Test Drove an M-16

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
6pt-sika
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Virginia

Test Drove an M-16

Post by 6pt-sika »

We have a M-16 that was assemebled from old parts for another Class III dealer for them to use as a display gun . So yesterday we took it out for a test drive before we went bear hunting . And I gotta admit it was the first time I ever fired one !

Image

Image

Image
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
User avatar
Griff
Posting leader...
Posts: 20803
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: OH MY GAWD they installed a STOP light!!!

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Griff »

Kinda fun to rip thru a mag, huh?
Griff,
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93

There is a fine line between hobby & obsession!
AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
3leggedturtle
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:34 am
Location: north of Palacios about 1400 miles

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 3leggedturtle »

To me FWIW, that is what an M16 should look like. I loved it when we went to the range in boot cap, never followed thru and bought ne after I got home.
30/30 Winchester: Not accurate enough fer varmints, barely adequate for small deer; BUT In a 10" to 14" barrelled pistol; is good for moose/elk to 200 yards; ground squirrels to 300 metres

250 Savage... its what the 223 wishes it could be...!
MrMurphy
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1947
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by MrMurphy »

M16A1.

Light and handy, good piece. The A2 was an improvement in some ways and a retrograde in others, thanks to the USMC rifle team (the formal marksmanship team) which has since screwed over nearly 30 years of troops..... having spent a long heated couple hours in discussion with the officer who originally was in charge of the program. He didn't like some of the changes either, but orders are orders.

Thankfully I spent the majority of my time with the M4. :)
User avatar
6pt-sika
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 6pt-sika »

If I EVER win the lottery I'm gonna get one of those and about 13 extra barrels :lol:
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
User avatar
Sixgun
Posting leader...
Posts: 18565
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: S.E. Pa. Where The Finest Winchesters & Colts Reside

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Sixgun »

Yep, just the receiver is registered. So you can keep on replacing parts until.............the receiver gives up..........bummer.

My bud has an M-4 Enhanced...full auto, 3rd burst, or semi........lots of fun but after you shoot 2 or 3 hundred rounds, you find yourself keeping it on semi-auto. He has this Glock 18 with 32 rd mag.....one of the most useless full auto's I ever shot but I guess there's a use for everything.-------------6
Model A Uzi’s
Image
User avatar
Old Savage
Posting leader...
Posts: 16688
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Old Savage »

What was entertaining was 75 of them on the line with all tracers going full auto at once in night fire. Quite a light show.
In the High Desert of Southern Calif. ..."on the cutting edge of going back in time"...

Image
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 31932
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by AJMD429 »

Y'all know that blurry picture was a VIDEO LINK, don'tcha...??? :mrgreen:
6pt-sika wrote:Image
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
olyinaz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:19 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by olyinaz »

I really liked the A1 and I'd like to put together (or buy) a clone today. It's on my list. The A2 always struck me as a hog, but I didn't doubt that it was "better" in some respects.

Very fun stuff!

Oly
Cheers,
Oly

I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don't put out will bigger burn

Johnny Wright
User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6831
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by jeepnik »

Okay, I'm going to get picky. That is NOT an M16. That is the M16A1 configuration. That big, funky push button on the side (along with a couple of other things like chroming the chamber and barrel) make it the A1 derivative.

The M16 was an even bigger piece of stuff than the A1. I'm here because of John Browning, after Stoner darned near get me killed.
Jeepnik AKA "Old Eyes"
"Go low, go slow and preferably in the dark" The old Sarge (he was maybe 24.
"Freedom is never more that a generation from extinction" Ronald Reagan
"Every man should have at least one good rifle and know how to use it" Dad
User avatar
6pt-sika
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 6pt-sika »

jeepnik wrote:Okay, I'm going to get picky. That is NOT an M16. That is the M16A1 configuration. That big, funky push button on the side (along with a couple of other things like chroming the chamber and barrel) make it the A1 derivative.

The M16 was an even bigger piece of stuff than the A1.
. But regardless of whether you get picky or not , the issue is if I really care ! Which I don't !
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
JerryB
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 5493
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:23 pm
Location: Batesville,Arkansas

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by JerryB »

6point the video was great, must have been fun.
JerryB II Corinthians 3:17, Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

JOSHUA 24:15
User avatar
Sixgun
Posting leader...
Posts: 18565
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:17 pm
Location: S.E. Pa. Where The Finest Winchesters & Colts Reside

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Sixgun »

6pt-sika wrote: But regardless of whether you get picky or not , the issue is if I really care ! Which I don't !

