What if the M-16 was never adopted?
- Thread starter DMK
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
DMK
Member
That is just amazing that a guy can take 6 rounds of .308 to the chest at close range and get right back up or another guy can take a burst or two from an M-60 and crawl to a tree. These guys certainly would have done the same if it was a 5.56mm round. They just didn't get a CNS hit or lose blood fast enough to overcome their desire to kill the enemy.
Apparently, the only thing to do in such situations is keep poking holes in them until they do go down. Air support, mortor, grenade or artillery fire aside, full auto fire is obviously the best way to do that, at least at the ranges of those two events.
Well it certainly does seem like a weapon capable of effective automatic fire was definately needed no matter what round was chosen. Despite common myth, full automatic fire does not have to be spray and pray. I'm a huge fan of the 7.62x51 and battle rifles in general, but the M-14 unfortunately was not an effective weapon for accurate full automatic fire. Neither of course was the FAL, although it's ergonomics may have helped slightly. Those weapons were too light for the 7.62 NATO round.
It's obvious to me that a lighter recoiling round was needed at the time. It's also obvious that ammo of a lighter weight was needed so that a soldier could carry more, therefore be able to sustain the higher rate of fire.
Another problem shows up in the other scenario, trying to get accurate, effective fire at long ranges. Subguns are out of their league here as are some assault rifles.
Apparently, the only thing to do in such situations is keep poking holes in them until they do go down. Air support, mortor, grenade or artillery fire aside, full auto fire is obviously the best way to do that, at least at the ranges of those two events.
Well it certainly does seem like a weapon capable of effective automatic fire was definately needed no matter what round was chosen. Despite common myth, full automatic fire does not have to be spray and pray. I'm a huge fan of the 7.62x51 and battle rifles in general, but the M-14 unfortunately was not an effective weapon for accurate full automatic fire. Neither of course was the FAL, although it's ergonomics may have helped slightly. Those weapons were too light for the 7.62 NATO round.
It's obvious to me that a lighter recoiling round was needed at the time. It's also obvious that ammo of a lighter weight was needed so that a soldier could carry more, therefore be able to sustain the higher rate of fire.
Another problem shows up in the other scenario, trying to get accurate, effective fire at long ranges. Subguns are out of their league here as are some assault rifles.
seeker_two
Member
I think there would have been a resurgence in the M1/M2 carbines for many front-line troops (as there was in the early days of Vietnam)....
And I believe that a lighter, smaller caliber would have been developed anyway. Possibly the .243Win or .260Rem in a FAL or AR-10 type rifle....
YYMV...
And I believe that a lighter, smaller caliber would have been developed anyway. Possibly the .243Win or .260Rem in a FAL or AR-10 type rifle....
YYMV...
Jeff Timm
Member
Blain Opined
Depends on how you define "carbine ranges." If you define the range down to under 100 meters (9mm Carbines like the MP-40 and Uzi) the shotgun may have a higher hit probability, but it's pattern is going to be very large, and the individual .33" projectiles are going to have considerably less energy than a 124gr pistol round at 100 meters.
Third world body armor. The museum at Fort Hood back in the 1970's had examples of 6 and 8 magazine carriers. They were vests with overlapping pockets in the front which put AK magazines over the vital areas of the rifleman. Hit four layers of steel and closely spaced steel case 7.62x39 rounds packed closely together and your shotgun becomes ineffective. M-16 rounds had trouble penetrating such armor.
The shotgun remains a special weapon for limited circumstances. Very few people would carry a shotgun in addition to their rifle, especially in hot climates.
Geoff
Who thinks flexibility is an advantage in a general purpose rifle.
Depends on how you define "carbine ranges." If you define the range down to under 100 meters (9mm Carbines like the MP-40 and Uzi) the shotgun may have a higher hit probability, but it's pattern is going to be very large, and the individual .33" projectiles are going to have considerably less energy than a 124gr pistol round at 100 meters.
