Joe Demko
Member
That sounds familiar too.
M-4's Jamming in the 'Stan
- Thread starter rc135
- Start date
- Status
That sounds familiar too.
I would hate to have to sit all day cooling my heels while waiting for some weapon to cool down before shooting the next 20 rounds. You could refurbish the next lot of weapons before completing the test on the first lot specimen.
Those sort of tests are only conducted once, in design verfication tests. Environmental and Operational Tests are hideously expensive. I do not think they were conducted on the M16 rifle, when it was shoved down the throat of the US Army. That weapon was sold, via Vugraph Technology, as a "fully developed" weapon.
Once Developmental and Operational Testing are done, the tests that follow are a lot cheaper and finished faster. Not to say that any test is actually "cheap", when you find out even what "cheap" tests cost, it is a lot more money than an individual could afford.
HorseSoldier
Member
Testing on AR-15s began in 1957 or '58, and it was generally very well received by the Infantry Board and Combat Development Experimentation Center, both of which were testing and reporting on the AR before Curtis LeMay's famous watermelon killing session. The AR was well received by Special Forces soldiers and the ARVN troops they advised/led during combat trials as well.
I think it is fair to say that the issue was not the maturity of the AR-15 design itself once the army and marines began adopting them so much as the notorious issue with changing propellant when 5.56mm ammo went into production and the less often discussed issue of quality control with early Colt production. (To be fair, I don't think any Colt rifles exploded in soldier's faces, as early production M14s did on a number of occasions, though I doubt that was much comfort to anyone in theater in SE Asia who got handed a rifle that did not run well.)
As for the throat-forcing angle -- US Army enthusiasm for the M14 was certainly not universal leading up to its adoption, and a . One could just as well say the M14 was forced down the Army's throat by a corrupt Springfield Armory and other military bureaucratic institutions that decided their rifle and their cartridge were the right answer and then liberally rigged tests, falsified data, lied under oath, and did whatever else they had to do to ensure the M14 was adopted. The Small Caliber/High Velocity concept had a number of fans in uniform besides the usual image of Robert McNamara and the Whiz Kids making decisions.
Roswell 1847
member
Except in the case of the Garand it was the simple true fact. Apparently Western Europe in the dead of winter didn't pose the same temperature extremes.
The Germans had the same problem with their automatic weapons.
German Machinegunners on the Eastern Front would be over run or forced to abandon their frozen guns and later Soviets carrying bean sprayers filled with ultra low temperature lube could be observed squirting the guns a bit then turning them against their former owners.
PS
Only thing of this sort I've heard of was the "Pipe Stock" metal used in a few flashiders shattering.
The center of each ingot is set aside as "pipe Stock" not to be used in anything which is under repeated shock or stress.
Jeremy2171
Member
Don't forget about the M1s bolt freezing up in the rain when the grease was washed off of it....
Chieftan....I appreciate your service in Vietnam...
However I'm here now and don't have the issues you had in that era....
There aren't any warriors here losing thier lives because thier weapon wouldn't work because of some design flaw. The weapons are working fine over here with no complaints....
Every stoppage I've found/repaired was directly atributed to a specific item..such as weak extractor spring, damaged magazine lips etc. NOT because of dirt or powder fouling...
There is no way NO how your weapon is going to fail you (from dirt/grime) if you brush it off just once in a 24hr period. If you get into trouble and start firing you can bet it will still be firing at the end of the engagement.
If you haven't learned by now to keep your weapon functional then you deserve the AK round to the face....I have no pity on someone who is too "lazy" to take a brush, pull the bolt carrier out and scrub it down, then scrub the locking lugs in the chamber and reassemble it. Thats it...2 minutes..TOPS! AS I've stated already my M4 has NOT been cleaned in several thousand rounds...it is dry to the bone and my stoppages are "zero", there is almost no powder fouling as it has no oil to stick to.
There are no Marines dying over here with jammed M16s and cleaning rods taped to the barrel.... just haji's from well aimed 5.56.
Oh yeah..I've seen MORE Aks fail over here than M16! You know why??? Because the ones that did are junk and out of spec and have worn parts and were using crappy Iraqi made ammo..... oops that right...the AK is the wonder weapon and NEVER can fail....
Believe you me...when I see something over here that is getting my friends killed I WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.....but since the M16s are NOT the problem I won't complain...
