Posted on 02/13/2015 10:20:22 AM PST by rktman
This week’s DTIC document is one well worth reading in the interest of understanding the AR-15’s early deployment and subsequent “fall from grace” later in the 1960s. It bears more detailed examination than I usually put into the Weekly DTIC, so this will be a longer post than usual. The document is DARPA’s Field Test Report, AR-15 Armalite Rifle, a controversial document extolling the virtues of the early AR-15 in Vietnam. The basic thesis of the document is best summed up in this quote:
(Excerpt) Read more at thefirearmblog.com ...
Yeah, I predict your in for a firestorm on this subject. LOL
I do so love my .223/.556 S&W M&P Sport.
Thanks for posting
I’ve got a very early 70s SP1 from Colt exactly like the one I used in basic training at Lackland AFB in 68..
No forward assist, no shell deflector. A very cherry weapon. I’ve heard and seen instances where the ammo, propellant, barrel twist (1:12) and/or cleaning instructions were deficient and caused early problems. I don’t have a final opinion, really. What I have shoots fine
Yeah, it’s not at all difficult to start up a debate among people over the AR15 and the 5.56 round. They can go in many directions too.
This thread could easily get to 25 pages before the end of the weekend.
I thought they were M-16’s. Live and learn.
The M-16 in Vietnam was garbage - it was completely unready for combat and got a lot of our troops killed when it failed. I knew when got them and saw how really unreliable it was,now poorly suited it was for any long distance fights, and how crappy the ounds performed that our country really didn’t care.
Somebody made money, some others made rank, we suffered.
The first units were marked AR-15, even the select fire versions.
I got to fire one of the originals held by an Indiana police dept back in the mid 90s.
Once adopted officially they became M-16’s, then?
The M-16 in Vietnam was garbage ...
Mine worked fine without problems. I carried it in a dirty bulldozer through the jungles north west of Saigon. No jams misfires nothing. Was a lot more powerful than the M1 M2. The M14 had more firepower but weighed much more.
The first were Armolite rifle model 15 but that was never a military version but only a test version. When the military issued them they were the M16.
We were fanatical about cleaning - but they failed anyway. They tried to blame us in their investigations.
Direct combat with our lives at stake isn’t a testing ground. I saw dozens of Marines dead by their useless M-16s.
We were somebody else’s kids, so what did it matter?
For new materiel systems in development, they must be "type classified" before they receive the "M" designation, which is to say they may go into full rate production and fielding to troops without restrictions. There are many hoops to jump through to do this, so you sometimes have low rate production items "fielded" to troops before they are type classfied, usually with materiel release waivers. For example the Stryker has not "offcially" been type classfied, so it still has an "XM" designation even though it has been used by troops for a decade. The M-16 was initially introduced into Vietnam as part of an ARPA rapid fielding initiative as the Armalite AR-15 in 1961. Larger numbers were sent later as an experimental prototype (XM-16), which was still commonly refered to as an AR-15, although it was in fact manufactured by Colt. It wasn't officially type classfied by the Army until 1967 as the M-16 (a little earlier by the Air Force).
Thanks. You may be the one to ask this of: M1 carbine, M2, both in .30 Carbine, M3, in .45 ACP, then the M-16 before the M4, in cal.5.56. Are the 1, 2, 3, and 4 technically “machine guns?” Why a jump from M1 Garand to M-14, to M-16? Rifle length?
“The M-16 in Vietnam was garbage - it was completely unready for combat and got a lot of our troops killed when it failed. I knew when got them and saw how really unreliable it was,now poorly suited it was for any long distance fights, and how crappy the ounds performed that our country really didn’t care.”
It wasn’t the rifle. The designer, Stoner specified that IMI powders be used in the rifle. After testing, the Army logistics changed the powder to ball powder that contained calcium to aid in the production process. The calcium collected in the gas tube and was extremely difficult to clean and get out. The rifle was never tested with that ammunition before it was adopted. That lead to the jamming problems. This subject has been extensively documented. The Army changed the powder eventually, but the damage was done. Todays M4 rifles are quite reliable.
That weapon was first developed as a survival weapon for pilots
It needed fixes for combat : chromed bolt and breech better flash suppressor and better cartridge propellant Still insufficient as the bolt and breach were prone to jam up with carbon
IMHO a cut down version of the M-14 would have better for use in VietnM
My M16 in Army basic was the AR-15, with the 3 prong flash suppressor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.