Quoted: Would the M4 be less prone to failure with underpowered rounds like wolf?

Far as I know Colt's nor Ordnance has tested Wolf ammo.

Quoted: Quoted: Any pics of that? Nah... I am just a small time hack, nothing worth recording for history happens around here... plus, the goings on in the lab really are disturbing

Oh well, don't hurt to ask.

Quoted: Yes, there is a bit of deja vu here, in regards to port pressure, in that the switch to ball powder, and moving the gas port back both resulted in increased port pressure.  The thing is that moving the port increased port pressure close to 100 percent, while the switch to ball powder resulted in a small increase.  The two gas problems are not close to being in the same league. The most serious complaint against the XM16E1 was that fired cases would stick in the chamber, and had to be removed by ramming a cleaning rod down the bore.  This is a complaint I have not heard or seen in a M4/A1 Carbine.

And I was under the impression that the main culprit for the xm16e1 jams (FTExtract?) was the higher gas pressure of the new powder that upset the timing and caused the fired cartridge to be pulled out of the chamber too soon when it was still obturated. If I understand you correctly, chroming the chamber alone would have fixed the problem, despite the higher gas pressure (like with the M4)?

Quoted: Quoted: Yes, there is a bit of deja vu here, in regards to port pressure, in that the switch to ball powder, and moving the gas port back both resulted in increased port pressure.  The thing is that moving the port increased port pressure close to 100 percent, while the switch to ball powder resulted in a small increase.  The two gas problems are not close to being in the same league. The most serious complaint against the XM16E1 was that fired cases would stick in the chamber, and had to be removed by ramming a cleaning rod down the bore.  This is a complaint I have not heard or seen in a M4/A1 Carbine. And I was under the impression that the main culprit for the xm16e1 jams (FTExtract?) was the higher gas pressure of the new powder that upset the timing and caused the fired cartridge to be pulled out of the chamber too soon when it was still obturated. If I understand you correctly, chroming the chamber alone would have fixed the problem, despite the higher gas pressure (like with the M4)?

Have also read that the powder contained some extra chemical which I believe was supposed to allow the powder to be stored for long duration, some calcium component or something.  Well that powder didn't work well in the jungle -- very dirty/high amount of fouling and maybe a bit corrosion contributing.  As a result non-chromelined chambers corroded which further affected extraction.  

Quoted: Quoted: Yes, there is a bit of deja vu here, in regards to port pressure, in that the switch to ball powder, and moving the gas port back both resulted in increased port pressure.  The thing is that moving the port increased port pressure close to 100 percent, while the switch to ball powder resulted in a small increase.  The two gas problems are not close to being in the same league. The most serious complaint against the XM16E1 was that fired cases would stick in the chamber, and had to be removed by ramming a cleaning rod down the bore.  This is a complaint I have not heard or seen in a M4/A1 Carbine. And I was under the impression that the main culprit for the xm16e1 jams (FTExtract?) was the higher gas pressure of the new powder that upset the timing and caused the fired cartridge to be pulled out of the chamber too soon when it was still obturated. If I understand you correctly, chroming the chamber alone would have fixed the problem, despite the higher gas pressure (like with the M4)?

Quoted: Quoted: Yes, there is a bit of deja vu here, in regards to port pressure, in that the switch to ball powder, and moving the gas port back both resulted in increased port pressure.  The thing is that moving the port increased port pressure close to 100 percent, while the switch to ball powder resulted in a small increase.  The two gas problems are not close to being in the same league. The most serious complaint against the XM16E1 was that fired cases would stick in the chamber, and had to be removed by ramming a cleaning rod down the bore.  This is a complaint I have not heard or seen in a M4/A1 Carbine. And I was under the impression that the main culprit for the xm16e1 jams (FTExtract?) was the higher gas pressure of the new powder that upset the timing and caused the fired cartridge to be pulled out of the chamber too soon when it was still obturated. If I understand you correctly, chroming the chamber alone would have fixed the problem, despite the higher gas pressure (like with the M4)?

Yes, that is the "official" story, that the increased port pressure of ball ammo caused the case to stick in the XM16E1 chamber.  But, ball powder increased port pressure by less then 10 percent.  Think about that for a bit and compare to the M4 Carbines were pressure had increased closer to 100 percent.  Also, if you have a case that failued to extract due to the bolt moving while the case was obturated to the chamber walls you would not need a cleaning rod to remove the case.  The case would fall out once the pressure was gone, as in a few miliseconds later.