Ha! 6 Point...........you and I think alike :D ---------------6
Model A Uzi’s
Image
MrMurphy
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1947
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by MrMurphy »

Stoner didn't nearly get you killed.......Robert S. McNamara did.


Stoner was a Marine if I remember right, and if the government had actually listened to the designer, you know, the guy who BUILT the thing..... they'd have used the right powder, which burns quick and clean, not the stuff they were used to, and issued lube and cleaning kits.

Some moron claimed the gun was so space age it cleaned itself and thus no kits, etc......


My dad had an original M16 in Vietnam (and an A1 later, and an A2 in the other war) and since he didn't believe officers anyways, cleaned and lubed his M16 regularly.

He had no issues with his beyond the ammo thing. One of the major failures that should have led to some people in the Pentagon being shot by firing squad........

The rifle is far more dependable now, even the mid 70s versions going by guys I served with, were a considerable improvement.

As bad as the original issue of the M16 was, be glad we never issued the British L85. They were so bad they got withdrawn in the middle of the Gulf War, and FALs reissued. Parts falling off, scopes fogging, bug spray melting the plastic, rifles jamming..... took another 15-20 years and a major redesign to get the gun to run reliably as it is now.
BigSky56
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:49 pm
Location: NW Montana

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by BigSky56 »

6 point looks like you had a good time. Jeep Iam with you you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear. danny
http://www.jouster.com/saga_of_M16/saga ... part_1.pdf
http://www.jouster.com/saga_of_M16/saga ... part_2.pdf
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Blaine »

20 years in the Army, and every session I ever had with many different M-16s, they would jam every every time out.....And, this was just with Rifle Range conditions.....I never had to fire one in anger. Also, in general, it's my opinion that with semi-autos, it's when, not "if" they jam. They would kick your azz if they caught ya, but, one of those tiny WD-40 cans spritzed in the action every so often would make it run LOTS better, especially below freezing.
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
MrMurphy
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1947
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by MrMurphy »

To paraphrase a well known trainer "Carbines, like women, run better wet".

The Army (and the Air Force) has this thing with not lubing rifles, which are mechanical devices, despite lubing and oiling Humvees, LMTVs, etc..... they think rifles will attract dirt if lubed.

Considering their previous stance on the issue with the M1, etc.... always found it odd for 30+ years the institutional 'knowledge' is to run the M16 dry when every single study including done by the Army itself says lube the stuff out of it. Better filthy and lubed than dry and locked up.


As to rifles jamming, run a search for "Filthy 14".

You'll see rifles run just fine, when properly taken care of as designed (NOT cleaned....just lubed....gun ran upwards of 30,000 rounds in field conditions).
piller
Posting leader...
Posts: 15188
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: South of Dallas

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by piller »

I preferred the A2 to the A1 since the heavier barrel of the A2 would hit the target for me. The A1 was too whippy and would throw bullets all over the place. The trigger pull on the A2 stunk like skunk spray thanks to the 3 round burst configuration. My desire is to have the A1 lower, A4 stock, A2 style upper but a 1 in 9 twist so that I can use all but the heaviest bullets. I would use the CLP what was issued and often was made to do pushups because I had an oily weapon, but mine always worked. When I was able to get the M60, I was really happy. Mix CLP with LSA in equal amounts and use enough to cover everything in a film of oil and the pig would just not stop, jam, misfire, misfeed, or quit for any reason. 550 rounds per minute of 7.62 NATO with accuracy of 1/2 MOA is some real firepower.
D. Brian Casady
Quid Llatine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur.
Advanced is being able to do the basics while your leg is on fire---Bill Jeans
Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up---Robert Frost
User avatar
FWiedner
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by FWiedner »

I remember the last time I fired an M-16 on full auto. It's always the same memory, like an echo...

My platoon Sgt was behind me growling "Shoot him again...", *burst*, "Shoot him again... "...

:!:
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.

History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Blaine »

FWiedner wrote:I remember the last time I fired an M-16 on full auto. It's always the same memory, like an echo...

