View Full Version : AR reliability. Riddle me this.
Kevslatvin
10-12-17, 10:08
Sorry if this is in the wrong section. If soldiers were deployed to a jungle environment like Vietnam with the current m4 but no cleaning kits( like those first m16s) would they fare any better? Is the chrome lined bore and chamber and proper powder enough to keep them running, or would there be stoppages and jams like the first time around? I'm not trying to troll it's just the whole AR vs AK reliability thing has got me thinking. Is the AR platform that much more reliable than it ever was or do we just know how to properly maintain them so they keep running now?
If people had M4A1s the first day of the Vietnam War people would look at AKs the same way they look at Trabants
Inkslinger
10-12-17, 11:07
I may be wrong, but I believe many of the problems originated from ammunition coupled with under lubrication.
Kevslatvin
10-12-17, 11:15
If people had M4A1s the first day of the Vietnam War people would look at AKs the same way they look at Trabants
I think I agree though I had to Google Trabant. I only knew it as a ride at the fair. If the government didn't bungle the introduction of the M16 most of this reliability debate would have been a non-starter.
I may be wrong, but I believe many of the problems originated from ammunition coupled with under lubrication.
That is my understanding as well and where my question stems. With proper ammunition but inadequate cleaning and lubrication due to lack of cleaning kits how would the current gun fare?
Doc Safari
10-12-17, 11:15
Sorry if this is in the wrong section. If soldiers were deployed to a jungle environment like Vietnam with the current m4 but no cleaning kits( like those first m16s) would they fare any better? Is the chrome lined bore and chamber and proper powder enough to keep them running, or would there be stoppages and jams like the first time around? I'm not trying to troll it's just the whole AR vs AK reliability thing has got me thinking. Is the AR platform that much more reliable than it ever was or do we just know how to properly maintain them so they keep running now?
Facts:
1. Early M16's had problems that are mostly a thing of the past
2. All guns need maintenance
3. The AR/M4/M16 needs to be babied a lot less than most would lead you to believe
4. The AK can in fact be made to malfunction if too much debris gets in it. It is not 100% because no gun is 100%
5. You do not have to use special lubricants to maintain the AR. Motor oil works fine
6. If you were living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where you have to lubricate your weapon with poop and clean it with pee, then by all means the AK can take it.
If you have access to even the most rudimentary lubricants and cleaning materials, then the AR is fine, and has many advantages over the AK.
7. The lethality of .223/5.56 is much cussed and discussed, but as with all weapons, SHOT PLACEMENT IS THE KEY TO KNOCKDOWN ABILITY
8. Poor ammo will cause any weapon to malfunction, even an AK
9. All weapons wear out, but it is easier to change out the barrel/upper receiver (which takes most of the wear) on an AR than to rebarrel an AK.
10. Sand in the chamber is sand in the chamber. Debris in the wrong part of an AK will make your day end just as badly as if it had happened to an AR.
Hope this helps.
With good lube they'd be just fine.
QuickStrike
10-12-17, 12:09
Have you seen the AK and AR mud tests?
A quality AR would probably work pretty well on any type of kind of automotive or cooking oil in an emergency. Probably many of the lotions and creams too.
And while DI does leave the receiver internals dirtier, it takes thousands of rounds in a well lubed AR to matter and no dingbat is surviving that long without cleaning his/her weapon in a hostile environment.
Great!! Now we're dissing Trabants! :D
How about a Volga?https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171012/96912d189e601e1b9f607e44fe04db7b.jpg
I think AKs would still be as popular. Can't speak for the Vietnam era ARs but the few classes that's I've taken in bad weather my Colt performed just fine
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
5.56 Bonded SP
10-12-17, 12:22
Most people report that you have to fire thousands of rounds before you really start having problems, even more if your gun is properly lubed.
Could you really carry around a few thousand rounds?
Would you really fire a gun thousands of times without being able to apply a little lubrication or cleaning at some point?
These aren't belt fed weapons, they are carbine.
I mix a little bit of Grease with motor oil, and use it for my Lube. It stays put for an extremely long time after countless rounds, and I've never had a malfunction do to grease even in Sub-Zero weather. Fwiw. I live in the Rockies and the coldest it gets is around 10°f.
I think as long as you get a properly built milspec gun you won't have any problems with an AR or an AK, I have had good and bad experiences with both types of weapons. With either weapon as long as it was a quality built milspec weapon I have had no problems.
From my personal experiences I would take a Colt 6920 over a wasr any day. I even prefer a Colt 6920 over an Arsenal SLR 107... I own a ton of AK-47 and AR-15, the more rounds I put down range the more I prefer that the AR to be honest.
In the end I think either one will serve you just fine as long as it was a properly built gun, however the AR will shoot much more accurately, and smoothly with faster follow up shots and less recoil.
Mud tests are over rated, I'm not going to be shooting any gun that gets debris in the bore or chamber, which will cause a malfunction with any type of gun. That's why I keep a bore snake handy.
Wasn't the issue, not the ammo per say, but the powder used?
IIRC the Vietnam era platform was designed around a clean burning 'ball' powder, but when ammo was purchased by the military procurement establishment, it was awarded to someone who used a dirty 'flake' propellent.
From reading The Black Rifle and The Great Rifle Controversy I would say that the changes from ball powder, which reduced fouling and slowed the cyclic rate, as well as chroming the chamber and bore pretty much put the AR on equal footing with the AK.
http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-magazine-filthy-14/
Pat put several thousand more rounds through Filthy 14 after the article was written.
We should fight another war in Nam to see how it would work with KMRs and such!
Doc Safari
10-12-17, 12:55
Frankly, instead of an AK vs. AR thread I'd love to see an Aimpoint vs. ACOG thread where the users relate their authentic battlefield or law enforcement experiences.
Frankly, instead of an AK vs. AR thread I'd love to see an Aimpoint vs. ACOG thread where the users relate their authentic battlefield or law enforcement experiences.
In my experience on the battlefield and LE, both are bombproof (somewhat literally) optics.
I think you would see a drastic improvement in performance. As long as you have lubricant a properly built AR/M16/M4 would probably realistically go the entire deployment without major cleaning just fine.
The problems with the M16 can be traced to 3 major issues. No chrome lining in the barrels, improper propellant, and lack of cleaning kits.
The uncleaned unlined bores would start to rust which would cause stuck casings. Then the wrong propellant would increase the bolt speed which would increase the chance of ripping the case head off. Not to mention other issues related to too high action speeds.
Kevslatvin
10-12-17, 13:32
Frankly, instead of an AK vs. AR thread I'd love to see an Aimpoint vs. ACOG thread where the users relate their authentic battlefield or law enforcement experiences.
I didn't really want an AK vs. AR thread. It's those threads that got me thinking about how the current gun would fare in similar circumstances to the original.
The AR is far, far superior to the commie AK, in almost every way imaginable. Lube the damn thing and it will run.
And yes, I agree, we should fight another war against a commie country fielding the AK to more accurately determine the reliability and effectiveness of the modern Stoner design. I suggest arming our infantry as follows: 1) 25% with KAC 14.5 Sr-15s, 2) 25% with Colt 6920 14.5 SOCOMs, 3) 25% with PSA Premier 14.5-16 middy, and 4) 25% with BCM of some middy flavor.
I strongly suggest either another country in the ME, or perhaps change it up with an African war. Change is good for our troops' morale. God Bless America and modern day colonialism.
sundance435
10-12-17, 13:55
And yes, I agree, we should fight another war against a commie country fielding the AK to more accurately determine the reliability and effectiveness of the modern Stoner design. I suggest arming our infantry as follows: 1) 25% with KAC 14.5 Sr-15s, 2) 25% with Colt 6920 14.5 SOCOMs, 3) 25% with PSA Premier 14.5-16 middy, and 4) 25% with BCM of some middy flavor.
I strongly suggest either another country in the ME, or perhaps change it up with an African war. Change is good for our troops' morale. God Bless America and modern day colonialism.
If McNamara was in charge again, this might go from an internet forum post to real-world exercise. I've read that soldiers tried to get their hands on CARs when they could if they were in the bush. At this point, I don't know what would convince skeptics that the M4 is just as battle-proven as the vaunted AK, other than to donate all of our surplus guns to 3rd world holes for them to use instead of AKs. You literally have to rig tests and criteria to make the M4 look in any way unreliable.
