Dave DeLaurant
Member
I would disagree with your assessment of the M14/M16 situation.
My take would be that after killing any chance of adopting a intermediate class rifle cartridge and ramming the M14 through the selection process by any means, fair or foul, the end users in Viet-Nam weren't happy with the end result. They felt they were outgunned by the VC using AK47s capable of useful short range full auto fire while they were stuck with semi auto rifles that, while equipped with excellent target sights for slow fire at bullseyes at 600 yards, left them at a disadvantage. Since Colt had managed to bypass Army Ordnance by selling the M16s to the USAF to replace their M1 carbines, the M16 was in the system and they started getting sent to Viet-Nam as military assistance instead or the M1 rifles, carbines, and BARs that were going over previously.
Once in country, US troops started demanding the lightness, handiness, mild recoil, and full auto capabilities that the M16 offered.
Army Ordnance attempted to sabotage the larger adoption of the M16, and the rifle did not have the necessary development done before it was fielded as a replacement for the M14. US troops died as a result, but I would assign the blame to Army Ordnance and their Not Invented Here revulsion for anything that wasn't made of forged steel and wood, firing a full power rifle cartridge.
BSW
This may seem to be drifting away from the Johnson Rifle saga, but I think it is a branch of the same extended narrative.
I've found the early M16 story fascinating ever since reading Edward Ezell's "The Great Rifle Controversy" in college. One of the most accurate video summaries of the issues surrounding the M16's early problems can be viewed here:
This is a relatively long video and Chris Bartocci's narration style is far from polished, but he knows his stuff when it comes to this rifle platform. He authored one of the better books about the later versions of the M16:
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rifle-...qid=1561990466&rnid=2941120011&s=books&sr=1-3