- 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