gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) (10/13/89)
From: gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) In article <10145@cbnews.ATT.COM> Henry Spencer writes: > > >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) <James Chen's comments deleted> >This depends on who you talk to. M-16 reliability has gone from superb >(original Stoner AR-15) to dreadful (US Army "improves" design to produce >original M-16) to barely passable (later variants). I haven't heard a >recent report on the M-1. Do remember that the Army has a large vested >interest in portraying its decisions as correct and its weapons as great. >It's not uncommon for off-the-record interviews with actual users to tell >a very different story than that found in the official press releases. > While Henry's comment about vested interests is surely true, I must make a comment about the M16. I have been a Marine armorer for three years (albeit for a reserve unit; normal caveats apply). During that time, we have *never* had a mechanical failure due to manufacturing or design defects. The M16A2 has proven to be a very accurate, fairly easy to maintain service rifle. I would be interested in hearing your reasons for slamming it. This, of course, is the A2. The A1 was a problem child; I've never used the Stoner AR, so I can't comment. (just don't get me started on the Beretta 92F!) -Paul Robichaux CPL USMCR -- Paul E. Robichaux |"Collateral damage is the number of women Georgia Institute of Technology | and children you kill when attempting to do GT PO Box 30818; Atlanta, GA 30332 | something else."- Cap Weinberger. Internet: gt0818a@prism.gatech.edu | All opinions in this message are mine.
cmr@cvedc.Prime.Com (Chesley Reyburn) (10/16/89)
From: cmr@cvedc.Prime.Com (Chesley Reyburn) In article <10181@cbnews.ATT.COM> gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) writes: >... (just don't get me started on the Beretta 92F!) Please do comment. I am curious about this weapon's abilities, reliability, etc. Is it a piece of junk? Is it able to leap tall buildings at a single bound? cmr Chesley Reyburn ...tektronix!ogccse!cvedc!cmr ECAE Software, Prime Computer, Inc. ...sun!cvbnet!cvedc!cmr 14952 NW Greenbrier Parkway ...sequent!cvedc!cmr Beaverton, OR 97006-5733 Phone 503/645-2410
nobody%tekgvs.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (-Unprivileged user) (10/16/89)
From: -Unprivileged user <nobody%tekgvs.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET> From: daveme@tekirl.LABS.TEK.COM (Dave Mead) Path: tekirl!daveme > mechanical failure due to manufacturing or design defects. The M16A2 has proven to be a very accurate, fairly easy to maintain service rifle. I would be What do you consider accurate? Most of the older 55gr. FMJ stuff was limited by the bullet itself. How do the new heavy slugs/fast twist barrels do? > interested in hearing your reasons for slamming it. > > This, of course, is the A2. The A1 was a problem child; I've never used the > Stoner AR, so I can't comment. (just don't get me started on the Beretta 92F!) Please tell me the problems with the 92f. Are you referring to slide failures in five over-pressured samples after thousands of rounds, or something else? My overall impression is that these are one of the best 9mms around. Fill in the details! Dave Mead Tek Labs >
gwh%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (10/18/89)
From: gwh%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <10259@cbnews.ATT.COM> cmr@cvedc.Prime.Com (Chesley Reyburn) writes: >In article <10181@cbnews.ATT.COM> gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) writes: >>... (just don't get me started on the Beretta 92F!) > >Please do comment. I am curious about this weapon's abilities, >reliability, etc. Is it a piece of junk? Is it able to leap >tall buildings at a single bound? It works fine. There have been 5 (five) structure failures out of ~150 thousand guns, all of which have been traced to the US Army's use of REAL HOT 9mm ammo, which is way outside the commercial specifications. There is a structural redesign in the works to change failure modes to noninjuring ones. Common army tactic, btw: if the ammo breaks the gun, redesign the gun :) [mod.note: To which I'm sure many readers will respond, "wouldn't it have been better to design a gun to handle the specified ammo ?" Seems to me that there must be a NATO standard for 9mm, that being, supposedly, why we dropped the .45. Does the US use a more powerful load ? - Bill ] **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------
gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (10/20/89)
From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) > >[mod.note: To which I'm sure many readers will respond, "wouldn't > it have been better to design a gun to handle the specified > ammo ?" Seems to me that there must be a NATO standard for > 9mm, that being, supposedly, why we dropped the .45. Does > the US use a more powerful load ? - Bill ] There is a NATO standard for cartridge size, not laoding. They figured it wouldn't be a problem with breaking commercial standards for loading... I have no comment on the sensibility of decisions like this. **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------
leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) (10/20/89)
From: leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Lee Mellinger) In article <10308@cbnews.ATT.COM> gwh%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes: : : :From: gwh%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) : It works fine. There have been 5 (five) structure failures :out of ~150 thousand guns, all of which have been traced to the US :Army's use of REAL HOT 9mm ammo, which is way outside the commercial :specifications. There is a structural redesign in the works to change :failure modes to noninjuring ones. :[mod.note: To which I'm sure many readers will respond, "wouldn't : it have been better to design a gun to handle the specified : ammo ?" Seems to me that there must be a NATO standard for : 9mm, that being, supposedly, why we dropped the .45. Does : the US use a more powerful load ? - Bill ] There are two kinds of 9MM ammo in the NATO inventory, regular 9mm, and 9mm designed for carbines and SMG's, especially the open bolt variety that like a hotter load to fire reliabily. This ammo has a black tip on the bullet. If you get any black tip ammo, DO NOT fire it in a pistol. Some pistols will handle it and some won't. Lee "I'm the NRA" "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759 |Lee F. Mellinger Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA |4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516 FTS 977-0516 |{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
wang%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Albert Sze-Wei Wang) (10/25/89)
From: wang%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Albert Sze-Wei Wang) In article <10181@cbnews.ATT.COM> gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) writes: >From: gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) >In article <10145@cbnews.ATT.COM> Henry Spencer writes: >>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > <James Chen's comments deleted> >>This depends on who you talk to. M-16 reliability has gone from superb >>(original Stoner AR-15) to dreadful (US Army "improves" design to produce >>original M-16) to barely passable (later variants). I haven't heard a [M-1 stuff deleted] >While Henry's comment about vested interests is surely true, I must make a >comment about the M16. I have been a Marine armorer for three years (albeit for a reserve unit; normal caveats apply). During that time, we have *never* had a >mechanical failure due to manufacturing or design defects. The M16A2 has proven to be a very accurate, fairly easy to maintain service rifle. I would be >interested in hearing your reasons for slamming it. >This, of course, is the A2. The A1 was a problem child; I've never used the >Stoner AR, so I can't comment. (just don't get me started on the Beretta 92F!) >-Paul Robichaux The M-16 is a good rifle. Now, that is. But back in its development stages it was a nightmare. The flaw with the M-16 was in the development area. The company that was responsible for its developmemt was given stats, either by the military or by the corporate heads to build a rifle with a set group of stats, length, muzzle length, etc. everything. The engineers on the project told their supervisors that it couldn't be built to perform the way they wanted given the deisgn constraints imposed on them. The supervisors told them (these are supervisors who have no engineering background or firearms design backgrounds) that they don't know what they're talking about and told the engineers to build it. The engineers warned their supervisors that the gun won't work, and that the design needed to be changed to make it perform as it should. The supervisors ignored this and other warnings and mass-produced the M-16 and had them shipped to our troops in Vietnam. As expected, the M-16 failed. It was said that the M-16 killed more American men in Vietnam than the VietCong did. Some of the weapons exploded, most of them jammed. Many times, one shot was fired and then the weapon jammed. This essentially meant that the VietCong with Muzzle-loading rifles could shoot at our guys, but we couldn't shoot back. Gradually, as the war progressed, the gun was redesigned and redesigned until the current form it takes today. The M-16 today bears little resemblance to the one first developed and used early on in the Vietnam War: The one we have now works, the one developed then didn't. The problem with the M-16 early version was never ammunition. It was design. This information was obtained from (I think) American Heritage Magazine. If any wants, I could go back and dig up the issue number and date of publication. Hope this helped. Albert [mod.note: The M-16 debate is almost a matter of religion, it seems, much like the 9mm-vs-.45 debate. Henceforth, I would suggest that further submissions on the development and history of the M-16 are not likely to be accepted unless they include references; there's simply too much hearsay out there. (no reflection upon this article, of course !) - Bill ] The Daimyo | Hashagu koiwa ike no koi wang@volcano.berkeley.edu | Frolic love is like a carp in a pond Eve Tokimatsuri: Never forget love. Like a dream, Please tell me the secret.