M16A2's Wear out at 6,000 Rounds

[Badger Arms]

Yes, feel free to M-16 Bash the weapon. On the acceptance trials for the M16A2 (which the Army criticized on several points) the following averages were noted:



Hmmmm, seems like there might be more than one reason why we should ditch the M16A2 and M4's... barrel life. Not sure what the modern numbers are on barrel life, but with a twist of twice as fast, I'd be suspicious.

[Andrew Wyatt]

there's a simple solution.

replace the barrels when they wear out.

[Badger Arms]

After 5,000 rounds, you want to replace the barrel? Then why don't we replace it with a 1-in-9" Twist barrel?

[444]

Badger. You love to stir the pot. I can't fault you for that. I am fond of it myself.
However, you make an incorrect assumption. The chart lists a comparison of the M16A1 and M16A2, yet you advocate "ditching" the M4.
On another note; who is using the M16A2 at present ?
One more thing. How long do you think it takes a standard issue US military rifle to go through 5000 rounds ?

I am no math whiz but I believe this chart you are displaying is trying to tell us that when new, an M16A2 shot a group of something over 10 inches ? And expanded to over 24 inches after 6000 rounds ?
At what range ? 800 meters ?
And the M16A1 barrel got better. It started at about 7 1/2" and tightened up to about 6" ?
Again, at what range ?

[swingset]

Give it a rest already.

[Houndawg]

On another note; who is using the M16A2 at present ?

A good part of active duty military. Plus Reserves and National Guard. Just because there are newer versions out, it doesn't mean everybody's using them.

[Wildalaska]

I for one have put over 15,000 rounds through an M16A2 (1/7) with no real degredation in accuracy, probably 5-7K were on burst...(over a 4 year period)...the only parts that were replaced were 2 firing pins and if I recall correctly the gas tube...

I have not seen another 223 semi/full hold up like that...in fact I used to have an HK 93 that I basically "shot out" at 5,000 rounds

WildbuthenagaintheakwilltakemoreabuseAlaska

[Kenneth Lew]

Badger Arms,

The information you posted about the M16 is about the same level as an anti-gunner posting facts about "assault weapons" used in crimes. No supporting data is posted, just a section of results that lead to your position on the M16. For all we know this information is made up.

What is the source? Like to see the testing conditions and the sample size on the rifles, etc.

BTW about a total of 200 rds. in a mag dump after mag dump will usually wear out any barrel.

Kenneth Lew

[artherd]

How come I want to bet they were full-auto, dumped down-range as fast as they could change mags?

How come I want to bet those numbers are actually pretty impressive (if strangely large all around.) given the above?\

[MrPink]

So here's how I use my M16A2:

I have it set up as a flattop shorty - 11.5" barrel and a 551 EOTech sight. Telestock and M4 handguards.

My preferred way of shooting it: Full auto volleys at targets 25 - 75 yards downrange.

I don't really care about the nth degree of accuracy. Any solid hit on the pumpkin or watermelon works.

[444]

Not to be argumentitive, but can you expand on this; "A good part of active duty military" ?

[MrAcheson]

"A good part of active duty military"

Everyone who hasn't received an M4 yet. The M4s are given out according to priority. I think infantry and vehicle crews get them first. Everyone else is still using the older M16A2s.

[444]

Since you seem to be up on this, how long would you estimate it takes an active duty soldier to fire 5000 rounds out of his rifle ?
Obviously this would vary considerably depending on the soldiers MOS, but lets take a stab at it.

[Master Blaster]

As far as the current m-16A2s go, I'm pretty sure that the military has at least one armorer who knows how to change a barrel on an M-16.

Right????


Did you know that a .338 Lapua, or a 300 win mag barrel are shot out at about 2000 rounds, 1000 if you are a bench rester.

[Nightcrawler]

On another note; who is using the M16A2 at present ?

Well, the bulk of the USMC and large parts of the Army are being issued M16A4s instead of M4 carbines. The M16A4 is identical to the A2 except for the detachable carry handle. So, presumably, if there are barrel life issues on the A2, there are barrel life issues on the A3 and A4 as well.

