What happened with the M16 in Vietnam?

Didn't watch yet but wasn't the main issue with the M16 the ammo ? Specifically the powder that was used is what caused so much problem at the beginning but after that got worked out it went on to being a very good rifle
 
Juster said:
So what is the executive summary?
Click to expand...

Problems primarily included (as you probably already know) use of powder that the rifle was not designed for, chambers and barrels that were not chrome-lined, and a lack of cleaning kits and training. There were other things (buffer, firing pin, for example) that caused issues in concert with the first three major problems. Lots of other interesting little details that make this worth watching, though :)
 
He ignores that the AR10 was tested in US military trials and lost to the M14. Also I beleive the original bolt and carrier where stainless steel unless I miss read something.
The AR10 also had a forward assist after what was learnt in the Dutch contract. But when they changed the charging handle it was deleted. Too many people forget the AR10 is the original Armalite rifle. It lost that contract because as this video mentions it wasn't from traditional lines and I think all the other stories might be also linked to procurement sabotage. I think there is more behind this whole story then what we are told.
One thing the M16 and the MP/STG-44 share is how much lying it took to get the troops the right gun for the war they where needed for.
 
CobraGT said:
Problems primarily included (as you probably already know) use of powder that the rifle was not designed for, chambers and barrels that were not chrome-lined, and a lack of cleaning kits and training. There were other things (buffer, firing pin, for example) that caused issues in concert with the first three major problems. Lots of other interesting little details that make this worth watching, though :)
Click to expand...
Thanks! The slamfire firing pins and so on are of general interest to people, so the video is worth watching from a "problems that military guns have" perspective.
 
There were issues with the barrels too. They didn't chrome line them which obviously lead to issues with rust. It also lead to problems with extraction, because chroming a chamber obviously makes extraction easier, especially when dirty. I remember reading somewhere that the first batch of chromed M16's actually only had the bore chromed but the chamber wasn't so that had to be fixed in the next batch too. I can try and find the reference if anyone's interested. I got away with writing a paper comparing the development of the AK/M16 for a university history class if anyone's interested. Wasn't my greatest work because it was done one step away from last minute, but it's got a lot of good info in there.

Basically by the M16A1 most issues were sorted out, and the gun was somewhat "okay". But the original M16's....I'd be picking up an AK really fast.
 
Zedbra said:
From the 50 minute mark on he summarizes it all - but it is detailed in the posts above. I don't have an AR but listened/watched this whole vid - interesting development of the rifle.
Click to expand...
So mostly because the Army didn't support testing it properly. Non-chrome lined chamber, cheap Al mags and exaggerated stories. Informative.
 
Juster said:
So what is the executive summary?
Click to expand...

Guy spends 20 minutes talking about small feature details of the rifles before getting to the question of failures at all. He then spends the next 30 minutes going back and forth between descriptions of malfunctions and modifications to the system without regard for significance of the failures, historical timeline or coherence for the viewer. Finally he wraps up with a summary that is both long winded and introduces new information (a cardinal sin for a summary).

In general I found it overly long and wordy, with a shortage of emphasis on which malfunctions were critical and actually got people killed versus which were trivial. He does describe failures to extract as the most serious, but otherwise leaves the viewer a list of problems without context of severity or commonality. Some of these problems may have been non-existant...I don't believe I've ever heard anyone mention bolt carrier bounce in an AR-15 discussion prior to this and it was certainly not the reason for development of the Sturtevant buffer.

But the biggest problem is his reports of cause are suspect. He blames a lack of chrome plating in the chamber and subsequent corrosion as the number one cause of the failures to extract and repeatedly mentions first the change to ball powder by the government. The chrome thing was real but I doubt it was the number one cause. The powder thing, while the official problem as blamed in the Ichord report, was a complete red herring and is not taken seriously by most students today, except apparently by the guy in this video. Oh and by the way, the government did not force the change from stick to ball powder, Remington did and it's a good thing they did, because Stoner completely f@#$ed up when he specified IMR 4475 for application in the 5.56mm cartridge.

The things to know about the M16 in Vietnam was that it was a great rifle and far and away the best available choice for the US military, however it was a new and relatively untested system and it had some problems. Most of these problems were not critical and were dealt with quickly and without lasting damage. The lingering bad reputation came almost entirely from the failure to extract issues of 1966-67 which was grabbed by the media and played up to catch everybodies attention, including Congress and the President. From first discovery to widespread institution of a solution was about nine months, but apparently a number of casualties did occur as a direct result and the reputation of the rifle has never fully recovered. It is the opinion of many that the official Ichord report missed the cause of these failures so we will likely never know what really happened (it wasn't the damned powder!). For a good discussion of the possible causes I recommend this thread over on AR15.com.
 
