There has been books writen about the unfortunate experience of the M16 introduction into Vietnam. I do recommend
The Gun by C. J. Chivers
I had to pay full price for mine, now the paperback versions are $3.50!
There are out of print books, I have read most of them. They cost too much to buy, so I have had to get them through interlibray loans. These are free to read:
https://discover.dtic.mil/
You have to go to the DTIC site and enter these titles in the search engine. There is no way to directly link to them.
Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 4 Appendix 4 Ammunition Development Program.
Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel Volume 7 Appendix 6 review and analysis of M16 System Reliability.
Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 5 Procurement
Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 7 Vietnam Surveys
Report of the M16 Panel appendix 10 the small arms program
Report of the M16 Review Panel Summary Report.
It is worth reading Dick Culver’s experience with the introduction of the M16 into Vietnam. Be nice to Dick, he, like so many of the Vietnam generation, has passed beyond the vale.
The Saga of the M16 in Vietnam (part 1)
The Saga of the M16 in Vietnam (part 2)
I have talked to many Vietnam veterans while pulling targets at Club matches or the National Matches. The M14 was in country for a limited time, and so there are fewer men who carried the thing than the M16.
pictures from this:
I met men who were there at the transition, and the early M16’s jammed and got Grunts killed. The men who survived are very upset with their whole experience. Today, many act as though the men who died were just nuts, bolts, or chips to be replaced as necessary, but they were living beings, doing their duty, and the whole Political, Industrial, and Military structure failed them. Just last week, we experienced another one of those, and reactions in time will be the same: denial.
Men who carried the M14 reported no malfunctions, the rifle worked. It was heavier, and the combat load was less. A Grunt carried 200 rounds with the M14, the combat load with an M16 was 400 rounds. Advantage M16. While the early M16’s were jam a matics, literally hundreds of millions were spent, which would be billions today, in a rush to develop the M16 to an acceptable level of reliability. Guys who were in service around 1968 did not have the problems with their M16’s that the previous tours experienced.
You would think that official dumb would care that the products they put in the hands of Soldier’s were not beta versions which got men killed. Nor that that the powers that be would lie and cover up their failures, but they did. And this outrage, more than anything else, still fuels the debate on the M16.
Now I shot my M1a for years and earned my Distinguished Rifleman Badge with the thing, and I shot the AR15. The M1a was absolutely trouble free. Because the only thing the 223 round has is velocity, competitors loaded the thing hot for 600 yards, and there was always someone on the line with pressure related issues. The AR15 nudged out the M1a as a competition rifle. The Army developed their M16’s to a high match grade in the early 1990’s, and the last year the USMC team issued M14’s on the line (as across the course rifles) was at the 1996 Camp Perry Nationals. I was there, pulling targets with a Marine who had the M16. He stated that the M14 broke more parts, which is to be expected given that the action of a M14 is about the same weight, but the cartridge has several times more momentum.
The high service rifle shooter was USMC Julie Watson, and she shot a M14. In 1997, all the M14’s were gone, and I asked the USMC Marines how the rifle was doing, and they said “about the same standing, better in the rapids, and a little worse at long range” It was in the rapids that the AR15 finally displaced the M1a. The M1a kicks, your position has to be perfect as it will knock you out of position. An AR15, you can be an invertebrate squid and still shoot a good score. When the X counts of AR shooters went up, that was when the M1a went away. Across the course is more or less won standing. The good shooters clean the rapids, and whatever points you lose at standing, you don’t make up at long range. It was in the rapids that the 223 excelled, everyone’s X counts went up. The difference in ballistic capability was to the 308 cartridge at 600 yards, but the advantage was not as much as, lets say, as a 6.5 mm round. I shot with a guy with a 6.5 mm, and his windage at 600 yards was half mine, with a 223 service rifle. It was a windy day.