Would soldiers have fared better with the M4? Maybe from 63-66, but not from then on.
Kevslatvin
10-12-17, 14:17
If McNamara was in charge again, this might go from an internet forum post to real-world exercise. I've read that soldiers tried to get their hands on CARs when they could if they were in the bush. At this point, I don't know what would convince skeptics that the M4 is just as battle-proven as the vaunted AK, other than to donate all of our surplus guns to 3rd world holes for them to use instead of AKs. You literally have to rig tests and criteria to make the M4 look in any way unreliable.
Would soldiers have fared better with the M4? Maybe from 63-66, but not from then on.
Unfortunately from what I've read and the few episodes I've watched so far of The Vietnam War it wouldn't of made a difference in the final outcome. The people in charge running that war really fubar'd that one.
Kevslatvin
10-12-17, 14:26
I guess I have the answer. As long as it lubed every once in awhile it shouldn't have any of the problems of those first issued to combat troops. Also correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC the advisors using them prior to us sending combat troops didn't have those problems as their ammo had the proper propellant. That change didn't occur till wide scale adoption.
Doc Safari
10-12-17, 14:31
I guess I have the answer. As long as it lubed every once in awhile it shouldn't have any of the problems of those first issued to combat troops. Also correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC the advisors using them prior to us sending combat troops didn't have those problems as their ammo had the proper propellant. That change didn't occur till wide scale adoption.
And to boot, the early ones had a devastating effect on the enemy. I've read arguments both that it was an unstable bullet or 1 in 14 twist rate in the bore, but whatever the cause the early rifles had a reputation for inflicting unbelievable wounds. A guy hit in the arm would have his entire arm blown off, for example.
And to boot, the early ones had a devastating effect on the enemy. I've read arguments both that it was an unstable bullet or 1 in 14 twist rate in the bore, but whatever the cause the early rifles had a reputation for inflicting unbelievable wounds. A guy hit in the arm would have his entire arm blown off, for example.
Ive heard conflicting information on the validity of those claims. Personally, I'd take a 77 OTM over 55 gr Nam' ammo.
We should fight another war in Nam to see how it would work with KMRs and such!
I support this. Only way to know for sure.
The Vietnamese use Galil Aces so it would be amusing.
Per my first post, AKs would have a following like FALs or G3s because people like to be different. But if in 1964 folks started off with M4A1s and SR25 Carbines nobody would care any more for AKs than they would for Howa Type 64s.
I doubt it would have affected the campaign much but it'd never have started the whole "M16s suuuuck" spiel.
Advisors and Rangers went to Vietnam with COTS AR-15s, factory mags, proper ammo, and cleaning kits and thought it was bad ass.
Lightweight, 5.56 mess yo ass up. Accurate.
Hell to the yayeaaah
I support this. Only way to know for sure.
The Vietnamese use Galil Aces so it would be amusing.
Per my first post, AKs would have a following like FALs or G3s because people like to be different. But if in 1964 folks started off with M4A1s and SR25 Carbines nobody would care any more for AKs than they would for Howa Type 64s.
I doubt it would have affected the campaign much but it'd never have started the whole "M16s suuuuck" spiel.
Advisors and Rangers went to Vietnam with COTS AR-15s, factory mags, proper ammo, and cleaning kits and thought it was bad ass.
Lightweight, 5.56 mess yo ass up. Accurate.
Hell to the yayeaaah
"I just got like, this 5.56 okay? And it's 55 grain ball. And everybody I've ever seen shot with it, it dicks them up."
---Clint Smith
Thunder Ranch
And to boot, the early ones had a devastating effect on the enemy. I've read arguments both that it was an unstable bullet or 1 in 14 twist rate in the bore, but whatever the cause the early rifles had a reputation for inflicting unbelievable wounds. A guy hit in the arm would have his entire arm blown off, for example.
I am literally begging you to stop posting misinformation like this. Please. This is right up there with Mattel having made the weapons.
I am literally begging you to stop posting misinformation like this. Please. This is right up there with Mattel having made the weapons.
Yeah, totally... It wasn't Mattel, it was Hasbro...
Eurodriver
10-12-17, 20:18
I am literally begging you to stop posting misinformation like this. Please. This is right up there with Mattel having made the weapons.
How is it that threads like this get so much attention anyway?
I blame the early M16's problems on Vatican II. Those guys couldn't leave ANYTHING alone.
Frankly, instead of an AK vs. AR thread I'd love to see an Aimpoint vs. ACOG thread where the users relate their authentic battlefield or law enforcement experiences.
In my experience, I have seen a few older Comp-M's &@$% the bed on Mk46's and maybe a small few get problems or quit on M4's. OTOH, I have never seen an ACOG reticle fail to show up for the party, and I've seen guns with ACOGs burn in from jumps, and survive helo rollovers. However, I have used older ACOG's that were unzero-able, as in the adjustment knobs don't seem to do anything. I wonder if they are the same ones that have had 9 lives. I would say the ACOG is more indestructible, but I have little experience with the PRO or COMP M4.
Both ACOG, and Aimpoint, are insanely durable. The stuff that breaks them tends to be hazardous to the users' health. Same is true for the M4 platform in general. Usually the types of impacts and such that destroy the rifle either render the user inop, or they are separated when it happens.
OP, in a jungle, just keep it lubed to try and prevent rust, and it is a good weapon for crappy, humid places. I live in coastal SC now, and lived in NC, GA, and LA in the past. I also worked with the weapon in all sorts of places for work. Even my personal guns occasionally go swimming, get rained on while hunting or at range, go camping, get carried around in the woods, put on the wet ground while I prep my gear, etc. I don't cancel shooting for weather. I've had to replace the trigger on my favorite rifle twice due to surface rust making the pull crappy. I tend to use coated or corrision resistant components when possible, but my stock M4's and M16s have had a tendency to work well, also. I just have to maintain them by drying them out and applying oil.
For those mentioning the AK: while mine tend to get light rust just from looking at them funny (probably due to corrosive ammo), I believe the practical difference between the 74 pattern rifles and the M4 is small, jungle or otherwise. Training, tactics, strategy, support, and logistics renders the difference irrelevant on the battlefield. The 47 pattern rifles can kiss my butt. The M4 outclasses them so well, they don't belong in the same sentence. Still, though, the factors two sentences back are more important.
If soldiers were deployed to a jungle environment like Vietnam with the current m4 but no cleaning kits( like those first m16s) would they fare any better? Is the chrome lined bore and chamber and proper powder enough to keep them running, or would there be stoppages and jams like the first time around? I'm not trying to troll it's just the whole AR vs AK reliability thing has got me thinking. Is the AR platform that much more reliable than it ever was or do we just know how to properly maintain them so they keep running now?
If our soldiers in Vietnam were issued the M4A1 in it's current form without cleaning kits, it still would have been a disaster. There is very little real difference between a current AR and a Nam era AR. Parts between ARs of all eras are, with few exceptions, mix and match. I am amazed at how close Eugene Stoner was to getting it right the first time. The chrome lining was part of Stoner's design specs from the beginning. McNamara's "Whiz Kids" decided that chrome lining wasn't needed and deleting it would save the government money.
The original powder was NOT ball powder or flake powder. It was WWII cannon powder similar to H4831. It was a stick powder. Pressure curves are controlled by burn rate. Stick powder controls burn rate by how much surface is exposed to the flame. Surface is determined by diameter, length and sometimes the grains are hollow tubes instead of being solid.
Ball powders, on the other hand, control burn rate through the use of a retardant. If I recall, the retardant used by Olin-Winchester is powdered graphite. Winchester 748 is known to be one of the dirtiest powders known to man. It was ordered that the stick powder be replaced with the ball powder. The ball powder used also had a different pressure curve which resulted in increased carrier speeds. This lead to extraction problems.
Stick powder burns cleaner but ball powder flows better through a powder meter. In fact, ball powder was specifically designed to be measured by volume instead of weight. Ball powder is better for mass producing ammunition.
One reason the first M16s sent to Nam for evaluation were so successful is because they were in the hands of highly trained and motivated personnel- the Green Berets. They knew how to operate and maintain weapons. I have been able to verify this, but I believe those M16s were issued with the original stick powder ammo and had chrome lined chambers and bores.