Quoted: ...if you have a case that failued to extract due to the bolt moving while the case was obturated to the chamber walls you would not need a cleaning rod to remove the case.  The case would fall out once the pressure was gone, as in a few miliseconds later.

Unless the bolt had already moved back and the cartridge rim skipped the extracter or was sheared off.  Then the next round is going to get jammed into it too.  I don't think that a cooled cartridge will just fall out on its own anyway. I was once issued an M16A1 (by H&R) that constantly left the cartridge case stuck in the chamber and I had to go around with a cleaning rod to pop them out like I read they did in Vietnam.

But most interesting is that you are implying that the "official" explanation of the early malfunctions is amiss. hock.gif

Quoted: Quoted: ...if you have a case that failued to extract due to the bolt moving while the case was obturated to the chamber walls you would not need a cleaning rod to remove the case.  The case would fall out once the pressure was gone, as in a few miliseconds later. Unless the bolt had already moved back and the cartridge rim skipped the extracter or was sheared off.  Then the next round is going to get jammed into it too.  I don't think that a cooled cartridge will just fall out on its own anyway. I was once issued an M16A1 (by H&R) that constantly left the cartridge case stuck in the chamber and I had to go around with a cleaning rod to pop them out like I read they did in Vietnam. But most interesting is that you are implying that the "official" explanation of the early malfunctions is amiss.

An obturated case in a chamber is a temporary thing, it is a matter of milliseconds that it is held in place.  The number one XM16E1 problem was the case being stuck in the chamber after this.  Two separate issues.  It is not a matter of "cooling" off, just that the pressure that held the case in place is gone.

Yes, the "official" story does not match field reports of the biggest compliant, having to remove a stuck case with a cleaning rod, and some of them being brand new "off the chopper" XM16E1's.

In regards to your H&R, I would chalk that up to an anomaly, most likely that rifle was made in 1969, and I know of no reports of stuck case issues with 1969 manufactured M16A1's.  That said, what caused the stuck cases in Vietnam with the XM16E1, and what caused the stuck case in your H&R could very well be the same thing.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, there is a bit of deja vu here, in regards to port pressure, in that the switch to ball powder, and moving the gas port back both resulted in increased port pressure.  The thing is that moving the port increased port pressure close to 100 percent, while the switch to ball powder resulted in a small increase.  The two gas problems are not close to being in the same league. The most serious complaint against the XM16E1 was that fired cases would stick in the chamber, and had to be removed by ramming a cleaning rod down the bore.  This is a complaint I have not heard or seen in a M4/A1 Carbine. And I was under the impression that the main culprit for the xm16e1 jams (FTExtract?) was the higher gas pressure of the new powder that upset the timing and caused the fired cartridge to be pulled out of the chamber too soon when it was still obturated. If I understand you correctly, chroming the chamber alone would have fixed the problem, despite the higher gas pressure (like with the M4)? Have also read that the powder contained some extra chemical which I believe was supposed to allow the powder to be stored for long duration, some calcium component or something.  Well that powder didn't work well in the jungle -- very dirty/high amount of fouling and maybe a bit corrosion contributing.  As a result non-chromelined chambers corroded which further affected extraction.

Calcium carbonate was not addressed until after the problem was fixed.  So don't see a connection there.

I got this from the Dick Culver's link that I posted before www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html::

....While it was true that the ball powders did have a lower "peak" pressure, they also had a higher port pressure. ......The problem here, however, is that the gas reaching the bolt was arriving before the case obturation had subsided and the residual chamber pressure would not allow the brass to be easily broken loose from its hold on the chamber walls, extracted and ejected. The high port pressure and resulting delayed duration of case obturation often, if not usually, caused the extractor to either "jump the case rim" or pull through it, causing the case to remain in the chamber. ...This "stuck case" problem was compounded by the fact that the ball powders being used by Remington (CR8136), Olin and Federal (WC846) were much dirtier burning powders than IMR-4475, and tended to "dirty" the rifle chamber area much quicker than the earlier powder....

I don't know when that H&R rifle was built but it was stamped M16A1 and I remember that it had a solid rubber end on the buttstock instead of the usual trap door. I described my experience with this rifle once before on this forum and someone suggested that it was caused by a weak extractor spring, IIRC.

Quoted: I got this from the Dick Culver's link that I posted before www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html:: ....While it was true that the ball powders did have a lower "peak" pressure, they also had a higher port pressure. ......The problem here, however, is that the gas reaching the bolt was arriving before the case obturation had subsided and the residual chamber pressure would not allow the brass to be easily broken loose from its hold on the chamber walls, extracted and ejected. The high port pressure and resulting delayed duration of case obturation often, if not usually, caused the extractor to either "jump the case rim" or pull through it, causing the case to remain in the chamber. ...This "stuck case" problem was compounded by the fact that the ball powders being used by Remington (CR8136), Olin and Federal (WC846) were much dirtier burning powders than IMR-4475, and tended to "dirty" the rifle chamber area much quicker than the earlier powder.... I don't know when that H&R rifle was built but it was stamped M16A1 and I remember that it had a solid rubber end on the buttstock instead of the usual trap door. I described my experience with this rifle once before on this forum and someone suggested that it was caused by a weak extractor spring, IIRC.

That is from Part 2 were he goes into theory and such.  Part 1 is his personal experience, and has lots of useful information.

This bit he wrote about port pressure is just a repeat of the "official" story.  I won't go through it again, other then to say that this explanation fails on many points.

Anyhow, I don't know what caused the troubles with the XM16E1, but I sure don't buy the "official" story.  SAR had a recent article on this subject.  Thought about starting a thread about this article, and the subject, but don't really have the time right now.........

Sure, a bum extractor spring would cause the malfunction you described.  There are quite a few M16A1's from that vintage that still have the factory original extractor spring in them.  For example I got a 1969 parts kit in last week that still had the original spring.  I thought you were supposed to replace them every year?  We used to get new springs and buffers for ours, was thinking it was some annual PM thing?

mine goes bang everytime that is all I ask

Quoted: Anyhow, I don't know what caused the troubles with the XM16E1, but I sure don't buy the "official" story.  SAR had a recent article on this subject.  Thought about starting a thread about this article, and the subject, but don't really have the time right now.........

OK,
Thanks for your time and for sharing your knowledge.

I'll keep an eye out for if you start that thread...

Opinion from an ex-Army ("clerks and jerks"), former Class III dealer, all around AR junky and current Benchrest Ranger.

There is military use and there is civilian / law enforecement use.

Military is full-auto, mud/abuse/dust/abuse/dirt/abuse/sand/abuse/grime/abuse and abuse.  Crap gets in every nook and cranny and maintenance is essential for reliability.

Civilian and LE is taking it out of it's case once and a while for some semi-auto fun, maybe to a match, and generally having around for "just in case."   It most likely will never be fired in anger.  The only crap that gets in the reciver is propellant.  

There are clearly two different standards here.  

So the question is:  what is your standard?  If you want total mil-standard go get a Colt and enjoy.  If you want something more exotic then have at it--but you will have to go to another manufacturer.

If you stick with a well-regarded name (Colt/Bushy/RRA/Others Not Listed) you will not go wrong in the civilian reliability department.  Out of tens of thousands of rounds I have fired through AR's and M-16's I can count less than ten true misfires that were the result of rifle or mag.  So sleep well tonight knowing that if your rifle was made by a respected name--and you haven't gone in there and mucked it up--it will be there for you when you need it.

If you are going to take your rifle (and yourself) to extremes then expect some degradation in performance.  That is true of any mechanical device and a rifle is no exception.  But please don't think that the AR system is a jam waiting to happen for the average civilian shooter.  It is a fine piece of engineering and design and if you do your part--as you would with any other mechanical device--it will do it's part in spades.

Peace.hippie.gif

well according to the article i saw on the shelf today the HK version says the M4's days are numbered

Quoted: Quoted: Anyhow, I don't know what caused the troubles with the XM16E1, but I sure don't buy the "official" story.  SAR had a recent article on this subject.  Thought about starting a thread about this article, and the subject, but don't really have the time right now......... OK, Thanks for your time and for sharing your knowledge. I'll keep an eye out for if you start that thread...

It is starting here:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=267601