Wasn't so much the M16 rifle as it was they used the wrong powder in the ammunition. And didnt' supply cleaning kits with the rifles. Apparently numerous dead soldiers were found with partially disassembled rifles that they were working hard to get back into service after they failed in combat.
The M14 in Vietnam: One Veteran's Experience
- Thread starter Big Bad
- Start date
Wasn't so much the M16 rifle as it was they used the wrong powder in the ammunition. And didnt' supply cleaning kits with the rifles. Apparently numerous dead soldiers were found with partially disassembled rifles that they were working hard to get back into service after they failed in combat.
Two words: det cord.
Firefights are usually won by whoever makes the most noise. High volume fire forces heads down and allows for maneuvering and that is good if you have lots of buddies in the fight with you and lots of light ammo.
I think if you are in a gunfight and don't have 10 -20 guys on your side then the M14 and 7.62 x 51 would be a good choice. Best to physically eliminate the opposition ASAP, no matter what they hide behind.
I think if you are in a gunfight and don't have 10 -20 guys on your side then the M14 and 7.62 x 51 would be a good choice. Best to physically eliminate the opposition ASAP, no matter what they hide behind.
They were a lot more issues than those, some of which that didn't get adequately addressed for more than 3 decades after the end of the American phase of the war. Magazines for example, where it took until the GWOT era until truly good ones were finally available.
The basic design of the rifle was difficult to mass produce to a high standard using the technology of the times, which is something else that didn't get rectified for decades.
The reason for early mishaps with the M16 in Vietnam is still debated but the most obvious one was not due to the rifle itself but the surplus powder used to produce the ammunition. Stoner designed the rifle based on a specific powder for the 5.56 and when the U.S. Government shipped the rifles out Vietnam they needed a lot a ammo quick and decided to use existing powder they had in storage not specifically made for the 5.56.
As stated by someone else here, a firefight is most often won by the side that can overwhelm the other with firepower, if you can make your ammo last 3X longer with 5.56 rather than 7.62 there is a much greater chance to not lose that firefight.
Also, throw an M14 in thick Vietnam mud and try to feed a mag through it, you'll be lucky if you end up with a bolt action rifle. A properly maintained AR15/M16/M4 is the most reliable firearm in the world in adverse conditions. The entire action is sealed like no other rifle.
As stated by someone else here, a firefight is most often won by the side that can overwhelm the other with firepower, if you can make your ammo last 3X longer with 5.56 rather than 7.62 there is a much greater chance to not lose that firefight.
Also, throw an M14 in thick Vietnam mud and try to feed a mag through it, you'll be lucky if you end up with a bolt action rifle. A properly maintained AR15/M16/M4 is the most reliable firearm in the world in adverse conditions. The entire action is sealed like no other rifle.
Heres' a big thing about M16 in VN
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1735
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1735
If this topic is of interest to you google Mad dog Jerry shriver, one hell of a soldier, fascinating reading, he used a Marlin .444 at time,needed its penetration abilities.
https://ultimatesniper.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Untold-True-Story-of-Mad-Dog-Shriver.pdf
https://ultimatesniper.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Untold-True-Story-of-Mad-Dog-Shriver.pdf
Last edited:
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Ah yes, the never ending campfire conversation. Which is better 5.56 or 7.62 (or .303 or .30-06)?
Having managed three trips to the world's most publicized sunshine destinations, I will throw out that a half-dozen 30-rd mags of 5.56 makes infinitely more sense than two or three 20-rd mags of 7.62. The idea of a firefight is not to necessarily chop down a big tree or punch through a mud wall, but to make the other bastard do something stupid so you or one your companions can slot him. (( I am not a combat veteran, but have been issued everything from Lee Enfields (ok it was a CNo7 in .22) to FN C1 and C2, C7, C7A1, C7A2, SMG and 9mm. Carrying a C7A2 along with all the clag and protective gear we were issued, was so much easier.))
In my files I have an After Action Report from 2005 or 2006 from a PPCLI NCO in the early days of the fighting in RC South. He figured he needed 10 mags to kill a TB. Five to get his attention. Three to fix him in position and start exposing himself. Two to actually shoot and kill the man. Note most of that is suppressive or "attraction" fire.
Having managed three trips to the world's most publicized sunshine destinations, I will throw out that a half-dozen 30-rd mags of 5.56 makes infinitely more sense than two or three 20-rd mags of 7.62. The idea of a firefight is not to necessarily chop down a big tree or punch through a mud wall, but to make the other bastard do something stupid so you or one your companions can slot him. (( I am not a combat veteran, but have been issued everything from Lee Enfields (ok it was a CNo7 in .22) to FN C1 and C2, C7, C7A1, C7A2, SMG and 9mm. Carrying a C7A2 along with all the clag and protective gear we were issued, was so much easier.))
In my files I have an After Action Report from 2005 or 2006 from a PPCLI NCO in the early days of the fighting in RC South. He figured he needed 10 mags to kill a TB. Five to get his attention. Three to fix him in position and start exposing himself. Two to actually shoot and kill the man. Note most of that is suppressive or "attraction" fire.
The adoption of weapons and cartridges is a matter of politics and fashion.
If you want to know the why and how a weapon was adopted you will have to spend a lot of time reading a lot of sources of information.
Remember, during the Battle of Blenheim in 1704, Marlborough's troops wore wigs powdered with flour, like the fashionable civilians of the day.
The US Army adopts the US Airforce small caliber weapon so Russian has to adopt one too !
Remember the rush to adopt small bore smokeless weapons started when the French adopted the Lebel rifle and cartridge ?
Remember the battleship building race that started when Britain built the Dreadnought ?
If you want to know the why and how a weapon was adopted you will have to spend a lot of time reading a lot of sources of information.
Remember, during the Battle of Blenheim in 1704, Marlborough's troops wore wigs powdered with flour, like the fashionable civilians of the day.
The US Army adopts the US Airforce small caliber weapon so Russian has to adopt one too !
Remember the rush to adopt small bore smokeless weapons started when the French adopted the Lebel rifle and cartridge ?
Remember the battleship building race that started when Britain built the Dreadnought ?
I think most would say the reasons extend far beyond just "politics and fashion" haha
Rifled barrels, atomic bombs and chlorine gas aint fashion statements.
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
ah yes the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45
If only the Americans had bothered to read the studies the British did... in 1913 the british were looking at a new service round .276" and the Canadian M10 Ross chambered in 280 Ross was another example
but WW1 and standardization and the tons of 303 ammo with all the factories set up for 303 ammo, and WW2 was started with what small arms were left over from WW1.
the ideal caliber trials and studies concluded that the ideal caliber for small arms is between 6mm and 7mm.
so many examples of suitable cartridges in that range, but he US first went with a shortened 30-06 then went the opposite way with the 5.56.
7x43mm or 280 Enfield was developed to try to appease the US, and was adopted by the British for about 2 years.
would have been better if they didn't abandon the 270 they were working on at the time. Or the later 6.25mm.
the Americans did try with the 6mm SAW but that went nowhere.
If only the Americans had bothered to read the studies the British did... in 1913 the british were looking at a new service round .276" and the Canadian M10 Ross chambered in 280 Ross was another example
but WW1 and standardization and the tons of 303 ammo with all the factories set up for 303 ammo, and WW2 was started with what small arms were left over from WW1.
the ideal caliber trials and studies concluded that the ideal caliber for small arms is between 6mm and 7mm.
so many examples of suitable cartridges in that range, but he US first went with a shortened 30-06 then went the opposite way with the 5.56.
7x43mm or 280 Enfield was developed to try to appease the US, and was adopted by the British for about 2 years.
would have been better if they didn't abandon the 270 they were working on at the time. Or the later 6.25mm.
the Americans did try with the 6mm SAW but that went nowhere.
When I was in tune with such things a lot more, I saw an awful lot of agitprop, usually videos, about both 6.5 and 6.8, not to mention 4.5, 4.6, and 4.85, but it seems as if all that rolled off 'the system' like hail off a tin roof.
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
somewhere I have a powerpoint slide deck from one of the big NATO conferences on modernization of small arms where it says that there is no problems with the 5.56 round the problem is basic marksmanship and the development of a new round would not make any difference. I think it was around 2006
Reminds me of the switch to 303 British and the reputation it developed in India as a poor manstopper before they started making soft points of their FMJ. If a bullet aint put where it counts...
Still at least we were smart enough in the commonwealth to use Mk 7 Z with the light wood or aluminum in the front 1/3 of the bullet cause we knew 30 cal FMJ does kinda actually suck.
5.56mm is in good company. Lots of stories of allied soldiers catching 8mm Mauser and fighting on, 7.62x39mm too. "The VC kept coming" problem works both ways.
Last edited:
