raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) (10/19/89)
From: raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) I remember from read Profile that a large part of the initial problem with the M16 was the switch by the ammo supplier to a powder of a different specification. The direct expansion action and all these lugs around the bolt for locking gave residue a place to build up. Molten residue gets into cracks when the gun is hot and freezes up the action when the gun cools down. So a closed bolt jams after the first round while an open bolt simply refuses to fires. That was why they added the Forward Assist to help closing the bolt. The problem was pretty much cured when the right kind of powder was prescribed. But still the mechanism is kind of delicate and a lot of TLC is needed to presuade the M16 to work properly. A week or two field training excersie may not be a problem, but extended operation in eg. humid Vietnam jungles is the limus test. It seems AK's had a far better reputation than the M16. Individuals in the US troops even carried AK's instead. Of course there were other reasons besides reliability. The velocity of the bullet is so high that it tumbles all the time, making keyholes on targets instead of a perfect round hole. Of course that does not help accuracy. The spin is marginal especailly in sub-zero temp. and the rifling had to increase from 1 in 10" to 1 in 12" (?) to satisfy Army requirement. But the barrel wear rate went up and their had to chrome-plate the lining. From an engineering standpoint, the direct gas action, the rotating bolt and the locking lugs are far from ideal for reliability but the result is a short and light weapon with an awesome (awful in old english) velocity. Most agreed that it has lot of sex appeal but for people in the business long, it was not a great combat implement. Just call me `Man'. Uh-oh. I don't know. raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/20/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) > I remember from read Profile that a large part of the >initial problem with the M16 was the switch by the ammo supplier >to a powder of a different specification.... The switch was not the supplier's idea; it was ordered by the Army. And the Army being the lead service for the M-16, the other services had to go along, despite loud protests from the USAF that the new powder ruined the rifle's reliability. Which it did, because the Army standard powder produced much more residue than the powder the rifle was designed for. Of course, nobody asked Stoner his opinion about the change until the decision was already made. >...The problem was pretty much cured >when the right kind of powder was prescribed... Can you cite a reference for this? My understanding is that the problem has *never* been cured because the powder has *not* been changed back. Various other little changes, and heavy emphasis on cleaning, have only controlled the problem somewhat. >But still the >mechanism is kind of delicate and a lot of TLC is needed to presuade >the M16 to work properly... Stoner's original AR-15 consistently demonstrated reliability superior to that of the Army's operational rifles, e.g. the M-14. When used with the powder it was designed for, it didn't need TLC. >... extended operation in eg. humid Vietnam jungles >is the limus test. It seems AK's had a far better reputation than the M16. Remember, the M-16 was adopted not because the Army wanted it, but because the AR-15's performance *in Vietnam* was so spectacular that everyone was screaming for more of them. But of course, it had to be "improved" first... Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) (10/24/89)
From: nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) In article <10405@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>...The problem was pretty much cured >>when the right kind of powder was prescribed... >Can you cite a reference for this? My understanding is that the problem >has *never* been cured because the powder has *not* been changed back. >Various other little changes, and heavy emphasis on cleaning, have only >controlled the problem somewhat. In the summer of '82 they still jammed fiercly. I was on 2nd class cruise that summer, spent a week getting intimate with an M16 at camp Pendleton, home of the world's hardest dirt. Even with live ammo on the practice range the most commonly heard sound was "bang ... (expletive-of-choice) ... (bolt-manipulation) ... bang" Memorable experience: The culmunation of our "combat" training was an ambush patrol. We snuck out with our M16's fitted with BFA's (blank firing adapters -- more later) and found a good spot along the road down which a patrol of "real marines" was to come. Sure enough, here they come. Right down the middle of the road, in a line just the right length for our deployment. I had point on the end they came from, so I got to give the signal, by firing the first shot. So, when the last guy was in my sights I squeezed off a round. Bang. Bang. Bang Bang Bang. Bang. Bang. Shit. Crap. #$%^&*( )*%^..... Every one in the patrol had a jam after the first shot. Most of them cleared with a little forward assist, but listening to it was *very* dramatic. Earlier in the day we had assaulted a "village" held by marines. Needless to say we didn't do too well, but we went through a whole lot of blank ammo. The M16 is a gas operated automatic, meaning it needs some pressure to work. For that reason and perhaps for safety as well they are fitted with a gadget (BFA) that mostly plugs up the barrel when firing blanks. I don't know for sure but I suspect this contributes to general fouling of the weapon and may account for the uniformly poor performance in our ambush. I did learn something there -- there was a very good reason a lot of people used AK47s in Nam. I have no doubt that the M16 *can* be reliable under some conditions, but I wouldn't choose one as *my* principle weapon. -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services uunet!nuchat!steve POB 270249 Houston, Texas 77277 (713) 964 2462 Consultation & Systems, Support for PD Software.
tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) (10/24/89)
From: tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) In article <10376@cbnews.ATT.COM> raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) writes: > > >From: raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) > > I remember from read Profile that a large part of the >initial problem with the M16 was the switch by the ammo supplier >to a powder of a different specification. The direct expansion >action and all these lugs around the bolt for locking gave >residue a place to build up. Molten residue gets into cracks >when the gun is hot and freezes up the action when the gun cools >down. So a closed bolt jams after the first round while an open >bolt simply refuses to fires. That was why they added the Forward >Assist to help closing the bolt. The problem was pretty much cured >when the right kind of powder was prescribed. But still the >mechanism is kind of delicate and a lot of TLC is needed to presuade >the M16 to work properly. A week or two field training excersie >may not be a problem, but extended operation in eg. humid Vietnam jungles >is the limus test. It seems AK's had a far better reputation than the M16. >Individuals in the US troops even carried AK's instead. > The switch from triple based powder to double based powder did carry the penalty of higher maintenance. The triple based stuff as I recall was supposed to burn cleaner. > Of course there were other reasons besides reliability. The >velocity of the bullet is so high that it tumbles all the time, making >keyholes on targets instead of a perfect round hole. Of course that >does not help accuracy. The spin is marginal especailly in sub-zero >temp. and the rifling had to increase from 1 in 10" to 1 in 12" (?) >to satisfy Army requirement. But the barrel wear rate went up and >their had to chrome-plate the lining. > The bullets in an M16 do NOT tumble. Haven't since 1967 or so. In the story told to us by our Drill Sergeants, that ammunition was no longer made. Reducing the twist from one in ten to one in twelve will not aid accuracy if you are already marginally stable. The chrome lining is super for reducing corrosion in the barrel, particularly if you use the double based powders. > From an engineering standpoint, the direct gas action, the >rotating bolt and the locking lugs are far from ideal for reliability >but the result is a short and light weapon with an awesome (awful in >old english) velocity. Most agreed that it has lot of sex appeal but >for people in the business long, it was not a great combat implement. As one of those who were 'in the business', I have found the M16 to be a fine weapon. It is light, accurate, has mild recoil, and is reliable if it's requirements are met. The ammunition is light, allowing me and my platoon to carry oodles of bullets, which makes me happy. This is not intended to mean that the M16 is without fault, or that it can't be improved, far from it. But it isn't the horrible weapon that many non-infantry types make it out to be. I hear a lot about how we ought to go back to the M14 or get FALs, but always by people who don't have to carry them 20 klicks. And if you think the rifles are heavy, you ought to carry a couple of basic loads of ammo! 8-) Terry - former infantryman Disclaimer et la Signaturo: Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say! If everyone were responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in 1984.