DOA,
current AR-15's/M16's have been engineered to work with current production ammunition.

As I said above, I'm no Colt fan but two of their engineers, Foster Sturtevant and Bob Roy, deserve HUGE credit for making the changes that allowed the M16 to function with Ball powder.  These two stopped most of the dying in Vietnam caused by non-functioning M16's.  (By the time the Army fucked the troops with the powder change, ArmaLite had sold the AR-15 patents to Colt.)

[b]For those of you who are either very technical or deeply into pain here are the two major changes made by Sturtevant and Roy:[/b]

1)Heavier buffer assembly having a plurality of inertial mass acting in delayed sequence to oppose bolt rebound.  (Slowed down the cycle rate to something resembling the rate from IMR powder.)

2)Added a rubber plug inside the extractor spring to increase spring force.

Two other major problems belong to ArmaLite - they did not initially chrome the chamber (Colt eventually did chrome the chamber.) and no cleaning kits issued.  IMHO, the lack of cleaning kits lies directly at the feet of Stoner.  I have deep respect and admiration for Eugene Stoner but the lack of cleaning kits was unconscionable.

The only real malfunction issue I have ran into is firing in extremely cold weather.  When shooting in Alaska at -40 and colder, the rifle tended to short stroke if I was using any kind of liquid lubricant.  It turns VERY thick.  For that reason I always lubed with graphite in the winter.  Kinda messy, but no more malfunctions!

SoL

WOW! This is a good string..  I've laughed, I've cried (God bless you Doug) and I've learned a lot.

1. Buy an AK to bump fire crap ammo at the plink pit.
2. Stop buying foreign shit ammo for my AR

Now to figure out how to really clean my gas tube,  Thanks for the paranoia guys.
[grenade]

The villians in the "Great Powder Controversy" aren't as clear cut as one is led to believe.  DuPont's IMR powders predate Olin's Ball powders by two decades.  IMR is merely an improvement over DuPont's earlier Military Rifle (MR) series of powders such as Pyro DG.  From the mid-'20 until the mid-'50s, IMR powders were the US military's primary choice for loading .30-'06 among other cartridges.  During the same time frame, the only major US military use of Ball powder was in the .30 Carbine.  The tide began to shift toward Ball powders in the '50s; indeed, as early as 1954, the Chief of Ordnance wanted every small arms cartridge to be loaded with it.  This said, other powders continued to be used.  For instance, Remington would often load 7.62x51mm ammo with IMR, supplied by its parent company DuPont.

During early (1957) load development for ArmaLite, Robert Hutton used IMR 4198, IMR 3031, and an unnamed Olin ball powder.  At this point, the main goal was to show that the 55gr bullet @ ~3,300fps could indeed penetrate a helmet at 500yds.  However, all of this testing was performed with a 22" barrel.

When Remington delivered the first lots of .222 Special (later renamed the .223 Remington), the cartridges are loaded with IMR 4475.  (Ironicly, this is one of the same IMR powder types used by Remington for production of military 7.62x51mm cartridges.)  Use of IMR 4475 with the smaller cartridge continued on through to the early '60s with early military production lots.

When the military adoption of the M16/XM16E1 was forced in 1963, Frankford Arsenal quickly found that IMR 4475 could not reliably achieve the quoted 3,300 fps from a M16 without going exceeding with quoted maximum chamber pressures.  It was one thing when Remington was turning out small quantities of .223 Remington and could cherry-pick suitable production lots of IMR 4475, and quite another when it faced mass production of the cartridge.  The choices were either to lower the velocity, increase the acceptable pressure specs, or change powders. The representatives from the Office ot the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) vetoed lowering the velocity specs.  It was warned that increasing the chamber pressure specs would be technically unwise given trials in which the cartridges were already prone to popping primers.  When the earliest bid solicitations for M193 Ball were released later in the year, the OSD-sponsored specs demanded 3,250fps with a Remington-style 55gr FMJ (instead of the original Stoner/Sierra design), IMR 4475, and no change in pressure specs.  In return, Remington, Olin/Winchester, and Federal all refused to bid.

By early 1964, M193 specs were given a temporary waiver.  The average chamber pressure limit was increased to 53,000psi, with individual rounds allowed to test as high as 60,000psi.  In response, Remington and Olin agreed to supply 500,000 cartridges apiece under this waiver.  Frankford Arsenal also received permission to test production lots of 25,000rds loaded with alternate powders.  Candidates included DuPont's CR 8136, Hercules' HPC-10, and Olin's WC846.  (The latter was then in use by Olin for military production of 7.62x51mm ammunition, just as Remington had once done with IMR 4475.)  Soon afterwards, Remington and DuPont complicated matters by withdrawing IMR 4475 for use in future production lots of M193.

HPC-10 was rejected due to low temperature pressure issues along with its propensity for bore erosion.  WC846 had been an early favorite in part due to USAF acceptance of ammo lots loaded with the Ball powder.  However, the resulting higher cyclic rate was ignored by the USAF, who simply increased the M16's maximum acceptable cyclic rate to match.  The Army was more concerned, but issued month-by-month cyclic rate waivers for their XM16E1 instead. Soon after, DuPont's CR 8136 was also approved for use in loading M193.  Although it also displayed higher pressure levels at the gas port, CR 8136 did not have as dramatic effect upon the cyclic rate as did WC846.  As soon as Remington had production lots of M193 with CR 8136 available, the Army withdrew the month-to-month cyclic rate waivers for the XM16E1.  Unfortunately, like IMR 4475 before it, the performance of CR 8136 was not stable from lot to lot, and Remington had a difficult time maintaining the maximum chamber pressure specs. By Decemeber 1964, Remington and DuPont withdrew CR 8136 for the production of M193.  In order to finish the remainder of their production contract, Remington sought permission to use WC846, and this change was duly approved.  However, XM16E1 acceptance testing at Colt continued with the remaining stocks of CR 8136-loaded M193 cartridges.

Colt's supply of CR 8136-loaded ammo did not run out until the early summer of 1965.  When the Army refused to grant additional cyclic rate waivers with the use of WC846-loaded ammo, Colt in turn suspends production of the XM16E1 in favor of the USAF's M16.  This led to yet another search by Frankford Arsenal for an alternate powder.  While Olin declined to participate, two other powders were submitted: DuPont's EX 8208-4 and Hercules' HPC-11.  DuPont's EX 8208-4 displayed moderate fouling, but it also recorded higher gas port pressures than even WC846.  Hercules' HPC-11 showed the least visible fouling, but closer examination unveiled that heavy fouling was constricting the gas tube.  Frankford Arsenal's final report recommended that EX 8208-4 be approved for use in M193 Ball and M196 tracer cartridges, and that Hercules and Olin reduce the fouling characteristics of their respective powders.  Unlike WC846, HPC-11 was not approved for use.  However, M193 and M196 cartridges loaded with DuPont EX 8208-4 would not enter the supply chain until June of 1966.

In December 1967, WC846 was withdrawn for use in loading M196 tracer cartridges. WC846 was replaced by DuPont's IMR 8208M (formerly EX 8208-4).  Ironicly, production lots of M193 Ball loaded with IMR 8208M are soon withdrawn for practice use only.  Reliability problems had been discovered in a new set of performance trials conducted by the USMC at Fort Sherman in Panama.  Part of the goals were to sort out the relative merits of Ball versus IMR powders in the reliability of the M16A1.

The issue of allowable calcium carbonate content was not officially dealt with until the Fall of 1969.  In January 1970, Olin took a further step and divided the tolerances of WC846.  They had finally discovered/admitted that lots of WC846 suitable for 5.56x45mm are at the opposite end of the tolerance range from lots suitable for 7.62mm NATO.  Henceforth, the 5.56x45mm suitable tolerance range were relabeled as WC844.  The 7.62mm NATO-suitable tolerance range remained known as WC846.

WOW... impressive.  Where did this info come from?

I pulled the information together from a variety of sources.  The two main sources are "The Black Rifle" by Stevens and Ezell, and "The History and Development of the M16 Rifle and its Cartridge" by David R. Hughes.  Most of the early background info on IMR and Ball Powder comes from "Hatcher's Notebook" and the old NRA "Handloading" book.  Hutton's load development info comes from an old article by Robert Hutton himself.

I pulled all of this together as part of a historical timeline concerning the background and development of the .223 Remington/5.56x45mm cartridge, associated weapons, and SCHV spinoffs.  Hosted by Dean Speir's "The Gun Zone", it runs from the earliest .20 and .22 caliber experimental cartridges built for US military testing in 1894 up to some of the latest SCAR news.

[url]http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html[/url]

Clearly, it is still a work in progress, and any comments, additions, and corrections would be appreciated.

[b]The "villain" of the Great Powder Controversy is perfectly clear to me.[/b]  In rebuttal I simply offer the following:

1)Congress investigated the powder switch and issued the "Ichord Report".  From Page 5370:  [b]".......that the failure on the part of officials with authority in the ARMY to cause action to be taken to correct the deficiencies of the 5.56mm ammunition BORDERS ON CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE."[/b]  (Emphasis is mine.)

2)Stoner arguing on behalf of ArmaLite to the Army:  Our earlier "bad choices" (the light weight buffer, weak extractor spring, thin cartridge rim and no chromed chamber) made these problems worse (when Ball powder was used), but, except for the lack of chrome chambers, ALL OF THE PROBLEMS AND CAUSES WOULD  BE CURED BY GOING BACK TO IMR POWDER.

Stoner should have added that cleaning kits were also now being issued with the M16.

(Why was Stoner arguing on behalf of ArmaLite when the patents, by this time, had already been sold to Colt ??  Cause both Stoner and ArmaLite received royalties from Colt.)

3)The Army had stockpiled 100 million rounds of BALL POWDER.  (They were damn sure going to use that powder no mattter how many grunts were killed.)

5sub

dewatters,
the .222 cartridge was NOT renamed the .223.  These were two different cartridges.

A bit of quick history.  

The first rifle designed by ArmaLite to conform to the Army's SCHV (Small Caliber High Velocity) specs was not the AR-15.  The first rifle ArmaLite produced to comply with the Army's SCHV specs was the "Stoppette" (The AR-11).  Robert Enewold designed the AR-11 for ArmaLite.  The AR-11 was, obviously, the forerunner to the AR-15 and was basically a test vehicle for the bullet.

Then the Army made a change to the SCHV specifications that required a little more effective range.  Then comes the NEW .223 cartridge.
-----------------------------------------------

Regarding the .223 cartridge development we are indeed fortunate that we have right here on AR15.com a member by the board name of "gus".  It was gus's father, Mr. Gustafson, that developed the .223 round for ArmaLite and the new round allowed ArmaLite to conform to the Army's changed SCHV specs.

5sub

You are confusing the nomenclature.  Remington had three different cartridges floating about with the .222 name:  The original .222 Remington, the .222 Remington [i]Magnum[/i] (formerly the .224 Springfield), and Armalite's .222 Remington [i]Special[/i].  Due to the confusion, the .222 Remington [i]Special[/i] was renamed the .223 Remington in 1959.



I mention this...no problem here.



This said, the first AR-15 prototype was reportedly chambered for the plain vanilla .222 Remington.  The .222 Remington [i]Special[/i] (pre-.223 Remington) had not been developed yet (or at the very least was not ready).



I'd love to get his input.  However, I suspect that Mr. Gustafson had more influence over the development of the ill-fated .224 Springfield (.222 Remington Magnum) cartridge than the .223 Remington.  Dr. Carten shut this project down so fast that little information survived concerning the related rifle designed by Earle Harvey and AJ Lizza.  Most of the keyplayers at and around ArmaLite have indicated that they had no idea that the .224 Springfield cartridge even existed until its commercial twin, the .222 Remington [i]Magnum[/i] was released in 1958.  (By this point, ArmaLite and Winchester were already prepping rifles for Infantry Board trials, and each had settled upon its own cartridge.)  Of course, we owe Mr. Gustafson a debt for his early '50s SCHV conversion of the M2 Carbine with a wildcat cartridge based on a shortened .222 Remington case.  During the '60s, he also lobbied hard for use of heavier projectiles in the 5.56x45mm.

I have a 'decent' understanding of the background of the .222 and .223 cartridges (and the AR-11 & AR-15) but know NOTHING about the .224.  (Also I understand that things were not exactly as cut-and-dried about who did what and when as I've indicated here.)

TRY I MIDLENTH, I AM NOT SURE BUT I BELIVE THE GAS TUBE IS LONGER AND ALL THAT UNBURNED POWDER IS NOT GOING BACK INTO THE ACTION. i THINK THAT HELPS OUT A LOT NOT SURE

MR OLDJARHEART GIVE AN EXCELLENT DESCRIPTION OF THE M-16 I SAW THE SAME THING ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL TO ADD ON TO HIM THE RIFLES WERE NOT CHROME LINED AT ALL AND THEY USED BALLL POWDER BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT CONFIDENT IN THE STOPAGE POWER OF THE .223 MY RESPECTS TO ANYONE WHO WAS IN VIETNAM AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY ANY ONE WHO DID NOT CLEAN THEIR RIFLE FOR A YEAR WOULD BE A DEAD MAN BUT THE M-16 IS THOUGHT TO BE SELF CLEANING IN THE SENCE THAT THE SHORT GAS TUBE DOESN T ALLOW RESIDUE BUILDUP IN THE GAS TUBE INSTEAD IT BLOWS THE UNBURNED CRAP INTO THE ACTION IF I AM INCORRECT PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME BECAUSE I AM NOT SURE MY SELF

JMV, I was the one who said I didn't clean my rifle for a year.  I am not dead yet.  

In the whole company I don't remember seeing anyone clean an M-16, I don't remember anyone even having a cleaning kit.  I have all the letters I sent home and have recently re-read them, and there is nothing in them except a reference to my having to clean it to turn it in for DEROS.

I am very impressed by the knowledge and research here.  My story is simply my memory, and I would guess there are as many stories out there across the spectrum as there were grunts.

A memorial to the men of my company who were KIA in Viet Nam is on the Ranger 25 site at [url]http://www.ranger25.com/A%202%2012%20Memorial.htm[/url]

Regardless if you believe my "didn't clean my rifle for a year" story, and BTW it was true, I think it is safe to say that everyone in Ace High (A. Co) was very impressed with the M-16.

Photos of me, my Sgt Major and some of the A Co grunts are also on Ranger 25 at [url]http://www.ranger25.com/A%202%2012%20PHOTOS.htm[/url]

My photos are near the bottom of the page.

Thanks for taking the time to read this old grunts ramblings.  

The .224 Springfield cartridge was designed early in 1957 by Earle Harvey of Springfield Armory.  (Harvey is considered by some to be the father of the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, and he also designed the T25/T47 rifles which were an early favorite for US adoption after WW2.)  Intended to meet the ever increasing range requirements for the SCHV request, the .224 Springfield case was essentially a lengthened version of the basic .222 Remington.  Remington loaded 10,000 unheadstamped .224 Springfield cartridges: 9500 with 55 grain projectiles and 500 with the 68 grain "M1 ball homologue" designed by William C. Davis Jr. and G.A. Gustafson, circa 1954.  (Both projectile types were provided by Sierra.)  

Albert J. Lizza designed a rifle around the cartridge, combining the best features of Harvey's T25/T47 rifle prototypes along with items inspired by the T22 (a full-auto variant of the M1 Rifle) and the T44 (pre-M14).  Once Dr. Carten learned of Harvey and Lizza's developments, all further work on the .224 Springfield was ordered to cease.

In 1958, Remington introduced the .224 Springfield cartridge commercially as the .222 Remington Magnum.

Got it !

(After reading your post I do remember the .222 magnum but did NOT know that was the same as the .224.)

What?   With an op-rod ar-15, like the zm, you don't need the buffer, or buffer spring.   I would be suprised if an oprod ar15 managed to still be heavier than a standard one because of that. So, you have compared equal weight  Ar15's, one with an op rod and one with the direct gas system?   Or are you just spouting some theory of yours as far as being able to tell the difference in felt recoil? for this paragraph alone i give you the "most contradictions possible in one post" award for the day You obviously don't know what it takes to make an M1A competitve in competition, compared to an AR15.   There is no comparison in price or time for maintenance/ overhauls.

alright, i don't want to be an ass, but he said literally Dude, why don't you get 15  ar15 gas tubes and shove them in the AK gas tube, and post the pics.   You do that and i'll pay for the tubes.   Shucks, if you can fit 9 Ar tubes in one AK tube, i'll give you $5 sheesh

The RROC was a 6lbs upper by itself, the ZM weapons is 7lbs, but it's not really a gas-piston and op-rod system.  From what I understand, it still blows gas into the bolt carrier however the buffer spring has been relocated onto a rod in the front of the weapon instead of the buffer tube/spring/buffer combo.  Other gas piston systems have been made, and there are foreign versions of the AR15 with a gas-piston system.  They are all as-heavy or heavier.  Even if they were the same weight, the key element is that the gas-piston&op-rod system will place the weight over the front of the weapon instead of the rear, thus helping to keep the muzzle down.



I haven't, but some prominent folks in the industry have and I read their work.  By the same token how can you claim to be able to refute my statements if you have no experience with them yourself?  How about you.. do YOU have any material that you have read from a prominent source that rebukes what I have said?  Or are you just spouting some theory of yours as far as NOT being able to tell the difference in felt recoil?



And where exactly did the contradiction take place?  You do know what a contradiction is right?



You're right, I don't know what an M1A takes to make it competitive in competition.  However, the mere fact that it can become a tack driver with the gas-piston system in place proves that it does not detract from accuracy.  If it did, it wouldn't be possible for an M1A to become tack-driver accurate.  Also, the M1A was used as an example, there are multiple gas-piston&op-rod systems that are plenty accurate.  Look at the RA M96; out of the box, off a factory line with no modifications it is as accurate as your standard, out of the box, off the factory line AR-15.

You want the contradiction?   How bout you saying the AR15 is lighter, then saying the Op rod system is heavier.   My example is the ZM/ LR300- which if you compared an AR15 with everything the same but the gas system, MY GUESS would be that the AR15 system would be heavier.   and more complex, but more on that later.   You can't just say the ZM weighs 7 pounds, and an m4 weighs 6 or whatever, because you are not comparing the parts we are discussing.   The ZM has a really stinky heavy handguard, and other parts that add up the weight.   It probably compares to a SIR in weight for parts not related to the gas system.edit-   I'll have to check my brothers ZM, but i don't think gas goes in the BC.  Not sure though. for the contradiction on the simpler statement- if you can remove the buffer and buffer spring from the buttstock, and put a smaller spring up front with a gas piston, ala ZM, that sure seems alot simpler to me.  Ergo, your AR15= simpler doesn't pan out.   It might be simpler than an M1A, or a mini14/30 but those are totally different style of rifles, and not from the gas system. Fine, if you want to compare an M1A to an AR15, whether factory to factory rifles, or top of the line competition rifles, I will say the AR15 wins hand down.   The M1A is "inaccurate" in comparison to the AR15, or the "direct impingment" blows the doors off the op rod system.   Now if you want someone to say " The M1A is inaccurate, period" that might not fly, but then, it isn't really much of a support to your argument then, is it? You are going off on your tangent here with the M1A again. the point is not that you can make it accurate with the op rod piston thingy, the point is how does it compare to an AR15 as a system for accuracy?   Answer- on this point it sucks the big one.   You could have an AR15 built and it would run, and run, and run for years, with the replacement of a barrel which you can do yourself.   Try that with an M1A without skim bedding at least once a season, and don't even try to compare changing barrels.It is actually the one of the easiest things to do- lining up the gas tube (i assume you mean with the barrel nut, right?)   the gas tube is smaller dia than the half circles in the barrel nut- when you can move it back and forth and have equal play it is centered. simple, no? The amount of gas for the system-AR!% is much more versatile (sp?) try heavy bullets with certain powders- no problem.   Try heavy bullets with certain powders in the M1A- bent op rod = sux.   And, no, I am not talking about over pressure loads (as far as competition goes)   It is a matter of port pressure. What's the RROC? edited to fix board code, spelling, and small additions

And how DO you clean the gas tube??

Really long pipe cleaner? I dunno, I always thought they were self-cleaning.

Most people believe it doesn't need cleaning.

[b]Oh WOW! WHAT A CONTRADICTION! Oh darn, you caught me you sly guy.[/b]  Hey, I got another contradiction for you!   Fire is hot and ice is cold!

Here, maybe this will help:[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contradiction[/url]



Oh, now who's making predictions without evidence?



Sure I can, it's on their website.



I thought we were discussing AR15's?  This IS the ar15.com board right?



Maybe, I don't know, I haven't weighed the handguards, have you or are you making assumptions and guesses again?  Your hipocracy regarding not making assumptions and guesses astounds me.



Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  Personally, I see it as you are removing a buffer and buffer spring and adding an op-rod, spring, piston, sometimes pivot joints, etc.  Also, like I said, I don't believe the ZM is an entire gas-piston&op-rod system.



Like I said, opinion.  When I see 2 parts removed and 4-15 added depending upon design, I have to say the latter is more complex.  The 2nd sentence is not relevant to our conversation.



Wow, you have a thick head.  Where did I say I wanted to compare an M1A to an AR15?



Now who's off on a tangent?  You are attributing all of the AR15's accuracy to the direct impingement system?  HAH!  So the barrel, chamber, round type, bolt, etc. have nothing to do with it huh?




No, I'm not.  I'm making a very relevant point that you don't seem to understand.  If a gas-piston&op-rod system was a cause of inaccuracy, then by definition, NO RIFLE using a gas-piston&op-rod system can be tack-driver accurate.  There are plenty of gas-piston&op-rod rifles out there that ARE tack drivers, so OBVIOUSLY the gas-piston&op-rod aren't causing any accuracy problems are they?



Yes, actually the point IS that a rifle can be tack-driver accuracy with a GP&OR (tired of spelling it out) system.  If the GP&OR were an inpediment to accuracy, or caused inaccuracy, you'd have to remove them in order to gain tack-driver accuracy.  BTW, I've never seen a rifle with a "thingy", could you please locate the "thingy" on my rifle?



No, actually it's not.  That has more to do with the barrel, chamber, round type, ammunition used, and just about everything else before the gas system.



Wow, off on a tangent.. try off on an island by yourself.  YOU are the one who is trying to compare the two rifles, not me.



If everything goes ideally, yes it is simple.  Sometimes barrel extention and barrel nut combinations don't allow you to easily go to the next notch and stay at or under 80ft-lbs.  It also has to be lined up correctly vertically as well.  Often time this means carefully bending the gas tube.  Not insurmountable problems, but annoying.  The hardest part (the one you plainly ignored) is really tuning your system to getting just the right amount of gas.  On semi-auto 20" barreled rifles this isn't difficult.  But when you're talking full-auto & 11.5" barrels it can be difficult.  Even people with semi-auto 16" have gas problems from time to time.  GP&OR systems seem to be less sensitive about having too much or too little gas in my experience.



Is that really the fault of the op-rod system design concept as a whole?  No.  An op-rod made of a stronger material would fix this.  So would increasing the diameter of the op-rod.  You talk as if the AR15 never has any problems with gas..

You cant tune ar AR of 16-14.5" in barrel length.  The only thing you can do is drill the gas port bigger and if you have to do that the barrel is defective.  Not a good comparison.

If you over tighten a barrel nut a little it wont matter.  I had to overtighten mine a little and its no big deal.  You should not have to bend a gas tube that is in spec.  If you do, send it back because its defective.  

I barreld my AR and attached the gas tube in 15 min.  Well thats if you subtract the 20 min I wasted trying to get the damned pin started into the front sight base. [furious]

Just to clarify.  I wasn't argueing that one system was better than another.  I was simply stating the benefits and drawbacks (as I see it) of both systems.  Unfortunately, in my debate with danonly, it may have cast me in an anti-AR15-gas-system light.  That is not the case.  THE BEST GAS SYSTEM IS THE SYSTEM THAT WORKS RELIABLY AND CONSISTENTLY IN YOUR RIFLE!  That being said, if a GP&OR system came out for the AR15 that was as durable, reliable and consistent as the AR15's direct gas piston system, I'd probably buy it.  The military has also been very interested in a GP&OR system for the AR15 that does not sacrafice reliability, and I don't blame them.