Heck we've had more deaths due to excessive speeding in Hum-vees than combat.....better start complaining to AM General.......... Oh wait its not thier fault...they can blame "operator error" and get away with it.....
Chieftan....I appreciate your service in Vietnam...
However I'm here now and don't have the issues you had in that era....
There aren't any warriors here losing thier lives because thier weapon wouldn't work because of some design flaw. The weapons are working fine over here with no complaints....
Every stoppage I've found/repaired was directly atributed to a specific item..such as weak extractor spring, damaged magazine lips etc. NOT because of dirt or powder fouling...
There is no way NO how your weapon is going to fail you (from dirt/grime) if you brush it off just once in a 24hr period. If you get into trouble and start firing you can bet it will still be firing at the end of the engagement.
If you haven't learned by now to keep your weapon functional then you deserve the AK round to the face....I have no pity on someone who is too "lazy" to take a brush, pull the bolt carrier out and scrub it down, then scrub the locking lugs in the chamber and reassemble it. Thats it...2 minutes..TOPS! AS I've stated already my M4 has NOT been cleaned in several thousand rounds...it is dry to the bone and my stoppages are "zero", there is almost no powder fouling as it has no oil to stick to.
There are no Marines dying over here with jammed M16s and cleaning rods taped to the barrel.... just haji's from well aimed 5.56.
Oh yeah..I've seen MORE Aks fail over here than M16! You know why??? Because the ones that did are junk and out of spec and have worn parts and were using crappy Iraqi made ammo..... oops that right...the AK is the wonder weapon and NEVER can fail....
Believe you me...when I see something over here that is getting my friends killed I WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.....but since the M16s are NOT the problem I won't complain...
Heck we've had more deaths due to excessive speeding in Hum-vees than combat.....better start complaining to AM General.......... Oh wait its not thier fault...they can blame "operator error" and get away with it.....
stevereno1
Member
Hate 'em or love 'em, the m-16 and it's varients, have KILLED DEAD!, a LOT of V.C., and islamic militants! Our soldiers are the cream of the crop, and if armed with SKS's, we'd prevail because of our training. Those would be the cleanest SKS's on the planet! Our military instills gun cleaning to be an instinctive part of each day. As is Marksmanship, and leadership.
God Loves the U.S. Military, and the Military Loves him!
God Loves the U.S. Military, and the Military Loves him!
Ah the familiar old allegation that Springfield Armory workers were a bunch of crooks and rigged all the tests. Whenever it comes to discussing the adoption of the M14 this allegation eventually gets thrown out there without the least bit of documented first hand information.
Other than some bitter FAL or AR fan that wrote a book claiming that all this happened, where has this ever been proven? I mean proven by someone that was at Springfield Armory at the time who oversaw the program, or someone who participated in, or actually saw sabotage or skewing of tests? If this actually happened, lets see some proof that would support this allegation, not just a bunch of third hand rumor and innuendo that gets repeated often enough on the internet that many people just assume it is a verifiable fact.
I have no ax to grind here. I have multiple examples of all three weapons, M14, FAL, and M4. My M4s run just fine. In fact they all work with a bare minimum of maintenance.
C-grunt
Member
Chieftan...I will say that no one in my unit ever died because their rifle failed. Heck, no one in my unit died of gunshot wounds either. Shrapnel is a different story.
Also on a side note...I never had a problem penetrating cover with a 5.56. I know a couple guys who would agree with me.
Also on a side note...I never had a problem penetrating cover with a 5.56. I know a couple guys who would agree with me.
HorseSoldier
Member
There were a number of documented cases of M14 receivers failing catastrophically during training at Fort Benning and other posts early in the adoption of M14. I believe the problem was traced to H&R or Winchester (can't recall which) using incorrectly spec'ed steel in a run of receivers and was an issue in ultimately bringing TRW onboard as a manufacturer. It's described in some detail in Edward C. Ezell's The Great Rifle Controversy.
Workers? No. Management? Yes.
As for rigging all the tests -- obviously not, since lots of tests indicated the M14 was the inferior option between it and the FAL or AR.
I believe there is an actual paper trail showing Springfield rigged that arctic tests between the T44/M14 and T48/FAL. Ezell's book outlines it, and that came out of his PhD research, with the assumption he was held to a higher standard of fact checking and documenting than most of the books aimed at a more general readership on the topic. Certainly there is something curious about how the T44 managed to come from behind and beat out the FAL after a truly inauspicious start.