Scarecrow said:
He ignores that the AR10 was tested in US military trials and lost to the M14. Also I beleive the original bolt and carrier where stainless steel unless I miss read something.
Click to expand...

The AR10 didn't lose so much as it showed up too late to be seriously considered. The decision to adopt the M14 had already been made but the ordnance board decided to allow some testing of the AR10 anyway because it was so excitingly revolutionary, and if the AR10 had sailed through testing it wasn't too late to rescind the decision on the M14. But AR10# 1004 burst in testing almost immediately, making it obvious there was significant development work to do, so they decided they couldn't hold up the M14 program for this interesting but highly experimental rifle.

I don't believe the orginal bolt and carrier were stainless, unless by original you mean some of the prototypes made in Armalite's toolroom in California. The Dutch production AR10's were chrome plated steel.

...and I think all the other stories might be also linked to procurement sabotage.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that, the accusations of it I have seen mostly looked like sour grapes from a rejected defense contractor.

p.Rundle said:
There were issues with the barrels too. They didn't chrome line them which obviously lead to issues with rust. It also lead to problems with extraction, because chroming a chamber obviously makes extraction easier, especially when dirty. I remember reading somewhere that the first batch of chromed M16's actually only had the bore chromed but the chamber wasn't so that had to be fixed in the next batch too.
Click to expand...

Except that the USA army fought a whole war in the south pacific with nary a chromed chamber in sight (and corrosive ammo to boot), and while they had some corroded and pitted chambers it wasn't so much that it destroyed the reputation of whole weapon systems. And many of those same WWII era firearms were reissued to ARVN troops and I don't recall hearing of problems with them. And the US military issued AR-15s to many soldiers in Vietnam from 1962-1966 without chromed chambers or reports of problems. And Australia put troops with FN-FAL rifles in Vietnam without chromed chambers or reports of problems. In fact many rifles without chromed chambers have been used all over the world by many nations and are considered quite serviceable. So why was it necessary for the AR-15? Answer: it wasn't. If you started with a working rifle and took care of it it would remain a working rifle. That "taking care of it" was likely the biggest problem, but there are persistent stories that many fellows weren't given a working rifle to start with.

I have never heard of a M16 with chromed plated bore and unplated chamber. From 1967-71 all M16s were made with chromed chamber but unplated bore, because Colt did not have the technology to chrome a bore that small.

Basically by the M16A1 most issues were sorted out, and the gun was somewhat "okay". But the original M16's....I'd be picking up an AK really fast.
Click to expand...

I submit that is not quite true. Based on reports and timelines the first 300,000 or so AR-15s were possibly the best made guns the series has ever seen. And by 1969 the guns were probably every bit as good as what comes off the line today. The problems seem to focus on about 200,000 rifles made in the 1965-67 timeframe, right around the time of a massive ramp up in production, and that sounds like a quality control problem to me.
 
The problem was the us government recycled gun powder into small arms powder, which generated calcium that got deposited inside the gas tube.

And I speculate a lot could have be related to inconsistent port pressure of the ammo and colt at that time did not get the exact tolerance and relationship in the gas system components in needed to get the timing of the extraction cycle right.

Coincidentally AR in the commercial world became much more reliable when engineering software became much cheaper and could run on any work station.
 
BattleRife said:
Except that the USA army fought a whole war in the south pacific with nary a chromed chamber in sight (and corrosive ammo to boot), and while they had some corroded and pitted chambers it wasn't so much that it destroyed the reputation of whole weapon systems. And many of those same WWII era firearms were reissued to ARVN troops and I don't recall hearing of problems with them. And the US military issued AR-15s to many soldiers in Vietnam from 1962-1966 without chromed chambers or reports of problems. And Australia put troops with FN-FAL rifles in Vietnam without chromed chambers or reports of problems. In fact many rifles without chromed chambers have been used all over the world by many nations and are considered quite serviceable. So why was it necessary for the AR-15? Answer: it wasn't. If you started with a working rifle and took care of it it would remain a working rifle. That "taking care of it" was likely the biggest problem, but there are persistent stories that many fellows weren't given a working rifle to start with.
Click to expand...

You do realize the M16 being fully automatic differentiates it from all the other standard issue weapons of WWII, right? After a firearm dumps enough ammo in full auto it will get way hotter than any semi auto gun can achieve.
 
BattleRife said:
Guy spends 20 minutes talking about small feature details of the rifles before getting to the question of failures at all. He then spends the next 30 minutes going back and forth between descriptions of malfunctions and modifications to the system without regard for significance of the failures, historical timeline or coherence for the viewer. Finally he wraps up with a summary that is both long winded and introduces new information (a cardinal sin for a summary).

In general I found it overly long and wordy, with a shortage of emphasis on which malfunctions were critical and actually got people killed versus which were trivial. He does describe failures to extract as the most serious, but otherwise leaves the viewer a list of problems without context of severity or commonality. Some of these problems may have been non-existant...I don't believe I've ever heard anyone mention bolt carrier bounce in an AR-15 discussion prior to this and it was certainly not the reason for development of the Sturtevant buffer.

But the biggest problem is his reports of cause are suspect. He blames a lack of chrome plating in the chamber and subsequent corrosion as the number one cause of the failures to extract and repeatedly mentions first the change to ball powder by the government. The chrome thing was real but I doubt it was the number one cause. The powder thing, while the official problem as blamed in the Ichord report, was a complete red herring and is not taken seriously by most students today, except apparently by the guy in this video. Oh and by the way, the government did not force the change from stick to ball powder, Remington did and it's a good thing they did, because Stoner completely f@#$ed up when he specified IMR 4475 for application in the 5.56mm cartridge.

The things to know about the M16 in Vietnam was that it was a great rifle and far and away the best available choice for the US military, however it was a new and relatively untested system and it had some problems. Most of these problems were not critical and were dealt with quickly and without lasting damage. The lingering bad reputation came almost entirely from the failure to extract issues of 1966-67 which was grabbed by the media and played up to catch everybodies attention, including Congress and the President. From first discovery to widespread institution of a solution was about nine months, but apparently a number of casualties did occur as a direct result and the reputation of the rifle has never fully recovered. It is the opinion of many that the official Ichord report missed the cause of these failures so we will likely never know what really happened (it wasn't the damned powder!). For a good discussion of the possible causes I recommend this thread over on AR15.com.
Click to expand...

McNamara.
Should have kept his big effing nose out of the military rifle business!!!
Especially in the middle of a shooting war.....

John Cantius Garand had the luxury of rifle development (in relative peacetime) without any stupid persons telling him what to do with his rifle design.
This should have been the same case with Eugene Stoner.
With a guarantee of zero intrusion from the US Army Ordnance Board, until a final testing phase.

Prior to 1962 the fledgling AR had a pretty decent combat reputation with a few Green Berets and AF security policemen based in SE Asia.

The superb book entitled The 13 cent Killers, about the Vietnam War and marine snipers, notes that for a few years the USMC gave thier own ground troops a personal choice of the M14 or the M16 for issue in the field. (1966ish)

1961 was a nasty time for the US Army, as even the US troops in the Berlin Brigade still had M1 rifles as standard issue. But nearby British troops in the same city, are on guard with the brand new FN-FAL.
 
Last edited:
greentips said:
The problem was the us government recycled gun powder into small arms powder, which generated calcium that got deposited inside the gas tube.
Click to expand...

No it was not. Ball powder was the best choice for the 5.56mm round in 1964, and remains the best choice to this day. The (relatively inconsequential) calcium issue wasn't even diagnosed until around 1972, 4-5 years after the failure to extract problems were solved.

p.Rundle said:
You do realize the M16 being fully automatic differentiates it from all the other standard issue weapons of WWII, right? After a firearm dumps enough ammo in full auto it will get way hotter than any semi auto gun can achieve.
Click to expand...

You mean "all the other standard issue weapons of WWII" like the M2 carbine, Thompson and M3 SMGs, 1918A2 BAR and 1919 MG, all of which are fully automatic and none of which had a chrome plated chamber? Also I don't recall hearing that the 66-67 extraction issues of the M16 were related to intense automatic fire.
 
Build quality was another significant factor, as the AR-15 remained difficult to produce to a high standard for decades.

The low volume early production Colts were nicely made, but the subsequent military contract guns, especially those built to fill the initial demand for Vietnam, were rush jobs.

What's more is that they also had to conform to a fairly strict price point in order to satisfy navel gazing bean counters like McNamara, given that it was an expensive to produce design for the times, and was initially only supposed to be an interim measure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom