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: 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
Bridger
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: S. Alabama

M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by Bridger »

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
Pete44ru
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 11242
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:26 am

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by Pete44ru »

.

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.
wecsoger
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:40 am

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by wecsoger »

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 3.0
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:31 pm
Location: St Peters, Mo.

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by Larkbill »

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: 16687
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by Old Savage »

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"...

Image
TANGO 4C
Levergunner
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:23 pm

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by TANGO 4C »

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: 1797
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:01 pm
Location: SC

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by Pisgah »

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
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by Blaine »

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.
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
Bridger
Levergunner 3.0
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: S. Alabama

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by Bridger »

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
Posting leader...
Posts: 15188
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: South of Dallas

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by piller »

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: 3850
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by COSteve »

Done
Last edited by COSteve on Sun May 30, 2021 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steve
Retired and Living the Good Life
No Matter Where You Go, There You Are
User avatar
jeepnik
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6831
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:39 pm
Location: On the Beach

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by jeepnik »

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 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
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 30495
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Still Deciding

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by Blaine »

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).
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
BigSky56
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:49 pm
Location: NW Montana

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by BigSky56 »

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: 31932
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by AJMD429 »

COSteve wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:26 amEven 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: 3850
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:03 pm

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by COSteve »

Done
Last edited by COSteve on Sun May 30, 2021 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steve
Retired and Living the Good Life
No Matter Where You Go, There You Are
User avatar
OldWin
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8962
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:38 pm

Re: M-16 Adoption by the Military

Post by OldWin »

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