What if the M-16 was never adopted?

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

The Marines tried to adopt the Stoner 63 as their service rifle in the '70s. They were told they had to stay on the M16 bandwagon.

Interestingly, the Marines recently rejected the M4 in favor of staying M16 due to the better reliability of the full size weapon.

 

[Blain]

the M-14 would have continued in service for some time until it`s flaws because even more apparent.

What flaws were these?


Golgo-13, go to www.battlerifles.com LOADS of Vietnam vets there, many who have had personal horrible experiences with the M16 series. Many who hate it with a passion, and rightfully so!

The Mighty Matel
http://www.battlerifles.com/viewtopic.php?t=84&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=matel&start=0

"I will never forget the time I was ordered to report to the company armor to turn in my M14 and pick up my new Matel Toy (Matel made some of the stocks for the early M16s, including mine), otherwise known as the M16. I was truly amazed at it's light weight and the fact that it would empty a 20 round mag in no time flat when it was on full auto. Other than that it was the worst combat weapon I had ever seen or carried and the only thing that saved my hide was that my MOS was that of a machine gunner and it did not take long for me to work my way up the ladder to where I did not have to carry it or use it to keep me alive.

Reliability, durability and dependability were out the window as far as I was concerned. There were so many of my Brothers, whose names might not be on the Wall in DC today, if it not had been for what they were issued to defend themselves. Involved with constant troop movement, it was difficult to simply stop and clean your weapon and whenever possible, we all did as best we could and the majority of the time we would still have problems with jamming and malfunctions. To this day, I do not care to even so much as touch one. Matter of fact, I recently was employed (for approx. 3 years) at a local gun store and range and I always cleaned the rental weapons after use except for the AR/M16. The boss never pressed me to do it and understood my feelings. Over the years I have spoke with numerous owners of the AR/M16 who all loved them and never had any problems but when I asked, none of them had used theirs in a combat situation and always had the time to keep the weapon neat and clean. Understandable in that type of scenario but no matter what the case may be, reliability, dependability and durability is out the window as far as I am concerned. Glad I had the Sixty and if I would not have had that opportunity, I would have scarfed up an AK47 from my enemy or broke into the armory to retrieve my M14. Just my two cents worth and no pun intended for anyone who owns an AR or M16. Your turn ..."

"I dunno how much the last 35 years has been refining, or just polishing the turd. I know for a fact the M16A1s I was issued were grossly unreliable and I doubt the vaunted forward assist helped in one out of 50 cases.

The A2 arrived at my unit with much fanfare about the high-speed, low-drag "heavy barrel". I quickly found out is was NOT a Colt HBAR when I boloed the first time around on qualification. In the prone unsupported I took up a damn tight sling hold (like I do with my Garand when I'm playing with the boys) and was rock steady, and pulled almost every shot low.

Turns out only the last 4 inches of the barrel at the muzzle end is "heavy", the rest is as flimsy as the A1 so it will take the M203. What do I mean by flimsy? Well, the Army's own tests revealed a really tight sling hold is enough to pull shots as much as 4 inches low at 100....8 at 200...16 at 300.

Then they had to find the worst possible 3-shot burst device on the planet (I'm willing to bet H&K or FN have something better). It doesn't automatically reset to 3 if you don't fire three, so if you shoot two your next burst may be a burst of one, kind of like an Army of One maybe.

AND it does icky things to the trigger pull, which many, including myself, consider to be one of the most important aspects of good marksmanship. The burst regulator helps the semi-auto pull wander from 5 to 8 to 11 pounds.

At least ours didn't jam when we got them, but they were brand new. I notice the manual says that in inclimate weather the weapon AND ammunition may need cleaning "many times daily". Serving only a minor part in Storm at the end of my service I don't claim to be a real veteran, but c'mon, anyone who's at least spent real time in the field would have to find that advice ludicrous.

Any fool knows to clean or at least empty a rifle after it's been submerged, but the manual also states you need to do that with the M16A2 if IT'S BEEN EXPOSED TO DEW?!?!? I'm glad the Marines slogging through seawater and sand and volcanic ash at Iwo Jima had weapons (M1s) that could be exposed to dew.

When I went to the range as a reserve deputy, I watched the SO's AR-15s have numerous failures to feed while the PD's Mini-14s just kept chugging away. I now carry a Mini in the back window of my truck for varmints and stray liberals, clean it maybe twice a year, and it always goes bang when I want it to.

Now I see Col. David Hackworth on Fox & Freinds morning show talking about our boys in Afghanistan having trouble with the M-4 jamming. Where are you when we need you John Moses Browning?"

 

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Blain, why do you answer a post about the problems with M14s with a page about the M16's failings?


The M14 is a terrible selectfire weapon.
It is not optics friendly.
It's huge and not light.

There's three, the first being the real killer.

 

[Iain]

I find all this bizarre because I have been told that our SAS can choose the weapon issued to them (not individually but they do not have to have the SA-80), whenever you see them (those photo's with the bars across the eyes) they are carrying M something style weapons, no idea whether they are M16 or M4's.

 

[Blain]

Select fire in a combat rifle? Fo-getabout it!! A rifle man is a rifleman, not a SAW gunner! Full auto is pointless and a waste in mag fed weapons anyway, and it goes against proper marksmanship training.

Besides, I know of 90 lbs. women who can handle the recoil on a full auto M14E2, so it can't be that bad.

No one should be firing their rifle on full auto anyway in combat.

 

[Turk]

Had enough can't set it out anymore.

I'm one of those Vn. Vets that trained with a 14 and then carried a 16 incountry.

If I had to go back to a jungle warfare enviroment and I had a choice I'd pick a 16. Weight of rifle and ammo.

I carried a M-60 for 4 months (400 rounds) and I'd take the SAW any day weight. If you've ever humped the Central Highlands of Vietnam you'd know what I mean.

Now concerning the M-193 ball wounding. nonsense I've seen quite a few one stop hits from the 16. Also if bigger is better than you should of told the NVA soldier that had taken a MaDuce hit but was still able to fight. Lets see was that a buddy story no it was in Oct. of 68 west of Ankhe along the Highway 19 (French Mobile 100 was wiped out a few clicks east of this firefight in the 50's).

Now concerning the M-193 ball round being deflected. Let me give you some sound advice. If you should ever go to war (jungle) DON'T try and hid in the bushes and think they will deflect the rounds. Quite frankly YOU LOSE.

I have to agree with one of the posts. The Army and Marines are hiring go for it.

Also do I think there's a better round out there sure do and think a 6mm bullet on a short fat case like the 300 WSM or smaller might fit the bill. High MV that's a good thing.


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

 

[tac17]

No one should be firing their rifle on full auto anyway in combat.

For the most part yes, but I hear it can be quite handy at times also.

 

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Blain,

Your post makes about as much sense as the doctrine that came up with the magazine cut off for bolt guns.

Full auto IS useful and necessary in modern warfare. At the very least, the M14s muzzle rise (why full auto is so difficult) makes for slower followup and target acquisition.

Funny you mention the M14 E2. It was a last ditch effort to change the gun's basic design to make full auto possible. But most of the military left the original stock and blocked the selector. Then switched rifles.

 

[Marcus]

Blain,your ideas on rifles for the military are good. They were quite common as late as the 1930s. Hitler and the Emperor of Japan even largely held on to them into the 40s. As I said,they`re good ideas...they`re just 70 years out of date. Course even short sited ol Adolf (and Stalin for that matter) saw the need for full auto fire at a personal level,hence the deployment of millions of sub machine guns. Now follow me here,why not give all of the soldiers a weapon that can deliver accurate semi auto fire out to 300yds.+ AND fill the role of a submachine gun all while carrying an ammo load twice as big as a full power battle rifle? Don`t wanna "spray and pray"? Fine ,just don`t,but you have the choice now. All this said I like M-14s,FALs,G3s etc. as much as the next guy. For a lone rifleman they may very well be the best choice but for a full fighting force I`ll still take the flexibility and much larger ammo carrying ability of my imaginary 6mm Stoner. If you`d rather choose an M-14,Rem. 870 or a blunderbuss that`s cool,I just disagree. Marcus

 

[Jeff White]

St. Johns said;

I find all this bizarre because I have been told that our SAS can choose the weapon issued to them (not individually but they do not have to have the SA-80), whenever you see them (those photo's with the bars across the eyes) they are carrying M something style weapons, no idea whether they are M16 or M4's.

Welcome my friend to the big bore branch of the American Gun Culture. The choice of the service rifle has always been fraught with emotion and controversy here. Many American males believe that they emerge from the womb with an inherent knowledge of marksmanship, ballistics and armed combat. No amount of logic, science or personal BTDT experience will dissuade them from their views. They consider the choice of Eugene Stoner's mousegun to arm the men and women who defend our country over the mighty full power M14 to be a crime against nature on the order of beastiality. This is the way things are and nothing will change their mind....

Blain, Blain, Blain...where to start?

First off, the link you posted didn't work for me, so I can't see the info in it's entirety.

What flaws were these?

I'll add, hard to manufacture to self proclaimed expert's answer....

"I will never forget the time I was ordered to report to the company armor to turn in my M14 and pick up my new Matel Toy (Matel made some of the stocks for the early M16s, including mine), otherwise known as the M16. I was truly amazed at it's light weight and the fact that it would empty a 20 round mag in no time flat when it was on full auto. Other than that it was the worst combat weapon I had ever seen or carried and the only thing that saved my hide was that my MOS was that of a machine gunner and it did not take long for me to work my way up the ladder to where I did not have to carry it or use it to keep me alive.

First off, Mattel (two Ts) never made any furniture for the M16. Period, they were not ever a subcontractor for Colt's, GM Turbohydromatic Division or Harrington and Richardson. The second error in that post is that a machine gunner in either the Army or Marine Corps didn't carry an M16. They were issued the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol for personal defense.

Involved with constant troop movement, it was difficult to simply stop and clean your weapon and whenever possible, we all did as best we could and the majority of the time we would still have problems with jamming and malfunctions.

It is no secret that the M16 was rushed to Vietnam before there was a support structure in place to support it. It was kind of hard to clean your rifle if; number one the chain of command tried to cover itself and told you the weapon was self cleaning, and number two; you didn't have any equipment to clean your rifle with. Contrary to popular belief the M16 doesn't require constant cleaning. I recently completed Pat Rogers' carbine course. I used my Colt R6920 LE Carbine which is essentially a semi auto only M4 with a 16" barrel that Colt's sells only to police officers because of the abomination that is the 1994 crime bill. In 3 days I fired 1000 rounds through it. I started the course with a dirty weapon, hadn't had time to clean it after the last dept. qualification shoot. I experienced 3 malfunctions, one my fault when I failed to seat the magazine, one that was a bad USGI surplus magazine that I have since destroyed, and one squib load with Federal XM193 ammo. Not one of these stoppages was the fault of the weapon. You'd think that if it required constant cleaning, it would have jammed left and right. But it didn't. How come??

Glad I had the Sixty and if I would not have had that opportunity, I would have scarfed up an AK47 from my enemy or broke into the armory to retrieve my M14. Just my two cents worth and no pun intended for anyone who owns an AR or M16. Your turn ..."

Ah another myth..the one the troops preferred the AK. Well, I got into the Army too late to see service in Vietnam by about a year. So instead of the opinion of a nameless poster on the battlerifles forum, how about Major John Plaster, author of The Ultimate Sniper. During Vietnam, then SSG Plaster was one of the most decorated operators in MACV-SOG. Major Plaster has published a lessor known (in the civilian community) book that is a history of MACV-SOG. It is called SOG A Photo History of the Secret Wars On page 141 he addresses the AK vs. M16 (CAR-15 in the book) debate.

THE CAR-15 VS. THE AK

Because SOG RECON MEN FREQUENTLY CARRIED AKs IN CAMBODIA, and trained with AKs almost as much as CAR-15s, their experience with both weapons allows a valid comparison. The criteria below are listed in the order they influenced a life or death SOG recon gunfight.

Ergonomics: Generally both weapons are handy and readily manipulable, but the CAR-15 points a bit more naturally. A tie

Reloading: The AK bolt doesn't lock to the rear after firing the last round, adding another step and turning it into a two-hand exercise. The CAR-15 bolt locks to the rear and slams shut with a slap of the left palm against the receiver. The CAR-15 is twice as fast to reload. The CAR-15 wins

Readying to Fire: The shooting hand never leaves a CAR-15's grip, but you cannot place an AK off safety withouttaking the shooting hand off the grip. The CAR-15 wins.

Firing: The lower recoil on a CAR-15 enables it's 3-to-5 round bursts to stay closer to the intended impact point. The CAR-15 can switch between semiauto and full auto without taking your shooting hand off the grip. The CAR-15 wins

Accuracy: Both have identical sight planes, but the CAR-15 has superior sights. The CAR-15 wins.

Ballistic Effectiveness: Both have similar maximum effective ranges and both will kill equally by proper shot placement at typical SOG engagement distances of 50 meters or less. A toss up

Magazines and Ammo Load: The 5.56mm cartridge and magazines were about half the bulk and weight of AK magazines and rounds. Although inherently a CAR-15 advantage, this was not so decisive since SOG men had to carry all their ammo while the NVA could be resupplied in minutes from nearby units and stockpiles. Still the CAR-15 wins.

Reliability: This is listed last because seldon did a weapon malfunction. Like the M16 the CAR-15 had to be kept clean, but SOG men took it a step further, firing up their entire basic load before each operation so they would have tested each magazine-and replaced any mags that failed-and reloaded with completely fresh ammo. Using this procedure, my CAR-15 malfunctioned perhaps three times during practice fire but never once in a real gunfight. Yet I have never seen an AK malfunction, ever. The edge goes to the AK.

In summary: the CAR-15 points more naturally and is faster to get off safety, easier to fire, faster to reload, essentially as reliable, and superior overall to the AK. For those whose lives depended on it, their almost universal choice of the AK tells it all.

I have had the honor of training with Major Plaster back in 1988. I will tell you from personal experience, he's the real deal.

The A2 arrived at my unit with much fanfare about the high-speed, low-drag "heavy barrel". I quickly found out is was NOT a Colt HBAR when I boloed the first time around on qualification. In the prone unsupported I took up a damn tight sling hold (like I do with my Garand when I'm playing with the boys) and was rock steady, and pulled almost every shot low.

Turns out only the last 4 inches of the barrel at the muzzle end is "heavy", the rest is as flimsy as the A1 so it will take the M203. What do I mean by flimsy? Well, the Army's own tests revealed a really tight sling hold is enough to pull shots as much as 4 inches low at 100....8 at 200...16 at 300.

So how does the M16 manage to win at highpower at Camp Perry every year. Perhaps echosixmike or Steve Smith will tell us when the last time an M14 won.

At least ours didn't jam when we got them, but they were brand new. I notice the manual says that in inclimate weather the weapon AND ammunition may need cleaning "many times daily". Serving only a minor part in Storm at the end of my service I don't claim to be a real veteran, but c'mon, anyone who's at least spent real time in the field would have to find that advice ludicrous.

This is an out and out lie. I have in front of me a copy of TM 05538C-10/1A U.S. Marine Corps and TM 9-1005-319-10 U.S. Army dated August 1986. This is the little pocket sized manual with the camouflaged cover. It would be the correct manual for the era this quote was made from. No where does it say this.

Any fool knows to clean or at least empty a rifle after it's been submerged, but the manual also states you need to do that with the M16A2 if IT'S BEEN EXPOSED TO DEW?!?!? I'm glad the Marines slogging through seawater and sand and volcanic ash at Iwo Jima had weapons (M1s) that could be exposed to dew.

Where did this come from? I have every manual that has been published on the M16A2. Nowhere does it say this. Not in any of them.

Now I see Col. David Hackworth on Fox & Freinds morning show talking about our boys in Afghanistan having trouble with the M-4 jamming. Where are you when we need you John Moses Browning?"

We all know that David Hackworth has a bone to pick with everything the Army does. Obviously his experience is greater then Blackhawk6's who commanded an Infantry company in Operation Anaconda or OEF-Vet's who was also there. :banghead:

Jeff

 

[EchoSixMike]

So how does the M16 manage to win at highpower at Camp Perry every year. Perhaps echosixmike or Steve Smith will tell us when the last time an M14 won.

Well, the M14's stopped being really competative about 1996 or so, but some obstinant people continued to use them for a long time. I was happy with this, I kicked their ??? all the easier. Ever since the M16 has been in high power, the scores have gone up and up. Rapid fire clean scores are now a gimme, where as with the M14 you had to really work at it. The M14 has real durability issues when in a match state of tune, they just go south at the slightest battering. The AR keeps running and running, even with heavy bullet, high pressure loads that would kill a M14. In fact, the issue M118LR ammo was recently detuned from 2680fps to 2600 fps spec velocity and IMO it was done to keep the damned M14's alive. The USN, SOCOM and the USMC use a few M14's with M118LR and so they can live longer, the guys with the bolt guns get to eat approx 3.5 MOA of additional drop at 1K yds. Lucky us S/F...Ken M

 

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me that comparing the M16s of the Vietnam era with the ARs and M-Whatzits of today isn't realistic. The appearances are the same, but I keep reading of various little changes in many of the features.

I bought my Terlingua land from a retired Green Beret M/Sgt who spent entirely too many years in SE Asia, much of it with MAC/SOG. I read his 201 file, one time. Let's just say I was highly impressed by what some might call idiotic heroism. Not many people actively try to get a Medal of Honor...

His comments about the relative merits of the M16 and the AK47 focussed mostly on the latter's abiliity to function when crawling around in mud and goop; it was superior to our rifle. However, a primary reason for the use in behind-NVA-lines insertions was twofold: First, it wasn't identified as a US weapon if captured. Secondly, it sounded like other AKs and didn't give away one's position and identity if a firefight occurred. I guess one could add a third reason insofar as resupply...

He pretty much indicated to me that in "normal" battle conditions, the M16s showed no notable problems when starting one's day with a clean weapon. Go on patrol, maybe have an engagement, disengage, return to base, no problems with the rifles. But I wasn't there...

AS for the M14: Several years back, SOF Magazine had an article about comparison of an old BAR against the M14, FAL and G3. The target was a one-meter rock at 500 meters. From the prone position, only the BAR stayed on target through a full magazine. The others walked off target from recoil.

Art

 

[ocabj]

The M14 and M16 debate is moot. I feel that both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages, but remain quality weapons.

I feel that the biggest advantage that the M16 has over the M14 is weight of the weapon and ammo. tac17 wrote in a previous post how if carrying the same amount of weight in ammo, .223 gave you significantly more rounds than if carrying .308. This allows the operator more shots, and theoretically more kills. Obviously, special forces would prefer to carry more rounds since they operate in smaller units and need as much ammo as possible to exhibit force.

If I went off to war, I'd prefer the M16/M4, but I wouldn't complain if I was issued the M14.

 

[Badger Arms]

While you can make the point that the M14 vs. M16 debate is moot, I will definitely make the case for the .223 over the .308 on many more levels than you bring up in your post. Here they are:

- The .223 has lighter recoil which gives it:
-- greater controllability in full-auto
-- easier and faster training of new recruits, many of which are 'city boys'
-- less pounding of the gun which means an equally well designed gun will last longer, all other things being equal
-- follow-up shots in semi-auto are quicker

- The .223 shoots at a higer velocity which means:
-- hydrostatic shock effects are more prominent
-- range estimation is less necessary due to the fact it shoots straighter
-- you need to lead moving targets less
-- the bullet is more likely to break up on impact if of equal design to the larger bullet

- The .223 is lighter by far:
-- troops can hump much more ammunition.
--- this isn't just a function of the weight being part of the overall load, troops most often carry their rifles in their hands or slung. Weight in a pack is much easier to carry than on your hands or loosly slung. 16 ounces is SIGNIFICANT and 2 pounds is a God-send.
-- you can afford to shoot at shadows and possible hiding areas
-- you can use mass automatic fire when ambushed to charge (close ambush) or retreat (far ambush). After the firefight, you'll have some left.
-- higher capacity magazines (than the 20 standard on the .308 guns) How heavy would a 100 round drum magazine be in .308?

One makes a mistake comparing the two guns on an accuracy or terminal effectiveness level. Both have their merrits in both of these. While the .308 will outrange the .223, the bell curve of engagement ranges means that only about 1.5% of targets would be engaged with a round that will now poke littler holes than the .308 and might make you bleed half as fast. What a silly concept.

When you outweigh this miniscule range advantage and essential equality of wounding potential with the MASSIVE superiority of the .223 in other areas, your argument falls apart. In fact, your argument is dangerous and bound to get more US soldiers killed by having weapons chambered for inferior rounds.

 

[Badger Arms]

Oh, and one other thing. If one had a weapon of equal weight, length, reliability, and accuracy to the M-14 but chambered in the .223... Well then, which weapon would you choose. You could have double the capacity in the smaller caliber, recoil would be miniscule, full-auto fire would be much more controllable. Would you still choose the M-14?

What I'm wondering here is if all of you M-14 zealouts want the gun because you have this preception that steel and wood are superior or do you want the gun because you have the idea that it's vastly superior in the terminal ballistics realm?

 

[Ironbarr]

Hate to say this, but...

I wouldn't have an AR15.

And I would probably have squandered the money on frivolous toys (and junk food).

 

[Badger Arms]

IRONBARR:

Please state your reasons. Every opinion counts. Your cryptic message leaves me wondering WHY?

 

[Ironbarr]

Badger...

Seems I bypassed my own philosphy re communications - that is... that good communications requires that the conveyor provides enough clarity in his message for the convey-ee to, in fact, understand the conveyor's intent.

Semantics might have been better had the statement "I wouldn't have an AR15." been preceded by referencing part of DMK's thread starter - as in:

"Let's pretent that the proponents of the rifle and it's ammo had failed. The AR-15/M-16 rifle never resurfaced."

Hopefully better:

If the AR-15/M-16 rifle never surfaced, I wouldn't have an AR15.

And... I'd of spent the money elsewhere (as indicated above).

There are three reasons I, at my age, invested in an AR-15:

1. To upgrade what I owned to be better prepared for whatever - if ever.

2. I wanted it available to those following me for whatever their needs might be.

3. Frankly, I liked the looks, the feel, and the price. So I bought it.

Had there been no AR15/M16, I wouldn't (probably) have gotten that enthusiastic over any regular rifle and the coins would have been dissipated elsewhere.

I hope this clarifies my post.

-Andy

 

[tac17]

And I would probably have squandered the money on frivolous toys (and junk food).

Of course you also might have spent the money on some way cool rail gun that was never invented because the M-16 was adopted.

Might be best not to think about it like that though, makes me wish I had my rail gun.

 

[texcalibur]

Gabe has a good point. If the AR 15 was not adopted as the M16, we may have wound up with the AR 18, which was developed after Eugene Stoner left Armalite by about 5 engineers there. Ir used the AK 47 piston/tappet system rather than the direct gas into the chamer system of the AR 15, and probably would be even more reliable. Although with the development of cleaner powder the AR 15 is reliable. However, the AR 18 was also developed for the 223/556 round.

 

[Badger Arms]

AHHHHHHHH!!! NO, NO, NO!!!
The AR-18 does NOT have the same gas system as the AK-47. This is a pet Pieve of mine. It's like saying that the Jet engine that powers a helicopter is the same as the piston engine that powers your lawn mower. They are completely different animals. The vastly cleaner and more reliable gas system of the AR-18 is unique, patented, and has several advantages over the AK-47. I'll go into them later if anybody cares to listen. Right now, I'm just going to rant about it. Reading that is like when your wife says, "Which end of the gun do I put the bullet thingy in?"

 

[Mike Irwin]

Even had the M-16 never been invented, we'd still be in the mid to sub caliber class of rounds.

The 7.62 would have gone by the wayside, and everyone would have something else to bitch and moan about...

It was stupid dropping the .45-70, if you ask me.

 

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

The AR-18 was a response to the AR15. If the 15 never existed, why would anyone try to make a cheaper replacement?

I don't think .223 would have ever taken off independantly. It came part and parcel with the rifle, which was designed by a division specializing in aircrew survival gear. The very light AR15 and its little bullet may well have been viewed more like an FN P90, rather than as an infantry rifle.

I would think a more intermediate cartridge in a scaled down Cetma, Fal, whatever would have ruled the moment.