Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: wang%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Albert Sze-Wei Wang) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: M-16 reliability (was Re: early bad press may be justified) Message-ID: <10576@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 25 Oct 89 04:04:25 GMT References: <10145@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10181@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 70 Approved: military@att.att.com From: wang%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Albert Sze-Wei Wang) In article <10181@cbnews.ATT.COM> gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) writes: >From: gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul E. Robichaux) >In article <10145@cbnews.ATT.COM> Henry Spencer writes: >>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > >>This depends on who you talk to. M-16 reliability has gone from superb >>(original Stoner AR-15) to dreadful (US Army "improves" design to produce >>original M-16) to barely passable (later variants). I haven't heard a [M-1 stuff deleted] >While Henry's comment about vested interests is surely true, I must make a >comment about the M16. I have been a Marine armorer for three years (albeit for a reserve unit; normal caveats apply). During that time, we have *never* had a >mechanical failure due to manufacturing or design defects. The M16A2 has proven to be a very accurate, fairly easy to maintain service rifle. I would be >interested in hearing your reasons for slamming it. >This, of course, is the A2. The A1 was a problem child; I've never used the >Stoner AR, so I can't comment. (just don't get me started on the Beretta 92F!) >-Paul Robichaux The M-16 is a good rifle. Now, that is. But back in its development stages it was a nightmare. The flaw with the M-16 was in the development area. The company that was responsible for its developmemt was given stats, either by the military or by the corporate heads to build a rifle with a set group of stats, length, muzzle length, etc. everything. The engineers on the project told their supervisors that it couldn't be built to perform the way they wanted given the deisgn constraints imposed on them. The supervisors told them (these are supervisors who have no engineering background or firearms design backgrounds) that they don't know what they're talking about and told the engineers to build it. The engineers warned their supervisors that the gun won't work, and that the design needed to be changed to make it perform as it should. The supervisors ignored this and other warnings and mass-produced the M-16 and had them shipped to our troops in Vietnam. As expected, the M-16 failed. It was said that the M-16 killed more American men in Vietnam than the VietCong did. Some of the weapons exploded, most of them jammed. Many times, one shot was fired and then the weapon jammed. This essentially meant that the VietCong with Muzzle-loading rifles could shoot at our guys, but we couldn't shoot back. Gradually, as the war progressed, the gun was redesigned and redesigned until the current form it takes today. The M-16 today bears little resemblance to the one first developed and used early on in the Vietnam War: The one we have now works, the one developed then didn't. The problem with the M-16 early version was never ammunition. It was design. This information was obtained from (I think) American Heritage Magazine. If any wants, I could go back and dig up the issue number and date of publication. Hope this helped. Albert [mod.note: The M-16 debate is almost a matter of religion, it seems, much like the 9mm-vs-.45 debate. Henceforth, I would suggest that further submissions on the development and history of the M-16 are not likely to be accepted unless they include references; there's simply too much hearsay out there. (no reflection upon this article, of course !) - Bill ] The Daimyo | Hashagu koiwa ike no koi wang@volcano.berkeley.edu | Frolic love is like a carp in a pond Eve Tokimatsuri: Never forget love. Like a dream, Please tell me the secret.