My platoon Sgt was behind me growling "Shoot him again...", *burst*, "Shoot him again... "...

:!:
And, now for the rest of the story?? :mrgreen:
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
Model 52B
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:43 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Model 52B »

One of the problems with GI comparisons of the M16A1 to the A2 is that most of the guys who shot both in the military shot worn out A1s that had been through the mill while the A2s were brand new or nearly new.

As an example, I went through three M16A1s in OCS before I was issued one that would shoot. The first was so badly timed (or the barrel was bent) that there was not enough left windage to get on target at 25m. The second had extractor issues but by that time they assumed the problem was me. That was a poor assumption given that I shot small bore and high power rifle in college, and when they figured out how well I could shoot, a major said "give him one of the good ones".

With that rifle as long as I kept it clean and selected the magazines carefully it never failed and it shot with excellent accuracy allowing me to shoot clean scores out to 350m. The magazine quality was paramount as the magazines were stored in 55 gallon drums and "beat to $4!t" would be a kind description of most of them. If you had a good eye for the condition of the feed lips you could do ok selecting them. Personally, I stuck with older, but far better condition Colt contract 20 round magazines.

Keeping it clean with limited time when you crawled through mud, much and sand all day meant stepping into the shower and using the shower head to hose out the lower receiver. It was a non-authorized procedure that none of us wanted getting caught doing, but after I started doing it, the whole platoon followed suit and it saved us hours trying to pick the grit out of them and was quicker and far less risky than an unauthorized disassembly of the fire control group.

With that said, I'd have loved to have owned either of the first two rifles I was issued as one was an XM16 that had been upgraded over the years to M16A1 standard, and the second was an M16E1, which is an indicator of how old those rifles really were (this was 1987).

---

Fast forward a decade and I bought a lightly used M16A1 upper half as a police take-off when the department upgraded to different uppers for their patrol rifles, and by that time I had my own M16 configuration (no forward assist)) SP1. Both were (and still are) 1.5 MOA rifles with M193 ball and both are exceptionally reliable.

---

In that regard, I preferred the M16A1 to the A2 as it was lighter and better balanced, yet just as accurate at normal engagement ranges. The A2 sight is arguably a better sight given that it is more readily adjustable, but the A1 sight was simple and almost idiot proof and was ideally suited to the role. It could be used to shoot dead on out to 300m and could be flipped to the long range aperture to shoot out to 350m and 400m. I also preferred the shape of the hand guards on the A1 as the triangular shape fit your had well and made the rifle more controllable in full auto fire. And I preferred the option of honest full auto fire, even thought the vast majority of the time we used semi-auto or very short bursts anyway. I always thought adding a 3 shot burst control to make up for poor training and discipline was a mistake.

---

None of the differences in the A1 and A2 involved reliability enhancements and the A1's reliability issues had been resolved long before the A2 came along.

From a historical perspective it was McNamara's wonder boys along with the US Army and Remington who screwed up the M16A1's reliability during it's initial introduction. Stoner designed the 55 gr projectile (the "B" type) with a longer ogive with lower drag to meet the 300yd penetration requirement. The US Army and Remington however adopted a blunter 55 grain bullet (the "A" type) that was easier to manufacture but lost an extra 130 fps at 300 yards compared to the "B" at the same muzzle velocity. Thus it needed more initial velocity to achieve the needed penetration and that required greater pressure and a waiver of the maximum average chamber pressure. They also chose a colloidal ball powder with about seven times the stabilizer that was required and that led to fouling problems in the gas tube. That reliability issue was aggravated by the total lack of cleaning equipment in Vietnam initially, as the M16 was billed as being a rifle that never needed cleaning - not a claim Stoner ever made and not a claim based in fact.
User avatar
FWiedner
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by FWiedner »

BlaineG wrote:
FWiedner wrote:I remember the last time I fired an M-16 on full auto. It's always the same memory, like an echo...

My platoon Sgt was behind me growling "Shoot him again...", *burst*, "Shoot him again... "...

:!:
And, now for the rest of the story?? :mrgreen:

There's not really much "rest of the story" to tell.

We were deployed for training at Camp Merrill outside of Dahlonega, GA and I was behind some kind of barricade picking on a pop-up sillouette target.

I just think of that guy when I hear auto fire or set sights on a sillouette target.

