Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: M16 Rifle Message-ID: <10525@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 24 Oct 89 02:51:13 GMT References: <10376@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo Lines: 68 Approved: military@att.att.com From: tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) In article <10376@cbnews.ATT.COM> raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) writes: > > >From: raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) > > I remember from read Profile that a large part of the >initial problem with the M16 was the switch by the ammo supplier >to a powder of a different specification. The direct expansion >action and all these lugs around the bolt for locking gave >residue a place to build up. Molten residue gets into cracks >when the gun is hot and freezes up the action when the gun cools >down. So a closed bolt jams after the first round while an open >bolt simply refuses to fires. That was why they added the Forward >Assist to help closing the bolt. The problem was pretty much cured >when the right kind of powder was prescribed. But still the >mechanism is kind of delicate and a lot of TLC is needed to presuade >the M16 to work properly. A week or two field training excersie >may not be a problem, but extended operation in eg. humid Vietnam jungles >is the limus test. It seems AK's had a far better reputation than the M16. >Individuals in the US troops even carried AK's instead. > The switch from triple based powder to double based powder did carry the penalty of higher maintenance. The triple based stuff as I recall was supposed to burn cleaner. > Of course there were other reasons besides reliability. The >velocity of the bullet is so high that it tumbles all the time, making >keyholes on targets instead of a perfect round hole. Of course that >does not help accuracy. The spin is marginal especailly in sub-zero >temp. and the rifling had to increase from 1 in 10" to 1 in 12" (?) >to satisfy Army requirement. But the barrel wear rate went up and >their had to chrome-plate the lining. > The bullets in an M16 do NOT tumble. Haven't since 1967 or so. In the story told to us by our Drill Sergeants, that ammunition was no longer made. Reducing the twist from one in ten to one in twelve will not aid accuracy if you are already marginally stable. The chrome lining is super for reducing corrosion in the barrel, particularly if you use the double based powders. > From an engineering standpoint, the direct gas action, the >rotating bolt and the locking lugs are far from ideal for reliability >but the result is a short and light weapon with an awesome (awful in >old english) velocity. Most agreed that it has lot of sex appeal but >for people in the business long, it was not a great combat implement. As one of those who were 'in the business', I have found the M16 to be a fine weapon. It is light, accurate, has mild recoil, and is reliable if it's requirements are met. The ammunition is light, allowing me and my platoon to carry oodles of bullets, which makes me happy. This is not intended to mean that the M16 is without fault, or that it can't be improved, far from it. But it isn't the horrible weapon that many non-infantry types make it out to be. I hear a lot about how we ought to go back to the M14 or get FALs, but always by people who don't have to carry them 20 klicks. And if you think the rifles are heavy, you ought to carry a couple of basic loads of ammo! 8-) Terry - former infantryman Disclaimer et la Signaturo: Hell no, I'm not responsible for what I say! If everyone were responsible for what they said, we'd have had a balanced budget in 1984.