M-16 Adoption by the Military

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

Moderators: Hobie, AmBraCol

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
Message
Author
Bridger
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: S. Alabama

M-16 Adoption by the Military

#1 Post by Bridger » Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:54 pm

https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tec ... belltitem1

I know this is completely unrelated to lever guns, but this article popped up in my newsfeed on Facebook so I read it and I'm not so sure that a lot of what's in here isn't stuff. At least based off some other things I've read about the m-16 adoption by the military. For instance this article makes it seem as though initially our troops loved the m16, but that's opposite of what I've always read. What say you?
"The best argument against democracy
is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

- Winston Churchill

User avatar
Pete44ru
Posting leader...
Posts: 11019
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:26 am
Location: Southern New England

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#2 Post by Pete44ru » Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:36 pm

.

I had to qualify on the M-16/AR-15 (1964) shortly after it was introduced, and didn't particularly care for it, but I am/was a big guy - the smaller-bodied guys loved it.

Unfortunately for the ones who liked it, bureaucrats soon forced changes to both the gun & the ammo which weren't exactly endearing to the GI's whose gun messed up while they were on patrol during an Uncle Sam's exotic Southeast Asian vacation.

.
Last edited by Pete44ru on Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
IF IN THESE TYMES OF JEOPARDY,
MORTAL PERIL INVADES THY THOUGHT,
TAKE UP THIS TRVSTY PIECE,
TRVST IN THY GOD, AND FEAR THEE NAUGHT.

(The avatar is me, in 1948 ! )

.

wecsoger
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:40 am

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#3 Post by wecsoger » Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:51 pm

Good article.

Give a troop a weapon that lethal, lighter than the one he has, and also he can carry a lot more rounds for it for the same weight, what's not to like?

Intro of the M16 was the same usual politics, bickering, and ***k-measuring that has plagued the military services for decades.

Further back in history, the Brits had a wonderful .276 cal round that would have been perfect. Nope, military complex said we *must* have a .30 cal round.

They also lied saying if everyone else adopted that, then the U.S. would adopt the FAL (an awesome battle rifle) but after the dust settled, they said, nope, and adopted the M14

Eugene Stoner said the forward assist was a stupid idea - if you have a round you have to force into the chamber, shouldn't you stop and ask yourself, 'why am I really doing this?'

The forward assist, changes in powder, dropping the chrome lining, and several other mis-steps by the so-called 'experts' got folks killed.

Didn't matter to them, they were sitting in their offices, sucking up so they would get promoted.

No, not bitter here. (grin)

M16 through the A1's and A2, great weapons. M4 to whatever version we're up to now (a4, maybe) also good.

Notice now they're talking about changing calibers from the 5.56 round? They should read the history books from the '50's and maybe figure out another way to screw the Brit's over...

Larkbill
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 420
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:31 pm
Location: St Peters, Mo.

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#4 Post by Larkbill » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:08 pm

My Dad's best friend through his working years was a WWII Marine. I say was because he's now guarding the streets of heaven. He was a repple on Guadalcanal and was equipped with that crappy new rifle that the Corps was conned into by the Army. The old school Marines in the squad he was sent to still had real rifles and told him if he was smart he'd ditch the new one and pick up a Springfield if he wanted to survive. After the first night raid on their line he decided the crappy new rifle was his friend and as long as he lived whenever he needed a real rifle one of those crappy ones was his choice. And using it's original battle sights too. Wish I had taken the time to ask him more about it. I wonder what he thought about the M-16.
___________________________________________________________________
I'm not paranoid because I carry a gun. Why should I be paranoid. I've got a gun.

User avatar
Old Savage
Posting leader...
Posts: 12897
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#5 Post by Old Savage » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:25 pm

Multiple failures in combat. In 1971 there were special procedures taught in training to try too prevent failures to function in the field.
In the High Desert of Southern Calif. ..."on the cutting edge of going back in time"...

TANGO 4C
Levergunner
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:23 pm

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#6 Post by TANGO 4C » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:43 pm

This M16 Case Study is worth a look.

pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/02.pdf

It runs to 168 pages in pdf format and is an interesting read, if it will download for you.
Image

Pisgah
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1492
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:01 pm
Location: SC

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#7 Post by Pisgah » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:49 pm

Old Savage wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:25 pm
Multiple failures in combat. In 1971 there were special procedures taught in training to try too prevent failures to function in the field.
The problems they had were not caused by the design or the rifle as built. First, the Army ignored the specs for the ammo and used a different powder than what had been originally specified. Then, rather than conduct a thorough training and familiarization program they gave quick-and-dirty instruction, then issued what was literally a comic-book manual to go with it. They told troops the M-16 would never need cleaning -- and issued no cleaning kits with them!

The dadgum M-1 would have garnered a bad rep if that's how it had been launched.

User avatar
BlaineG
Posting leader...
Posts: 27240
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Spanaway, Washington

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#8 Post by BlaineG » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:38 pm

In '72 our DIs tolds us WHEN the M-16 jams, not if. It certainly did that. Usually a round or two a mag. This was Basic Combat Training, so you knew the rifles were perfectly cleaned and lubed.
If You Back Me Into A Corner There Will Not Be Enough Room For Both Of Us. :evil:

Bridger
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: S. Alabama

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#9 Post by Bridger » Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:02 pm

Thanks for the responses. I knew you guys would set me straight. Sounds like the article is mostly correct!
"The best argument against democracy
is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

- Winston Churchill

piller
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8317
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: South of Dallas

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#10 Post by piller » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:05 pm

Back in the mid 80s they still refused to issue any lube with it. When we were issued the A2 we had to turn in the bottles of CLP that came with the brand spanking new guns. No oil at all. You could be given an article 15 if you purchased oil on your own and kept your rifle working. Brain dead bureaucrats and Infantry Sergeants were more dangerous to us than any foreign enemy soldier.
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
COSteve
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2832
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#11 Post by COSteve » Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:26 am

Even though I had an M16 issued to me during my 'visit' to RVN '68-'69, my primary weapons were my M-48 tank's 90mm main gun, my TC position M-2 fifty MG, and my 1911 45. The only time I even carried the M16 was in the bunkers during attacks and if we went to Saigon. As I trained on the M-14, I considered the M16 a plastic piece of stuff. The grunts I knew at Cu Chi hated the M16 as it was underpowered and prone to failure. But, as they had nothing else to defend themselves with, they made do with what they had.
Steve

Noli nothis permittere te terere
“Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.” - Confucius
"When you find a find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it." - Dilbert

User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 5406
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#12 Post by jeepnik » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:42 pm

I have posted on more than one occasion my dislike of the M-16. My experience was with the original model. It was no good that tired very hard to get me killed. When the boys went to Iraq and later to Afghanistan they began to have the same dislike. This was particularly apparent as the distances increased in Afghanistan.

The M16 is a wonderful example of politicians and bureaucrats making decisions effecting the lives of GI's while having no knowledge of what was appropriate (I'm being very, very kind here). The rifle has gone through various revisions and alterations and apparently is still found wanting by many. If one insists on using a varmint round as a combat round there are quite a few much better platforms to launch it.
Jeepnik AKA "Old Eyes"
"Go low, go slow and preferrably in the dark"
"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"

User avatar
BlaineG
Posting leader...
Posts: 27240
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Spanaway, Washington

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#13 Post by BlaineG » Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:01 pm

piller wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:05 pm
Back in the mid 80s they still refused to issue any lube with it. When we were issued the A2 we had to turn in the bottles of CLP that came with the brand spanking new guns. No oil at all. You could be given an article 15 if you purchased oil on your own and kept your rifle working. Brain dead bureaucrats and Infantry Sergeants were more dangerous to us than any foreign enemy soldier.
Not anyplace I was stationed in the 80s (or, 70s and early 90s either).
If You Back Me Into A Corner There Will Not Be Enough Room For Both Of Us. :evil:

BigSky56
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2328
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:49 pm
Location: NW Montana

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#14 Post by BigSky56 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:43 pm

The never ending debate on the m16, the m193 round was a killer in the first 16 with the 1in 14 twist it would cavatate and corkscrew in flesh the pentagon lost that with the later twists. The downfall of all models of the 16 was the flash suppressant (calcium carbonate) that was added to the powder at the 1.5% level at first then changed to 3/4% later although the m14 & m60 used the 1.5% they are piston driven.
You needed to see a gas tube after a basic load was run thru it in RVN humidity&heat to understand the the mess it made it looked like a sewer pipe, how does a trooper fix that in a fire fight well the dead were found with a cleaning rod down the barrel trying to knock out a stuck round or the rifle broke down trying to fix it, never saw that with a piston gun.
It added up to dirty ball powder and to much flash suppressant for the DI system. Stoner went back with a couple other guys and made the ar18 & ar180 piston guns that ran good didn't jam and were accurate.
Beauracrates, dirty powder, flash suppressant and officers that wouldn't stand up to generals killed those troopers. Just my experience & 2 cents worth. danny
note: a m16 is not a light machine gun if you don't control your rate of fire it will break.

User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 24764
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#15 Post by AJMD429 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:11 pm

COSteve wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:26 am
Even though I had an M16 issued to me during my 'visit' to RVN '68-'69, my primary weapons were my M-48 tank's 90mm main gun, my TC position M-2 fifty MG, and my 1911 45.
Other than the fact that people were constantly trying to kill you at the time, having that kind of firepower just had to be thrilling.... (and I'm not referring to the mighty 1911)... :D
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
COSteve
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2832
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#16 Post by COSteve » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:42 am

AJMD429 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:11 pm
COSteve wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:26 am
Even though I had an M16 issued to me during my 'visit' to RVN '68-'69, my primary weapons were my M-48 tank's 90mm main gun, my TC position M-2 fifty MG, and my 1911 45.
Other than the fact that people were constantly trying to kill you at the time, having that kind of firepower just had to be thrilling.... (and I'm not referring to the mighty 1911)... :D
Although we carried a few WP and Hep rds, my main gun ammo primarily consisted of 2 different type of basically shotgun shells. The first, and most used was a Canister rd which was packed with long rods with ticks in them every ½" or so. When fired, the rods would fracture into small pieces, turning the rd into basically a 3½" dia shotgun shell which was good out to about 300 meters. The second was a Beehive rd which contained flechettes, little darts, that were bigger and had a longer range, however, there were far less of them in each rd. Basically, when I fired a Canister rd at a target shooting at me in the jungle, most of the jungle between me and the target and all of whatever it was shooting at us sort of disappeared. :o

As to my Ma Duce, I used it mainly to shoot at areas that could have contained BGs trying to draw their fire. If they were stupid enough to engage, a world of stuff descended on them. While I didn't have it anywhere near as bad as the grunts on the ground, it was a hellhole just the same. The place stunk of rot, decay, and surrounded by a stone age people who only cared where their next meal came from while we were trying to instill the most sophisticated political philosophy in the history of the world (democracy) into their culture, it was a fools errand to ever go there. Never been back, never will
Steve

Noli nothis permittere te terere
“Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.” - Confucius
"When you find a find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it." - Dilbert

User avatar
OldWin
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3531
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:38 pm
Location: Maine

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

#17 Post by OldWin » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:31 pm

Thank you for your service, Steve. And thanks to all others here who served.
Any job in VN was "tough sleddin". Had many friends and relatives there, and learned what I could of the experience from them and many books. I was just a young boy when it was going.
A raw deal, both there and here.
"Oh Bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered another round.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests