Why I hate black stocked rifles

[9x56MS]

I joined the U S Army in January of 1975 and reported to basic training in August of 1975. We were issued the M-16 rifle which was at the time unaffectionately called the Mattel jam o matic. That POS couldn't discarge 4 rounds in a row without jamming. Even the Drill Seargants warned us against auto fire. The plastic stock was hard to grip let alone aim and fire. With this experience I viewed all rifles with a plastic stock with a Jaded eye. My unit I joined in Germany had just come from Viet Nam and to a man cursed the M-16 as a POS. When I won a Ruger American 30-06 rifle I first thought of selling it. I sighted it in and was shocked. The 1st 3 rounds went into 3/4". I still could not abide the black plastic stock. I took it and had it hydro dipped in a Burlwood pattern that it makes it at least visually acceptable. When I think of the stories I was told of the casualties taken due to jamming and failure to fire issues I cringe at every black synthetic stock I see. Just an old mans ranting at his governments ineptitude costing good mens lives I guess. Some lessons cost more than they are worth I guess.

 

[12Bravo20]

I was issued both the M16A1 and M16A2. I didn't have any issues with either while using both in combat.

 

[wiscoaster]

Maybe all polymer stocks should be decorated with a Burlwood pattern.

 

[Bruce D Pease]

Old school here…as in olllld Corps…. I absolutely loved my M1 ….. also the browning 1919a4… but the M1 never jammed. My go to rifle today … 60 hrs later…. Is my M1…. I just don’t find black rifles visually appealing at all.
If I’m offending anyone who loves the AR platform… sorry … just don’t like em

 

[jmr40]

I switched to synthetic in 1983 and haven't hunted with a wood stocked bolt rifle since. But I've never cared for black with black/blue metal. I've always liked a contrasting color. I do have a black McMillan stock on a rifle, but the rifle is SS so there is some contrast. My favorite color is green, but I've used gray and tan in the past.

The M16 had it's growing pains, but had we stayed with the M14 I can assure you we'd have filled a lot more body bags over the last 60 years. If the original rifles been built as designed, with the ammo designed for it they would have been good to go out the door. The problem was government penny pinchers cutting corners on specs. Once those issues were corrected the rifle has performed very well.

 

[Random 8]

I hate black stocks as well. I have no issues with the utility and function of synthetic stocks...those qualities are there without question. My objection is multi pronged, and partially specific to black stocks. That first. They get hot in the sun. Black is ugly and un-rifle-like. Black is about the worst color to hide in the field when dealing with game animals that don't necessarily see in color. I'd rather have non-glare red, grey, green or brown.

As for the other things I don't like about synthetic stocks, I could write a paragraph, but it really boils down to "they have no soul."

 

[Buzznrose]

I’m seriously wondering how some of y’all handle it when folks talk about your choice of clothing or footwear? LOL!



https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2016/02/03/pictures-great-looking-wooden-furniture-ars/

Does this meet your sense of style?

 

[entropy]

I was issued both the M16A1 and M16A2. I didn't have any issues with either while using both in combat.

We were in later, when all the M16A1's had been rebuilt by Anniston, and yes they were reliable, though not as accurate as the A2. 9x56MS had the misfortune to have served with very recent Vietnam vets, some of who may have been in when the initial issue of M16's had the problems mentioned. Heck, I still heard "you can tell it's Mattel" when I was in, there were quite a few NCO's that were 'Nam vets, but most were just telling stories from their youth, and knew the A1's we had were much improved over the initial M16's which,

"
The original M16 fared poorly in the jungles of Vietnam and was infamous for reliability problems in the harsh environment. As a result, it became the target of a Congressional investigation.[76] The investigation found that:

• The M16 was issued to troops without cleaning kits or instruction on how to clean the rifle.[12]
• The M16 and 5.56×45 mm cartridge was tested and approved with the use of a DuPont IMR8208M extruded powder, that was switched to Olin Mathieson WC846 ball powder which produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the action of the M16 (unless the gun was cleaned well and often).[12]
• The M16 lacked a forward assist (rendering the rifle inoperable when it failed to go fully forward).[12]
• The M16 lacked a chrome-plated chamber, which allowed corrosion problems and contributed to case extraction failures (which was considered the most severe problem and required extreme measures to clear, such as inserting the cleaning-rod down the barrel and knocking the spent cartridge out).[12]"

 

[cfullgraf]

I did not have much use for AR-15s until I shot a fellow’s match prepped Service Rifle AR-15. Accuracy and grouping was astounding.

I was sold on AR-15s. Good AR-15s are easy to build. Match capable rifles are easy to make by reputable builders. Good AR-15s can be built on a number of catridges, not just only 223 Rem/5.56.

I understand the M-16 went through some teething problems in part due to politics but the platform has endured for close to 60 years.

 

[marksman13]

Things have changed since Vietnam. I like rifles of all colors and stock materials, but I still find the AR-15 to be the most ergonomic rifle I’ve ever used.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

Walnut and steel has always worked for me.

 

[Ranger99]

Tht

These ^ ^ were black at first, and some
vandal with some shake shake paint
came along and covered them with
paint. I just left them as is

 

[Slamfire]

Something I think a real stinker, and was surfaced during the Ichord hearings, was the ball powder versus stick powder issue. The stick powder manufacturer was told to "qualify" his powder. At the time, the pressure specifications were higher than state of the art manufacturing processes could hold, so the powder manufacturer told the Army to go pound sand.


Mr. Ichord: I am sure Dr. Jackson has other business. I will explore this with you later, Colonel Yount. You were producing IMR-4475 up until what date, doctor, for military purposes?

r. Jackson: I think it was 1964. I can't remember exactly when in 1964.
IMR-4475 as far as I know was never submitted to the qualification test for the 5.56, that the CR powders and 8208 powders were submitted to. It was a powder purchased by the ammunition loader on commercial specification and submitted by him to the military as meeting the ammunition specification of the military. The powder was on a commercial purchase.

Mr. Ichord: I know the Army purchased a great many rounds of IMR.

Dr. Jackson: But the powder has not been submitted to the qualification test required if the powder is to be purchased by the military as such.

Mr. Ichord: You said you had difficulty meeting pressure limits in the specification. Was that because of producing it in larger quantities, or what was the reason for that?

Dr. Jackson: No, the powder was never designed to meet the pressure specification that was imposed on it by the Army specification. It would not have made any difference whether we were producing it in large or small quantity, we couldn't meet that pressure specification on a continuing basis.

http://bobcat.ws/rifle.shtml


Once DoD lost its powder manufacturer, it switched to M14 ball powder, which over accelerated the mechanism and caused lots of malfunctions.

The real stinker to me, the Ordnance Department reserved its stocks of stick powder ammunition and sent it to Colt for M16 acceptance testing. If the ball powder ammunition had been used by Colt , the increased malfunction rate due to the powder, would have increased the number of rifles being rejected, and that would have cost Colt profits. But, by sending the good ammunition to Colt, the Ordnance Department protected the profits of the Corporation.

However, they all knew the guys in combat were using the ball ammunition, having jams due to it, and good American boys were dying with jammed M16's in their hands.

So whose interests, does the Army Ordnance Corp really protect?

Ichord Hearing transcripts:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112109164266&view=1up&seq=5&skin=2021

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p00793094y&view=1up&seq=5&skin=2021

 

[Mk-211]

I like wood on some rifles, it was if the designers made the rifle to be built with wood furniture in mind.

Wood has it's drawbacks also and when troops get down in the dirt and do their thing, that wood gets tore up! Some so bad that the only way to fix it is to refinish or replace it. Nowadays that can be a seriously expensive thing.

Plastic and aluminum fair a little better, most of the time you can just wipe it off. Worst case scenario you might have to repaint it and that's pretty easy for most people.

The M16 is a great rifle, the issues that it started off with wasn't a fault of the rifle, it was politics as usual. Had it been supplied with the proper ammo, cleaning kits... I think most would be praising it as one of the best battle rifles ever produced!

If you can fit a cartridge in one of it's magazines, you can have any size caliber you want. The simple thing is that all you have to do for your new cartridge is replace the upper and bolt. They're basically as simple as Legos are to play with.

Is the AR my favorite rifle, No but do enjoy shooting mine. Black rifle disease is a real thing!

I've always liked both wood and black rifles, being bilingual in the firearm world is a good thing.

 

[Chuck R.]

Things have changed since Vietnam. I like rifles of all colors and stock materials, but I still find the AR-15 to be the most ergonomic rifle I’ve ever used.

This might well become my standard response to the "it was a POS and jammed when first issued in the 60s" type threads. In 26 years of service (23 active, 4 guard 78-05) I was issued M16A1s-M6A2s and M4s. Other than the crappy arms room magazines that:

Never received maintenance
Never had defective ones culled

I never really saw serious issues with the platform. Most issues were magazines and the whole "it's got to run dry in the sand" chit.

 

[DukeConnor]

Its all been down hill since the trapdoor.

 

[Tirod]

OP: you are noting some difficulties with the M16, but it wasn't Stoner who did any of that. The originals were grey anodizing and OD green stocks. It was after Armalite sold the rights to Colt, and COMMAND stuck their nose in that somebody said "make then black." Much the same level decision making that approved the blue ghost camo - and nobody has yet to reveal who signed that order.

Then the "whiz kids" in the WHITE HOUSE ordered a huge number of M16's to be built, and in the process two things happened - Colt outsourced barrels which were not completely vetted and which had underspec, small chambers. The ammo makers started using a recycled gunpower which in some lots contained excess filler. Not Colts fault. Then the old boys club insisted on a forward assist - which amounted to committee think dictating to subject matter experts how to do it wrong.

There was also an overreaction to how easy it was to clean the M16 compared to the M14, which caused exaggeration about how it didn't need any. And there were internal issues - Ordnance didn't order cleaning kits in a timely manner, which meant new rifles were issued with NONE. They dragged their feet because they were M14 fans - and THAT is how you kill soldiers in combat.

We were deep sixed by officers in SUPPLY, and not one of them has had to answer for it.

The commonly held attitude the M16 was a POS wasn't there when I started in, training with a Hydramatic - which never had issues - moving to an A1 - which never had issues - and then a brand new A2 - FN - because Colt quality had gone to hell and it took losing a contract to get them to pay attention. Never had issues.

Of course, since the M16 was a modern fielding of a new and strangely different rifle, nobody from the previous mass changeover was in service - when the Garand was malfunctioning like a mother and the hue and cry over it being a POS was in the papers. Lather rinse repeat when the M16 showed up, anti war and anti military news journalists jumped all over the situation to get as many copies of that headline sold. Now it's clicks, same problem - making money on bad news.

I can't argue about the choice of official color, and I don't own any black other than those horrid A2 grips. However, of somewhat recent note there is an authorization to spray paint those ugly stocks in the field and you'd have to be really pogue to have a black one incountry. And for all that, we are changing - we aren't wearing black shiny boots, or colorful embroidered patches or those silly neck scarves with glossy painted helmet liners anymore.

Who goes to war with WHITE name tags on their fatigues? Yet, we did. No question tho blame a new rifle. Well, there were a lot of responsible cooks in the kitchen, and no doubt their mismanagement contributed. Just like it did fielding the Garand in the late 30's. Its a shame when we let administrative appointees and quick turnover commanders dictate the conditions and equipment we use.

Which is exactly who we have in charge right now, and we are seeing Marines killed by the bakers dozen.

 

[FL-NC]

I came in in 1987, using the A1 in basic and my early years in the national guard. The old beat up A1's had problems, but if they were properly maintained (at the operator and depot level) they worked fine. Same with the A2 I later used. On active duty, I used the A2 and MK 727 carbine, and the M4 starting in '94. I loved the 727, and the M4 was even better with the rails and selection of better numerous mission ready items, which I used until 2010. The secret is good maintenance (as you should do for every piece of gear you rely on in combat) and proper lube (not in the way most people are trained to lube). As a contractor, I used a LWRC M6, which was very reliable, but not as accurate as the M4.

 

[trackskippy]

I came in in 1987, using the A1 in basic and my early years in the national guard. The old beat up A1's had problems, but if they were properly maintained (at the operator and depot level) they worked fine. Same with the A2 I later used. On active duty, I used the A2 and MK 727 carbine, and the M4 starting in '94. I loved the 727, and the M4 was even better with the rails and selection of better numerous mission ready items, which I used until 2010. The secret is good maintenance (as you should do for every piece of gear you rely on in combat) and proper lube (not in the way most people are trained to lube). As a contractor, I used a LWRC M6, which was very reliable, but not as accurate as the M4.

Stop, your injecting truth into "waaa waaa" party.

You would think that everything youve said would be common sense, but it seems there really isnt much of that going around these days.

Just look at how many people dont think you need to clean and maintain your guns.

 

[wiscoaster]

...Does this meet your sense of style?

Now that's what a decently-clothed rifle should be wearing!!

 

[kidneyboy]

That darn 21st century.........

 

[wiscoaster]

I suppose a few exceptions could be made ...

 

[12Bravo20]

Yes the original M16 had issues and most were caused by bureaucrats and the Ordinance Corp. And if you look at history, the Ordinance Corp has been fighting changes and new weapons since the Civil War if not before. There is nothing wrong with the M16A1, M16A2, or M4. Like any weapon system, they must be maintained correctly. And my experience is the same as others, when there was an issue, it was generally caused by crappy worn out magazines.

While the M16 family is not perfect, it must be doing something right. There have been many calls over the years to replace the M16/M4 and we are still using them. There were a lot of Vietnam vets still in the Army when I first enlisted and the ones that served earlier in the war complained about the original M16. Those that served later and used the M16A1 didn't have too many complaints. The A1 and A2 served me well while on two way ranges. But then again I also carried teh M60 without any issued either.

In the end, use what you like.

 

[Archie]

I have always thought the M16 was a fine rifle. For carrying on a twenty mile hike. In a situation where someone is attempting to kill one, not so much. Just for context, my first experience with the M16 rifle was in 1970 or so. (If not late 1969, some of the details are fuzzy.)

I have two complaints about the rifle, neither seem to be likely to be fixed. The issue round is too small. Yeah, it sounds great. It impressed some really ignorant folks as to power. But it isn't nearly as much a fighting round as a number of others. Witness the change in issue ammunition from a 56 grain bullet to a 62 grain bullet.
The other complaint is the grip. The pistol grip is very trendy, but is counter productive. It is slower to obtain than a straight or semi pistol grip.
But they are light, look futuristic and have a 'cool' factor.

 

[Buzznrose]

Now that's what a decently-clothed rifle should be wearing!!

LOL! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder…