Here are my comments on Mr. Culver's articles. They are a mix of fact and legend for instance:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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. Any sptizer bullet will tumble when it strikes something.
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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;
Quote:
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....