444, the M16A2 will be around for a good while yet. Hell, the Army hadn't even finished fully equipping with them by 1991.

As of right now, in the DoD system, there are M16A1s, M16A2s, M16A3s, M16A4s, M4 and M4A1 carbines all in circulation.

Regardless of whether it takes the Army a long time to go through 5,000 rounds, that seems like an awfully short barrel life for a rifle, especially since they're chrome lined. Perhaps better barrels are in order in future?

[444]

Well, since Badger hasn't gotten back to us as to where he got that information and what conditions were used to obtain this information, I have to remain highly skeptical.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, these group sizes are ridiculous. However we really don't know at what range these groups were fired. Obviously in the civilian world we usually state group size at 100 yards from a bench. I have never fired a military M16A2, although I have fired a number of M16A1s. I have also owned and fired a truck load of civilian AR15s. Everyone I ever fired was capable of far better accuracy at 100 yards than any of the numbers listed in that table (assuming my metric to English calculations are correct). Think about this. I have been told by many Marines that they fire on bullseye targets at 500 yards. I have also been told by many Marines that they fire respectable groups at 500 yards. Assuming the groups in that table are fired from 100 yards, do you think that a brand new rifle is only capable of firing a 10" group ? This is crazy. I own an AR15 with an 11.5" barrel (5" flash suppressor) that I can easily fire a group half that size off the fender of my pickup truck using iron sights.
"So, presumably, if there are barrel life issues on the A2, there are barrel life issues on the A3 and A4 as well."
And this is based on what ? Assuming this table provides any meaningful information, what makes you think anything carries over from one model to the next ? Obviously, according to this table the A1 was twice as accurate as the A2 and actually got better with use.
"Perhaps better barrels are in order in future?"
If I believed the numbers given, that might be a consideration assuming the A2s were going to contiue to be issued. However, I honestly don't believe that the numbers given are group sizes fired at 100 yards from a bench. I am no NRA High Power shooter, but I have read a couple books on AR15 accuracy. Two of the books I own are entitled: The Complete Guide to AR15 Accuracy by Derrick Martin & Barrett Tillman and The Cometitive AR15 by Glen Zediker. Both books make the point that you can get by in NRA High Power with a factory barrel until you reach the very serious competitive stages of the sport.
Let me ask you a common sense question. Do you honestly believe that the US Military conducted a test where a new barrel shot a 10" group and the barrel shot out in 5000 rounds and then accepted it anyway ? I have seen government in action. I was in the military. I work for a local government now and have for the last 12 years. I also previously worked for a state government for several years. I have seen them do some things that I considered stupid. But, I don't for a minute believe that the US Military accepted a rifle that couldn't do better than 10" at 100 yards from a bench. Another modification the military made when going from the A1 to the A2 was a different sighting system. The sights are basically a target sight. If you believe Pat Rogers the whole rifle was designed by a comeptitive marksmanship team. According to him the sights and the stock length are not correct for CQB but instead were designed with target shooting in mind. Yet, I am to believe that with these modifications they also accepted a barrel that shoots a 10" group ?

This is exactly how internet rumors get started. Someone makes a post like this with no supporting information. A bunch of people read it and accept it without question. Then they repeat the information as fact in future threads.

[Badger Arms]

Well, since Badger hasn't gotten back to us as to where he got that information and what conditions were used to obtain this information, I have to remain highly skeptical.

Well, 444, I hate to say it but some of us SLEEP. I posted this before I went to bed, 10 hours ago! I don't sepend 24 hours a day on the computer, I do have to work also. For your information, the source was a 6,000 round Marine Corps Endurance tests quoted in the book, "The Black Rifle." Range was not given, however, and is not a factor. These are Centimeter measurements and I suspect the range was 300 yards but that is just a wild guess.

"So, presumably, if there are barrel life issues on the A2, there are barrel life issues on the A3 and A4 as well."