"Shoot him again".

We we training, and that's what I learned.

:roll:

:lol:
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.

History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.
User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Blaine »

FWiedner wrote:
BlaineG wrote:
FWiedner wrote:I remember the last time I fired an M-16 on full auto. It's always the same memory, like an echo...

My platoon Sgt was behind me growling "Shoot him again...", *burst*, "Shoot him again... "...

:!:
And, now for the rest of the story?? :mrgreen:

There's not really much "rest of the story" to tell.

We were deployed for training at Camp Merrill outside of Dahlonega, GA and I was behind some kind of barricade picking on a pop-up sillouette target.

I just think of that guy when I hear auto fire or set sights on a sillouette target.

"Shoot him again".

We we training, and that's what I learned.

:roll:

:lol:
:( I had visions of you and R. Lee taking down fly-blown crack whores, and government pensioners with scathing fire...... :shock:
The Rotten Fruit Always Hits The Ground First

Proud Life Member Of:
NRA
Second Amendment Foundation
Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
DAV
User avatar
FWiedner
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by FWiedner »

BlaineG wrote: :( I had visions of you and R. Lee taking down fly-blown crack whores, and government pensioners with scathing fire...... :shock:
You are a guy who knows how to have a good time.

Only the 'healthy' ones...

Other than that, it's just not 'sporting'.

:wink:

:lol:
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.

History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.
User avatar
Paladin
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1853
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:55 am
Location: Not Working (much)

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Paladin »

MrMurphy wrote:Stoner didn't nearly get you killed.......Robert S. McNamara did.


Stoner was a Marine if I remember right, and if the government had actually listened to the designer, you know, the guy who BUILT the thing..... they'd have used the right powder, which burns quick and clean, not the stuff they were used to, and issued lube and cleaning kits.

Some moron claimed the gun was so space age it cleaned itself and thus no kits, etc......


My dad had an original M16 in Vietnam (and an A1 later, and an A2 in the other war) and since he didn't believe officers anyways, cleaned and lubed his M16 regularly.

He had no issues with his beyond the ammo thing. One of the major failures that should have led to some people in the Pentagon being shot by firing squad........

The rifle is far more dependable now, even the mid 70s versions going by guys I served with, were a considerable improvement.

As bad as the original issue of the M16 was, be glad we never issued the British L85. They were so bad they got withdrawn in the middle of the Gulf War, and FALs reissued. Parts falling off, scopes fogging, bug spray melting the plastic, rifles jamming..... took another 15-20 years and a major redesign to get the gun to run reliably as it is now.

True information.
I have used them all from XM177E2-E5 (Before M-16) M-16 in basic, then M-16 A1, A2, through current M-4 but never one with the 3 shot burst. All are only as good as the operator. The bullpups in the photo were the HK rebuilds.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It is not the critic who counts
Bruce Scott
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1082
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:36 pm
Location: Western Australia

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Bruce Scott »

MrMurphy wrote:To paraphrase a well known trainer "Carbines, like women, run better wet".

The Army (and the Air Force) has this thing with not lubing rifles, which are mechanical devices, despite lubing and oiling Humvees, LMTVs, etc..... they think rifles will attract dirt if lubed.

Considering their previous stance on the issue with the M1, etc.... always found it odd for 30+ years the institutional 'knowledge' is to run the M16 dry when every single study including done by the Army itself says lube the stuff out of it. Better filthy and lubed than dry and locked up.
Never heard the 'no oil' thing in the Aust. Army. We had a US made cleaning kit with a steel section rod and, in Vietnam, were issued US supplied bottles of white coloured LSA. At the time I thought the stuff was especially for the M16.
Image
MrMurphy
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1947
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by MrMurphy »

Somewhere in the last 30-40 years the no-oil thing cropped up. I've heard it from Army instructors, Air Force instructors and even Marines.

Not everyone believes it, usually guys who've actually had to use them oil the hell out of them (I know we did doing ROTC in the 90s, the instructors were spraying CLP like it was going out of style) but I've seen horrified looks from various guys in a bunch of different units when they see me lubing up the rifle, especially in desert conditions.

I had a 19 year old "armorer" (parts-swapper...he wasn't a real armorer) sit there and white-glove my rifle then nearly scream like a little girl when I signed off on the piece being clean and immediately pulled the BCG and relubed the rifle. "But it's DIRTY!" he said. I replied, no, now the gun will actually work.......

And considering about 90 seconds later I reloaded it and headed out back on patrol.... yeah. He never really got that idea through his head.
Nate Kiowa Jones
Site Sponsor
Posts: 2507
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Nate Kiowa Jones »

Model 52B wrote:...............................................................................
................

From a historical perspective it was McNamara's wonder boys along with the US Army and Remington who screwed up the M16A1's reliability during it's initial introduction. Stoner designed the 55 gr projectile (the "B" type) with a longer ogive with lower drag to meet the 300yd penetration requirement. The US Army and Remington however adopted a blunter 55 grain bullet (the "A" type) that was easier to manufacture but lost an extra 130 fps at 300 yards compared to the "B" at the same muzzle velocity. Thus it needed more initial velocity to achieve the needed penetration and that required greater pressure and a waiver of the maximum average chamber pressure. They also chose a colloidal ball powder with about seven times the stabilizer that was required and that led to fouling problems in the gas tube. That reliability issue was aggravated by the total lack of cleaning equipment in Vietnam initially, as the M16 was billed as being a rifle that never needed cleaning - not a claim Stoner ever made and not a claim based in fact.

Sadly this had happen before. Almost 100 years before. One of the contributing factors at Little Big Horn was the poor extraction issues with the Trapdoor Springfield's. They barely worked with normal brass cases but the wonder boys of the era to save money decided to use copper cased ammo. The brass cases expand and contract some but the copper case only expand. There were several of Custer's carbines found with obvious knife or pick marks where they were trying to dig the stuck cases out.
Steve Young aka Nate Kiowa Jones Sass# 6765

Steve's Guns aka "Rossi 92 Specialists"
205 Antler lane
Lampasas, Texas 76550


http://www.stevesgunz.com

Email; steve@stevesgunz.com

Tel: 512-564-1015

Image
Model 52B
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:43 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Model 52B »

MrMurphy wrote:Somewhere in the last 30-40 years the no-oil thing cropped up. I've heard it from Army instructors, Air Force instructors and even Marines.

Not everyone believes it, usually guys who've actually had to use them oil the hell out of them (I know we did doing ROTC in the 90s, the instructors were spraying CLP like it was going out of style) but I've seen horrified looks from various guys in a bunch of different units when they see me lubing up the rifle, especially in desert conditions.

I had a 19 year old "armorer" (parts-swapper...he wasn't a real armorer) sit there and white-glove my rifle then nearly scream like a little girl when I signed off on the piece being clean and immediately pulled the BCG and relubed the rifle. "But it's DIRTY!" he said. I replied, no, now the gun will actually work.......

And considering about 90 seconds later I reloaded it and headed out back on patrol.... yeah. He never really got that idea through his head.
I saw the same thing with DIs who had extensive prior combat experience in Vietnam. They advised oiling the hell out of them regardless of what ever else we were ever told and regardless of whether it was wet muddy or dry and sandy/dusty. What works is what works...
Bruce Scott
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1082
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:36 pm
Location: Western Australia

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Bruce Scott »

Bruce Scott wrote:
MrMurphy wrote:To paraphrase a well known trainer "Carbines, like women, run better wet".

The Army (and the Air Force) has this thing with not lubing rifles, which are mechanical devices, despite lubing and oiling Humvees, LMTVs, etc..... they think rifles will attract dirt if lubed.

Considering their previous stance on the issue with the M1, etc.... always found it odd for 30+ years the institutional 'knowledge' is to run the M16 dry when every single study including done by the Army itself says lube the stuff out of it. Better filthy and lubed than dry and locked up.
Never heard the 'no oil' thing in the Aust. Army. We had a US made cleaning kit with a steel section rod and, in Vietnam, were issued US supplied bottles of white coloured LSA. At the time I thought the stuff was especially for the M16.
The 'comic book' maintenance manual of 1968 gave tips on cleaning and lubing.

Image

The entire book is here:
http://www.retronaut.com/2012/07/m16a1- ... omic-1968/
Image
MrMurphy
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1947
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by MrMurphy »

Having read it before, I'm aware of that, but somewhere between 1968 and now, someone got that idea in their head and they've been stamping the idea out where possible whenever it pops up.

One of the post-invasion 'what can we do better' surveys from Iraq was more or less, having lube, using it and ripping the supply people's nuts off if they weren't requesting more.
User avatar
7.62 Precision
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:34 am
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 7.62 Precision »

The M16/AR-15 platform is a great platform, and the A1 type had some advantages in simplicity, etc.

I like the IDF short M16 style. http://idfcarbine.com Here is my IDF clone:
Image

The light weight and simplicity is kind of nice with the current trend of strapping every thin possible to ARs these days.
User avatar
7.62 Precision
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:34 am
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 7.62 Precision »

There are a lot of misconceptions about the M16 platform, and it has been popular soldiers since Vietnam to ridicule the weapon, and remains popular today, especially with troops who lack discipline to maintain their weapons, and with others who think it makes them sound high-speed to talk about how bad the M16/M4 is.

When we look at the horror stories from today's battles, we see a constant theme - the weapons were too dirty or they were run too hard. If you let the weapon get packed with dirt, or you do mag dumps until the barrel melts, don't blame the weapon. Remember the stink raised in the Jessica Lynch deal about how it was all the fault of the M16s? I read her book. None of their M16s functioned. Neither did their crew-served weapons. They were all un-lubed and packed full of dust and sand. One rifle fired single-shot. This was not a matter of a problem with the weapons but a problem with discipline. I used the same weapons in the same conditions with no issues. In other cases people have used them in the role of a crew-served weapon, and in my opinion would have been better served with aimed shots than melted barrels.

M16s/ARs have to be kept totally clean to function?
All weapons should be kept reasonably clean, but the military often puts more wear on weapons overcleaning than by normal use. There are a couple critical places that need to be kept clean on an M16, but they will run surprisingly dirty, as long as they are lubed. The IDF cleans theirs with diesel fuel, to a reasonably gunk-free state and they have found that scraping all of the carbon off of the tail of the bolt can sometimes even be detrimental to function. We often do an awful lot of scraping and scrubbing that is not really necessary.
The M16/M4 has proven to be a very reliable platform even when running quite dirty.

Military weapons are designed to run dry?
Your car creates heat from explosions within the engine and friction between metal parts. You run oil in it to keep it from seizing. Your M16 creates heat from explosions within the chamber and friction between metal parts. Why would you run it dry?
There was once a newly minted second lieutenant brimming with military knowledge running the machine gun station during an EIB test. I was bringing a team through the test, and having come over to the infantry from the Cav, I knew a thin or two about keeping machine guns running. I hear the 2LT trying to run people through his station: "Bang! (cursing and sounds of a jam being cleared) Bang!" After a while of hearing the one round bursts, I walked over, watched for a few minutes, and then politely suggested that a little lubrication might be helpful. I got a lecture from the 2LT on the fact that oil attracts dirt and if the weapon was lubed it would soon stop working due to the amount of dust it gathered in its action. I suggested that there was little chance that it would stop working, since it hadn't started yet. I was told that every weapon in the US Army inventory was designed to run dry to prevent attracting dirt and to keep the weapons clean. I walked away and listened to one or two shot bursts for the next hour or so. Finally I looked over and saw the M240 with the butt on the ground and a soldier stomping on the charging handle trying to free the bolt. I sauntered over with a spray bottle of CLP behind my back, bent over the now open action, and hosed it with CLP. I mean there was a puddle on the ground beneath. It was not dripping - it was running. The LT came unglued. Something about attracting dust and harder to clean . . . as I walked away I could not help grinning as I heard the first of the nice, long bursts that we heard for the rest of the day.

Dust will get in your action. Dry dust will stop it. Wet dust is at least lubricated dust. If you get a lot of dust, add a lot of lube until you can clean it out. Dust can be washed out with lube without requiring a full breakdown of a weapon. By the way, dirt, lack of lube, and rust can all stop an AK just like an AR - I have seen it plenty of times.

The idea of dry-cleaning M16s and M4s comes from units that insist on white-glove inspections of the rifles. Officially, white glove inspections of M16s are not allowed (due to damage to weapons that results) but the military is resistant to change, so many units still do it, especially infantry. Some units don't lube parts of their vehicles in order to keep them clean for inspections.

5.56 doesn't kill?
Actually, it is a very good killer, and better bullets make it even better. There are better rounds for barrier penetration and for sniping and for machine guns, but overall, it is a very effective cartridge for its purpose. Up here, people shoot bear and moose and walrus with .223.

I think the AR platform is still one of the best modern platforms, especially with better bullets now available for the 5.56, and cartridges like 6.5 Grendel, .50 Beowulf, .300 BLK, etc. making it even more versatile. It is well-designed, easy to shoot well, easy (and cheap) to accurize, and very reliable. It is my first choice for home defense and for bear defense, even though I prefer to shoot leverguns. It would still be my choice for combat as well.
Model 52B
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:43 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Model 52B »

7.62 Precision wrote:The M16/AR-15 platform is a great platform, and the A1 type had some advantages in simplicity, etc.

I like the IDF short M16 style.

The light weight and simplicity is kind of nice with the current trend of strapping every thin possible to ARs these days.
I agree.

I really appreciated the balance and handling of the M16A1 and I think it's ironic that the shorter, lighter and potentially handier M4 was developed, at the cost of ballistic efficiency and accuracy, then loaded down with all kinds of stuff.

This was my preferred AR for tactical rifle matches where the courses of fire were short. Even with a heavy under the hand guards barrel it's still only about 7 pounds:
Image

I built this in an effort to see how light you could get with an aluminum lower and still have carry handle mounted sights and a 16" barrel - 5.7 pounds with sling and empty magazine. I used an entry stock over a tele-stock to keep it simple and robust.

Image
3leggedturtle
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:34 am
Location: north of Palacios about 1400 miles

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 3leggedturtle »

Model 52B; If the 5.7lb had a 20" barrel of the same contour what would it weigh? How much does the adjust stock weigh versus the one you have on? To me, an AR15 just dont look right unless it has a 20" barrel. BTW they both are great looking.
30/30 Winchester: Not accurate enough fer varmints, barely adequate for small deer; BUT In a 10" to 14" barrelled pistol; is good for moose/elk to 200 yards; ground squirrels to 300 metres

250 Savage... its what the 223 wishes it could be...!
Model 52B
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:43 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Model 52B »

The fixed stock weighs the same as a plastic tele-stock.

I have a slick side SP1 upper with 20" pencil weight barrel on the same A2 style lower and it weighs 7.0 pounds with sling and magazine - 0.2 pounds lighted than my M16A1 upper on an NDS A1 lower again with magazine and sling. So the longer hand guards and four more inches of barrel add 1.3 pounds, while deleting the forward assist saves 0.2 pounds.
3leggedturtle
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:34 am
Location: north of Palacios about 1400 miles

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 3leggedturtle »

Model 52B wrote:The fixed stock weighs the same as a plastic tele-stock.

I have a slick side SP1 upper with 20" pencil weight barrel on the same A2 style lower and it weighs 7.0 pounds with sling and magazine - 0.2 pounds lighted than my M16A1 upper on an NDS A1 lower again with magazine and sling. So the longer hand guards and four more inches of barrel add 1.3 pounds, while deleting the forward assist saves 0.2 pounds.
Thanks that explains a lot questions I had; and why I never could find or piece together a sub-6# 20" AR.
30/30 Winchester: Not accurate enough fer varmints, barely adequate for small deer; BUT In a 10" to 14" barrelled pistol; is good for moose/elk to 200 yards; ground squirrels to 300 metres

250 Savage... its what the 223 wishes it could be...!
Model 52B
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:43 pm

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by Model 52B »

3leggedturtle wrote:
Model 52B wrote:The fixed stock weighs the same as a plastic tele-stock.

I have a slick side SP1 upper with 20" pencil weight barrel on the same A2 style lower and it weighs 7.0 pounds with sling and magazine - 0.2 pounds lighted than my M16A1 upper on an NDS A1 lower again with magazine and sling. So the longer hand guards and four more inches of barrel add 1.3 pounds, while deleting the forward assist saves 0.2 pounds.
Thanks that explains a lot questions I had; and why I never could find or piece together a sub-6# 20" AR.
You'd have to use a composite upper or lower receiver to stay under 6 pounds with a 20" barrel.
User avatar
7.62 Precision
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:34 am
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 7.62 Precision »

Model 52B wrote:
7.62 Precision wrote: I really appreciated the balance and handling of the M16A1 and I think it's ironic that the shorter, lighter and potentially handier M4 was developed, at the cost of ballistic efficiency and accuracy, then loaded down with all kinds of stuff.
Once when I was in Iraq I read an article in Stars and Stripes, I think, about the progression of the M16 and M4 - starting light, going heavier, getting shorter and lighter again, and then getting stuff strapped to it. They were interviewing some REMF soldiers on the FOBs and weighing their rifles, and comparing that to rifles being used by combat troops. Some of the POG M4s they weighed were over 25 pounds!
Of course, the rifles I carried were no lightweights, but had a slightly different purpose:
Image

I do think that we have some really great technology available now that should be used on any serious fighting carbine. A reflex sight and a light can be a big advantage, without adding too much weight, and a good sling.

I like the M21 sight http://idfcarbine.com/optics/meprolight-m21/ because of the simplicity. If I was adding only one accessory to an AR-15, that is what it would be and I would not feel that the rifle necessarily needed anything else for me to use it effectively.
User avatar
7.62 Precision
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:34 am
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 7.62 Precision »

3leggedturtle wrote:To me, an AR15 just dont look right unless it has a 20" barrel.
I run a 20" barrel into everything, especially door frames of vehicles. I am more comfortable with 14.5" on an AR-15.

However, more so than larger calibers, effectiveness of the 5.56 cartridge depends greatly on velocity, and barrel length = velocity.

For hunting with a 5.56, short barrel lengths can limit your effective range. The bullet needs to be fast enough at any given range to effectively fragment or expand. 20" gives you the best velocity. Longer than that give no real advantage and several disadvantages, and shorter than 20" drops the velocity.
User avatar
7.62 Precision
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:34 am
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 7.62 Precision »

Model 52B wrote:You'd have to use a composite upper or lower receiver to stay under 6 pounds with a 20" barrel.
Use a Cav arms lower, cut the stock shorter.
Don't mess with a polymer upper - use a slick-side flattop if you will be using optics, or a slick-side carry handle if using Iron sights (A1 sights). Cut the carry handle off just forward of the sight.
Use the lightest carbon fiber hand guard you can find with an aluminum barrel nut.
Shave the gas block if you are using optics, and either cut weight off of a front sight tower if using Iron sights, or use a shaved gas block and mount a light (polymer, maybe) iron sight on the handguard.
Use a lightweight barrel and skip the flash hider.
Aluminum 20 rd mags.
AR-15 bolt carrier instead of an M16 carrier.
Use a PEC ejection port cover or none at all. http://www.7-62precision.com/adjustable ... -m4-ar-15/

This stuff will get it pretty light.

Image
User avatar
6pt-sika
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 9466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 6pt-sika »

7.62 Precision wrote:
Model 52B wrote:You'd have to use a composite upper or lower receiver to stay under 6 pounds with a 20" barrel.
Use a Cav arms lower, cut the stock shorter.
Don't mess with a polymer upper - use a slick-side flattop if you will be using optics, or a slick-side carry handle if using Iron sights (A1 sights). Cut the carry handle off just forward of the sight.
Use the lightest carbon fiber hand guard you can find with an aluminum barrel nut.
Shave the gas block if you are using optics, and either cut weight off of a front sight tower if using Iron sights, or use a shaved gas block and mount a light (polymer, maybe) iron sight on the handguard.
Use a lightweight barrel and skip the flash hider.
Aluminum 20 rd mags.
AR-15 bolt carrier instead of an M16 carrier.
Use a PEC ejection port cover or none at all. http://www.7-62precision.com/adjustable ... -m4-ar-15/

This stuff will get it pretty light.

Image

That may very well make it lighter but no offense , to me that things butt ugly !
Parkers , Mannlicher Schoenauer’s , 6.5mm's and my family in the Philippines !
User avatar
7.62 Precision
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:34 am
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Re: Test Drove an M-16

Post by 7.62 Precision »

6pt-sika wrote: That may very well make it lighter but no offense , to me that things butt ugly !
What?! No pink rifles for you?

The pearl colours are very difficult to photograph, especially the red, and I did not have the lower in my possession when I coated the upper, so the upper and lower don't quite match (lower is uncoated).

That rifle is not quite as light as it could be.

My wife has a blue one. I will post photos of it on the website some day.
Post Reply