drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) (01/14/91)
From: drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) Errata: In v6n31 I wrote: >cavalry. Many troops abandoned the '03 in favor of the 12 ga. >pump shotgun or Winchester M1908 semi-auto sporting rifle Whoops! Make that "Winchester M1907 in .351 auto-loading" >The only rifle I would trade an M16A2 for is the Swiss SG90. The actual designation is "Stgw 90" Addition: >The only valid objections I have heard to this rifle are: Add one more. In wet conditions, the shooter is advised to partially retract the bolt and drain any water from the barrel, as the capillary action of the water MAY damage the barrel when fired. Discussion: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) wrote: >As (alas) a purely historical/technological note, Stoner's original AR-15, >firing its original ammunition, was conspicuously *more* reliable than the >M-14 in Army adverse-conditions testing. The same is not true, alas, of >the M-16, thanks to the Army's "improvements" in the powder composition. The powder fouling problems of the late '60s were caused by substitution of ball powder for rod powder when not enough rod powder was available because of the high demands of war production. The ball powder contained a small amount of calcium carbonate (lime) to neutralize any acid remaining from the manufacturing process. The lime would deposit in the M16's gas tube causing failure to cycle. The problem was corrected by changing the formulation of ball powder.(NRA1 pp. 16-17) This might be a good time to note that only two U.S. rifles in this century were accepted by everyone without complaint: the Krag-Jorgensen and the M14. The smokless-powder, bolt-action, magazine-fed Krag replaced the single-shot, black-powder Model 1874. Would you have insisted on holding onto your '74? The M14 was essentially an update of the Garand. The '03 Springfield was hated by many troops. It had problems with cupro-nickel fouling and bore rust. Some blew up! The Marines rejected the Garand at first, preferring the tried and true Springfield. The Garand had many problems, some of which were only fixed after the war. Mike Squires (mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) writes: >on patrol and left the M14's back at the base. In one of the famous >pictures of the recapture of the citadel at Hue after the Tet offensive >it is clear that the weapon being carried by a US soldier going over the >top is also an AK-47. One consideration is that the AK makes an EXTREMELY distinctive sound which has an natural byproduct of attracting "friendly fire." Mike Monts (monts@sun.com) writes: >I shoot in DCM competitions regularly using a M1 Garrand with iron combat sights >and I consistantly hit in the black at 600 yards. The guy next to me last time >was using a M1A (Civilian M14) and was doing far better than I was. If the >target is stationary this is not a problem. The 1 person using a AR-15 HBAR did >fine until the wind came up, then he was having a hard time getting on the paper >at 200 yards. I shoot with a master class highpower shooter who shoots only 5.56 at all ranges to 600 yards. The range usually have a 5-15 mph crosswind and he has no problems taking "Overall" over other masters who shoot 7.62 mm. I personally shoot sharpshooter scores with either the M14 or HBAR. The M14 is easier at 600 but I shoot better standing (my worst position) and sitting with the HBAR. But, let's remember, we are not comparing a 19 lb. super-match, custom M14 or M1A, shooting National Match ammo, against a match tuned Colt AR15-HBAR, shooting handloaded match ammo. We are talking about a service grade M14 (FAL, G3, etc) shooting NATO ball ammo, verses a service grade M16A2, shooting NATO ball ammo. "To the tactician and logistician, the question -'Does one round of 5.56 mm ammunition equal the effectivness of one round of 7.62 mm ammunition?'- is not meaningful." When you take into account the weight of the rifle and ammunition "the relevant question becomes- 'Is the M16 rifle with 390 rounds as effective as an M1 rifle with 160 rounds, or an M14 rifle with 220 rounds?'" (NRA2 pp. 5-6) (Note for non-U.S. readers: We have been discussing the U.S. National Match Course for highpower (full bore) rifle: 10 rounds slow fire standing at 200 yards {183 m}, 10 rounds rapid fire with a reload from sitting at 200 yards, 10 rounds rapid fire with a reload from prone at 300 yards {274 m} and 20 rounds slow fire prone at 600 yards {548 m}. No kneeling. We are getting close to having to move to rec.guns ) In Message-Id: <9101071543.AA05394@hpcvlx.HP.COM> Keith Taylor <keith@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> asked: >> 4. The U.S. should have sought NATO cooperation rather than >> introducing the 5.56 unilaterally in the 1960s. (This is more >> of a historical/political point and the Belgians got the >> last laugh anyway.) >Could you elaborate on this please? I started to write a discourse on the history of NATO small-arms ammunition standardization to answer this but realized it would probably take about 20 pages. This is the Readers Digest edition. It may not be complete or 100% factual but I like this version. In the late '70s, the U.S., having developed the 5.56 mm round in a vacuum, then decided it should be standardized for use in NATO. The British, who have long memories, recalled that about 25 years earlier the U.S. had rejected the EXCELLENT .280 British round as the NATO standard, ostensively, because it wouldn't penetrate a U.S. helmet at some absurd distance (800 or 1100 m). (Smith p. 258) So, the Brits, quite naturally, insisted that the 5.56 mm satisfy the same requirement. The Belgians (Fabrique Nationale) had been working on a new 5.56 mm round, the SS109, that was specifically designed to pass this rather esoteric test. This round was eventually accepted as the NATO standard baseline. (Ezell) Everyone was satisfied. The U.S. got 5.56 mm, but had to rebarrel it's rifles for the new round. The Brits got their licks in for an old grudge. The Belgians managed to make everyone happy and chalk up some tidy sales in the process. >P.S. When I was in basic in 1972, another criticism of the M16/5.56 ammo >was that it wasn't suited to jungle conditions. The theory was that >the bullet tended to shatter when it hit leaves. Fortunately, I never >had to do a practical test of this. Comment? Very interesting, but I tend to feel that this is just another case M16 myth. It seems likely that someone observed a puff of steam as an M16 round vaporized a leaf and concluded that the projectile had vaporized. IDR published an interesting article (IDR) which reported that the M193 5.56 mm projectile would fragment in ballistic gelatin. There was a test, published in The American Rifleman, to find which projectiles would be least deflected by a twig or stick. Quite contrary to common knowledge, it was shown that small, high velocity projectiles worked better than large ones. (I can't find the reference, sorry) References: [Smith] Smith, W.H.B. & Smith, Joseph,The Book of Rifles, Harrisburg,PA, 3rd ed.,1963. [NRA1] National Rifle Association of America, M16 AR-15 Assembly, history, ballistics...., Wash. D.C., 1980. (Collected articles from The American Rifleman thru 1980) [NRA2] National Rifle Association of America, Semi-auto Rifles Data & Comment, Wash. D.C., 1988. (Collected articles from The American Rifleman thru 1988) [Ezell] Edward C Ezell, "The Continuing NATO Small-Arms Debate, a feeling of de'ja`vu", in International Defense Review, March 1981, pp. 295-301. [IDR] --, "Wound ballistics - a Target for Error", in International Defense Review, August 1988, pp 895-897. [Shimek] Shimek, Robert, "The Great Assault Rifle Caliber Controversy", in International Combat Arms, May 1985, pp. 82-85. ========================================================================== | Donald R. Newcomb | Disclaimer: Disclaimer? I don' | | (601) 863-2235 | need no stinking disclaimer. I | | drn@pinet.aip.org (new) | pay for this mailbox. | ========================================================================== --- End of forwarded message from don@q-aais (Don Newcomb)
smpod@helios.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) (01/18/91)
From: smpod@helios.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) In article <1991Jan14.012215.8066@cbnews.att.com>, drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) writes... | | |The '03 Springfield was hated by many troops. It had problems with cupro-nickel |fouling and bore rust. Some blew up! The Marines rejected the Garand at first, |preferring the tried and true Springfield. The Garand had many problems, some of |which were only fixed after the war. | I think more troop use the M1917 Enfield than the '03. P.S. Good article. Appreciated the references.