Third world body armor. The museum at Fort Hood back in the 1970's had examples of 6 and 8 magazine carriers. They were vests with overlapping pockets in the front which put AK magazines over the vital areas of the rifleman. Hit four layers of steel and closely spaced steel case 7.62x39 rounds packed closely together and your shotgun becomes ineffective. M-16 rounds had trouble penetrating such armor.
The shotgun remains a special weapon for limited circumstances. Very few people would carry a shotgun in addition to their rifle, especially in hot climates.
Geoff
Who thinks flexibility is an advantage in a general purpose rifle.
The .30 carbine would have been necked down to .22 wildcat and our M1 and M2 carbines would still be in service. We would be singing the praises of how Winchester and Carbine Williams designed a "classic" assault weapon decades ahead of its time. The M1 "assault carbine" is accurate and effective out to 300 meters, is compact, lightweight, reliable, and is soldier friendly. The high velocity light weight cartridge permits a normal combat load of 400 rounds, this coupled wih the all purpose grenade launcher attachment makes this "Bantam weight" a dominate force on todays hi-tech battlefield.
Hkmp5sd
Member
This biggest effect of no M16, no black plastic guns!
Sir Galahad
member
Jeff, I was with the 101st Airborne. The TM may say one thing (and the army says you have to have the TM open to the appropriate page while repairing the weapon), but actual repair is quite another. What the TM says is great for Aberdeen Proving Grounds Ordnance School, but it isn't what happens always. Many times, the barrel nut would not tighten enough to get the cog tooth of the nut over far enough to align the gas tube. So we would back it off a smidge instead. Maybe the TM said not to do this, but we HAD to do things the TM said not to to accomplish the repair mission. When you have a unit going on DRB/DRF status in one day and they need red-tagged weapons online NOW, you have to do these things. This was in the old "Rapid Deployment Force" era of Soviet fun-and-games. The other option was replacing upper receiver and we did that quite often from necessity. The way the gas tube has to align with the bolt carrier key is ridiculous and makes for a real PITA to replace the barrel, gas tube, and/or bolt carrier key. Another real fun thing to do was replacing all the tritium night sight front posts on M-16A1s. Some army ordnance whiz-kid decided the rifle needed night sight so they installed them. Then some clod wanted them all off. Orders are orders and I spent lots of evenings removing sight after sight. Another classic was seeing M-16s without forward assists still in arms rooms. You know, I'm not saying there aren't functional M-16s out there; there are lots of them. But that doesn't mean every army arms room as them. I never saw a M-16A2 after I left Aberdeen. I was usning A2 buttstocks to repair the A1s still in use. People wonder how these weapons fail. It's often because they are not routinely REPLACED. You can keep replacing parts, but after a while, yous sank to new rifles worth of parts cost-wise into one POS. Better to repair them for, say, so many years then get rid of them and get new ones and EVERY trooper has the latest version. Not A1s over here, A2s over there, and some amalgam of both over here, and the non-forward assists early versions sitting in this arms room and so on. Take the old ones and have a yard sale. Give them to Pakistan; who cares? But get our troops the latest and best, not some worn-out POS. I saw arms rooms that made you want to cry. Rusty weapons in there, dirty weapons, parts missing, obsolete weapons...you just wanted to scream. I was never trained on how to repair a 90mm recoilless rifle. Supposedly obsolete. But I had to learn---the frickin' things were still in use!!! The whole army needs to be on the same page and not just some Charlie Foxtrot in olive drab.
Blain, when you have some TI, then you will know some of the answers. Do this exercise with me. Flush out your Yellow Pages. Look under the government pages. Find "U.S. Army recuitment." Make appointment. Take physical. Join. Then when you come back a squared away, standing tall and looking good trooper, see if you still want to carry that fowling piece.
"Your mother was home when you left, your father was home when you left, your brother was home when you left, your sister was home when you left...your mother your father your brother your sister your dog your cat your rat...they were ALLLLLL home when you left, and that's the reason you left..."
