[rock jock]

Sergeant James Riley, 31, described the ambush.

"It wasn't a little ambush, it was the whole city and we were shot from front, rear, left," along a one-to-two mile (kilometer) stretch of highway. All had their weapons jam due to sand kicked up as they traveled from Kuwait.

Riley tried manually loading his M-16 automatic rifle but "realized there were too many of them." "We couldn't even make a bayonet charge," he said. "We were like Custer."

I love the AR system, but this is not a good bit of news. Is it possible these folks weren't properly protecting their weapons?

[Prof]

Possibly. My son's with the 101st Airborne and the first thing he asked us to send were women's nylons to pull over the barrel to keep the sand out. He also asked me to send appropriate barrel brushes, etc.

[Steve Smith]

Too much earl?

[Marko Kloos]

Too much of that talcum-like Middle Eastern sand, combined with the cursory weapons maintenance that is standard in many support units. They're not trigger pullers, and they didn't stop their job and clean the sand out of their rifles twice a day like the Marines and Army infantry guys.

[Delmar]

I think this happens in every war-a group of people who do not take their personal weapons maint. seriously and viola-plastic club! Watch for some dumb, non-serving congressman to scream for an investigation, and after its all said and done, the taxpayers will have spent billions and the new/modified main battle rifle won't be any better than the last one, but will weigh 3 pounds more.:rolleyes:

[Steve in PA]

Typical gear jammers..........traveling in convoy........probably never thought to protect their rifles from the sand kicked up by the vehicles ahead............

[444]

You may be right, being a support unit, they might not taken weapons maintainance as seriously as they might have; but I would tend to think that in that desert with the sand storms they were having early on, there might have just been very little they could do unless they did as suggested with the nylons.
People like to talk a lot about weapons reliability, but in reality there are some conditions where you almost can't keep it running if it is exposed to the elements.

[El Tejon]

Don't know if it was everyone, but I'll wager: no condoms over the barrels, no bags, more than one dust cover down, were not instructed on how to lube in gritty sand, did not clean their weapon since coming off a ship.

Where were the senior NCOs on this? Let us pray that this goes down as a lesson learned.

[rock jock]

Don't want to start a flame war, but I'm wondering if they were Marines would this still have happened? I have always admired the Marine Corps philosophy that every Marine is a grunt and needs to be prepared to fight, whether they are Force Recon or supply clerks.

[Mike Irwin]

Middle eastern conditions were know to put such superlative weapons as the K98k Mauser, No 1 Mk III/No. 4 Mk I, and even the M1 Garand out of service.

Sometimes there's just too much junk in the gun.

[Bainx]

Now, let me get this straight......to use the "properly protected" M16 rifle I must
1. Remove condom off of end of muzzle [sweeping hand]
2. Remove nylon sheath covering
3. Remove dust cover[s]

Hmmm... I need this SOB NOOOOWWWW
not 30 seconds from now!

And, if the dust is blowing at the time I remove all of this, I am SOL anyway?!

Man, what a weapon:barf:

[Jeff White]

Before anyone gets started on how the M16 was responsible...I have a videotape copy of a WWII training film on the M1 Garand that talks about how they had to keep it clean to keep it working. Any weapon from a flintlock to an AK to an M16 will jam if not kept clean in that environment. Take whatever weapon you think will serve yu best into that environment and don't maintain it, and see how long it functions for you.

The Army issues plastic shoot-off muzzle caps and plastic bags large enough to manipulate the weapons controls through if necessary.

El Tejon is right this is a leadership issue, NOT an equipment issue. Someone, somewhere is dealing with a decision they made not to make his/her soldiers maintain their weapons to standard. :(

Jeff

[motorep]

Umm, Bainx...pulling the trigger takes care of the condom and the dust cover.

[yankytrash]

Whole lotsa "maybe" and "probably" going on here. We oughta wait a little longer and see if anymore details come to light, befroe we let the AR/M16 bashing begin.

[Navy joe]

Rear echelon unit. Guns probably spent lotsa time propped in the corner forgotten, the owners thinking they would never need them. Unless I hear of the 3rd ID and 1st Marines having the same problems I think we have operator error.

[Prof]

Agree with the majority of posts here. No failure of M16's in my son's unit, but they are front-line troops and keep their weapons clean and trouble-free. As motorep says, just pull the trigger to remove any style of muzzle cover. :D

[Tamara]

Apparently some here haven't read the accounts of the sainted {Garand/BAR/Thompson/M1 Carbine/1911A1} in the volcanic sands of Iwo Jima... ;)

(Let's just say that the first non-jamming rifle will be the first rifle with no moving parts. Did you know that the original nickname among the troopies for the Garand was "Jammin' Jennie"? :D )

[JShirley]

Interesting. It almost seems like the Iraquis weapons- AKs- were able to keep firing! Amazing, especially when one considers how "well" the enemy was obviously maintained.

I liked the A4 I was issued in Basic just fine- until the first time I had to use it after low-crawling through sand.

[Dr.Rob]

This sort of flies in the face Jessica Lynch's story about firing until she was empty.. maybe she actually kept her rifle clean.

Also.. didn't that engagement happen in the worst sandstorm of the season?? Not ideal conditions for anyone taking a defensive position under a truck.

[El Tejon]

Bainx, no need to do any of your steps. The condom is blown asunder by pressing the trigger. The dust cover drops down when the bolt recips. The bag is either ripped off or shot through.

Whatever you have, protect your gear. Yes, you're tired, you're busy, you have something on your mind--that's what E-6s and E-7s are for, to politely remind you.:D

[Nando Aqui]

Chapter 1 - Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
My son Derek was a US Marine then. Served there in the front lines for over seven months.

First thing he asked for: Cleaning supplies for his M16. Anything to help him clean "His Rifle".

Second thing he asked for: A special case from which he could retrieve "His Rifle" quickly, and yet protect it from the super fine, almost sticky, powdery sand that gets everywhere. Special case designed, built and delivered.

Chapter 2 - Iraqi Freedom.
My son Derek now is in the Army, CW2 (or 3 by now). Black Hawk pilot. XO of his Task Force. In the middle east area since October. Extremely interesting tales to tell, but he can't tell everything - yet?

First thing he asked for: Cleaning supplies for his Beretta 9mm.

Rifle Training: I did ask Derek about the rifle training several years ago while visiting him and his family in Germany. I had observed several things that didn't look right. Derek also had noticed it, but didn't have a ready explanation. Whether the training recently was not as good as in years past, or whether it was the Army vs Marine training difference, or a combination of both, he didn't know.

More Rifle Training: About a month ago, just before the war started officially, one of the TV networks interviewed young Army soldiers in Kuwait. While being interviewed, these soldiers were removing .223 rounds from stripper clips and loading them into the magazines one at a time in the most akward way I have ever seen. It was a most puzzling scene. Anyone have any clues as to why this was being done?

As far as the AK. I have one, about 15 years old, so it is a very limited statistical sample. I also have a 15 year old Colt AR15 HBAR. I would rather have to clean my M16 and be able to hit what I shoot at, than to rely on a rifle that perhaps is more forgiving of the dirt (which the AK most certainly is) but with which I cannot score as many hits. Just an opinion....

And if we think that keeping an M16 is difficult, try the helicopters! The filters have to be changed constantly, the engines can't be allowed to idle because the centrifugal separators don't work well enough for the sand at low RPM, the leading edges of the main rotor blades wear out fast, even with special protective tape. And on, and on.. And the flying... oh well, maybe someday we'll write about it.

Alex

[beckrodgers]

where did you git that tape? . We have been looking for WW2/Korean war era military training films. Sorry to here of the 16s failure for what ever reason, I liked that pic of a soldier 101 I think , with his M-14 Thanks

[firestar]

I think it is just a mtter of trade off. If you want an inaccurate rifle that is only good 200m than the AK will serve. We seem to think accuracy is important so we have the M-16. You can't have the great accuracy of the M-16 and the reliability of the AK-47. I love the idea of a gun that never jamms but I would rather be able to engage the enemy at a longer distance than he can engage me. How about getting hits at 600m while the AK armed soldier can't expect much more than a lucky shot at you at the same distance?

[El Tejon]

beck, they used to run ads for them in The Shotgun News. Those are great tapes. I bought, er, I have a gun nut friend who bought them a few years ago. Don't know if they still run that ad.

It was a company in Idaho I think. Even had a tape on horsemanship. Cool gun nut paraphernalia--er, not that I would be in possession of any of that.:D

[MLC]

Perhaps I missed something. Isn't this the first report of M16's failure to function in the past two weeks? I go with the group on poor maintainence.

[beckrodgers]

was it Triton? I bought all they had on the subject . Would spraying gun scrubber on the rifle and then rem oil work in the iraqi desrt?

[444]

"Interesting. It almost seems like the Iraquis weapons- AKs- were able to keep firing! Amazing, especially when one considers how "well" the enemy was obviously maintained."

This is based on what ? How do we know the AKs were able to keep firing ? How do we know how they are maintaining their rifles ? Based on the number of casualties, I wouldn't get too excited about the idea that their weapons keep firing. We have lost something like 145 men so far. I don't know the break down but a significant number of them have been from accidents. Probably another dozen from car bombers.
On the other hand, with our fragile weapons, we have killed tens of thousands of the enemy. I don't know how many have been killed by rifle fire, but the video clips on the "news" seems to show the M16s running fine.

[Destructo6]

We seem to think accuracy is important so we have the M-16. You can't have the great accuracy of the M-16 and the reliability of the AK-47.
Why not? I don't know about you, but I want it all.

Put a G36ish gas system on the M16 and I'll declare it near perfect.

When I was in the 3rdMarDiv, HQ Bn, the Marines there didn't seem particularly concerned with their weapons. An alarming few didn't even consider themselves to be "real" military types.

[Jeff White]

beckrodgers,
Actually I ordered the tapes through my Guard unit. You'd be surprised what's still available. There is even one for Combat Pistol Shooting that's right out of Rex Applegate's book.

Most of the WWII stuff is considered historical and cleared for public viewing.

El Tejon, I missed the tape on horsemanship, but there is a current one on use of pack animals in Special Forces...hint llamas are best :D .

I have found very little in the firearms community more controversial then the M16. It's served longer then any service rifle we've had, it's rapidly replacing the FN-FAL as the arm of the free world, yet there are those who will use every anecdotal report they hear to condemn it.

Jeff

[El Tejon]

Well, the criticism should always be there to keep Big Army on its toes. However, examples such as this illustrate that whatever we replace the 16 with, let's make sure it works in all conditions and keep politics out of it (see, e.g., the M9).

