Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by 38-45 Special, Apr 12, 2021.
Oh wait .... that was sarcasm, wasn't it? ..........
1) All bullets can and will take unusual paths once they enter the body. One of our guys shot himself in the chest with am M16A2 through his vest, the bullet passed through his heart, bounced off a back rib, exited his torso at the armpit, entered his upper arm, hit his humerus, slid down it, exited his elbow, and landed harmlessly on the lap of the person next to him in the truck. Another guy was hit in the forearm by an AK round at close range (about 20 feet), the bullet hit his ulna, slid up the bone and exited his elbow (it did crack the bone, but did not shatter it.) Bullets take the path of least resistance, sometimes that's in one side out the other, sometimes it meanders around a bit.
2) As to the cyclic rate of fire of the M16 . . .
To quote MIL-R-45587 - Military Specification - Rifles, 5.56mm: M16 and M16A1:
3.3.9 Functioning. Each rifle shall operate without malfunctions or unserviceable parts when tested as specified in 4.8.5. The cyclic rate of fire for a 20 round continuous burst shall be within 700 and 900 rounds per minute when firing standard M193, 5.56mm ball cartridges conforming to MIL-C-9963.
Correct me if I am wrong, but 750 rpm is in between 700 and 900 rpm, right?
The M16/M4 is the subject of much mis-information, myths, and downright lies. Despite the fact that the truth has been published right from the very beginning of the M16 program, people would rather believe the myths.
Ball powder was the problem - myth
No chrome bore was the problem - myth
Not putting chrome bores was just stupidity - myth
Stoner made it right, the Army screwed it up - myth
Tumbling bullets - myth
Bouncing off twigs - myth
Back atcha with:
If it was perfect from the get-go, why have there been continual upgrades and modifications since 1964?
Methinks Mr. McNamara and his bean counting buddies in the Pentagon believed some myths also, particularly:
"The M16 is not issued with a cleaning kit, because it does not need to be cleaned."
I can tell you from much experience that it will run wet for quite some time before it fails, but they do need to be adequately cleaned and maintained.
Wear and other factors, particularly by the time I was working on them (86-89) slowed them down a little bit. Just speaking from my personal experience, not MIL-R-45587.
Most of ours ran right about the same rate as the M60's which were rearsenaled, and spittin' 'em out at the reg. 550.
I've had autos that I bought new years ago and haven't had a malfunction since they came out of the box. Conversely, I have yet to own a revolver that hasn't jammed up, whether it's gumming up around the cylinder face, somehow getting a shell stuck under the ejector star (that's still a mystery to me) or even the S&W 586 that managed to get a round to jump crimp (also a mystery).
Indeed, that's someone that listened to the accountants, not the engineers.
There's a reason a lot of IT workers won't own things that must be wifi enabled and mechanics won't own a car without differential or transmission dipstick or fill holes. Things will go wrong and must be maintained.
Even though I seem to have some natural talent for it, I now know different.
Actually, the M16/M16A1 developed into a reliable weapon between 1963 and 1967. After 1969 there really were never any "reliability improvements". The M16A2 was more of a reputation enhancement than anything else, and that is how some engineers from Picatinny viewed it.
New rear sight - the old one worked, maybe it wasn't as user-friendly as it could have been, but it was adequate.
Square front sight post - makes it a better target rifle, but otherwise, nothing.
New barrel - does absolutely nothing.
Increased pull - makes it a better target rifle, but otherwise, nothing.
3-round burst - not really and improvement.
Brass deflector - Okay, this make shooting left handed easier on the face.
New handguards - Actually, the "new" handguards were designed back in 1967, the Army just couldn't justify buying new hanguards for something they just bought
Compensator - Useful
New grip - there was nothing wrong with the old one
So, out of nine major changes, only three of them corrected an actual short coming of the M16A1, and really could have been implemented as attritional improvements.
The M4 is a completely different animal, it needs to be quite different, so it needed a complete development cycle, which ran from 1990 to about 2004, the long duration was mostly due to the Army indecision on how much of a hit they were willing to take in reliability for the sake of commonality.
Then they changed the ammunition. which mean things had to be tweaked again.
I honestly do not think anyone actually believed that at the time the M16 was being fielded. The Army certainly did not. I think the main problem was the people in charge of the program at the SecDef level did not view rifles and cleaning kits as things that needed to be integrated and issued together. "Just use the existing cleaning supplies . . . sheess, do I have to think of everything?"
We had some pretty "well-used" M16A1 in basic, and none of them ran anywhere near the "chug!-chug!-chug!" of the M60, they were more akin to the faster M240s.
That is caused by trying to eject the cases up, or sideways, as opposed to ejecting them down.
The ejector stroke is slightly longer that the case, so you can eject loaded rounds. If you try and eject the cases upward the ejector star, which only touched about 80 degrees around the rim, looses control of the case and it falls down. Sometimes neatly in the chamber, which is a pain because the ejector is now on top of it.
If you want a speedy reload from a hand-ejector type revolver, point the muzzle up when ejecting.
Top-breaks don't have this problem because the the ejector has enough velocity get the cases to clear the cylinder, but for utmost reliability, break the weapon in the horizontal plane.
Don't waste our time with myths other people believe. Tell us which myths you used to believe.
You're a moderator?
I was just told that one today by a 58 year old Co worker.
I just said okay and when in our conversation.
No, that would be a 20 gauge slug.
Your wife sounds cool.
My wife goes about 120 or a lil less. I wish I could get her to shoot a 9mm efficiently. If I'm honest I'd like her to shoot more, but don't push it as much as I'd like to because I figure if she really wanted to, she would take me up on my invitations. Sometimes she will humor me, and she likes to shoot .22lr's, and she lies about liking to shoot other stuff, but it's so few and far between range trips for her that every time she shoots a centerfire, it may as well be the first. Maybe I'm not giving her enough credit, she can get on a paper plate at 15 ft, but not quickly or efficiently.
No, just guy who's more interested in what myths people used to believe and seeing how they've grown since. Another thread just rehashing "What old myths have you heard?" is dull boring and tedious.
From the first post-
Oh, I know how it happens under normal circumstances. And would be no surprise if it was on a .357 or with a proper full-length ejector. This one happened on my Taurus M85, which has an ejector length that isn't even as long as the .38 cartridge.
It somehow lost grip on a cartridge still partially supported by the chamber, with no extra force, which slipped under the star under nothing but gravity and its own weight, but then absolutely would not come out in any fashion short of bending the case. Like some sort of blackmith's puzzle.
How does a round "jump crimp???" Perhaps I should ask what is the "crimp" that was being jumped?
That story is not a myth.
Separate names with a comma.