M1A and M1 Fail Spectacularly

I'll wait for the AK, vz58, RDB and AR15 Fail Spectacularly post.

They're all on the same channel if you want to see 'em... Except the AR15 shrugs off the mud like it wasn't there.

Everyone's taking it so personally. The point of the tests wasn't to dump on a rifle you've invested your ego into, it was to dispel the myths of what factors make a rifle reliable.

"It's made of good ol wood and steel!" "It has very loose internal tolerances!" These things don't matter that much, is the point that is flying over everyone's heads in their rush to get offended.
 
Lol I find it hard to believe that some people on here have to argue their side about how modern guns handle "tourture test" better than fifty year old designs and get butt hurt when others do not agree with them. Cars of today are much better designed than those in the sixties but what I wouldn't do for a mint 60's muscle car. It's all about what you like.

The AR15 design's been around for a long, long time. The M14 was brought into US service in 1959, the same year AR15s were first sold to a few smaller military units.
 
The AR15 design's been around for a long, long time. The M14 was brought into US service in 1959, the same year AR15s were first sold to a few smaller military units.

Where these tests ran with Early version M16 rifles or modern AR versions? The test I saw was a M1 not an M14.
 
I don't think anyone has been offended by their video creation.

Slightly amused, maybe, but not offended.
 
Where these tests ran with Early version M16 rifles or modern AR versions? The test I saw was a M1 not an M14.

The differences between Early M16s and the AR15 they tested are not significant for the purposes of the test. Problems with the early M16s had to do with ammunition and the army ordnance board attempting to sabotage the rifle, by telling soldiers they did not have to be cleaned and simply not even making cleaning kits, for example. They tested both the M1 and a modernized M14, someone posted that video earlier on.
 
.. In large measure, the US experienced "problems" with the M16 in Vietnam for three basic reasons. The first being that it was touted as being virtually maintenance free, just look at the comic book type of instructions that were issued with the gun. The second reason, and one that was out of the "Grunts" hands and beyond the control of the M16s designer and the manufacturers, was that the powder used in the ammunition was changed without there being proper testing and evaluation. The powder produced much more fouling and fouling that was harder to remove in actual jungle field conditions. To over come in part at least, the problem, the "Forward Assist" feature was added. Until that point, a swift kick was the method used to chamber a round when the chamber was fouled. The third contributing factor was the tight chamber. In later models/versions, the chambers were fractional enlarged, which went a long way to solving the problem. ...... Development and constant evaluation is a logical step, and what better testing program than actual field testing in combat? ..... David K

Not to mention initially being issued without cleaning kits (!!!) and changing spec by not manufacturing with chrome bores.
 
Testing a modern AR15 rifle vs a vintage M1 is not significant????

Not at all what I said if you bothered to read it, but Compared to an M1a, no. The AR15 and M14 saw distribution in the same year. They also did an M1 Garand by request. I actually thought the M1 Garand would do better than the M1A because of the long stroke piston and slightly less complicated action. But I was wrong, I guess weird things like the roller really do help, if only slightly!

They also tested an M1A, a vz58, an AK47, an RDB and a MAS49. I'm not sure what else you want from them?
 
All of my comments are pertaining to the OP's comment and in the original test.

"Hard wake up for those "friends" all of have who think the Garand or the M14 are a better fighting rifle than the "poodle shooters" that replaced them."

I'am just saying comparing modern rifles to the M1 is not a fair test. The logic is flawed.

I love my Ar-15's and agree they would fare better in harsher environments but it's a case of Apples and Oranges.
 
Some people just have a lot of ego invested in their particular choice of rifle. The takeaway from these vids, for me, has been that it is much better to have a rifle that's sealed up tight and doesn't let anything in than a rifle with looser tolerances. Once there's crap in the action, it's game over.
 
It's also worth noting the AR-15 has been in constant military service for 50 years now, that's a lot of time to trouble shoot, and a lot more than the M1 or M14 ever got (approx. 21 years and 10 years, respectively)


Though I will add that most of the history of the M16 presented in this thread is pretty doubtful. The article linked on the AnarchAngel contains so many ridiculous claims I almost laughed out loud; the forward assist was not added to correct any jamming problems, it was there years before the jamming issue arose in 1966; the army didn't sabotage anything, at least, not after the ARPA report came out in 1962; the importance of the cleaning is somewhat true, but probably overstated; the whole powder story as popularly known has enough untruths and exaggerations to earn it's own run-on sentence. Maybe two.

Best guess is the real cause of the 1966-67 jamming controversy was a decline in quality control at Colt's, as the problems coincided with a massive increase in production, but the possibility of investigating that was missed by Ichord and there is too much water under the bridge now, we'll probably never be able to prove it.
 
but probably overstated; the whole powder story as popularly known has enough untruths and exaggerations to earn it's own run-on sentence. Maybe two

I'd be interested in hearing it, it seemed to me it was all very well documented.

the army didn't sabotage anything, at least, not after the ARPA report came out in 1962

The failure to issue cleaning kits, or instructing soldiers that the rifles did not have to be cleaned may or may not have been deliberate, but did happen. It was my understanding that this compounded the ammunition issue significantly.
 
Last edited:
Some guys have a lot of ego invested in this video...

The videos make their point effectively. That the test is completely unreasonable is key to making the point. If that point flies over the heads of some because they see it as an affront to a favored design, theres not much to be done.


I shouldn't have to mention that "We dragged it through some mud, cleaned it and shot it" isn't the same is "we dumped some mud on it and tried to shoot it"
 
Last edited:
I'am just saying comparing modern rifles to the M1 is not a fair test. The logic is flawed.

I love my Ar-15's and agree they would fare better in harsher environments but it's a case of Apples and Oranges.


How about the MAS-49 then? Everyone in this thread seems to be overlooking that one, yet it actually did very well, hiccuping only twice and both of those failures were able to be cleared with immediate action.
The design of the MAS-49 (in short true direct impingement and a tilting bolt) is very similar to a rifle Sweden put into service during the war, you can't tell for sure from extrapolation but you'd expect similar results, when the operating system is almost identical and they lack the achilles heel of the garand style exposed operating rod system. In any case it's representative of tech that was out there in WW2/Pre WW2 making it a completely "fair" comparison with the M1 but in any case well before the M-14 came into being.


I don't see how this test couldn't be "fair" short of outright cheating, it's simply taking a bunch of different rifles and throwing mud on them to see what happens- purely for our entertainment and education.

It can admittedly indeed be logically expected that the older generation tech might struggle a bit more (although again, the MAS-49 performed perfectly acceptably), but in doing so you've already internalized the conclusion the testing showed- the M1 style operating system was flawed/dated, and that arms development in the United States took step backwards in terms of perpetrating it with the M-14.

Using your logic the only "fair" thing to do would be not to test them at all, and that's no fun. :)
 
Last edited:
It's also worth noting the AR-15 has been in constant military service for 50 years now, that's a lot of time to trouble shoot, and a lot more than the M1 or M14 ever got (approx. 21 years and 10 years, respectively)

It's true that they had a very short service career due to their various faults, but attempts to try and make an accurate, reliable rifle from the platform went on for far longer. This article nicely touches on a few of them, and to be blunt it's pretty damning. It simply just never worked out.
 
...........I don't see how this test couldn't be "fair" short of outright cheating, it's simply taking a bunch of different rifles and throwing mud on them to see what happens- purely for our entertainment and education........

It is a fair test, agreed.

The only thing that wouldn't be "fair" about it is if you were to issue the ones that did very poorly to soldiers today.
 
I shouldn't have to mention that "We dragged it through some mud, cleaned it and shot it" isn't the same is "we dumped some mud on it and tried to shoot it"

I shouldn't have to mention that a rifleman would make a real attempt to clean the rifle before trying to shoot it.
The point of the video was to make the rifle(s) fail. Mission accomplished.
 
Back
Top Bottom