[Powderman]

If I may venture a comment:

What happened was a result of The New Army meeting actual combat. Especially true for combat support and combat service support units.

I was stationed at Fort Bliss twice, both times in ADA units. The actual line units (Improved HAWK, in that day) were a little bit better in weapons maintenance, but not by much. The second unit I was in was a TDA unit--training--and there was no weapons maintenance--because they did not issue weapons!

I attempted to instruct soldiers on their common tasks. One of them was assembly and disassembly of the individual weapon.

I have seen soldiers try to put the magazines in upside down.

I have seen soldiers who did not know how to perform function checks on their rifles.

I have had female soldiers categorically and most emphatically REFUSE (:what: ) to perform the task because they did not want to "hurt their hands" or "break their nails"! (Although I will say that one thing has not changed: when you are a PFC, telling a Staff Sergeant that you will not follow a direct order will make your life REAL exciting for a while! :evil: :evil: )

I have seen soldiers go for an ENTIRE FIELD EXERCISE without even brushing off their weapons. Their bolts were seized shut by the sand, and plugged, too.

I agree with the general consensus: poor maintenance caused their weapons to fail.

I will also say that poor leadership got them into the pickle in the first place.

But it's such a shame that the Army puts more emphasis on punching your ticket nowadays than good soldiering knowledge. In training, it can be an embarrassment.

In Iraq, some troops will not be coming back--except in coffins.

[454c]

Sorry guys,but when I read the paper I also wandered how scary it would be to go battle with a gun that fails like that.(And here I was thinking of buying an AR-15)I also wandered why they don't issue AK-47 type rifles,chambered in .223.,like the SAR-3.Best of both worlds.

[444]

Ah no !!!!!!!!
Bushmaster will be closing it's doors now.

[Mike990]

Maybe they did not clean their weapons as often as they should have, maybe maybe maybe, but did you ever ever ever ever hear about those laundry headed terrorists toting AK-47 putting condoms over the barrel, and cleaning them 3 times a day. No!!! Any weapons with tight tolerances is going to run into this problem. The sand is so fine it was finding its way into completely sealed parts on helicopters. Cleaning constantly is the only solution. Good thing the enemy takes a break constantly so we can do this. Funny they did not have to constantly keep cleaning vehicle mounted 50's. And they were up top always in the sand. Not nearly the same tolerances I would bet.

By the way you dont have to remove the condom or the little plastic cap they give you from the muzzle before firing. It presents no problem to shoot through and there is no adverse effect, pressure wise or much if any accuracy wise. Most often hot muzzle gases in front of the bullet blow it out of the way or incinerate it. Yes a little gas escapes around the bullet.

[Al Thompson]

Leadership failure. Bone dry is the best bet in the desert.

[Art Eatman]

Mike990, I watched some film of a guy firing a vehicle-mounted .50. He grabbed the handle about every third or fourth round, because of a failure to eject.

In the desert? Keep that weapon dry as the desert. It ain't gonna rust, except on the outside when your sweat drips on it. :D

Art

[amprecon]

This incident will be taken by the pro- M-16 crowd as an anomoly. It will be taken by the anti- M-16 crowd as "another" reason to dislike it even more.
Why wasn't the M-16 designed with a built-on condom and inside a giant zip lock baggie?

[444]

I don't consider it an anomoly; quite the opposite. I consider it as something to be expected when operating under those conditions.

[SteelyDan]

If true, this shouldn't be a big surprise, we don't have to get our undies in a bunch here. The M16 is probably superior to the AK about 90% of the time. But in the field, during a mideast dust storm, the M16 is going to be more likely to jam than the AK.

[c_yeager]

Considering the stability of the middle eastern region it would seem prudent to have a rifle that worked THERE. I mean its all well and good that it works fine in other climates. But, really it seems most likely that most of our fighting in the near future is going to be in this particular region. So i think that the problem (whatever it is) really needs to be addressed ASAP.

[jmbg29]

Interesting. It almost seems like the Iraquis weapons- AKs- were able to keep firing! Amazing, especially when one considers how "well" the enemy was obviously maintained.It also seems like a bazillion of the desert-rat bastards wasn't able to kill all of our soldiers (Thank God!) with those wizz-bang commie rifles. :rolleyes:

[Houndawg]

More Rifle Training: About a month ago, just before the war started officially, one of the TV networks interviewed young Army soldiers in Kuwait. While being interviewed, these soldiers were removing .223 rounds from stripper clips and loading them into the magazines one at a time in the most akward way I have ever seen. It was a most puzzling scene. Anyone have any clues as to why this was being done?




Probably because they don't pass out the little adapters that fit on top of the mags so you can use the stripper clips. If you want an adapter you have to scrounge for one, and most of the REMF's probable don't know what one looks like or that they even exist.

[Al Thompson]

There's usually one adaptor per bandolier.

[Art Eatman]

Summary: Line troops who have kept their weapons clean and ready have had relatively little trouble. Support troops who don't focus on their personal weapons have had trouble--most likely due to a lack of care.

What an AK does or does not do is irrelevant to our troops' problems or lack of problems in reliability of their weapons.

Desert dust and sand is a serious problem. I live in a desert. My house is well insulated and weather-stripped. I can dust in the morning, and write my name in the day's new dust by afternoon. You can park a vehicle with good weather-stripping and its windows up--and the interior will get dusty. And all that's on a low-wind day.

Military vehicles are even worse than civilian for having wind patterns due to motion to blow dust and sand into the rear. I'm pleased we've had as few problems as apparently has been the case.

Art

[Blackhawk 6]

Powderman,

I take exception to your comment that "the Army puts more emphasis on punching your ticket nowadays than good soldiering." Clearly there are individuals who focus solely on their next promotion, award or assignment and some of these individuals do filter up through the ranks. However, the vast majority of the Army is focused on doing their job to the best of their ability.

As I enter my 9th year of service, I can count on one hand the number of career-focused leaders I have encountered. All of them shared the common attribute of being despised by the soldiers who worked for them. Again, the overwhelming majority of the personnel I have encountered were focused solely on doing their job well.

To imply that punching one's ticket is an institutional mandate in the Army is not only absurd, it is offensive. I have witnessed individuals, officer and enlisted alike, sacrifice their comfort and physical well-being for the benefit of their fellow soldier or their country on numerous occasions. Rarely was their any material reward to be gained from the sacrifice and when there was it was negligible when compared to the risk undertaken.

You are entitled to your opinion and if that opinion has been shaped by a less-than-satisfactory experience with a member or members of the Army than you have my sympathy. But your characterization of our Army and its leaders as being career-minded ticket punchers is inaccurate and insulting. The men and women who serve our country deserve better.

My apologies for this post being off-topic but I felt compelled to respond to the statement made above.

With regard to the topic at hand, my initial impression is, as many have already stated, poor weapons maintenance. If in fact this is the case, a leadership failure will most likely be at the root of the problem.


Kevin J. Butler
Captain, United States Army

[dude]

As a former Army NCO I'd like to thank you Balackhawk 6 for bringing a bit of sanity to the absurd 'assumptions' in this thread. As with pretty much all first reports from this conflict........the facts are not out and I believe none of us were there. Talk about your keyboard commandos!!!

[RustyHammer]

... All of the rifles jammed? Except for Private Lynch's ... which kept firing until she ran out of ammo. No? :banghead: (Sounds like media to me.)

Rusty

P.S. And no side arms? Go figure ... :scrutiny:

[Bonker]

/rant on

Did anyone read about the 507th mechanics and how the one guy was loading one round at a time into his m-16 because it was jammed?

I know they couldn't have won anyway but man I hate the m-16. I've seen 3 guns blow up in my life. One was my 22 mag and the other 2 were m-16. I can't begin to say how many malfunctions I've seen but it's probably more than with all other guns combined.

Stoner was a genius but McNamara really screwed our troops. I wonder how many soldiers have died because the "whiz-kids" tried to save a buck.

It's time out frontline troops got a real gun.

Oh well, we do have it better than the Brits at least :)

/rant off

[Devonai]

I hate to say it, but I have my doubts about the level of maintenance this guy gave his rifle prior to the firefight. With a magazine loaded and the dust cover closed the action is fairly safe. I would have had some sort of muzzle cap myself.

I think that it's either a failure to properly maintain the weapon or really, really bad luck. I trust the M16 and I've never had one fail me with live ammo. Blanks are yet another thing but having reliable magazines helps with those.

[Bonker]

The funny thing is that they were from the 507th "maintenance" group! LOL
I know, they never thought they'd actually see combat so they didn't maintain their guns. On the other side, the Iraqis who had 40 year old AKs that had never ever been cleaned probably didn't have a single jam. Of course they couldn't hit their target either so I suppose it's a trade-off :)

Ok I admit I'm just biased. I love my mini-14s and my AKs and I hate LBJ and Robert McNamara :)

[twoblink]

M1Garands and M14s.

There, I've said my peace...

[Devonai]

I just wanted to add that the last drill I attended, we had five A2s that wouldn't pass the function check on three round burst. Releasing the trigger caused the sear to reset after one or two pulls of the charging handle; only once in a while would it make it to three. SOP for this unit forbids using 3rb in training unless specifically approved for that iteration, so we weren't able to test these rifles with blanks (no range time that day).

By the time we bugged out the next day, I totally forgot to mention it when we turned in our weapons. :fire:

[Joe Demko]

On the other side, the Iraqis who had 40 year old AKs that had never ever been cleaned probably didn't have a single jam.

Cite?

[cslinger]

Ok I am more of an AK believer than an AR kind of guy but lets face facts any firearm neglected is going to malfunction. It does actually happen to AKs also. I have seen it really.:D

AKs do run better and longer due to loose tolerences but the current AR is a pretty decent firearm. It requires more care but gives you a lighter weight package that is a bit more accurate and easy to handle.

There are trade offs in any design. AKs are robust as heck but they do malfunction also.

Me thinks the M16s in question were either old and worn out or not properly taken care of. Maybe both.

Now as for the poodle shooting, over glorified .22 Long Rife caliber........well that's another story for another time.:D

[Mike Irwin]

This is being discussed in another thread elsewhere.

Quite frankly, even the vaunted M1 and M14 were prone to jamming if conditions were bad enough and troops neglected maintenance.

What people fail to take into account is that the conditions in the Middle East put guns as reliable as the K98k Mauser, the No. 1 Mk III/No. 4 Mk I Enfield, and the M1 Garand out of service.