Blain, when you have some TI, then you will know some of the answers. Do this exercise with me. Flush out your Yellow Pages. Look under the government pages. Find "U.S. Army recuitment." Make appointment. Take physical. Join. Then when you come back a squared away, standing tall and looking good trooper, see if you still want to carry that fowling piece.
"Your mother was home when you left, your father was home when you left, your brother was home when you left, your sister was home when you left...your mother your father your brother your sister your dog your cat your rat...they were ALLLLLL home when you left, and that's the reason you left..."
Had we not adopted the M-16:
I think the Army would publish a 1 million page study detailing how 308 sucks in Vietnam. Sometime in the late 70's - early 80's we would adopt an improved variant of the AR-18 firing something similiar to the 6mm SAW.
I have often wondered what would've happened had we adopted the M-14 in .276 Pederson in the late '50s in lieu of the 308. The Pederson was ofcourse the original intended cartridge for the Garand but we stayed true to the 30-06 for bugetary reasons. Seems the Army forgot all about it when the time came to retire the 30-06.
I think the Army would publish a 1 million page study detailing how 308 sucks in Vietnam. Sometime in the late 70's - early 80's we would adopt an improved variant of the AR-18 firing something similiar to the 6mm SAW.
I have often wondered what would've happened had we adopted the M-14 in .276 Pederson in the late '50s in lieu of the 308. The Pederson was ofcourse the original intended cartridge for the Garand but we stayed true to the 30-06 for bugetary reasons. Seems the Army forgot all about it when the time came to retire the 30-06.
SelfProclaimedExpert
member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 323
It might be instructive to look back to the period before the M14 to see what might have taken root if .223 hadn't come along. More than a few countries were working on intermediate loads that were between .308 and .223 in power. The original Fal, Cetme and the experimental British bullpup were built around such cartridges. The Brit gun was around a 6mm.
So after forcing all of Nato to redesign their guns to .308, and then leaving them alone (no M16), the old ideas might have resurfaced and taken hold. Especially since the 6mm saw program seemed to indicate that the smart money was in that venue, from the late '40s to '70s.
On the other hand, most countries that adopted the G3 in late '50s, early '60s time frame kept their guns until quite recently. So maybe we would have junked the M14 for G3s as well at some point and be looking to the G11 or similar right now.
But I think any serious student of the subject will agree that the M14 was a mistake (though nice target shooting mistake) and .223 was just a little too light.
So after forcing all of Nato to redesign their guns to .308, and then leaving them alone (no M16), the old ideas might have resurfaced and taken hold. Especially since the 6mm saw program seemed to indicate that the smart money was in that venue, from the late '40s to '70s.
On the other hand, most countries that adopted the G3 in late '50s, early '60s time frame kept their guns until quite recently. So maybe we would have junked the M14 for G3s as well at some point and be looking to the G11 or similar right now.
But I think any serious student of the subject will agree that the M14 was a mistake (though nice target shooting mistake) and .223 was just a little too light.
Okay I'm having a vision of the ideal M-14 alternative, take Beretta BM-59 with the integral muzzel brake, chamber it for .276 Pederson, should be easy since the Pederson has identical case length as 308, make it select-fire capable.
Would look something like this but maybe a little longer 19" barrel:
Would look something like this but maybe a little longer 19" barrel:
Think about this - The .223 round is meant to injure not kill right? If so, then it takes 1, even 2 other comrades to help the wounded guy to the back lines for medical attention. Now instead of 1 guy out of the scenario you have 3. And what man is going to fight if he sees his comrades leaving his wounded buddies in the field to die? No one is going to fight that's for sure! If they stop fighting, then the battle is won. If they help their buddy, they've reduced their fighting force in numbers by helping their wounded. 
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Loaded: The FMJ bullets were used to avoid expansion--avoiding "inhumane wounds". This goes back to the WW I era. Geneva Convention. "Rules of War".
The first bullets used in the .223, at ranges inside 100 or 200 yards, blow up like varmint bullets. This is not exactly a "wound, not kill" deal. My cynical view, back in the 1960s, was that this is a way to give the appearance of FMJ but have the effectiveness of an expanding bullet.
