Glocks, it wouldn't take 18 months to fix...We were 10,000 miles from home,in a world of shit, and no one gave a damn.....my .02 (and I'm still pissed if anyone cares to know)
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 12:34:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J: Both the USMC and US Army have corrected all of these defects to make the M16 a far more reliable, cost-effective and battle proven rifle.
View Quote
(I guess you agree there was "something" to correct.) ------------------------------------------ I'm back and sober !! Was celebrating my ex-wife's marriage yesterday and last night. Big hung-over. I really try to read the posts I respond to. Sometimes I read a couple or three to try and make sure I know the other persons viewpoint/point. For example: "The detractors of the M16 blame the rifle itself......" Not being a smart-ass but I don't have a clue as how to respond. How could anyone regardless of training blame an inantimate object for being poorly designed and tested ?? We agree on one thing(I think?) - DoD had the ultimate responsibility of insuring a properly functioning M16 was deployed. What actually seemed to happen was Mc Namara's whiz-kids interferred with about everything including design and testing. The "testing" of the M16 by shooting watermelons at a picnic is true. Stoner did "Not" advocate a cleaning kit issued issued with each M16." A properly designed and tested M16 was not deployed....... . Some things such as "...he claimed a chromed chamber would provide less friction....." (Maybe that "he" is not me but someone else ??) Well if I am "he/him" I've flunked technical. Guess I'll retake this course in summer school.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 12:36:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gib187th: ...I taped a cleaning rod underneath the handguard with a shell ejector attached....
View Quote
What is a "shell ejector" attachment to a cleaning rod? I had a one-piece heavy cleaning rod with a patch jag (not a loop) to knock brass out of jammed rifles. I never used it but it was in my tool kit. If CART drivers were anything like M16 detractors, they would be running on Goodyears and losing to the IRL at Indy. Instead, they run on Firestone Firehawks (which don't blow out like Wilderness AT's) and the beat the IRL guys.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 12:44:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PaoloAR15 The truth is that the M16 was put in service too early for political reasons. And this costed soldiers lives.
View Quote
Too true. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 12:59:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gib187th: My biased view on this subject is that I had an M-14 issued to me in '66', in '67' i was re-issued a useless piece of shit M-16 that jammed when you need it most. ----------------------------------------------- A lot of good men died before anyone did anything'. ----------------------------------------------- .. my 15 month relationship with this weapon was ugly. --------------------------------------------- And no one did anything about till the Hamburger Hill story's had Congerss hopping, because they loss face when it hit the news. ----------------------------------------------- ..We were 10,000 miles from home,in a world of shit, and no one gave a damn..... ----------------------------------------------- .02 (and I'm still pissed if anyone cares to know)
View Quote
THIS POST, this Post is the only one that means one damn thing including and especially my own. [beer] gib187th, God was merciful. You not only survived but you had NEITHER Keith_J nor 5subslr5 there to explain anything. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 1:30:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J: If CART drivers were anything like M16 detractors, they would be running on Goodyears and losing to the IRL at Indy. Instead, they run on Firestone Firehawks (which don't blow out like Wilderness AT's) and the beat the IRL guys.
View Quote
Well at least no one can accuse you of not staying "on point." But, I say but what if "Budhist Monks" were M16 detractors ?? gib187th - still believe his is the post to read.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 4:03:00 PM EDT
Just one more back to the top so those who choose may read "gib187th's remarks.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 4:32:49 PM EDT
I need Help!! My confidence in the .223 round had shaken.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 4:53:49 PM EDT
Nick, Unless you have early Vietnam-era vintage ammo and an equally early weapon, there is nothing to be worried about. Shoot and enjoy your rifle.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 5:30:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: Nick, Unless you have early Vietnam-era vintage ammo and an equally early weapon, there is nothing to be worried about. Shoot and enjoy your rifle.
View Quote
Agreed ! this is just dumb guys (at least me) arguing over ancient history. The M16/AR-15 have been good, reliable rifles for thirty years.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:44:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Nick: I need Help!! My confidence in the .223 round had shaken.
View Quote
Nick, I know it's terrible when you offer something patently facetious and people respond as if you were serious.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:44:50 PM EDT
I'm not talking about the gun... It is that he keep talking about .223 as a varmint round. Now I know If i need to reach out.. (over 300 yard) I need my FAL.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:48:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gib187th: My biased view on this subject is that I had an M-14 issued to me in '66', in '67' i was re-issued a useless piece of shit M-16 that jammed when you need it most. A lot of good men died before anyone did anything'. I taped a cleaning rod underneath the handguard with a shell ejector attached. In my 15 month relationship with this weapon was ugly. And no one did anything about till the Hamburger Hill story's had Congerss hopping, because they loss face when it hit the news. If cops were dying by the thousands trying to clear jammed Glocks, it wouldn't take 18 months to fix...We were 10,000 miles from home,in a world of shit, and no one gave a damn.....my .02 (and I'm still pissed if anyone cares to know)
View Quote
Looks to me like this sums it up. The Whiz kids and a piss-poor run war caused this crap. Gib187th: Glad you made it back man........you are absolutely correct.
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 6:53:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2001 6:59:33 PM EDT by gib187th]
Originally Posted By Keith_J:
Originally Posted By gib187th: ...I taped a cleaning rod underneath the handguard with a shell ejector attached....
View Quote
What is a "shell ejector" attachment to a cleaning rod? I had a one-piece heavy cleaning rod with a patch jag (not a loop) to knock brass out of jammed rifles. I never used it but it was in my tool kit.
View Quote
I don't know anything about what you had, and when you had it, or where you were. I had a cleaning rod with a broken case extractor attached. In the mist of a firefight you had to break the '16' down and ram the rod down the muzzle and kick the case out. I could do the drill in seconds. BTW, the M-16 was my backup piece. I carried a stripped down M-60 on my lap with a can of 'Ham and Motherfuckers' to feed the linked rounds. I trusted it......once fired a 2000 round burst in an extreme circumstance...needless to say things got really quite after that
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/28/2001 7:23:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Nick: I'm not talking about the gun... It is that he keep talking about .223 as a varmint round. Now I know If i need to reach out.. (over 300 yard) I need my FAL.
View Quote
Nick, I fail to find the humor in your smartass remarks. When I said I'm still pissed in my post that should be a clue to keep your uninformed opinions out of my face. FYI, most fighting was a close quarter, and you were lucky if you could see the front sight. IMHO, Your FAL would have been of no great advantage. Most of the action was up close and personal.... If I'm out of line here correct me...you seem to be a storehouse of knowledge.
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 3:19:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gib187th:
Originally Posted By Keith_J:
Originally Posted By gib187th: ...I taped a cleaning rod underneath the handguard with a shell ejector attached....
View Quote
What is a "shell ejector" attachment to a cleaning rod? I had a one-piece heavy cleaning rod with a patch jag (not a loop) to knock brass out of jammed rifles. I never used it but it was in my tool kit.
View Quote
I don't know anything about what you had, and when you had it, or where you were. I had a cleaning rod with a broken case extractor attached. In the mist of a firefight you had to break the '16' down and ram the rod down the muzzle and kick the case out. I could do the drill in seconds. BTW, the M-16 was my backup piece. I carried a stripped down M-60 on my lap with a can of 'Ham and Motherfuckers' to feed the linked rounds. I trusted it......once fired a 2000 round burst in an extreme circumstance...needless to say things got really quite after that
View Quote
View Quote
I had gone deaf... ;{>
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 4:04:16 PM EDT
I had gone deaf... ;{> LOL [8D]
Link Posted: 12/29/2001 4:22:00 PM EDT
gib187th, God was merciful. You not only survived but you had NEITHER Keith_J nor 5subslr5 there to explain anything. [:D]
View Quote
See, all the "is there a God" or "is there not a God" posts have been summarily answered here. 5subslr5, I've got a chit, so I know that you wont flame me for this one.
Top Top