actually, the early ar 15/m16 failures were a fault of the AMMUNITION- more precisely ,the powder used in- apparently it was old cannon powder modified with calcium carbonate that raised the temperature of the chamber to the point where the bolt free- wheeled and broke off the locking lugs or welded the action shut after a full auto cook off- this is well- documented- one need only LOOK IT UP- it was also fairly simple fix by the unit armourer by taking a piece of 30 cal cleaning rod , sticking a slotted jag on the end of it, inserting emery paper and running it into the action several times- while not in the recommended course of action( ie the manual )once modified, the rifles seldom failed- however, if an inspection was held, and the rifles found to be modified, all hell broke loose by the inspector
M1A and M1 Fail Spectacularly
- Thread starter Goose762
- Start date
Yes, switching from stick to a ball powder with a different burn rate exacerbated issues as it increased the full auto cyclic rate. Also early M16's did not have chrome bores, and other metal parts on the gun suffered sever corrosion issues.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Apologies to the original poster for the thread hijack. If people want to take this sidebar further than this post, I suggest they start a new thread.
Except there never was a significant ammunition issue. That is my point.
The usual story as heard over the BS counter in gun stores is that "the Army changed the powder" to save money, or use up excess stockpiles, or whatever, and that caused the problem. The truth is that Remington forced their fellow ammunition companies to change the powder, because Remington recognized that Stoner's original choice of powder was a serious technical error. More truth is that ammunition loaded with ball powder caused only minor stoppages, not the catastrophic jams that were the source of the 66-67 jamming controversy. And one last truth is the fact that despite the many damning claims of people today, the reliability of the AR-15 was improved without moving away from the so-called problem powder. They fixed the guns, left the ammo the same, and the problem went away. It was three years before anybody was able to find the technical fault with the powder that made it prone to fouling, and by then improved quality control and improved training (yes, including improved cleaning practices) had made the problem so small that hardly anybody noticed.
Wow. Just WOW. I have seen a lot of nonsense on the history of the AR-15 / M16, either written first hand or reported second hand, but this particular steaming pile of wrong is a new one. Please, you must tell me, where can I LOOK IT UP, the accounts of free-wheeling, broken lugged bolts, caused by hot chambers? 'Cuz it sure as hell is not well documented in any of the several books I have on the topic!
Except there never was a significant ammunition issue. That is my point.
The usual story as heard over the BS counter in gun stores is that "the Army changed the powder" to save money, or use up excess stockpiles, or whatever, and that caused the problem. The truth is that Remington forced their fellow ammunition companies to change the powder, because Remington recognized that Stoner's original choice of powder was a serious technical error. More truth is that ammunition loaded with ball powder caused only minor stoppages, not the catastrophic jams that were the source of the 66-67 jamming controversy. And one last truth is the fact that despite the many damning claims of people today, the reliability of the AR-15 was improved without moving away from the so-called problem powder. They fixed the guns, left the ammo the same, and the problem went away. It was three years before anybody was able to find the technical fault with the powder that made it prone to fouling, and by then improved quality control and improved training (yes, including improved cleaning practices) had made the problem so small that hardly anybody noticed.
Wow. Just WOW. I have seen a lot of nonsense on the history of the AR-15 / M16, either written first hand or reported second hand, but this particular steaming pile of wrong is a new one. Please, you must tell me, where can I LOOK IT UP, the accounts of free-wheeling, broken lugged bolts, caused by hot chambers? 'Cuz it sure as hell is not well documented in any of the several books I have on the topic!
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
I don't know if ARF.com requires an account to access their forums, but for those of you who can see it, there is a great conversation I participated in from several years back on the topic of the AR-15s problems in Vietnam. As a nice bonus, it also contains several anecdotes and comparisons to the reliability history of the M1 and M14, thus bringing us full circle to the start of this thread.
Early M16 Problems in Vietnam on AR15.com.
Early M16 Problems in Vietnam on AR15.com.
I'm not sure where a rifleman would find "50 or 60 gallons of water" in the field, but sure, ok.
And yet, some didn't.
That was a really good read, thanks for posting!
I find it funny you'd try and spin a rifle malfunctioning as a feature.
You're correct that the bolt on the M1 is designed such that the hammer contacts the firing pin tang once the bolt has rotated and locked up, and this in theory prevents the rifle from firing out of battery.
However that has nothing to do with the fact that in the video, before the rifle was exposed to mud it started off properly in battery, and enough debris was able to find it's way inside that it didn't fire a single shot despite starting locked up tight and ready to go.
it was posted by a crew chief in the usaf, along with the fix- i was NOT making this stuff up- of course, it has since disappeared from the net , but that's where i got it and i'm not going to spend my time catering to your doubts
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Are you perhaps thinking of #### Culver's account of the M16 in Vietnam? It is referenced several times in the ARF.com discussion I mentioned, and can be found here.
I would think a soldier realizes his rifle is his life line and will do what needs to be done to keep it working...Darwin takes care of those that don't.
when you're dashing towards an objective, in combat, and the enemy starts covering the area with machine gun fire you drop like a rock gun first into whatever nearby place seems to offer some protection. Usually that's a depression in the ground and during rain and snow it's full of mud and water.
That's how it goes.
A completely open action bunged up by mud?! Impossible! The test is rigged!
These rifles are from a time when semi-auto's were just coming of age. They were built in the same style as the past-era of bolt-action rifles. Those got dirty with the bolt closed, just wipe off and carry on with life. Evidently that doesn't work with with the M1. Okay next step, close the action in, add a dust cover. Keep the junk out.
They're fantastic rifles, but they were a stepping stone to where we are today. Improvements have been made.
Like comparing a '66 Vette, to a '16 Vette. If you had to drive the thing every single day, you'd be in the 2016, guaranteed.
Nostalgia makes for wonderful blinders, despite hindsight being 20/20.
These rifles are from a time when semi-auto's were just coming of age. They were built in the same style as the past-era of bolt-action rifles. Those got dirty with the bolt closed, just wipe off and carry on with life. Evidently that doesn't work with with the M1. Okay next step, close the action in, add a dust cover. Keep the junk out.
They're fantastic rifles, but they were a stepping stone to where we are today. Improvements have been made.
Like comparing a '66 Vette, to a '16 Vette. If you had to drive the thing every single day, you'd be in the 2016, guaranteed.
Nostalgia makes for wonderful blinders, despite hindsight being 20/20.
And now something more concrete...
Report No. 26 (obtained from the U.S. Government Printing office in Washington, D.C.) - Report of the Special Subcommittee on the M-16 Rifle Program of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Nineteenth Congress, First Session, October 19, 1967.
Quoting directly from this Congressional Report:
"That both Army and Marine Corps personnel have experienced serious and excessive malfunctions with the M-16 rifle, the most serious being the failure to extract the spent cartridge."
"That the AR-15/ M-16 as initially developed was and excellent and reliable weapon."
"That certain modifications made to the rifle at the insistence of the Army were unnecessary and were not supported by test data."
"That two of these modifications increased the unit cost of the rifle substantially and and decreased its performance characteristics. These modifications were the bolt closure device chrome plating of the chamber and the change in barrel twist."
"That the major contribution to malfunctions experienced in Vietnam was ammunition loaded with ball powder."
"That the change from IMR extruded powder to ball propellant in 1964 for 5.56 ammunition was not justified or supported by test data."
"That a number of modifications to the M-16 rifle were made necessary after ball propellant was adopted for 5.56 ammunition."
"That officials in the Department of The Army were aware of the adverse effect of the ball propellant on the cyclic rate of the M-16 rifle as early as March 1964, yet continued to accept delivery of additional thousands of rifles that were not subjected to acceptance or endurance tests using the ammunition of greatest density in the field and in the supply system (ball propellant ammunition)."
"That the Army system of development, production, and introduction of a new weapon into the inventory should be thoroughly reviewed to determine if the M-16 rifle program is typical of the manner in which the Army operates. The manner in which the Army rifle program has been managed is unbelievable."
Stoner, Sullivan and Fremont, the designers of the gun and ammunition, were not consulted before the change. It wasn't until October, 1966 that a team from Colt Industries (Colt had acquired the exclusive manufacturing rights in Dec. 59), led by 'Koni' Ito, went to Vietnam to find the problems with the M-16. The most common extraction problem was rim shear, where the extractor pulled through the rim because the fired case stuck in a dirty, eroded chamber. Also carrier keys, piston end of the gas tubes, and interiors of the bolts were rusty, dirty, and very carboned. There was a lack of lubrication of the buffer assemblies so that many assemblies were frozen which led to high cyclic rates (original rate of 850 vs 1000 after the introduction of IMR powder) and parts failures. Most magazines were dirty and bent to hell as well. The Colt team found that 40% of the magazines were unserviceable.
smokestack
Regular
- Location
- Near Edmonton
Amen. The members here get SO mad about silly things.
Sometimes you have to ask yourself, are these really the people who should be allowed to have firearms?
It isn't just this forum. Most gun forum members are this way.
A newb will innocently ask a perfectly reasonable question and people jump all over him and flame the crap out of the poor person.
Anyway, I liked their tests. The AR was put through the same torture.
Clearly we are many AR-haters?
I know, of all the people saying the tests were flawed and stupid, how many are AR15 owners?
I bet the complainers are M14/M305 (like me) owners or VZ owners.