Based on the fact that they use the same twist rate and fire the same bullet weight. There was no change to the Mil-Spec on the barrel, they are just the same as the first M16A2's out there unless I didn't get the memo. That also goes for the M4. Due to the higher cyclic rate of the M4, these guns are much more likely to heat up and therefore wear out the barrels quicker. It should be noted for comparrison that the M16A1 control weapon was fired under the same conditions. I doubt seriously it's anything other than the twist rate.

No supporting data is posted, just a section of results that lead to your position on the M16. For all we know this information is made up.

Improved M16A1 Rifle Instrumented Test Results. USMC Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, VA. 20 Aug 1980.

Did you know that a .338 Lapua, or a 300 win mag barrel are shot out at about 2000 rounds, 1000 if you are a bench rester.

Yep, what does that have to do with the M16A2?

Well, if the barrels have to be changed so much, what's wrong with going to 1-in-9" twist rate?

[Andrew Wyatt]

1 in 9 won't stabilize all of the military .223 ammo, including tracers and that 100 grain magazine length stuff black hills makes.

[Badger Arms]

How long do you think it takes a standard issue US military rifle to go through 5000 rounds?

It's interesting to note that there is talk at H&K of adding a 'round counter' to their optic in order to more closely watch the number of rounds a given weapon has fired. Truth be told, there is no real way of knowhing how many rounds a given weapon has fired. The solution is to inspect the weapons at known time intrevals. Even a round counter on the weapon would require good note-keeping and the assurance that the counter wasn't moved from one weapon to the other and data was downloaded and logged during any maintenance. The current systems for counting rounds are not perfect.

The only way to GUESS at the number of rounds a gun has through it is to average the number of rounds consumed in training vs. the number of guns. I'm not equipped with that data, sorry.

[Badger Arms]

Andrew: 1-in-9" twist stabilizes everything BUT tracers. 1-in-12" twist only stabilizes M193 weight bullets. 1-in-7" twist stabilizes M855 and M856 Tracer as well. The real reason for not using the 1-in-7" twist centered around the M193 stock which numbered over 100 Million rounds if I remember correctly. You could not shoot M193 accurately from an M16A2

[fix]

Truth be told, there is no real way of knowhing how many rounds a given weapon has fired.

Some active duty troops who shoot enough to worry about high round counts keep a logbook. This practice is not 100% accurate and is really not that widespread, but it should be. Not difficult to do really. You leave with 100 rounds and return with 25, so you log 75 rounds.

[fix]

You could not shoot M193 accurately from an M16A2

Hmm. Never noticed that.

[Wildalaska]

Once and for all...the difference between the different weights of bullets in various twists is not necessarily accuracy (I have shot 1/7s that MOA on 55s but not 62s and 1/12s that eat up 77s as have numerous other people) but performance in tissue...

Fact...despite criitsism from armchair commandos and people that just like a debate, the M16 family of weapons are accurate, sturdy, armorer friendly (you can change a barrel yourself), battle proven, effective and ergonomic. It isnt perfect. Nothing is

WildtrychangingabarrelinanHKGseriesyourselfAlaska

[Blackhawk 6]

I was fortunate enough to serve in a unit where weapons proficiency was the number one priority. During one training cycle my platoon averaged just over 5000 rounds per man through our M-16A2's. Our weapons were not new and had seen use in Somalia, Haiti and an indeterminable number of qualifications and live-fires. The majority of us qualified expert subsequently(with M193 if I recall correctly). The weapons were subsequently gauged and while I can not say for certain that they all passed (its not uncommon for one or two to fail) I would certainly remember if they all failed.

The data Badger has provided may be correct. If it is, based on my experience, I have to believe corrections were implemented. Maybe I was just blessed with atypical weapons.

[EchoSixMike]

You could not shoot M193 accurately from an M16A2

Flat out wrong! 55gn works fine from 1:7.

Some weapons systems require the keeping of gun books that keep track of rd counts. The rifle is not normally one of them. You replace parts as they break.

My 1:7.7 Kreiger has gone over 8K rds of heavy bullet high pressure loads, and it still shoots fine. Sounds like they got a lemon barrel. Was this an average? Might have been a bad chrome lining batch. S/F...Ken M