How directly they were involved in meddling with some of the more dubiously objective tests between the M14 and AR-15 is a matter of more conjecture . . . but, really, it's consistent with the politicking and close mindedness SA leadership/management generally displayed in the 1950s. I don't think Gene Stoner was ever accused of being prone to lying and falsification and so his claims that AR-15s (again during arctic testing) he observed after testing began were being sabotaged would seem to carry some weight. The testing criteria SA and M14 proponents tried to employ after the AR-15 kept out performing the M14 in objective tests again should, at least, raise eyebrows.
Maybe nothing untoward was done, though conduct was sufficiently questionable that there was at least one official inquiry. Springfield Armory certainly managed to create an appearance of impropriety and dishonesty -- which contributed directly to McNamara axing them, whether they actually did anything wrong or not.
@Slamfire1
I'm, sorry.....
First you say that after batch rebuilding a test rifle is regularly taken off for an extended.
Once I question the validity of this, then you then say,
Those sort of tests are only conducted once, in design verfication tests
One or the other not both.
Either you bud at Anniston is fibbing or is running a skewed test of functionality OR these tests are run once as part of Design Verification and are not done again as part of a rebuild batch.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm, sorry.....
First you say that after batch rebuilding a test rifle is regularly taken off for an extended.
Once I question the validity of this, then you then say,
Those sort of tests are only conducted once, in design verfication tests
One or the other not both.
Either you bud at Anniston is fibbing or is running a skewed test of functionality OR these tests are run once as part of Design Verification and are not done again as part of a rebuild batch.
You can't have it both ways.
Ok, so exactly who is it that carries out the rigging of the tests when management allegedly tells them to do so? Yep, it's the employees of Springfield Armory. I've yet to hear of one of them stepping forward after all these years and saying that the tests were rigged.
I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion since the final 1956 trials conducted between the completed prototypes of the M14 and FAL clearly show the M14 as the winner. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter since both rifles were deemed satisfactory.
The FAL lost in every single category, but I guess none of this matters since everything was rigged.
Average number of broken/damaged parts replaced in firing 6000 rounds from a single rifle:
M14 2 parts
FAL 6 parts
Average number of malfunctions per 100 rounds with the rifle held normally:
M14 .03%
FAL .17%
Combat reliability test percentage of malfunctions:
M14 4.9%
FAL 5.3%
Average score in firing qualification course B (six shooter)
M14 166-4V
FAL 141-3V
M1 178-5V
This gets parroted quite frequently on the errornet about the supposed rigging of the Arctic testing. Once again, other than an accusation in a book written by a FAL fan boy, I've never seen any evidence in terms of either eye witness reports or statements from those involved in the testing. If there is a paper trail that documents improprieties at Springfield Armory, then I'd like to see it. Then I'll shut the hell up.
There had to be hundreds if not thousands of people at Springfield Armory involved with the M14 program. These people have all been retired for years, and have nothing to fear by coming forward. Yet I've never heard of a single case of a former Springfield Armory worker talking about how the tests were rigged.
I hear my neighbor is a real slut. However, I've never seen her with any men, but I guess because everyone in our neighborhood says it's true it must be.
Goebbels would be proud to hear that his theory stood the test of time regarding repeating a lie or innuendo often enough eventually making it "true" among the masses.
Anyway, this thread is about the M4, so we are getting off track.
Geronimo45
Member
And:
I'm guessing that you're saying that you do wipe down the bolt carrier... but you don't consider that cleaning, per se? I think other people here are talking about a complete lack of any cleaning of any part.
C-grunt
Member
^^^He stated earlier he has two rifles. One is for combat, and one he is testing for reliability. I think hes talking about the test rifle not being cleaned.
chieftain
Member
Several of the SNCO’s I served under had fought at Iwo. Not one of them ever complained of their rifles jamming. If their weapons got dirty enough they would jam, but that has been true of all weapons. But it was not an issue.
The only person I personally knew who fought in North Africa was my Uncle. He was Afrika Corps and had been captured by the British. The Germans had problems with their Armor, but not their personal weapons in the desert, of course their primary service rifle was the Mauser K98. My Uncle was an officer, and didn’t carry a rifle. So past that it was never brought up.
I have never read or heard any complaint about US small arms in the north African desert. I guess you have first hand knowledge, or solid research documenting the small arms problem in north Africa?
Cold weather performance in most small arms is not about lubrication. Lube can be an issue but unusually isn’t. It’s rather simple. When the weapon is used it of course heats up. When it cools down condensation is created. The moisture freezes. Then it is a matter of design on the ease of getting the weapon back in action. Most M1 Garands, BAR’s, and most Machine guns, had powerful enough cartridges that they could literally “blow” open the action with enough energy. The M1 carbine which has ‘better’ energy numbers than the M4, could not. But it’s design was open hence easy to piss on if no hot water/coffee was available. In the extremis this could be done for other weapons if they should really need it too.
The FAL “myth” was so real to the British that they modified everyone of their FAL’s with ‘sand slots’ to the bolt, so they would be reliable in the deser, why? Because as originally designed the FAL was not reliable in the desert. The Israeli’s created and manufactured the Galil (well manufactured AK 47 design) to over come their FAL’s unreliability in the desert. Both nations solved what you call a myth by expending money and time to fix your idea of a non-problem. Curious.
Of course the change of powder was a major issue. I guess you didn’t bother reading the two articles above by Col Culver. He lays out most of the issues, that went beyond just the powder but to both design, and manufacturing problems of the rifle. Whether you believe it or not these things really happened to troops in the field.
The M14 receivers that were improperly heat treated and blew, were very small in number, read that very rare. Never a problem on the line, in combat. It was never a consideration.
I can tell you many of the troops originally didn’t want to have a weak service rifle cartridge. That’s how some of them visualized the M14’s NATO 7.62 as compared to US 30 Caliber.
I know of no major scandal at the Armory at Springfield. Because the FAL and M14 trials ended so close, the edge the M14 had was of being designed from scratch for the NATO 7.62 and the belief that the M14 was similar to the M1 Garand that we could knock them out easily. They were wrong about the ease of manufacturing the M14. The FAL of course had to be redesigned to handle the much more powerful NATO round from the original cartridge it was designed for.
No tests were rigged, no Data falsified, and no one Lied under oath. The Army preferred the M14 because the troops were ready familiar with the the operating system via the Garand. Very much like the move from the M16 to the M4. Of course moving from a long piston to a short piston system, and the magazine did not bring many of the negatives that the Garand had. The only down side was the M14 JUST LIKE THE FAL, did not make a great automatic rifle. Because of the power of the NATO 7.62 cartridge.
Of course they mouse caliber had fans. Not many of those fans had to carry a rifle into combat.
Then what happened to the Jessica Lynch convoy and the other folks that complaining about their rifles failing?
Now you are confusing me. The last paragraph you state the exact opposite. Do you clean it or don’t you? In my era, we carried tooth brushes in our Utility chest pockets, not for our teeth, but for our rifles.
I guess I DESERVED the AK round I got in the side? Because I had an M14 that was kept scrupulously clean? I ain’t buying any of that Kool Aide.
None of our troops DESERVE to be shot. Not in My world, maybe in yours, I hope not.
That is great news. No one’s rifles are jamming. None. Great. Who are those folks that are answering DoD surveys and complaining about their rifles failing?
That is a good thing. I should hope all their rifles fail. Better theirs than ours.
Good for you, we were ordered, ORDERED! Not to complain about the M16, when it was failing us in combat. That came down from the Commandant, Wallace Green. That is one reason I refer folks to the articles by Col Culver. His friend sent a letter to Congress that he could have been Court Martialed for. He discusses the fall out from that letter.
I am glad none of your troops have died related to a fire fight and their rifle failing. I agree shrapnel takes out a lot more guys than small arms fire as a rule.
BUT
I guess you haven’t seen the intensity of small arms fire fights that we did. Haven’t had the pleasure of being overrun. I hope you and your unit never does. I don’t wish it on any American or Allied troops. It is an experience you can live without.
It may sound like I am angry or knocking your unit for not having had high intensity small arms firefight, I am not. You guys, are as often stated fighting a different war. For that I am glad for you. It seems in Afghanistan it is a different story. A lot more small arms used in battle. I don’t know that , just on the reports I have available to me.
One major difference seems to be that you guys normally outnumber the bad guys, when you do meet. That is much better than in my day. The NVA normally outnumbered us. Otherwise they would try very hard to avoid us. It wasn’t unusual for there to be several hundreds to a thousand trained regular troops on the bad guys side. Probably why we took the number of casualties we did.
In Hue, I saw a company of 5thMarines, I no longer remember which one, down to 13 guys. They were overwhelmingly taken out by small arms. And we were not allowed to use most of supporting weapons for about a week and a half at one point not even mortars were allowed. When it was just us and our small arms against them and their small arms, compounded by the fact they out numbered us by about 5 to one, they were hurting us badly. Hue was a tough nut.
Well I hope things continue to go well for your unit. But, if you haven’t been in that High intensity small arms firefight I am talking about, you may never test your rifles to the level we had to. That may be the difference. I don’t know. Maybe the difference in Afghanistan too. I do hope you unit takes no more casualties at all.
I agree that our troops would win with almost any small arm. The issue is to give them one that will minimize the number of casualties that our troops take in those small arms firefights. This is a case where we can “buy” a fix. That is one worth buying.
Wow, that sure answered a lot.
Good luck stay as safe as you can.
Fred
Joe Demko
Member
Here are a couple cites.
See pages 16 - 25 of this manual. Pay special attention to table II.
Here is an article from 1941 describing how the Garand failed a number of tests where sand caused it real problems.
You can also get yourself a copy of "Ordnance Went Up Front" by Roy F. Dunlap for some good descriptions of problems encountered by Garand users during WWII.
See pages 16 - 25 of this manual. Pay special attention to table II.
Here is an article from 1941 describing how the Garand failed a number of tests where sand caused it real problems.
You can also get yourself a copy of "Ordnance Went Up Front" by Roy F. Dunlap for some good descriptions of problems encountered by Garand users during WWII.
Hey guy, you are the one proposing a DT test, not me.
Hey guy, you can question the validity of testing all you want. And if you want more validity, you are free to buy your own equipment and go test the stuff yourself. You can toss in the small grit and lube, snow and rain and even vibrate the thing if you want.
Then tell us how it went.
HorseSoldier
Member
Again, you can dismiss anything inconvenient about the M14's history as "fanboys" of some other rifle, but Ezell's book began as a PhD dissertation (and he hardly seems like an FAL fanboy in the book, unless being critical of the procurement fiasco the M14 represented -- years and years and millions of dollars to adopt a rifle that basically existed in prototype, and obsolescent, form in 1945). Falsifying sources or lying when your work is subject to academic review is different than deciding you're going to write an axe-grinding slam on the M14, M16, FAL, AK, or whatever else. I don't know of anyone else who's running around claiming the man lied in his basically authoritative account of US military rifle procurement fumbling in the 50s and 60s.
It's more accurate to say that investigators were unable to prove perjury or other criminal conduct, though they did not push the issue very hard in the cases of some officers under investigation.
The SF soldiers who trialled them under combat conditions in SE Asian with the ARVN loved them. Their high levels of enthusiasm for the weapon are partly why it was adopted at all.
How to explain a unit where every organic weapon system they had available failed to function in combat? Sounds to me like NCOs failing to supervise their troops in the performance of basic soldier skills like weapons PMCS.
Every survey they've done have indicated very high levels of satisfaction with the M16 and M4. The guys currently in uniform who post on sites like this one tend to reflect the same sentiment -- stuff we've got now works, and doesn't need major maintenance, "constant cleaning" or the like. Mileage, unfortunately, varied back in the mid-60s, and I'm entirely sympathetic for guys like you who got handed inadequate and flawed kit, but what we have now runs well with little fuss, unlike back then.
Gunnerpalace
Member
Debunking time!
First, if we have rigged weapon's test the US military would be using the M8 right now.
Second, if we want an answer how about this someone with an AR-15 and an AK clone go out pour sand in it rack the bolt and fire then post on youtube.
And lastly the problem with the M16/M4 is the principle to which 5.56 ammo is based, "wound one guy so two others have to help him" the current insurgents we are dealing with could care less about a wounded buddy and would just keep fighting.
First, if we have rigged weapon's test the US military would be using the M8 right now.
Second, if we want an answer how about this someone with an AR-15 and an AK clone go out pour sand in it rack the bolt and fire then post on youtube.
And lastly the problem with the M16/M4 is the principle to which 5.56 ammo is based, "wound one guy so two others have to help him" the current insurgents we are dealing with could care less about a wounded buddy and would just keep fighting.
All I saw of Stoner and the arctic tests was some twenty second segment on history channel. His rifle was not performing properly, he goes up to the Arctic test sight, and makes some statement about the front sight had the factory pins removed and substitute pins installed. And installed incorrectly, something like that.
I never heard anything from the test people. Maybe the factory pins sheared, maybe fell out, maybe the proper factory pins were never there. Who knows.
What I will tell you Contractors always blame the Government for the failure of their poorly built, poorly designed, rotten equipment. The Contractor is never responsible, never admits to any wrong doing, always finds someone else at fault. The corporation is a psychopath.
As an example in an competitive antitank weapon system test, the Government Xrayed each and every shoulder held anti tank, just to make sure. Contractor A had “certified” that everything had been inspected, all was perfect, no need to check. All the QA sheets provided, reassurances from Contractor’s A Program Manager. One of the antitank weapons had zero propellant in the tube. What did Contractor A say, well since their guys had certified that each and every launcher was good, it must have been the Government………
Another true story. Contractor ships 6 million dollars of advanced computers Fed Ex. These computers are about the size of refrigerators weighed 600 lbs. They shipped directly to the Government software test facility where the computers were going to be used in hardware in the loop testing. They shipped Fed Ex because it was cheap, and the packaging job was cheap too. Like thin cardboard boxes. Well six million dollars of computers arrived busted all to pieces. You get what you paid for in shipping companies. So what did the Contractor claim, they claimed the Government workers at that facility received these computer in good shape, and then at the shipping dock, used fork lifts, hammers, to drop and bash their computers around.
You see they were not responsible for picking an irresponsible shipper and inadequate packing, no, the Government sabotaged their equipment!
Never take at face value any contractor story, you have to get the story from the other guy, to get the total picture.
And what I heard from Stoner was the typical “my product was perfect and the Government purposely broke it.” Well, I would like to hear from the testers before I take that as the Gospel.
And if you notice, the Government is no longer in the design of small arms. It is all contracted out, most often in competitive procurements. Now the Contractors have to bash each other's designs, and now it is a fair fight.
That wasn't in the design concept for the 5.56; that "philosphy" came afterwards. The 5.56 was designed to meet the same requirements as the 7.92 Kurz, 7.62 x 39mm, 7.62 X 45mm, etc: to produce a round that when compared to the battle rifle catridge, was lighter, more controllable in rapid/fully automatic fire, provided higher capacity, and was optimized for the close quarter nature of the modern (i.e. anything post Civil/Crimean/First World War) battlefield.
Kind of like when Colt was blamed for problems in the AR and Colt blamed the ammo? The culprit there was a government decision to change the ammuntion the system was designed for so that 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammunition would have the same powder.
Contractors aren't perfect but they aren't always lying.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
Whatever dude. that's why the DOD is paying $2000 less for each M240 than they were 20 years ago.
an M16A4 is under $400. doesn't sound like maximum cash flow to me.
chieftain
Member
Your first one doesn't come up, and the second one says nothing about service failures. Just test failures compared to the '03. I could have stated that any Mauser type bolt action will be more reliable than any semi or full auto rifle in existence. That, at this time is an absolute. Nothing proved then or now.
As the period involved, World War II, if the Garand had been subject to the failures you wish to impugn on it. We would have heard of them. That would have been called history.
There is no history of the Garand jamming in combat and becoming an issue with the troops. Not like the M16/M4.
It didn't happen.
Go figure.
Fred
HorseSoldier
Member
It's an urban myth that the M16/5.56mm ammunition was adopted with an intent to wound rather than kill. Evidence countering this myth is just about everywhere in the history of the 5.56mm round and M16, but, like the similarly bogus "you can't shoot people with .50 cal" myth, it persists.
Consider the following:
- Part of the reason 5.56mm was adopted was because of the very impressive lethality documented by ARVN troops and the SF advisors during combat trials in the early 60s.
- The decision to change rifling on early M16s from 1:14 to 1:12 was criticized because it would reduce lethality.
- The Belgians and other NATO nations hoped to reduce lethality with the switch to SS109 62 grain ammo. This suggests 55 grain ammo was not notable for low lethality or unimpressive wounds.
- Despite the logic that the goal was to burden the Warsaw Pact's logistics/medical system with wounded soldiers, we actually adopted the M16 to fight insurgents in Vietnam, and issue of the M16 to European forces was a low priority. If 5.56mm were custom designed for a conventional, defensive war, then this makes no real sense.
The goal, if anything, with the SCHV idea is to increase lethality by increasing probability of hitting the target at all and increasing the number of potential engagements troops could conduct with their basic load of ammo.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked