Interesting Colt M16 History from RIA

[hso]

Not to generalize, but I would expect a man named “Eugene” to be an accounting savant, not a world-class weapons designer. Yet Eugene Stoner, the kind-faced bespectacled genius behind the AR-15 would influence American Military doctrine for decades to come.

https://www.rockislandauction.com/r...il&utm_term=0_1f4b8db853-5095f48853-216709057

 

[bullseye308]

Thank you, that was informative.

 

[NorthBorder]

Definitely a good read.

 

[alsaqr]

It's a sad thing that no one was ever punished over the M16 in Vietnam debacle.

Yep, Stoner invented the AR-10.

L. James Sullivan designed the AR-15(M16) gas system and assisted in downsizing the AR-10 rifle. Stoner never liked the AR-15.
As late as 2020 L. James Sullivan proposed changes to the M4 rifle.

smallarmsoftheworld.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=110

"Today we had the opportunity to speak with L. James “Jim” Sullivan, one of the original designers of the AR-15 rifle. He started working as a draftsman for Eugene Stoner at Armalite, and wound up being largely responsible for converting the AR-10 down to .223 caliber. His later work would include the Ultimax LMG, Ruger Mini-14, and many other firearms."

https://news.aroutfitting.com/2019/04/28/interview-shooting-jim-sullivan-ar-15-designer/

 

[Legionnaire]

Thanks for posting this. Definitely worth the read.

 

[jag22]

A good read but I was surprised it didn't mention, what I thought was was an important change, going from full auto to three round bursts. Maybe that change didn't happen until the M-4 but I thought it changed during Vietnam. I'm no historian so I could be wrong, plus I was in the Navy so I never saw one.

 

[.455_Hunter]

A good read but I was surprised it didn't mention, what I thought was was an important change, going from full auto to three round bursts. Maybe that change didn't happen until the M-4 but I thought it changed during Vietnam. I'm no historian so I could be wrong, plus I was in the Navy so I never saw one.

Try 10 years after Vietnam with the fielding of the M16A2.

 

[wgp]

Although the book The Rifle is primarily about the AK47, there's plenty about the origins and history of the M16 as well. Worth reading.

 

[lemaymiami]

Over the years, histories get embellished, mis-information gets to be taken for granted... at least that's my take on it. Thanks for this info to set the record straight...

In my case my first qualification, in the winter of 1968 was with the M-14 at Ft. Benning basic training. A year or more later, stationed stateside, we were required to qualify with the M-16... For this young soldier, the experience was night and day easier with the 16... I was never in combat over in Vietnam so I can't comment on how it worked in real life...

 

[lysanderxiii]

There is a lot of wrong information in that article. So much I can't list it all right now.

 

[tark]

There is a lot of wrong information in that article. So much I can't list it all right now.

I wondered when you would chip in. I'm betting you start off with the myth that the switching from extruded powder to ball caused the Jamming problems.

 

[lysanderxiii]

That was one of the first things that jumped out.

There are others. Many, many others.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Let's start this off with one of the most obvious error: AR does not mean Armalite Rifle. It means simply ARmalite (design #). The AR-13 was a 20mm cannon, and the AR-17 was a shotgun.

- The AR-7 is only tangentially related to the AR-5 Survival Rifle. The AR-5 was a bolt action rifle in .22 Hornet, the AR-7 is a semiautomatic in .22 LR.

- 1955 was not the year the Army started to look for a replacement for the M1, that was the year they almost picked the T48 as the replacement for the M1 (and M1918, and M3, and M1 Carbine). The year the Army started to look for a replacement for the M1 Garand was 1944. First, with just a 20 round magazine stuffed into a Garand, and later with the completely new T25, this was the Lightweight Rifle Program (LWR).

- The AR-10 was never a contender for the LWR. The first test of the AR-10 by the Army took place at Springfield Armory in Dec 1956-Jan 1957. The final testing of the LWR was in Dec 1956 - Jan 1957 in Alaska. The report on the testing of the AR-10 was published in Feb 1957. The winner of the LWR Program was announced in March 1957.

- The AR-10 and AR-15 ARE NOT DIRECT IMPINGMENT! Read the patent.

EDIT: Oh, and the barrel burst of the AR-10 did not cast an unfavorable light on the AR-10 as some say. Springfield Armory viewed it for what the barrel split was: a failure of an idea they all knew would probably fail (they had expressed doubts when they first saw it in the AR-1). The report saw the AR-10 for what it was in 1956, a design that was generally pretty good, but in need of a lot of development. And, the Dutch would develop it through three or more versions.

- Bigger = Better. NO! In 1952 the Army started the Small Caliber High Velocity (SCHV) Cartridge Program to investigate the viability of, well, small caliber, high velocity bullets. All of the reports on the subject were favorable.

- Twenty round magazine was not a big deal, in fact it was the minimum acceptable. The T20, T22, T25, . . . through the T48 all used a twenty round magazine.

- Early reports from Vietnam in 1960 through 1962 were highly exaggerated. Decapitations, limbs severed from bodies, torsos being ripped apart, and all by single shot, buzz-saw bullet effects. How anyone took these reports seriously, I’ll never know.

- Colt never stated the M16 was “self-cleaning”, if I am mistaken, please show me Colt literature that states this. The first Colt published manual for the M16 (for the USAF) gives very detailed instructions on how to clean the rifle and how important it is to keep it clean in the field. (Just like every manual, BTW)

- Cleaning kits were not issued because cleaning kits were not procured in a timely fashion. This was a procurement bungle. The Army in 1962 was developing a cleaning kit.

- The Chrome plated bore myth. In 1956, when news of the M16’s existence began known to the Army, (yes, actually before they got a hold of an AR-10), the Army began to investigate the problems associated with chromium plating small diameter, deep holes. Issuing a report on how it could be accomplished and how important it would be. Chromium plating a small, deep hole was not a trivial issue, remember, they were having quality issues with chromium plated .30 caliber bores with the M14. Also, there was resistance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to make changes to the M16 design, as they (incorrectly) thought it was a “fully developed design.

 

[lysanderxiii]

- Powder fouling inside the M16 is an inherent issue due to the design, it cannot be avoided. If it were a “severe issue”, it would still be a “severe issue”. It was and still is an issue, but it was never a severe one, provided you followed the instructions in the manual.

- The forward assist was requested by the field. The ability to manual close the bolt was a requirement by Continental Army Command (CONARC). CONARC was the official promulgator for weapon requirements. This requirement had been around since the 1920s.

- The Ichord Committee, this was an after-the-fact political finger pointing exercise. By the time of the hearings in 1967, about 90% of the problems with the M16 had been addressed, and all of the major issues resolved.

- The BIG myth, IMR 4475. IMR 4475 was incapable of meeting the ballistic and pressure requirements in the .223/5.56mm case, period. So much so that NONE of the ammunition manufacturers tendered bids on large scale production in 1962. The energy density of IMR 4475 is to small. The only available propellant at the time with the required energy density was WC 846. So, pick one - WC846, or no ammunition

- Olin had a “special relationship”. NO. Ball propellants are particularly well suited to military requirements for a number of reasons, none of which are due to a “special relationship.” 1) They do not erode bore anywhere near as fast as IMR or Hercules propellants, 2) Almost all of the processing is done in a water slurry, so they are much safer to produce, 3) They can use reclaimed nitrocellulose, so they are cheaper, and 4) they have a very high energy density, so they are particularly efficient propellants.

- WC 846 does not reach peak pressure sooner than IMR 4475. It actually peaks much later than IMR 4475, it is a SLOWER propellant. This is the reason it can achieve a higher velocity at a lower chamber pressure than IMR 4475. This is also the reason the port pressure is higher.

- Ball powder causes the bolt to open earlier and caused problems. NO. The cyclic rate is higher, which is the result of increased bolt velocity. The dwell time (time from primer ignition to bolt unlocking) is largely the same for the two propellants. The higher port pressure leads to higher piston pressures which lead to higher accelerations, which lead to higher velocities. Speed is what causes problems.

The solution to the problem of high cyclic rate was the new buffer, which was required because the first buffer design had some major problems. One, the spring was a cone-and-washer spring design that had a tendency to accumulate dirt and grime and become a solid mass. This solid mass of aluminum and steel would bounce off the back of the receiver extension and retain energy, as well as bounce off the barrel extension and cause mis-fires in full automatic fire. The new buffer (the one we have today) was not only heavier and reduced the initial bolt velocity, it reduced bounce at both ends of the carrier stroke. Even if the propellant had not caused higher bolt velocities, they would have needed a new buffer.

- Stuck cases. I have been over this many times. Increased cyclic rate do not always equal stuck cases. You can run an M16 at 1200 RPM and not get stuck cases, the M231 proves this. A soft case will stick every time. It was not until 1967 that the hardness gradient of the cartridge case was specified. Up till then, manufacturers used current best practices, and these were largely based on ammunition for bolt action rifles (How many pre-1970 semiautomatics are there in .222 Remington?) And, bolt actions are much more tolerant of case hardness.

 

[lysanderxiii]

- M16A1 did not come out 4 years after the M16. It came out at the exact same time. The first contract with Colt was for 20,010 M16s and 84,250 M16A1s.

- BALL PROWDER WAS NEVER REPLACED! WC 846 after 1968 was manufactured in two variations, WC 846 (tailored for 7.62mm) and WC 846 (tailored for 5.56mm), the difference being the allowed percent calcium carbonate, 5.56mm preferring less. Later, the 5.56mm variation was relabeled as WC844 and was the primary propellant for ALL 5.56mm until the M855A1 was introduced. M855A1 still uses a ball propellant, but its formulation has decoppering agents.

- The XM177E1 and XM177E2 were not SOG only weapons. They were trialed by a wide variety of units and MOSs. It was universally liked, and many of those that used it recommended that it be universally issued. Unfortunately, it never passed arctic reliability testing, before the war wound down and the funding dried up.

The M16A2 – This version did absolutely nothing to increase the reliability of the M16 series. In fact, it only introduced three changes that effected the combat effectiveness of the weapon, 1) the compensator, 2) the brass deflector, and 3) the improved handguards. Everything else was either cosmetic or just improve the rifle as a target rifle (or a step backward, depending on how you view the 3 round burst feature.)

The M16A2 “heavy barrel”, the stupidest thing I ever saw. The M16A1 barrel is only 0.025” smaller in diameter than an M14 barrel beyond the front sight, and the hole in the steel bar is smaller, so actually it is not much weaker. Nobody b!tched about bending an M14 barrel. The Army was against changing the barrel profile due to a) fitment of the M203, and b) weight. But, to paraphrase an Army representative, “we understand the M16 has a perception problem,” ie, troops perceive the barrel to be weak. So, they made the visible portion of the barrel thicker.

- Again, the XM177E2 was never just a SF weapons, but an intended replacement for the M3 Submachine Gun, yes, they were still around, and would be until replaced by the M4.

- The M4 Carbine. When the idea of the M4 was first tabled, the Army ask for, “1) Maximum commonality with the M16, 2) minimum cost of development, and 3) reliability equal to, or greater than the M16.” Colt responded with, “You only get to pick two from your list.”

The Army went for #2 and #3, fortunately for the Army, most of the changes would be backwards compatible with the M16 series, so they actually did get what they asked for. Amusingly though, the M16 would become increasingly irrelevant and the commonality of little value.

- Ergonomics. Apparently the author hasn’t dealt with many weapons from the period of the M16, most all of them have the bolt release on the left side. And, those that don’t are optimized for a right hand magazine change.

I suggest reading “The Black Rifle, M16 Retrospective,” by R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell, Collector Grade Publications. The facts are there, but read the commentary with a grain of salt, the authors are a little biased against the US Army Ordnance Department