There are times, situations, and conditions in which NO weapon, regardless of its pedigree or the hype surrounding it, is going to function.

Could the M16 be made as uberreliable as the Ak-47 supposedly is?

Sure, just grind the parts so that there's a LOT more slop.

Then we'd be hearing screaming hissyfits from people crying, moaning, and bitching about how inaccurate the M16 is, and how the American tradition of the rifleman has gone to hell, blah, blah, blah.

A number of people have claimed that the AK-47 gave the Iraqis attacking this column no problems at all, that it continued to fire, etc.

That is, at its very best, speculation of the worst kind.

Before I start condemning the rifle, I want to know how it was maintained, and what steps the troops were taking to keep their weapons in firing condition.

[jsalcedo]

If what the reports say are true then we can pretty much make the following statements.

1. All of the M16 rifles jammed at some point during the firefight.

2. The guns were stowed and unfired prior to the firefight.

3. At least some of the 507th were alive long enough to chamber single rounds and return fire.

4. 9 members of the 507th died because a significant portion of the soliders ambushed could not return fire.

5. The Ak47s used to attack the US soliders were faced with the same level of sand, dirt and dust.



Come on guys. Even if the M16s were pristine prior to the fight
they would have jammed in short order.

Tell the families of the 507th that their sons and daugters are dead because they were sloppy with gun maintenence.

[Powderman]

To Blackhawk 6:

My apologies. I did not mean to insult or demean your troops, or the Army.

I wrote a detailed explanation of my feelings in a series of PM's to you. Kinda long, but I had to keep to the 1000 character limit.

Again, my apologies. PM me if you wish.

[STW]

Reminds me a bit of a friend of mine who as a translator in Europe in WWII with an infantry division. He didn't like guns and claimed by the end of the war the barrell of his Thompson was rusted closed.:banghead:
(He also said the only time he fired it was once, in Germany, when he tripped running down a road with his finger on the trigger.):what:

[Fudgie Ghost]

I \just finished reading "Misfire" by William Hallahan (Scribners), or most of it anyway. He has very strong opinions on the development of all US small arms, and the chapters dealing with the M14 and AR15/M16 are very interesting.

Many of you THRers will disagree with his premise that slow, aimed fire is a concept that is obsolete on the modern battlefield.

Strangley, though the book was only published in 1994, it's out of print already!

Has anyone else read this book? Tamara must have--she's read everything. VERY CRITICAL of US Army Ordanance Dept.

[Mike Irwin]

"Come on guys. Even if the M16s were pristine prior to the fight
they would have jammed in short order."

And you base that on?

Question for all of you...

We're hearing these reports about how the M16 failed a RE unit.

Are we hearing these reports coming out of the COMBAT units?

Did we hear these kind of reports coming from the combat units in the First Gulf War?

You'd think that a combat unit would keep its weapons pristine...

And yet, based on what is stated above, the rifles of all of those combat troos should have become non-functional in short order.

Yet, I've yet to hear a single verified report of an M16 becoming inoperable in the hands of a combat unit.

Why is that?

Could the difference truly have been personnel/training instead of equipment?

Or did Army and Marine units just invade and occupy a nation the size of California in 3 weeks...

With firearms that "even if they were in pristine condition, would jam in short order"?

:rolleyes:

[curt]

1. All of the M16 rifles jammed at some point during the firefight.

I've heard one soldier state that he was single loading. Even if he said others were doing the same i'd tend to doubt the veracity of his observations while single loading a rifle in a s*&t storm of enemy fire.

2. The guns were stowed and unfired prior to the firefight.

I'm not sure whether they all were but okay.

3. At least some of the 507th were alive long enough to chamber single rounds and return fire.

yeah

4. 9 members of the 507th died because a significant portion of the soliders ambushed could not return fire.

Don't concur. They died because they were a squad of maintainance troops facing a city of scumbags who finally saw a group of americans they had a chance of wuppin.

5. The Ak47s used to attack the US soliders were faced with the same level of sand, dirt and dust.

Yep and i haven't gotten my copies of the iraqi troops after action reports i i can't really say whether they had any problems or not

[jsalcedo]

Ok Ok.

I'm sure we are all going to be able to read the book and see the movie about the 507th

Maybe that will shed more light on what really happened with our service rifle on that day.

I wonder if they found the abandoned M16s and if the military
checked and made a report of the condition of the rifles?

[Blain]

As mentioned, the AKs didn't jam, and if we had M14s they wouldn't have jammed NEARLY as often as the M16, that's a FACT. I am not saying that the M14s would never jam, but they would jam FAR less frequently than the M16s do!!!!!

[Blain]

M14, baby, M14!!!

[444]

"As mentioned, the AKs didn't jam, and if we had M14s they wouldn't have jammed NEARLY as often as the M16, that's a FACT. I am not saying that the M14s would never jam, but they would jam FAR less frequently than the M16s do!!!!!"

As mentioned, show me one scrap of credible information that AKs didn't jam. Just one. Just because some other guy sitting in his house in the USA posted that on the internet doesn't give it any credibility. Yet now, it is being repeated as fact. Again, I have to wonder, if all these AKs were running great, where are the American casulties to show for it ? Our troops have proven themselves. Our weapons worked; 20 thousand or so dead enemy can attest to it. Yet these FACTS somehow escape many people on this thread.
Then give me clear cut evidence that an M14 in that same theatre of operation, maintained the same way functioned. Again, if this is a fact, back it up. How many wars were there where the M14 was our standard battle weapon ? How many conflicts did it prove itself in as our STANDARD weapon ? Yeah, it has been used in numerous conflicts with great distinction in small numbers, usually by specialized troops who, one would think, seriously maintianed their rifles. How many desert conflicts did we fight with the M14 ? I am trying to think but I am not coming up with much. These facts are escaping me.

In my opinion, I would say that a poorly maintained M14 would probably work longer than a poorly maintained M16; BUT, that is pure speculation on my part. As far as I am concerned, it is far from fact.

One thing always crops up in my mind when I read threads like this. When did the Soviet Union stop using the AK47 rifle ? I don't have the answer, but I believe it was around 25 years ago. It is still in wide spread use by third world countries, but the country that designed and developed it cast if off many years ago. If this is the do all and end all rifle, why did it's host country quit using it ? True, the weapon they use now is just an adaptation of the original, but it is not an AK47.

You know what ? I bet I could make a percussion muzzle loader fire every time in a sandstorm. Does this make it a great infantry rifle today ?

"Talk about your keyboard commandos!!!"
Truer words have never been spoken, dude.

[Mike Irwin]

"If this is the do all and end all rifle, why did it's host country quit using it ?"

You know the answer to that.

The Soviets developed the 5.45 round to replace the 7.62 round based in part on American experience with the 5.56 in Vietnam.

[Tamara]

Some people play pretty fast and loose with the definition of "FACT"; especially when tucked in behind a keyboard... ;)

[El Tejon]

444, curbside speculation at least shows people care about our boys. Opinions based on ignorance is just living in America.:D

Let's prays that CRS does not apply and Big Army learns from this which I know they will.

[Correia]

The following is from my firsthand testing of my own personal guns. Don't try this at home unless you want to spend HOURS cleaning them. :)

I live in the desert. Well the suburbs, but I go to the desert to shoot. You get the idea. I'm also an avid 3 gun competitor who happens to compete at a range in, you guessed it, the desert. :p

Sand is hell on any gun. Wind and sand especially. I wanted to see just how much sand my various rifles could take and keep going.

The AR took the least, but it still managed to get a lot of dust inside the receiver before it had any significant problems. Biggest problem was grit slowing down the bolt speed enough that the forward assist had to be used to fully chamber the rounds. There is not a lot of space for grit to escape in there. Grit under the spring loaded ejector will kill your ejection and give you a double feed every time. However it is tough to get that much grit under the ejector. I figure that if you have a mag in the gun, and your dust cover closed you are doing fine.

The FAL took quite a bit of sand into the receiver with out much problem. Too much grit on the rails and you begin to have problem fully stripping the cartridges from the magazine though. (more on this latter). This is when lack of a forward assist really sucks.

The AK took ridiculous amounts of sand into the receiver before it had any problem. You pretty much have to pour handfuls into the open action. If you do that though you can make it jam. :)

All 3 guns took quite a bit of gunk before they had problems. EXCEPT for the magazines. I also discovered that sand in the magazines is the ultimate reliability killer. The FAL was the worst, the AR was second, and the AK was a distant 3rd.

On all of the guns grit would work its way either between the cartridges or between the follower and the mag body. Grit on the cartridges would often cause the bolt to not fully strip the cartridge. Grit rubbing between the follower and the mag wall would keep the cartridges from getting up fast enough.

I think the FAL mags did the worst because the cartridges are bigger and there is more surface area for them to rub against. The follower on the AR mag sucked as far as getting dust in, and even worse those things are a pain in the butt to strip and clean. The AK mags seem to be the best because of the short fat cartridges plus a really sloppy follower. When I say floppy, take a look at it. It is a piece of shaped metal, and there is quite a bit of play around the follower and the mag body. Plus the AK mags were the easiest to open up and clean.

Just my observations.

[Al Thompson]

Blain, that's interesting. Please tell us of your experiances in the military with an M14 in the desert. FWIW, I have an interesting book by a former Marine about his experiances in Korea. He had lots of problems with the M1.

"Wrenches" in the Army tend to be superb at fixing anything you can drag or nurse into the MCP. They also tend to be more mechanic than soldier. Strong effective leadership is the key to keeping these two in balance. Sadly, it seems that good leadership was not present when this element of the 507th needed it.

[Bonker]

"Put a G36ish gas system on the M16 and I'll declare it near perfect."

They already make it. It's called a Daewoo DR-200 I believe and it is a VERY sweet gun, although a bit heavy.



Correia that's an interesting test you did. I never thought about the magazines as a source of problems. I'd be interested to see how a daewoo and a mini-14 would do in your sand test.

[Correia]

Bonker, I'm afraid I don't have a Mini or a Daewoo, and of the folks I know who have them, none were stupid enough to loan them to me. :D

[buzz_knox]

The Israelis found the M16 sufficiently reliable for desert warfare that they reissued it to their troops after the problems with the Galil surfaced. And they could certainly issue the AK if they wanted to, based on both their large stockpiles of captured weapons and their ability to produce infantry weapons.

[rock jock]

Sadly, we may never know the complete truth behind this story. Sure, there will be plenty of media accounts, but they will focus on the human element and totally neglect, or only mention in passing, the technical issues and the behind-the-scenes problems that led to the ambush and subsequent capture of Americans. Reporters will react to anything gun-related with either revulsion or stupifying ignorance. Most will refuse to put in the time necessary to understand why or how their rifles failed these soldiers. First-hand accounts from individual POWs without cross-checking and verification must also be questioned. Plus, no one, including the Army itself, will want to point the finger of blame at the soldiers in the 507th or their leaders for being partially responsible by not maintaining their weapons, IF indeed that was the case. Getting this story straight will require that a reporter take the time to get the perspectives from each surviving POW, background information on the 507th, and even interviews with the attacking Iraqis on the other side. Someone on the order of Mark Bowden (of Blackhawk Down fame) needs to do this story.

[tetchaje1]

Interesting point, Buzz_knox.

The climate in Israel has some differences when compared with the open sand pits of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but it is still some food for thought.

[Jeff White]

rock jock,
The truth will come out. The Center for Army Lessons Learned and the Infantry school both have fact finding teams in place debriefing our soldiers.

The facts won't be news for anyone but those still serving, the press will have moved on to other stories by then. And everyone who has no more experience with military small arms then they can get from the internet and gun rags and the strenuous trips from the trunk of the car to the firing line at the range will continue to spout off about how the M16 caused American soldiers to be killed and captured in Iraq.

The truth of the matter is that none of us was there. We don't know what level of training the 507th Maint Co. had in reacting to blocked and unblocked ambushes. We don't know even if it was a blocked or unblocked ambush. We don't if the M16s our soldiers had, hadn't jammed if any of them would have survived.

One thing that we do know is that there have been no reports of reliability problems with the M16s and M4s carried by the combat arms units.

From this we can guess and speculate that perhaps the M16s in question weren't maintained to standard. Every soldier (even in the Infantry) is not as saavy about firearms and their care as most members of this forum. You don't work 8 hour days in the field. Often you are going continuously until you are so tired you fall asleep whenever you stop. So even in the Infantry, where small arms are what the men earn their living with, NCOs have to remind their exhausted soldiers to clean their weapons. It can be a hard decision to make. Cleaning weapons when you have a little downtime when you haven't slept more then a couple hours in the last couple days is surely going to be an unpopular decision. So you take a chance and let the soldiers rest. Then something like this happens. I'll bet my first retirement check that somewhere there are some NCOs who are wishing they had made their already exhausted soldiers porperly maintain their weapons. My bet is that when this all shakes out, it's a leadership problem. It most likely would have happened in that unit if they had all had M14s, AKs or Brown Bess muskets.

Jeff

[444]

Jeff, one other thing that we don't know is whether or not the rifles jammed at all. On the one hand we are being told that PFC Lynch fought tooth and nail to the last round of ammo, on the other hand we are being told that the other people who were captured at the same time and place had weapons malfunctions and it is implied that this prevented them from making an effective defense.

I appreciate heros as much as the next guy, and far be it from me to call anyone here into question, but the stories we have been getting from the media present conflicting stories. And as has been mentioned, the media is all about having a story to sell. In both cases it is sensational, and we already forgot about the first story when the second story came out a couple weeks later. Who knows what really happened ? Who knows if anything the media put out is even close to the truth ? Who knows how much CYA comes into play ?

[jsalcedo]

Lynch is from the backwoods of West Virginia.

If anyone could do it she would be the one.

[MLC]

"It wasn't a little ambush, it was the whole city and we were shot from front, rear, left," along a one-to-two mile (kilometer) stretch of highway.
Observation, noone was there to see and report any stoppages in the AK's. The poor individuals being fired upon probably had little time to notice if every person firing at them had any stoppages due to the sandy conditions. I'm sure the POW's had more training in firearms maintainence and use than 75% of the people shooting at them.Even if their weapons did not jam would they have managed to escape an assault of that volumLynch is from the backwoods of West Virginia. If anyone could do it she woud be the one.
My grandmothers whole family lives in Elizabeth, West Virginia( Wirt County) and surrounding area, they've lived there since the 1700's and they don't seem to be genetically hardwired in firearms mastery.

[Turk]

Concerning this ambush. They said it was big, one-to-two mile (kilometer) stretch of highwayand hit form all sides. We know how many KIA and POW there were but how large was this unit many from this unit got out of the kill zone? With such a large kill zone the convoy must of been really large.

My 50 gunner used to rap the MaDuce in a towel to keep the dust out of it in the dry season. Might just get too dirty to function?

You have to keep your weapon clean and take all necessary steps to keep it that way. The Israelis use the 16 and do quite well in desert warfare

Blain your post.

As mentioned, the AKs didn't jam, and if we had M14s they wouldn't have jammed NEARLY as often as the M16, that's a FACT. I am not saying that the M14s would never jam, but they would jam FAR less frequently than the M16s do

What data do you have to back this statment up?? The fact is I don't know that and I'll take a 16 going into ground combat

The Herd is back and in Iraq


Pray for our troops.

Turk
173rd Abn. Bdge (sep)
RVN 68-69

[amprecon]

I am no fan of the M-16 family of rifles. To this day I have never even picked one up, and I've had ample opportunities from the various gun shows I've been to. It looks like an awkward design when compared to the smooth lines of a bolt or Garand.

I qualified with the M-14 in the Navy around '91 or '92.

From my "unqualified" observations, looking at the M-16 rifle, I would have to say that overall, it looks like it would be pretty immune to gross sand ingestion, it's a pretty enclosed design especially with the dust cover closed.

The AK, with the safety off leaves a gaping hole for tree branches and leaves and stones to get dumped in there.

The M1/M1 Carbine/M-14 looks like it would be more susceptible to sand intrusion because of the open bolt top, there is no sealed cover to prevent fine sand from entering.

With all this said, my observations are that because of the lighter cartridge of the M-16, the bolt spring does not have to be as stout as is on the M1/M14 style rifles. So logically speaking, with less spring force on the bolt (a lighter bolt with less momentum at that), it would seem to me that it wouldn't take as much sand/debri to cause enough friction to hinder smooth forward bolt travel.

Did that make any sense? The very stout springs on the M1/M14 weapons, in my opinion would appear to overcome most but the most severe debri in the bolt recesses, those with Garand thumbs can attest to it's stoutness.

As to the ability to get the weapon back into action after debris ingestion, it would appear that it would be easier to clear the M1/M14 style weapons because of the easy access to the bolt, lugs and recesses, where the debris will hinder it's motion.

The location of the bolt on the M-16, within the housing would seem to be difficult to access without special cleaning utensils and even then, it appears to be difficult to see very well into those areas.

The AK's bolt is also enclosed, but when the dust cover is removed wallah, the guts are staring you right in the face and you have all the access you need.

The M-16 is a unique looking rifle, and would probably be perfect if we lived in a vacuum. But, with it's lighter spring, lighter bolt and the dumping of dirty propellant gasses into the chamber and other natural debris, I think there are better options.

Hell, we sucked it up and bought a "better" foreign pistol, why not a "better" foreign rifle?

Honestly, I don't like the idea of farming out our firearms needs to foreigners. We have a long and historical tradition in producing good quality, reliable and effective weapons. I think that going to Beretta was an admission that we were incapable of producing a good weapon here in the United States, that just doesn't sit well with me no matter how good the pistol is.

But I digress.

[Ed Brunner]

http://www.militec1.com/index.html

In Vietnam, Dri Slide saved the day. Looks like this would be good stuff for the sandy conditions. LBE is sticky.

[mons meg]

Posted this in the "other" I hate the M16 thread. (note: I happen to love the M16)

From pp 61-62 of USMC TM05538C-10/1A, Operator's Manual, Rifle, 5.56mm M16A2: aka US Army TM9-1005-319-10

Hot Dry Climate - Desert: Use CLP to clean and lube.

<snipped>blurb on why deserts are rough on rifles, mmkay?

1. Dust and sand will get into the rifle and magazines. This will cause malfunctions. Give the inside areas and functional parts of the rifle a thorough cleaning every day and after every firing mission.

2. Corrosion is less likely to form on metal parts in a dry climate, therefore, lubrication should be applied to the internal working surfaces and functional parts only. Use normal amounts of CLP (ed. a normal amount in the TM is *not* defined as a big ol' glob) for lubrication (always shake CLP prior to use). Unload and dry ammo and inside of magazines daily. Do not lube magazines.

3. The use of overall rifle protection cover, muzzle cap, and spare magazine protective bags will help protect the rifle/ammo from sand and dust. Use these items when the tactical situation permits.

4. At all times, however, as a minimum effort to help keep out sand and dust, keep the bolt and ejection port cover closed, a magazine installed in the rifle, and a muzzle cap on the muzzle.

Correia:
I live in the desert. Well the suburbs, but I go to the desert to shoot. You get the idea. I'm also an avid 3 gun competitor who happens to compete at a range in, you guessed it, the desert.

Just a footnote: The sand "over there" is different than the sand in Amercan Southwestern Deserts like the Mojave/Sonora/Chihuahua. The Arabian deserts have everything from beach sand to that powdered sugar devil sand that gets in your lungs. Like chalk dust...makes you gag and sometime need to, well, expectorate.

[Ed Brunner]

I have also wondered about the "non-combat" status of this particular unit. Yes it is probably still the individual soldier's responsibility to keep his/her weapon clean and ready, but it is probably still the responsibility of officers and NCO's to insure that it is being done.

"A unit does well those things the CO checks"

[Houndawg]

There's usually one adaptor per bandolier.


I don't know where you get your ammo, but M16 ammo usually doesn't come in bandoliers. It comes boxed on stripper clips or boxed loose.

[Powderman]

Those of us who can remember the cans of "Cartridge, Ball, 5.56mm, M193" can also remember that they came packed differently--some in 20 round boxes, and some in bandoleers.

[Al Thompson]

Rob, when I was in the Army, all our 5.56 ball came in bandoliers. Tracers came in 20 round boxes.

[DrDremel]

The M16 series of rifles failures in combat are not just anecdotal. The rifle is sensitive to dirt and to top it off, it spits it back into the bolt and carrier through a tube. No rifle design since has ever been adopted for long term use my anybody in the entire world. If the design were truly the genius that some people are touting, then surely it would be copied. Now, Stoners AR18 design has been copied and is in use in the HK G36. It is a much better design. That is why Gene Stoner sold the M16 design to Colt anyway. He knew it was not perfect. That is why he went on to design the AR18 and Stoner series of firearms. Colt had political ties and used them to get the rifle adopted. The Marines later wanted to adopt the Stoner rifle but due to logistics it was decided to make all branches use the same rifle. This is not opinion or rumor, this is factual history. The direct gas impingement system is a balancing act. Everything has to be just right. Shorten the barrel, change the buffer, etc. Have you ever seen the number of variations of parts for these changes. It is mind boggling. The AK is not the answer either. The AK’s reliability is in large part due to the design of the round itself. Tapered cases are easier to extract. Even the 5.45x39 has more taper than the 5.56 round. Every conflict has had reports from experienced front line soldiers that the rifle has problems. As for other reports during this conflict, Do you actually think it would be good to report that soldier’s rifles are not functioning well? This would be as smart as showing positions on CNN or broadcasting military communication on the radio. This is not the kind of stuff that is ever brought up officially. The ChautChaut (Spelling?) from WWI was a failure as well. But they did not run first page articles of the failures of the gun during the war then either. They did not officially say that the gun sucks, but it has the reputation of being junk. The Reising was a failure during WWII. Did the military make a public announcement that the gun sucks? No, they quit buying them since they had not supplied the entire Army with them. If they had bought 10 Million of them, do you think the committee that had approved them would turn around and say, this was a bad move, we screwed up? No. If the M16 was such a good gun, it would have been copied. The only reason that they are so prevalent is that we gave them to so many countries. Also a lot of small countries follow what the US has. If we started issuing Ruger Mini 14 rifles, you can be sure that some country would buy them for their army as well.

[buzz_knox]

It doesn't matter if the system hasn't been copied if the rifle itself has been adopted. The British SAS had their choice of any rifle, yet they went with a Canadian produced M-16 and still do, despite the G36 being available. The Israelis have warehouses full of AKs, FNs, and Galils, yet they reissued the 16.

[Delmar]

There is no "perfect rifle design". There are compromises any way you go. The M-16 may "dirty up" where it eats, but it was found a long time ago that if the bolt face and chamber was reasonably clean that the weapon would function. Also, the number of rounds fired through it has a big impact on reliability. Loose as a goose tolerences will cause feeding problems

[Art Eatman]

mons meg, you make that Arabian desert sound plumb benevolent. Come on down to Terlingua. To that sand, you can add powdered gypsum and some of the finest clay dust that ever penetrated a welded steel box.

:D, Art

[Delmar]

Art knows from where he speaks-the Big Bend area is the one place in the country where you can shake dust from the inside of a chickens egg.

[DrDremel]

The notion that if you clean the weapon more often and it will function is like saying that a car with an exhaust pipe that goes straight back to the middle of the dashboard will not kill you as long as the windows are left down. Yes it might work but it is not the smartest design in the world. It is a simple fact that the M16 has not been the best performer since day one and has been nursed along to keep it going ever since. A military rifle should not require the intensive maintenance schedule that the M16 requires. Accuracy or not, military forces should not have to worry about how many times they cleaned their rifle that day. If one or two rifles had malfunctioned, it would be just an anecdotal problem. The fact that all of them had problems with their rifles shows that it is indeed a problem. A maintenance unit knows that maintenance keeps things running. They see examples of equipment that is not maintained and the problems that it causes. They also see that the equipment that is well maintained does not show up for repair. Any rifle that cannot withstand being carried without being fired for a few days in a plastic bag is not for duty. Front line infantry can take the time to keep cleaning their firearms throughout the day. Support troops can’t as they have other duties that need to be done. How may vehicles would get fixed if everyone had to stop and clean their rifles 3 times a day? The fact is that no other rifle in the history of the US has needed to be babied like the M16. As for the Israeli choice of the M16, They get them for free, ammo for free, parts for free. And their biggest ally is using the same rifle. It only makes sense for them to use them. Israel could not survive without the massive support that the US gives them. The Canadians don’t get their rifles free from us but the notion that they are a much smaller Army with an ally that would support them in case of war; it is more a case of logistics. They remember supplying England during WWII. Having the same equipment is a large advantage for both of those nations. For a more logical nation to look at is Korea, a country that has been on the brink of war with us actually in their country helping to defend them for the last 40 years. They were building the M16 under license. Yet they chose to design and build their own rifle. They got rid of the direct gas system and went to a piston, similar to the AK. They also made the gas system adjustable in case you need more power to function a dirty rifle that cannot be cleaned 3 times a day. They could have used the same rifle as their biggest ally but instead improved on the rifle while keeping the ammo and magazine supply the same. No other current military rifle in the world except for the SA80 the Brits use has ever need to be babied like the M16. M16 rifles are exceptionally accurate rifles. But if they can’t be relied on when they are needed, what good are they? I have 3 of them myself, so don’t think that I am some sort of M16 hater, but I also can admit that they are what they are. A good rifle for the range but not to be relied on for long term use without extreme maintenance.

[Delmar]

Can't speak directly to the M16A2, but I carried an A1 until my retirement, and I did not have nearly the issues some propose in this thread. We found that the barrel could be dirty almost to the point of looking like a smooth bore, but if the chamber and bolt face was half way decent, pull trigger-go bang. And you know its so hard to clean a bolt on a 16. Release pin, pull charging handle, bolt jumps out.
As an aside, I might not like a non-dust proof rifle in a combat zone, but I will do what it takes. The jungle is not a great place for a firearm either, but we adapted to the fact. That laterite dust is pretty fine too, and in convoy in the dry season turned your fatigues a dark red, so you can imagine what the rifle's interior looked like. In the end, you are going to do what you must to get the job done. If the Israeli's were losing people left and right due to the defects of the 16, they would not still be using it. This is a training issue, and I would be willing to bet the support troops have a new found interest in properly maintaining their rifles.

[Art Eatman]

Well, now, Dr.Dremel, if the desrt environment clogs up other stuff besides the M16, I'd hardly call frequent cleaning "extreme maintenance".

I've been hollering for decades that if folks will adjust their behavior to accomodate their environment, instead of assuming that environment will change to suit them, life will be a lot easier. That was real obvious to me in Basic Training in the desert at Fort Bliss in 1954. My Garand always went "Bang!", and a lot of other guys' Garands didn't.

And I ain't a rocket scientist.

:), Art

[buzz_knox]

As for the Israeli choice of the M16, They get them for free, ammo for free, parts for free. And their biggest ally is using the same rifle. It only makes sense for them to use them. Israel could not survive without the massive support that the US gives them. The Canadians don’t get their rifles free from us but the notion that they are a much smaller Army with an ally that would support them in case of war; it is more a case of logistics.

Wrong. The Canadians didn't adopt the M14 when we did, nor did the Brits. They went with a design they preferred, namely the FN FAL. When we went with the 16, they stayed with the FAL until the Brits went with the SA80, and the Canadians said no thanks.

As for Israel, wrong again. They do not get the 16s for free, and they manufacture their own ammunition. Further, they have warehouses full of Galils that they manufactured, but withdrew from service and reissued the 16. Surely, if the 16 was that bad, they could replace it with the Galil, FN, or AK, all of which are absolutely free for their use as they already own them.

It's funny that you mention the Brits going to another weapon of their own design, namely the SA80. It is considered the worst mainstream infantry weapon in the world at the moment, having an abysmal record in actual operations. In fact, it's about the same as the 16's reputation in Vietnam, and infinitely worse than the 16A1's rep ever was.

[DrDremel]

Who said that the Canadians or Brits adopted the M14? Your whole paragraph has nothing to do with the M16’s performance. Your quote of mine is about the M16, the rifle that this whole thread is about.

As for Israel, They did get M16s for free. Now they produce their own ammo but the US has also given military aid to them in the form of ammo as well. The problem with using the FN, Galil or AK is that there is no huge base of support that there is from the M16. In the case of war, the only ally that Israel has is the US. If troops were to be working with one another, in defending Israel, FAL, Galil, and AK mags don’t interchange with M16s. Also if more small arms were needed on short notice in time of war, switching to a different rifle for Israeli troops would cause a lower performance of those troops as they adapted to the new equipment.

On to your comment about the SA80. I never said anything good about it. I said it was worse than the M16. Did you actually read anything I wrote?

[buzz_knox]

I read your post, although lack of paragraphs makes it rather painful to do so. And you didn't point out the problems in the SA 80, you only said that nothing besides the SA 80 and 16 had to be babied.

As for the M14, the point of that was your argument about logistics. You apparently believe that the Canadians (and Israel) for that matter adopted the 16 because of logistical concerns. If that were true, then Canada would have gone with the 14, which was offered because you specifically stated that Canada "remembers suppling England during World War II." If they are motivated by those memories, would they have not been motivated to adopt the 14 when we did, back when memories of World War II were far fresher?

As for the logistical concerns of Israel, they apparently aren't motivated that much as they have adopted their own support weapons, rocket launchers, tanks, fighters, etc., not all of which is compatible with American equipment. And for that matter, I don't believe that the Israelis expect to fight side by side with the United States military at any point.

[Gunner45]

Evil, crappy, bad bad M4/M16!!!! I would be more than happy to take one of those awfull M4s, off thier hands.

Gunner45
:)

[M1911]

Come on guys. Even if the M16s were pristine prior to the fightAnd you base this statement on what, exactly?

[Andrew Wyatt]

I also wandered why they don't issue AK-47 type rifles,chambered in .223.,like the SAR-3.Best of both worlds.


I beg to differ. the AKs in .223 are heavier, have worse triggers sights and safeties than ARs and are incompatable with american equipment like m203s and load bearing equipment.


THe polish special forces use m4s. I wonder why.

[Turk]

I see that the Isralis's use the M-16 because they are free?? This web site is from the Israeli Special Forces and tells why they use the 16

www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm

You read you decide.

Turk

[mons meg]

mons meg, you make that Arabian desert sound plumb benevolent. Come on down to Terlingua. To that sand, you can add powdered gypsum and some of the finest clay dust that ever penetrated a welded steel box.

Hey, I've been to 29 Palms enough times to know that it ain't fun. I'm just sayin' that it's different over there...something more ancient and menacing...like the first time I saw the Nefud (of Lawrence of Arabia fame) during Desert Shield. To quote:

Sherif: You are mad. To come to Aqaba by land, you should have to cross the Nefud Desert.
Lawrence: That's right.
Sherif: The Nefud cannot be crossed.
Lawrence: I'll cross it if you will.
Sherif: You! It takes more than a compass Englishman. The Nefud is the worst place God created.

Ok, back on topic. :) When in *any* desert, you *must* keep your rifle functionally clean. By that, I mean you have to swab out the chamber and run a quick patch or two through the bore. CLP in normal amounts will dry very quickly, but try to do it in some sort of wind shelter You must do these things if you want anything to work

[0007]

The problem is that the sand in most of the middle-east deserts has a very high silicon content, to the degree that it is not usuable for mixing with cement to make concrete, even. This high silicon content also means that it makes very good grinding compound especially when mixed with weapons lube on sliding surfaces. Dry is good, wet is bad, very wet is very bad. I've gone 4- wheeling in the deserts over here with guys who lost the seals on the CVJs / universals on their vehicles early into the run and by the end of the day the joints are toast. It's just plain nasty.

[M1911]

A lot of the criticism of the M16 dates all the way back to the introduction of the rifle. But the rifle we have now isn't the same as we had then. And neither is the ammunition. And neither is the recommended maintenance procedure. All three have changed significantly to the better. For the perspective of someone who saw the m16 at its worst, first hand, read:

http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html

[Ed Brunner]

I think the major problems with the M16 are related to dirt in the innards. I think Art Eastman said it would work better without any lube than with a sticky lube and I agree. In its earlier days the ammunition was dirty and gummed up the bolt so it couldn't rotate in the bolt carrier and couldn't lock up. The addition of the forward assist helped but did not solve the problem which existed until a cleaner powder was used. Additionally at one time some troops were not allowed to field strip and clean the bolt carrier assembly. The manufacturer of Dri Slide sent a bunch of it to Vietnam. I was told he did it at his own expense. The combination of a clean weapon, lubed with Dri Slide and firing the cleaner ammo made the M16 pretty reliable as long as it was reasonably clean. I imagine the fine sand and a wet lube like CLP or LSA would mud up pretty quick although just about any solids could keep it from locking up.
Obviously I don't know, but I would suspect the rifles were not properly maintained.

[M1911]

If you read Dick Culver's articles, there were a lot more problems than just dirty powder. Higher peak pressure, chambers out of spec, not enough (any?) cleaning kits, etc.

[Ed Brunner]

I was reading it while you were posting. Needless to say, I am impressed. He knows a whole lot more than I do about our little toy and I accept his expertise. I wasn't aware of the pressure problems he mentioned. I agree with him on some other opinions too. He was right about Strange McNamara and about the M14.
Thank you for the reference.

[Fudgie Ghost]

So, uh, did anybody read "Misfire" like I asked about 800 posts earlier? Addresses much of this ground.

Tamara, Art, Mike---you guys must have read this, what is you opinion?

[beckrodgers]

Wow,great info history here on this thread really good opinions ,I will definately mark this one for keeps.

[Jeff White]

Fudgie,
I have Misfire in my library, very enlightening. However like a lot of other history it's slanted to a certain point the author wants to make. In this case that the Army Ordnance Dept has never produced the right rifle. However in his chapters detailing how the Union could have won the Civil War in 1862 if they had only adopted metallic cartridge breech loaders, he failed to take into consideration that even the manufacturing capabilities of the Northern industrialized States couldn't have produced sufficient high quality cartridge ammunition to support the Union Army. It was a stretch to produce enough to supply those units that had breechloaders. This made me wonder if there was a little too much slant in some of the other chapters.

I think Edward Ezell's The Black Rifle from Collector Grade Publications is the definitive publication on the M16 it's history and development.

There are a lot of exaggerations and out and out fabrications in the jouster.com articles.

The big problem with the M16 by the time they finally got around to fielding it in quantity was the lack of ancillary equipment. Most of the bugs were worked out of the M16A1 which was the first model to be distributed in large numbers to regular troops. In the rush to get them into the hands of the troops in Vietnam....Westmoreland was personally screaming for all the M16s he could get in theater....They shipped them overseas without cleaning kits and manuals. Then they told the old time NCOs that the new wonder weapon was self-cleaning...to cover for the fact that they were rushing it into service with no support structure. Naturally the new rifle wasn't self cleaning and began failing at an alarming rate.

You can't give an army any weapon without an infrastructure to support it. The Chief of Ordnance in the War Between the States made the right decision NOT to arm the Union army with breechloading metallic cartridge repeating rifles because he knew he could support them with ammunition. The Army wasn't so lucky when it fielded the M16. They rushed it into service before they had infrastructure (cleaning kits, manuals, training) to support it and soldiers and Marines died because of it.

Jeff - who was issued his first M16 in December 1974 and would not carry any other rifle currently existing into combat.

[1911]

I think you have to ask yourself a few basic questions.

1.do I want a rifle that I have to clean twice a day to keep in the fight?
2.do I want a rifle that less than optimal stopping power?

If you answer yes to either of these questions then you don’t need a AR/m-16

[clem]

In April 1967 my battalion (1/9) got it's M16s. No training, nothing. Turn in your M14 and take this M16 destroyer. Then we went down the "Street With Out Joy", not good.

We had lots of people killed and wounded because of the M16 being to sensitive to dust & dirt. We started carrying and using the gook AKs and SKS that we took off the NVA. They worked.

It may be a good rifle if taken care of and kept real clean, but.

But give me a good .30 cal rifle for combat. I only want to have to shoot the bad guy once.

[Destructo6]

Turk, that's a fan site. Real IDF sites look like: www.idf.il

Come on, we all know the US is the driving force in small arms adoption (7.62 NATO, 5.56 NATO, ...). If the US adopted a potato cannon tomorrow, you'd probably see forces around the world doing the same and wondering why.
But give me a good .30 cal rifle for combat. I only want to have to shoot the bad guy once.
You're a humanitarian, clem :)

[M1911]

There are a lot of exaggerations and out and out fabrications in the jouster.com articles. Jeff, I'd be curious as to what you believe is incorrect in Mr. Culver's articles.

I've read Ezell and also heard some significant criticisms of his work as well.

[Art Eatman]

James Pate had an excellent article on the trials and tribulations of the early M16s, in SOF Magazine, a few years back. I had run across bits and pieces elsewhere, so his article had credibility with me.

Part of the deal as to mechanical function was that Stoner designed the system to run at about 900 rounds/minute using ammo loaded with IMR powder. Olin successfully lobbied to be an ammo supplier. Their stuff was loaded with ball powder, and the cyclic rate became 1,100 rounds/minute. Further, the ball powder they used didn't burn as clean as the IMR.

So, factor this in with all the other stuff mentioned above, and you oughta be able to see why there were problems in those early days.

Fast forward to "now", with most of the inherent problems having been solved. What remains is the personal attitude of a person who has no choice but to use the M16: How he cares for his weapon.

IMO, it's always a matter of personal responsibility, with my only weasel-word thing having to do with training--which is a leadership responsibility. Personally, if I have to depend on some specific weapon in order to stay alive, I'm want to know all I can about keeping it reliable.

Art

[Mike Irwin]

The main problem with the ball powder was that calcium carbonate was used in the final manufacturing steps to neutralize any remaining acids.

IIRC, in initial manufacturing, up to 1.5% by weight of CaCO3 was used.

That was too much, though, and the excess was deposited in the gas tube and other vital areas where it was amazingly difficult to remove.

After further testing it was found that the CaCO3 content could be reduced to 0.25% by weight with the same results for powder stability, but with no more of the gas tube fouling.

[Turk]

The post!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But give me a good .30 cal rifle for combat. I only want to have to shoot the bad guy once.

Let me say this I carried a M-60 (7.62 NATO) for four months and I didn't shot at paper targets. And I'll tell anyone that if they believe one shot will always put a man down they're wrong. This is not from some buddy story but from a user of a M-60 in actual firefights.

When does the debate stop as to size of caliber? I've seen a NVA soldier take a hit from a MaDuce and he was able to continue to fight is a 50 not big enough?

If I were given the choice of carrying a M-60 or one of the new SAW's my choice would be SAW due to weight in weapon and ammo. If you ever had to hump up and down the mountains in the Central Highlands of Vietnam you’d know why I say this.

Were there troops killed due the functioning of the 16 when first issued? One person was too many! But what were the actual numbers? Hearing buddy stories you’d think whole companies were wiped out. It all goes back to the calcium carbonate, which if I remember right was used to extend the life of the powder. Also I think a different buffer was used to lower the rate of fire from 800’s to 550 rpm.

When I got to RVN 1968 I heard all of those horror stores so I wasn’t going to get caught like this so I took a M-60 link and clipped it to he barrel below the flash hider they I threaded a cleaning rod from the clip to the carrying handle. The old timers laughed and said I didn’t have to worry about that. But I knew better I heard the stories?? Well two days into my first mission I traded the 16 for a 60 so I didn’t worry about that. The old timers didn’t carry such an outfit.

Four month later I made 5 and took over a squad and my weapon was the 16. During the coming months my 16 NEVER jammed and I never new of any in platoon jamming. The most rounds I ever put through my 16 in a given firefight was south of An Khe in which I put 12-14 magazines (loaded with 18 rds) and it never missed a beat. I seen wet season, dry season, worked the Sand Dunes along the South China Sea and the 16 worked. One other post stated he didn’t want to clean his weapon twice a day. I didn’t clean my twice a day I cleaned mine when needed but not every day.

What I really think is funny it wasn’t till I got here on this forum and the old TFL that I found out my M-60 wasn’t a reliable machine gun? Mine only stopped working once and that was due to my negligence of not tightening the gas cylinder plug. My pucker factor was really up as this was in the middle of a firefight.

Let me also I’m not calling anyone a liar if they've had a bad experience with 16 no one will convince you other wise. But to lump this weapon overall, as a piece of junk is not correct. I know a lot of 11B combat vets that prefer the 16 that were with the 4th Inf. 1st Cav, 11 ACR, Americal, 5th Mech., 25th Inf., 1st Inf., 101st, 173rd etc. Most Marines Vets I know always wanted what they considered a real weapon, which was the M-14????

Here’s some more food for thought. Back in the early 60’s my brother was stationed at Bragg and the 82 Abn. was replacing the M-1 with the M-14 and everybody know the M-14 was inferior???

Turk
173rd Abn. Bdge (sep)
RVN 68-69

[Powderman]

Turk:

Not a combat vet, but a vet anyway--and was 11B to boot.

I'll agree with your point:

I humped the M60 for three years. During that time, I had numerous occasion to fire the pig; then, had arms rooms in 4 separate units.

I guess that I must have fired a few hundred thousand rounds through 60's.

I never had one jam on me.

NEVER.

I fired them until the inside of the feed tray turned solid gold from the shaved brass. I fired them until I made the barrel glow.

I loved that 23.5 lb. hunk of metal.

Wish I still had one.

[M1911]

I'm still trying to figure out why Kokalis thinks the M60 is the worst thing since 1939 cavalry charges. I've never been in the military and never had any experience with one. But I keep reading comments like yours and wonder why Kokalis thinks they suck.

[amprecon]

Well, from Turk's experience, I think we can put this issue to rest....really.
Firsthand experience counts enough for me.

[Jeff White]

M1911,
Here are my comments on Mr. Culver's articles. They are a mix of fact and legend for instance:
The second problem was that ordnance had only enough magazines to issue three (3) per rifle, and they were "twenty rounders". The thirty rounders in those days were only being used by the Special Forces – Robert "Strange" McNamara, (The Secretary of Defense), had decreed that the 20 round magazines were more cost effective than the 30 round magazines (this from the guy who was responsible for marketing the Edsel!)

This was in August of 1967 according to the article. The only problem with the statement was that it was 1969 before any 30 round magazines were available for issue. This is according to Ezell and has been verified for me by several vets of that era. Even then, they weren't widely issued. According to Benjamin F. Schemmer's The Raid which is a good history of the Son Tay raid, that even a unit with the priorities that the Task Force selected to take down the Son Tay prison had, had problems aquiring enough 30 round magazines and then, they had no webbing to carry them with. So this part of his story is just barracks talk. The rest of it is a rehash of facts and rumor, nothing is substantiated, footnoted or backed up with any reference.

The section on the effectivness of the 5.56mm round is totally wrong. twist rate and bullet stability..come on Fackler's research was published backin the 80s.

The "Meat Ax" Effect:
Yes you say, but what about that fantastic "meat ax" effect that the 5.56mm round has on flesh? Won’t the 5.56 mm tear a man’s arm or head off if it hits him? In a word, no! This is a myth that has been perpetuated since the AR-15/M16’s earliest days, and here is as good a place as any to lay this claim to rest! The original 223/5.56mm was derived from the little .222 Remington or at best the .223 Remington Magnum Cartridges. Now the .222 Remington and .222 Remington Magnum originally used a 40 or 45 grain bullet and a 1-14 barrel twist. Ballistic engineers found that 55 grain bullet pushed the stability of the 1-14 twist to the absolute limit in terms of stability. The initial rounds loaded for the 5.56mm were marginally ballistically stable, and tended to tumble if anything got in its way.

It's been proven that the wounding capability associated with the 5.56mm round is due to the bullet breaking up and fragmenting. And for an Ordnance officer to state that the twist rate had anything to do with the bullet yawing (tumbling is the word he uses) shows a misunderstanding of basic physics. {B]Any[/B] sptizer bullet will tumble when it strikes something.

This was apparently especially true of flesh. A 55 grain bullet striking flesh when only stabilized with a 1-14 twist, tumbled with
devastating results, but it had a problem – it was only marginally accurate. Now it’s possible to have a bullet that is known to tumble, but if it won’t reliably hit the target at the maximum effective range you are in big trouble.

This marginally accurate rifle shot an average of 1.1 inch groups with a telescopic sight from a benchrest. This was an average of four 10 shot groups fired with two different lots of ammunition. (Aberdeen Proving Ground Test No. DPS 96, November 1960)

After the initial test results (including some in Southeast Asia) were in, it was apparent that this WAS an effective round (assuming that a tumbling bullet was employed)!

Once again..tumbling bullets...NOT the wounding mechanism of the bullet.

However, it also became obvious that this rifle wasn’t exactly a "tack driver" in terms of accuracy. Air Force cold weather tests in January 1963 showed definite "bullet wobble" around the projectile’s rotational axis causing unacceptable accuracy. As any good ordnance folks would do, they tightened the twist to 1-12 and the accuracy improved. The order to change the barrel twist was signed by Robert S. McNamara on the 26th of July 1963. The accuracy immediately improved, but the "magic bullet" quit tumbling! All of a sudden, we had a reasonably accurate round with a bullet that was essentially ineffective in terms of cleaving flesh with the much vaunted "meat ax effect". The round was now reasonably accurate, but much underpowered for its designed maximum effective range of 500 yds.

Once again..see Fackler...It was never tumbling that created the devastating wounds. I have a 1970 training tape for medical personnel on missile wounds. The poor soldiers who had devastating wounds from M193 fired through 1/12 inch barrels should be comforted by the fact that their wound was just an anomoly and not the general thing that happened when hit by M193 out of a 1/12 inch barrel.

Unfortunately, a sizeable portion of the American Public still believes in the "meat ax" effect of the M16. As a quick anecdotal
story, while I was in the early throes of learning to live with the little black rifle, I went to our Battalion surgeons, and hospital corpsmen with a question.

"Had they seen anything during their treatment of wounds that would indicate that the 5.56mm hit harder than any other round?"

I received a negative answer, but they promised to start investigating more closely. A daily check during periods of intense combat always turned up the same answer. None of the devastating effects described by the M16’s most ardent proponents,
were being encountered by our medical folks.

It was enough of an issue as late as 1970 that it was pointed out in a training tape for medical personnel. I will be more then happy to make a copy of the tape for Mr. Culver.

And Now, Slam Fires Too!

In the middle of all our malfunctions, we had another dangerous problem that reared its ugly head. In the middle of a pitched battle in June of 1967, my company had two M16s literally blow up during firing! I was already pulling my hair out, but this seemed to be the final straw. These two stalwart lads had been firing some of the few rifles that were at least marginally functional. In the middle of a string and within a couple of minutes of each other these two rifles literally exploded in the riflemen’s hands. Apparently, when the bolt closed, the rifle fired as in a "slam fire" scenario, and the rifles fired out of battery. This explosion blew off the carrying handle and most of the upper receiver. The remaining force blew down through the magazine
well ( bulging the well on both sides), leaving the magazine tube in the well, but blowing all the rounds and the floor plate out the bottom of the rifle. The operators received scratches on the inside of their forearms from the rapidly exiting floorplates, but mercifully sustained no other visible injuries. In one of the two rifles, the bolt (sans carrier) was still dangling from the locking lugs with a blown case in the chamber. The second rifle was missing the case, the bolt and the bolt carrier. Both rifles were still rather comically held together by the hinge pin. If I had disliked the M16 prior to this, my dislike was rapidly ripening into an overt case of hate.

Well..it's physically impossible for an M16 to fire out of battery. The firing pin will NOT reach the primer unless the bolt is all the way into the carrier. The only way the bolt will go all the way into the carrier is if it locks into the lugs in the chamber. The Slam Fire problem was fixed in December of 1963 with the adoption of the firing pin that is currently in use. It also never resulted in a weapon blowing up. It was weapons inadvertantly firing when a cartridge was single loaded into the chamber and the bolt catch released.

My take on the whole story is that it is a hodge podge of war stories, barracks rumors about the procurement system and that it's designed to present the viewpoint that the M16 was only made into a marginally satisfactory service rifle after the Marines redesigned it into the M16A2 but it will never be an M14. Obviously Mr. Culver never liked the M16 or the fact that it replaced the rifle he describes thus;

I personally feel that the M14 was the finest battle rifle ever adopted by the United States

He would have done a better job of making his point if he'd have done his research. The facts were available when he wrote this. Perhaps the facts didn't exactly make all the points he wanted to, or perhaps he thought he knew the story...

Ezell's work is footnoted. Anyone can read his sources and draw their own conclusions. Culver doesn't give us the places to go to check his stories out. He makes a lot of good points about the lack of cleaning kits and training. All things that everyone can agree were problems.

Was the fielding of the M16 a confused mess? Yes. Were mistakes made that cost soldiers and Marines their lives? Yes. Did the system eventually work and make the M16 a reliable effective weapon? Yes. Will the facts change anyone who believes that we wopuld be better armed with M14s, AKs, Brown Bess muskets or Hi Pointe Carbines? Probably not....

Jeff

[JShirley]

I don't like the AR15/M16. I didn't care much for the AR as a civilian, and I don't care much for the M16 family as a serviceman. I have made no secret of this.

The first time I rolled and lowcrawled in sand with my M16, it malfunctioned. Repeatedly. It typically worked fine when kept free of sand. Too bad I'm in the infantry, otherwise I'm sure it would suit me well (except for being needlessly frustrating to clean).

Jams require tools to correct! If you can apply SPORTS (Slap, Pull, Observe, Release, Tap, Shoot) and continue firing, you have experienced a malfunction*.

I was, of course, needling the '16 champions among us a wee bit. Few casualties in war are actually caused by soldier rifles, when compared to arty and air, as well as direct fire support weapons.

Sir, with all respect due to your rank and grade, people are people. I have seen examples of unselfish team-oriented blood-sweat-and-tears gut effort. Sometimes. Self-serving behaviour is much more the norm, in my (admittedly, more limited) military experience.

John

*Q- What is a malfunction?
A- The weapon ceasing to fire due to a stoppage resulting from mechanical failure of the weapon, magazine or ammo.

[benewton]

FWIW, and not a combat vet, but played medic back in the A1 days... And you couldn't shoot a firing range without one, at least back then. Didn't see blowups, but did see double feeds, which are a killer in an enclosed bolt design.

Trained on the AR, and, of course, I've got one, the ergonomics are great! But I also have an AK, 7.62x39, and the functionality is much better, and that's before we consider the round size and diameter. I also have an M1A, a present to myself, and thus, my baby.

All things considered, including the ranges found in Afganistan, I think it's about time for a new rifle, I think in the 7mm caliber, and skip the lasers, point detonation grenades, etc.

Make it simple, functional, and reliable.

But that's just me, the grunt (electronics) engineer.

[BHP9]

I am a national match shooter that not only fires every year a minumum of 3,000 rounds through AR15's but I also see most of the other battle rifles on the firing line as well.

I can assure everyone that an AR15 will jam up even under the sterile , pristeen conditions of the civilian firing line. If the weapon is not literally soaking in a good lube the burnt powder that is blasted back into the action will jamb up a dry non- lubricated AR15. I have not seen near the problems on the firing line with other types of military weapons as I have with the AR15 no matter what manufacturer made it. Rain mixed with burt powder is sudden death to the operating mechanism of the AR15 unless a very good lube like LSA is used on it. In Sandy conditons lubing the AR15 of course is not possible unless a dry lube is used and dry lubes are less than ideal in mechanisms like those of the AR15.

I shoot the AR because it is the most accurate semi-auto available at a reasonable price and it shoots a cartridge that is very cheap to handload for but this does not mean that I like the weapon and I consider it to be a very marginably reliable weapon even under ideal conditions. This evaluation comes after almost 15 years of using this weapon and firing thousands upon thousands of rounds out of them and seeing multiitudes of other shooters use them on the firing line.

With so many better designed combat rifles availalbe in the world today it is a sin that we put such troublesome weapon in the hands of our front line troops.

[Steve Smith]

BHP9, I also shoot at a minimum 3000 rounds in Highpower competiton every year, and I will say that my findings are opposite of yours. I am in the dry, hot, and dusty Southwest and have not fired many matches in the rain. Here the AR15 runs EXCEPTIONALLY well with just a light coat of oil. I don't see the massive amount of failures that you say you see. I see firing lines filled with AR15s and they are running like swiss timepieces.

I will agree that the .223 is not the fighing caliber that it should be, and a 7mm would be a better choice.


Question, you say,
I am a national match shooter
Exactly what do you mean by that? Do you only shoot at the Nationals, or do you only shoot "National Match Courses" meaning a 50 round match? Either way, there is a lot more to Highpower than just the National Match Course course of fire. The 80 shot match is called a Regional Match Course and of course there are CMP Excellence in Competition matches as well.

[BHP9]

Exactly what do you mean by that? Do you only shoot at the Nationals, or do you only shoot "National Match Courses" meaning a 50 round match? Either way, there is a lot more to Highpower than just the National Match Course course of fire. The 80 shot match is called a Regional Match Course and of course there are CMP Excellence in Competition matches as well.

We shoot the 80 shot course and have a long range 60 shot match and also a rattle battle during the course of the summer.

[JShirley]

As little as I like the system, I would still hesitate to describe the M16 family as extremely troublesome.

"If the weapon is not literally soaking in a good lube"

? Overlubing any weapon is a good way to attract debris. It can also contribute to malfunctions such as slamfires. Why does your advice appear to be contrary to all the other experienced shooters I know?

John

[444]

I recently fired approx. 4 thousand rounds in one month through one of my Bushmasters, about 1800 rounds of it at Gunsite. I experienced two malfuntions. One was a bad round of ammo and the bullet came out of the case, in the gun, filling the action with unburnt powder. The gun didn't run after that until I cleaned it. The other was a double feed that was no big deal because part of the couse taught me how to clear a double feed.

I will tell you that the bolt was basically soaking in lube. The way I had the rifle lubed wouldn't have worked under combat conditions.

[Dannyboy]

In my time in the Army, I shot the M16 in the rain and snow of Germany, in the mud and dust of TX/OK, and in the deserts of White Sands, NM and Kuwait. The only problems I ever had were either ammo or magazine problems. Not including blanks, of course. I never had any luck with those.

[Powderman]

I definitely feel the pain concerning blanks.

I would much rather fire 100 rounds of ball ammunition through an M16, before I would fire 10 blanks.

Besides, there is just something wrong with a system where you have to completely plug the barrel to fire blanks.

With that in mind, I also agree with an earlier poster concerning the DGI operating system. It is just plain dirty. It does tend to foul the weapon quickly if it is not kept clean.

My other military gas guns--M1 and M1A/M14--don't have that problem.

I recently took my M1A and the Garand down to Arizona for a visit. I stayed outdoors on my friend's property near Kingman.

After about 200 rounds through each one, it was a simple matter to clean. Wipe off the op rods, wipe down the gas piston in the M1A, wipe off bolt and bolt face in both, and bore snake the barrel. Done deal!

The weapons weren't even that dirty.

My AR, on the other hand, gets really filthy after 100 rounds of ball. I must pay special attention to the bolt and carrier group; and I always manage to harvest a ton of crud.

[EchoSixMike]

I shoot the NRA high power with the AR, some people think I do it pretty well('91 winner:Minuteman Trophy,'97 winner:Leatherneck Trophy, '98 winner:Soldier of Marathon Trophy, some local stuff, Distinguished, etc etc). I shoot about 3K rds per year through the service rifle for real and maybe 2-5K more though other AR platforms for the USMC, practice, etc, and with my current rifle I have never had a stoppage or jam that was not the cause of either operator error(seating mag too hard causing top rd to pop free) or ammo(head seperations mainly, too many reloads on a case) I have shot two barrels out on this rifle and I should get a third on it soonest. I usually go about 9K rds on the barrel before they go Tango Unifrom.

I have seen all sorts of problems on the range with the AR, most due to people who either suck at reloading, who use hack gunsmithes, or who play about with the gimmick de jour trying to buy skill and experience. IT DOESN'T WORK!!!! The top guys use guns that work, don't mess about with gimmicks and just shoot more. They don't have problems.

I have been in the Marines for 10 years now. I have been a gunner on the M2, M60E3, M249, M240G and some other stuff. They will all work, and work well, if the gunner and crew do their jobs. There are a FEW guns out there that have been beat to death, but the vast majority will work fine with proper user procedure.

I have killed M60E3's by firing until the nearly melted. They kept going until you could see the pressure waves from the bullets going down the glowing barrels. Do you think this is adequate?

I have fired M16A2's until the cases siezed in the chambers. I have warped recievers(according to the armorer) and the guns still went bang. This was firing over 600 rds in less than 25 minutes supporting a simulated bunker assault. Is this adequate?

I have fired M16A2's in the deserts of Nevada for ten days(+/- 1000 rds) without doing more than basic cleaning and dusting out mags and not had problems.

I hate the M9 and they suck(and you will soon see this reported back from Iraq AGAIN), but most troops are not issued a sidearm and so that is why these folks who were ambushed did not transition to them when their M16A2's jammed(if in fact that actually happened).

Ammo comes issued in 180rd bandoleers. 6-30rd clusters of three 10rd stripper clips and one speed loader per bando.

IMO (and it is an uninformed opinion based purely on speculation) the 507th guys were slack in their maintainance and this resulted in the problems reported. IF the problems reported actually happened.

Jeff, they have any good ranges down by you? I need to do a road trip and I want to show off my new toy(M40A1 clone) and talk with some real folks who know what they're talking about. You interested in BS'ing with a jarhead for a day? S/F...Ken M

[Salpalinja]

So what do you consider to be adequate accuracy for assault/battle rifle?? I think 3-4 MOA is more than enough with iron sights. The assault rifles I have shot (Valmet/sako) could shoot approx. 1 MOA groups from bench.

[Cannon7mm]

Your absolutely right...A pull of the trigger fixes the condom and the dust cover "cover". In fact, if you actually place your AR15/M16 inside a pair of pantyhose/nylons and operate the weapon effectively...A smart NCO would have suggested this to the troops, given that their weapons would not be used frequently and would be subject to a lot of abuse, dirt and sand while transversing the supply lines...

If you don't believe me ... try it... it works like a charm...

[NevadaPistolero]

Why is it always operator negligence or they didnt spend 12 hours a day cleaning their weapons. Some people cant accept the fact the m16 just isnt in the ball park. I know yours works fine....yeah right. Combat situations are when its needed most and they have let a lot of people down. Throw an Ak47 in the dirt-dust-mud and keep on firing...not an M16. Ok so flame me now. I have owned 3 and not one ever functioned like it should...that made me an AK man forever.:fire:

[Marko Kloos]

I've seen more jammed AKs than AR-15s so far. Supposedly, the AR has inferior reliability, but I have never had a failure of any kind in mine. My roomie's Romak and her Norinco pre-ban AK have both had failures to feed on two different occasions. Granted, I haven't owned a lot of ARs yet, but that shows to me that there is no infallible technology.

Case in point: today, we shot a 16" AR, a 1911 in .38 Super, and a Smith & Wesson Model 65. The only failure today was with the S&W revolver (binding up the cylinder with hot magnum loads), while the supposedly reliability-challenged 1911 and AR-15 never missed a beat.

[444]

I just finished a four day rifle course The course was held in the desert. No grass, no pavement, it was just a graded off piece of desert. The last two days we had high winds. The inside of my pickup is covered in dust from the blowing dirt. During the course, we were required to rapidly assume various shooting positions; for example we were required to drop into the prone position and put one shot into the vitals of a silhouette at 200 yards within 6.9 seconds. We did this over and over and over at various ranges. Obviously when you hit the dirt, you hands are covered with dirt which you then use to manipulate the rifle. This combined with the dirt clouds caused by all the students doing this at once left my AR completely covered in dust and dirt. My AR is now light brown colored from muzzle to buttplate. In addition, because this was a formal course, we were required to spend all the time we were not actually firing the weapon with the mag out and the dust cover open so the instructors could tell at a glance that our weapon was unloaded. I ended up firing something over 600 rounds without a single malfunction (other than those purposely induced for training on clearing malfunctions). Not one. I guarentee that very few civilians will ever get an AR this dirty certainly not those of you who don't even own one, or those of you who own one that you never shoot.
I am certainly glad that I rely on my own experience rather than the crap I read on-line.




Oh, and I left out one thing. I was shooting Wolf ammo which is the victim of even more internet BS. Using this dirty rifle and Wolf ammo enabled me to put every shot in the vitals at 200 yards. I also managed to hit 7 out of 8 shots on a steel half-silhouette at 400 yards from the prone position in these winds. Try that with your AK.

[Bostonterrier97]

The dust/sand particles are smaller in the Persian Gulf region than they are in the North American Southwest.

Hence the noted differences in observations on the AR15's reliability.

Both sides of the camp are ignoring important physical factors which come into play when determining the reliability of rifles.

The AR15 proponents are a bit like the British MOD defending the Enfield L85 (SA80) Bullpup Assault Rifle. When these proponents encounter a jammed rifle their immediate reaction is to say that the soldier or shooter should clean their rifle.


The AR15 naysayers are ignoring empirical evidence that under some conditions the AR15 will function well.
For these people there are no conditions in which the AR15 will function satisfactorily.

The extreme cases

Which is more reliable, AK47 or AR15?
Answer: AK47

Which is more accurate?
Answer: AR15

A middle ground

What is a good compromise in terms of Accuracy and Reliability?
AR180, Robinson M96 (a semi auto version of the stoner 63), M1A, FAL

[curt]

I've seen more jammed AKs than AR-15s so far. Supposedly, the AR has inferior reliability, but I have never had a failure of any kind in mine.

My experience as well. There you have it two cases where AKs function worse than ARs, that should settle it once and for all :banghead:

When it comes to personal anecdotes i'll take the experience of people who have actually seen the elephant. I've read numerous posts, here and elsewhere, by people who clearly have had to depend on their weapon and they have no problem with the AR. I've read numerous posts by people who have never done more than punch paper on an army or civilian range, who not only condemn it but seem to have a real bias going on. I know who i listen to.