Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/15/2003 7:29:17 AM EDT
It ain't pretty.

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Hackworth_120903.htm
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 7:43:18 AM EDT
Hack is from the camp of - we should never have left the M14 and we should go back to it now! I chalk it up to outdated thinking and forgetfulness.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:06:01 AM EDT
According to Popular Science, the first few times the M-16 was issued for combat (Vietnam), it did not come with cleaning supplies. Complications further arose when bullet manufacturers at the time started using a new type of gunpowder that left "gobs of calcium carbonate in the gas tube". So then they started to issue cleaning kits. Later on, the military chose to use a chrome-lined barrel to make it easier to clean. Just from reading this article, it would seem like the majority of Col. Hackworth's complaint seems to stem from what happened from 1965-1973.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:13:11 AM EDT
[url]http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Hackworth_120903.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:36:56 AM EDT
Hack is simply re-stating what he has been saying about the M16 ever since he was first exposed to it, back in the late "sixties", which is probably before the poster was born. If nothing else, at least he's consistent and this ain't news to anyone who knows him. Mike
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:48:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JimGA: According to Popular Science, the first few times the M-16 was issued for combat (Vietnam), it did not come with cleaning supplies. Complications further arose when bullet manufacturers at the time started using a new type of gunpowder that left "gobs of calcium carbonate in the gas tube". So then they started to issue cleaning kits. Later on, the military chose to use a chrome-lined barrel to make it easier to clean. Just from reading this article, it would seem like the majority of Col. Hackworth's complaint seems to stem from what happened from 1965-1973.
View Quote
Sometime, if you ever get the chance, I would suggest reading "The Black Rifle". It has far more detail on the developmental/deployment history of the AR than most regular gun nuts would want to read but they do go over that whole deal in pretty good detail. The two things that happened to create a bad introduction were... 1. It got promoted as so hi-tech that you didn't even have to clean it. 2. It got issued with much dirtier ammo than originally tested with. Those two really culmenated, in a bad way. :( There were other problems but 40 years of development has certainly led to minimizing (or ending) them.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 8:54:52 AM EDT
The AR family of wepons has sufficiently proven itself as a capable and effective weapons platfom for the better part of fourty years, regardless of who likes it and who doesn't. Results are hard to argue w/. Tons, of countries, lots of years. Put it to bed. Thanks for the link though always good to read opinions, agreeing and dissenting. /S2
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 9:23:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 9:24:46 AM EDT by The_Cheat]
Hackworth needs to be put in jail. I'm not going to get into the reasons, but ask anybody in the miltary, what they think of him.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:42:40 AM EDT
The M-16 was made by Mattel,I know cause I saw pics of one here! So it must be true.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:49:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Cheat: Hackworth needs to be put in jail. I'm not going to get into the reasons, but ask anybody in the miltary, what they think of him.
View Quote
Having read the good Col.'s book - I am inclined to disagree. Hack, like others fulfills a necessary and dutiful role in focusing on the short comming of the military. In this case, small arms. There is no question that an m16 / m4 is NOT the be all end all of small arms. What it is though, is a pretty good compromise of many factors which make up the decision making process. He and others lean more heavily on other factors. Good luck
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:52:51 AM EDT
I enjoy his books, but Hackworth is not exactly consistant. I've read where he damns the 1911 and tries to take credit for the adoption of the 92. Then he is damning the 92 for being unreliable, especially compared to the debugged M16. Then he damns the M16 for being unreliable. I have come to the conclusion that he just hates everything.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 11:04:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By imposter: I enjoy his books, but Hackworth is not exactly consistant. I've read where he damns the 1911 and tries to take credit for the adoption of the 92. Then he is damning the 92 for being unreliable, especially compared to the debugged M16. Then he damns the M16 for being unreliable. I have come to the conclusion that he just hates everything.
View Quote
He is still pissed that he did not accurately predict our victory in the First Gulf War. Remember "10,000" body bags.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 12:11:50 PM EDT
There were 10,000 body bags,they just happened to be stuffed with dead Iraqis.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:10:00 PM EDT
Dont know about wish #1, but wish #2 and #3 are right on the money!
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 5:28:59 PM EDT
The recent comments from Iraq about the dependability of M16's vs AK's can not be ignored. I've got one of each. For accuracy forget the AK. For dependability SHTF situation give me the AK. Different rifles - different uses. Next gen - it will be interesting
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 5:36:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tackshot: The recent comments from Iraq about the dependability of M16's vs AK's can not be ignored. I've got one of each. For accuracy forget the AK. For dependability SHTF situation give me the AK. Different rifles - different uses. Next gen - it will be interesting
View Quote
And what comments are those?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 5:40:11 PM EDT
I know they chromed the barrel and chamber as well as adding a forward assist, but did they ever change back to the orginal-design powders? I own "The Black Rifle" book and saw that they removed the calcium carbonate from the powder (used as a peservative for long-time storage) but never saw a reference about a return to the original-type powder that burned so much cleaner. I can't remember if it was stick or ball powder.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 5:59:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 6:02:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tackshot: The recent comments from Iraq about the dependability of M16's vs AK's can not be ignored.
View Quote
?!?!?!?!?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 6:41:58 PM EDT
I think he is referring to all the news stories about US solders ditching there M16's left and right and picking up AK's off dead soldiers.(or ones they found in raids...) Because the M16 jams all the time... There words not mine ;)
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 7:09:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SA_1911: I think he is referring to all the news stories about US solders ditching there M16's left and right and picking up AK's off dead soldiers.(or ones they found in raids...) Because the M16 jams all the time... There words not mine ;)
View Quote
I don't remember too much of that, mostly what I remember was 1) didn't have enough rifles (the reason I carried a battlefield pick up AK) 2) M16A2 is too long for mounted ops and MOUT 3) Ran low or out of ammo.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 9:13:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ABNAK: ...did they ever change back to the orginal-design powders? ...
View Quote
IIRC, the original powder was a stick type and was not returned to. I think there were also problems with it such as manufacturing difficulties, high port pressures, and higher temperatures. The calcium carbonate in the later adopted ball powder caused problems, which were solved by reducing the amount of calcium carbonate in the powder. The problems with the M16 in the mid to late 1960’s were very real and undoubtedly resulted in the deaths of at least some American soldiers. OTOH, arguably the M-14 was outclassed by the AK-47 in the Southeast Asian environment. See also: [url]www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 9:28:33 PM EDT
When the M-16 series is retired, I 'll guarantee the replacement rifle will utilize a gas piston system. It's a no brainer.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:11:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Face_N_The_Crowd:
Originally Posted By The_Cheat: Hackworth needs to be put in jail. I'm not going to get into the reasons, but ask anybody in the miltary, what they think of him.
View Quote
Having read the good Col.'s book - I am inclined to disagree. Hack, like others fulfills a necessary and dutiful role in focusing on the short comming of the military. In this case, small arms. There is no question that an m16 / m4 is NOT the be all end all of small arms. What it is though, is a pretty good compromise of many factors which make up the decision making process. He and others lean more heavily on other factors. Good luck
View Quote
Here is one soldier that thinks he is a turdball. As for weapons, he bitched for years about the 1911. Now that the latest bitch is about the M9, he talks about the M1911 as if it is the greatest thing in the world. He is, and always has been, full of shit. He has an exemplary combat record, but he has now spent more years as a civilian moron than he spent as a soldier - he has far exceeded any leeway that earns him. The final straw for most of us was his treatment of CW4 Michael Durant.
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 12:09:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2003 12:13:10 AM EDT by dpmmn]
NOt to HIjack this thread but, It is my Opinion That hack is a fraud. He must not get any kickbacks on the M16, or he would like it then. let me add this, since he is the "self-proclaimed" Highest Decorated Solider I was reading that story about the M16 and he said this, let me Quote,
"When I took basic training in 1946"
View Quote
and then He has a WWII Victory Medal. WTF? How would he get a Victory medal a Year after the war was over?
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 4:54:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Adam_White: The final straw for most of us was his treatment of CW4 Michael Durant.
View Quote
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What an oxygen theif.... At least half of his name is correct.
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 5:36:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2003 5:49:54 AM EDT by photoman]
Originally Posted By JimGA: According to Popular Science, the first few times the M-16 was issued for combat (Vietnam), it did not come with cleaning supplies. Complications further arose when bullet manufacturers at the time started using a new type of gunpowder that left "gobs of calcium carbonate in the gas tube". So then they started to issue cleaning kits. Later on, the military chose to use a chrome-lined barrel to make it easier to clean. Just from reading this article, it would seem like the majority of Col. [red]Hackworth's complaint seems to stem from what happened from 1965-1973.[/red]
View Quote
Which is where the majority of the bitching about the ar comes from as well from people who ewither don't know or are to stuck on .30cal to really look. I got friends like that, but it's ok one day they will see the error of their ways and come to the darkside. By the way anyone else catch this
When I took basic training in 1946, an officer kicked my arm until it was squarely under my piece. A bit over the top? Roger that. But so is kill-or-be-killed close combat. [red]And from that day on, I never failed to take up a perfect firing position. [/red]
View Quote
I find it odd he talks about a perfect shooting position. Now I've never been in combat but I have been around for a couple shootings 4 to be exact. And this is observation comes from those times. A perfect shooting position would have resulted in the shooter being full of holes in anyone of those situations. A perfect shooting position makes you the perfect target, at least in my experiance maybe some of you guys know what I mean.
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 7:03:59 AM EDT
Hackworth may have been a helluva soldier, but his existence now is dedicated to making appearances as a talking head "expert" on all things military. If he wasn't a controversial loudmouth, he'd never show up on MSNBC or FOXNews again, and his bank account would suffer. He's a hack.
Top Top