The "Help your wounded buddy" might be a valid idea when one's opponent is of our culture. When attacking a position in the Grand Charge tactics once used, I rather doubt many will stop their advance to help one who is wounded. In our system, that's the job of a medic.
In other words, I seriously doubt that the issue of wounding vs. killing has ever been a serious part of cartridge selection.
Art
The first bullets used in the .223, at ranges inside 100 or 200 yards, blow up like varmint bullets. This is not exactly a "wound, not kill" deal. My cynical view, back in the 1960s, was that this is a way to give the appearance of FMJ but have the effectiveness of an expanding bullet.
The "Help your wounded buddy" might be a valid idea when one's opponent is of our culture. When attacking a position in the Grand Charge tactics once used, I rather doubt many will stop their advance to help one who is wounded. In our system, that's the job of a medic.
In other words, I seriously doubt that the issue of wounding vs. killing has ever been a serious part of cartridge selection.
Art
Blain, I am the biggest shotgun nut you will ever meet. I use a shotgun to protect my home. I shoot shotguns in competition, and I love them more than any other kind of weapon.
But if I had to go outside and fight, I'm taking a carbine.
You have got to know your weapons limitations.
But if I had to go outside and fight, I'm taking a carbine.
You have got to know your weapons limitations.
Loaded wrote:
This is a military urban legend. You'll even hear it from some people in the military, but it's not true. Only the larger Western armies put anywhere near the emphisis on evac and treatment of casualties as we do. Considering that most unit's SOPs call for double tapping or firing an anchoring shot into any downed enemy soldiers who are not obviously trying to surrender, while crossing the objective and before reaching the limit of advance it hardly makes sense that we'd design a weapon to wound.
Blain said;
Who are these VETS? Can you cite some references? This vet has seen .50 BMG deflect in the brush. If you can find a copy of the old Deadly Weapons video tape you can see it for yourself.
Sir Galahad,
I know what you're talking about. But most of your rush jobs most likely resulted from poor maintenance management in the units you supported. Instead of evacing weapons to DS or GS maint when they broke, they'd sit in the arms room. Then a mission would come up and all of a sudden, they had to be fixed NOW. IIRC, we used to replace a lot of M16A1 barrels after the annual gaging and before a deployment. Not that they were shot out, but they were bent.
Jeff
Think about this - The .223 round is meant to injure not kill right? If so, then it takes 1, even 2 other comrades to help the wounded guy to the back lines for medical attention. Now instead of 1 guy out of the scenario you have 3. And what man is going to fight if he sees his comrades leaving his wounded buddies in the field to die? No one is going to fight that's for sure! If they stop fighting, then the battle is won. If they help their buddy, they've reduced their fighting force in numbers by helping their wounded.
This is a military urban legend. You'll even hear it from some people in the military, but it's not true. Only the larger Western armies put anywhere near the emphisis on evac and treatment of casualties as we do. Considering that most unit's SOPs call for double tapping or firing an anchoring shot into any downed enemy soldiers who are not obviously trying to surrender, while crossing the objective and before reaching the limit of advance it hardly makes sense that we'd design a weapon to wound.
Blain said;
Who are these VETS? Can you cite some references? This vet has seen .50 BMG deflect in the brush. If you can find a copy of the old Deadly Weapons video tape you can see it for yourself.
Sir Galahad,
I know what you're talking about. But most of your rush jobs most likely resulted from poor maintenance management in the units you supported. Instead of evacing weapons to DS or GS maint when they broke, they'd sit in the arms room. Then a mission would come up and all of a sudden, they had to be fixed NOW. IIRC, we used to replace a lot of M16A1 barrels after the annual gaging and before a deployment. Not that they were shot out, but they were bent.
Jeff
Most of the vets that I have spoken with on the subject said that never could carry enough ammo out while using the .308. Let's assume that you are going to carry out 22 lbs. the comparison below deals with the FAL being the .308 so subtract a pound for your M14. Here is what 22 lbs. looks like in different systems.
FAL & 9 20 rd. mags for 180 rds.
AK47 & 7 30 rd. mags for 210 rds.
AR15 & 15 30 rd. mags for 450 rds.
That is a pretty drastic difference.
I am going to go a little off track here for just a sec.
What if the AK-47 had never been adopted?
Has anyone ever done any looking into the 7.62X45 Czech round. I have a rifle chambered in this and it is a rather interesting round. It throws a 130 gr. bullet to 2440 fps. giving 1719 fpe. The Czechs were on their way to making the perfect intermediate round. The AK-47 came along and rained on their parade however, the Soviets wanted the Czechs to get on board and use their weapons. The Czechs had resisted this and designed their own rifle in the 7.62X45 caliber called the VZ52. If left alone they would more than likely have refined their new caliber into something special. What if they had necked down their round down to something like .257, gotten away from that stubby .30 bullet to something that would hold its energy better downrange and made the best intermediate cartridge ever.
Instead they folded and adopted the 7.62X39 
and the rest is history. These what if games are fun. Coincidentally if you neck down the 7.62X45 to .257, load it with a 120 gr. bullet at 2540 giving you a third more muzzle energy than the .223, It will still fit the OAL for AR mags.
Frohickey
Member
After the success of the military M-14 and the 7.62x51mm cartridge, the military would be clammoring for more bullet diameter.
Some designer would make a M-16 style rifle, with a 20 round magazine, firing a rimless version of the venerable 45/70 Govt.
These would be supplemented with tracers, armor piercing, incendiary, as well as explosive tipped ammunition.
Some designer would make a M-16 style rifle, with a 20 round magazine, firing a rimless version of the venerable 45/70 Govt.
These would be supplemented with tracers, armor piercing, incendiary, as well as explosive tipped ammunition.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Good tape. Not very scientific, but very interesting. The other "deadly" videos were also pretty good too. They were Deadly Effects: Wound Ballistics and Deadly Force: Firearms, Self-defense and the Law.
Sir Galahad
member
Jeff, you are right on there! Some unit armorers, I guess, thought I liked working until midnight. They thought they could drop off the weapons and then come back in the morning. Nope! If I'm here, you're here. "Awww, maaaannnn....I'm going into town tonight!" No, you WERE going into town tonight. Instead, you're going to sit right here and meditate on the realization that wasting my time wastes your time until you come to the epiphany that you should bring the weapons in at an appropriate time next time.
Blain, Jeff is right in what he's saying here. I disagree with the weapon for the reasons I have listed. But I would carry the M-16 before a shotgun in a military situation. During the 1980s, the possibility of getting separated from a supply line by a Soviet/Warsaw Pact push into Western Europe was a real thing. In those cases, you'd have wished to have even packed a few extra rounds as 5.56 suppositories.
Blain, Jeff is right in what he's saying here. I disagree with the weapon for the reasons I have listed. But I would carry the M-16 before a shotgun in a military situation. During the 1980s, the possibility of getting separated from a supply line by a Soviet/Warsaw Pact push into Western Europe was a real thing. In those cases, you'd have wished to have even packed a few extra rounds as 5.56 suppositories.
Badger Arms
Member
Which vets did you interview and when can I speak with them? The 5.56x45 penetrates as well as or better than the 7.62x51. Like it was said before, the 50BMG will deflect in vegitation at the same rate of the .223 will. Deflection is more a matter of velocity, sectional density, and bullet shape than it is one of the size of the bullet. Conventional wisdom on this one is wrong. I recall reading a study on bullet deflection which listed the .338 Magnum as the least suceptible to deflection over the 375 magnum, 44 magnum, 30-06, 300 Winchester magnum, etc.
Vets who have spoken to ME have ALL favored the M-16 despite the shortcomings. Reasons: weight, killig power, and controlled firepower. The reasons they didn't like the M-16: Magazine capacity (only 20), cleaning the darn thing, and their preception of its durability.
It seems that many from the Korean War generation and earlier will favor the M-14 and M-1 Garand based on the McAurther fallacy that caliber and power are everything. "Whiz Kids" who count beans at their desks in the Pentagon will favor the M-16 because it makes bigger numbers (kill ratios and rounds fired). Soldiers in the field like the M-16 because it's light, ergonomic, and easy to fire. To opine that the M-14 was preferred by soldiers is a matter of historical inaccuracy. Soldiers who had exposure to both guns almost always preferred the Armalite.
Now, back to the subject: What's the reason behind the killing power of the .223? It's the fact that the bullet is traveling at higher velocity and spinning at a rate that makes it stable in air but unstable in tissue. This is true of the .308 also but the .308 destabilizes deeper in tissue than does the .223. In fact, most .308 shots pass through and through before truly becoming unstable in human targets (enemy combattants). This is, in my opinion, a matter of design.
HAD THE M-16 NOT BEEN ADOPTED, IT IS LIKELY THAT A PRODUCT-IMPROVED 7.62X51 ROUND WOULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. That round would likely have been either a duplex round or a lightweight round with improved termial performance by means of a cavity in the nose (the same conclusion the Russians came to) or perhaps a partitioned core which separates at the cannelure when upset in tissue.
Joe Demko
Member
Who are these "VETS", Blain? I've known a number of Vietnam combat veterans, Army and Marines, who trained with the M-14 and then used the M-16 in Vietnam. None of them had the love affair with the M-14 that your "VETS" seem to have. None of them thought the M-16 was perfect, but none of them thought the M-14 would have been better in its place. Every combat veteran I have ever known, and I've had the privilege of talking with veterans from every war since WWI, has said the same thing: Lighter=Better. As one of my uncles (a highly decorated WWII vet and fan of the M-1 carbine) said "You carry the f----ing thing an awful lot more than you shoot it."
When you have to carry everything yourself, ounces matter. When resupply is iffy, being able to hump more rounds for the same weight matters.
I think you should do exactly what Sir Galahad told you to do. Go sign up for the Army or Marines. Hump that pack, rifle, and other stuff around yourself and see how your opinions change. BTW, while you are at basic, I want you to be sure to share your opinions with the DI's. A bright boy like you, with such a vast knowledge of weapons, will surely be a great favorite.
When you have to carry everything yourself, ounces matter. When resupply is iffy, being able to hump more rounds for the same weight matters.
I think you should do exactly what Sir Galahad told you to do. Go sign up for the Army or Marines. Hump that pack, rifle, and other stuff around yourself and see how your opinions change. BTW, while you are at basic, I want you to be sure to share your opinions with the DI's. A bright boy like you, with such a vast knowledge of weapons, will surely be a great favorite.
With the R&D of military smallarms amunition during the past 40 years as a guide, it seems that regardless whether the M16 had been adopted or not our ammo would have been lighter and more compact. If not .22 caliber or smaller, it would at least have been something like the 7.62X39 in performance. For anything other than a GP machine gun or sniping the 30/06 and 308 have had their day in the sun, just as the 45/70 and 30/40 Krag had there day. Repeated research documents that most engagements don't require the power or range (and weight) of the 308 cartridge for the individual combat weapon. The M16 as a design has been faulted much more than the .223 ammo it fires.
In my "what if fantasy world",the M-14 would have continued in service for some time until it`s flaws because even more apparent. Eugene Stoner would still have developed the M-63 system but in a 6mm or 6.5mm x 39-45 intermediate round. Careful selection of a rifling rate/bullet weight/bullet construction would favor terminal effectiveness over pinpoint accuracy at unrealistic ranges. After "trial by fire" by SEALs and other SOFs it would be adopted by all of the US armes forces in carbine,rifle and SAW roles. After 30+ years of refining an already outstanding weapon system it would be todays premier assault rifle and the envy of every other nation. And they all lived happily ever after (except for the BGs),the end. Marcus
Marcus- Status