The hot, humid jungles of Vietnam is a harsh environment. There are accounts describing how a brass case chambered in an unlined M16 barrel would corrode and get stuck in just a few short hours. Soldiers would chamber a fresh round in the morning at the start of a patrol and found their weapons inoperable before noon. Adding to the problem was that the rifle was sold to the Army as self-cleaning. It was issued to the troops, many who were draftees, in the field with no cleaning gear or instructions on how to lube and maintain their new rifle. This was compounded by the sticky residue left by the ball powder.
To answer the original question, while the modern M4 is a refined and battle hardened rifle, without maintenance, it wouldn't have fared much better. However, properly lubed and maintained, I think the handy size, reliability and SOCOM profile barrel for better cooling would have instantly endeared the M4A1 to the troops, especially with modern OTM ammo.
The 5.56 of Vietnam did deliver devastating wounds, but it had nothing to do with the 1:14 or 1:12 twist. It was all about how spitzer boat tail bullets behave when hitting flesh. It was noticed the 55 gr spitzer boat tail would sometimes destabilize when it hit a body and the terminal effect was devastating. The trouble was, it only happened some of the time. Other times, the bullet would pass through doing only minimal damage. When the U.S. sought to improve the terminal performance of the 5.56, top priority was given to more reliable destabilization on impact. They found that lengthening the bullet (thus making it heavier) improved destabilization on impact with flesh.
I disagree. An M4A1 can get pretty raunchy and work if it has lube. Good ammo would be nice but While the AR-15 was beloved by the SF of the era....the Military compromised M-16 was like a full step backwards because some doofuses were second guessing Gene Stoner.
Once the corrected themselves, the stigma had been born. I have heard tell that some of that was intentional to get it to fail combat. This is hearsay so do not regard it as scholarly. Just those things people like to say but totally going against the guy who made its plans does smack of it.
That said, if it was 1971 and you had a CAR-15 with a Colt 3x Scope or an OEG and 30 round mags then you had the state of the art for the world at that time.
Do you mean like the Philippines?
Sorry if this is in the wrong section. If soldiers were deployed to a jungle environment like Vietnam with the current m4 but no cleaning kits( like those first m16s) would they fare any better? Is the chrome lined bore and chamber and proper powder enough to keep them running, or would there be stoppages and jams like the first time around? I'm not trying to troll it's just the whole AR vs AK reliability thing has got me thinking. Is the AR platform that much more reliable than it ever was or do we just know how to properly maintain them so they keep running now?
Wasn't the issue, not the ammo per say, but the powder used?
IIRC the Vietnam era platform was designed around a clean burning 'ball' powder, but when ammo was purchased by the military procurement establishment, it was awarded to someone who used a dirty 'flake' propellent.
I disagree. An M4A1 can get pretty raunchy and work if it has lube. Good ammo would be nice but While the AR-15 was beloved by the SF of the era....the Military compromised M-16 was like a full step backwards because some doofuses were second guessing Gene Stoner.
My point exactly. All I'm saying is, if the M4A1 were subjected to the same level of neglect, it would not have fared any better. That neglect included the lack of lubrication. Otherwise, I think the M4A1 would have been a superb weapon in Vietnam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYLkrethQA
ETA: Personally, I feel this entire video is worth the time to watch. However, a summary of issues/corrections are at around the 50 minute mark.
Doc Safari
10-13-17, 09:26
I am literally begging you to stop posting misinformation like this. Please. This is right up there with Mattel having made the weapons.
This is one of my sources. I realize some people disagree about its authenticity, but just to show you that I'm getting my information from actual sources:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/343778.pdf
At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an
AR-15 full automatic hitting one VC with 3 rounds with the first burst. One
round in the head-took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took
it completely off, too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole
about five inches in diameter. It cannot be determined which round killed
the VC but it can be assumed that any one of the three would have caused
death. The other 2 VC ran, leaving the dead VC with I carbine, 1 grenade
and 2 mines. " (Rangers)
(2.) (C) "On 9 June a Ranger Platoon from the 40th nf Regt was
given the mission of ambushing an estimated VC Company. The details
are as follows:
a. Number of VC killed: 5
b. Number of AR-oS's employed: 5
c. Range of engagement: 30-100 meters
d. Type wounds:
1. Back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode.
2. Stomach wound, which caused the abhlominal cavity to
explode.
3. Buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both
buttocks.
4. Chest wound from right to left, destroyed the thoracic
cavity.
5. Heel wound, the projectile entered the bottom of the
right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the
hip.
These deaths were inflicted by the AR-IS and all were instantaneous
except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes.
I've always thought this was legit?
sundance435
10-13-17, 10:30
This is one of my sources. I realize some people disagree about its authenticity, but just to show you that I'm getting my information from actual sources:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/343778.pdf
I've always thought this was legit?
As someone noted above, wounds were devastating IF the bullet destabilized on impact. There are also plenty of accounts of rounds sailing through N. Vietnamese leaving a neat little .223" diameter hole. The Russkies learned from this with the 5.45.
Doc Safari
10-13-17, 10:35
As someone noted above, wounds were devastating IF the bullet destabilized on impact. There are also plenty of accounts of rounds sailing through N. Vietnamese leaving a neat little .223" diameter hole. The Russkies learned from this with the 5.45.
Sure. That's why some continue to say it's inadequate. My beef is that someone called me out for repeating something bogus when the information came from a documented source. No one ever said the round was perfect (or it wouldn't continue to be discussed). I haven't spent a lifetime researching this so I assumed a government document was legit. If it's not then that was my only mistake.
Kevslatvin
10-13-17, 11:34
Do you mean like the Philippines?
Yes and no. Yes as far as the environment. No as I gather the US military issues the proper supplies and the soldiers are properly trained on how to care for the rifle now since malfunctions on any large scale seem to be a thing of the past.
Kevslatvin
10-13-17, 11:43
If our soldiers in Vietnam were issued the M4A1 in it's current form without cleaning kits, it still would have been a disaster. There is very little real difference between a current AR and a Nam era AR. Parts between ARs of all eras are, with few exceptions, mix and match. I am amazed at how close Eugene Stoner was to getting it right the first time. The chrome lining was part of Stoner's design specs from the beginning. McNamara's "Whiz Kids" decided that chrome lining wasn't needed and deleting it would save the government money.
The hot, humid jungles of Vietnam is a harsh environment. There are accounts describing how a brass case chambered in an unlined M16 barrel would corrode and get stuck in just a few short hours. Soldiers would chamber a fresh round in the morning at the start of a patrol and found their weapons inoperable before noon.
I think this is the answer I was looking for and was what I was thinking since not much has changed internally. Maybe it wouldn't have been as bad as maybe we wouldn't have had as much issue with stuck cases. But without lube and the wrong propellant they would have had problems.
Averageman
10-13-17, 11:52
There are more than a few examples of unsound tactics, procedures and a unit wide lack of discipline and the blame for the failure falls back on a neglected weapons system.
Yeah, we've put out more than a couple of lemons in to the hands of our Servicemen, but many, many times we've improperly placed blame on a weapon when the true fault lies in laziness.
Stoner had a specification for his design, a specification for it's ammunition and ancillary equipment and preferred lubrication to keep it running. MacNamara being the total dick he was of course knew better.
I’m a dinosaur. I was issued a triangle hand guard M-16 A1 (all there was then) back in 1982 when I went into the Army. Even then, we were taught to run them almost dry with very little lubrication. We at least had chrome lined barrels then. The 55gr rounds worked perfectly (imho) in those 1 in 12” twist barrels. This was a sinister little round that would destabilize 90%+ of the time in soft tissue. I darn sure would not want to take one.
Going into law enforcement from the military, Ive had a front row seat watching it go from the A1, A2 to the current incarnations. I have’t carried one professionally for five years now, but I’ve tried to keep up.
I have to agree with the opinion that given proper cleaning and instruction, the M16 A1 would have ran much better than it did in ‘Nam. Perfect, no, but how many platforms are rolled out that are perfect from day one?
I just sit in an air conditioned seat for work now and watch the world go by at 600 mph. If I had to go kick in doors again or go embrace the suck in a foreign land, the AR platform would still be my first pick.
Pardon the typos and grammar as always, I’m on the phone..
Evel Baldgui
10-13-17, 12:47
I only have three AR's, a BCM, a PWS, and a 6920, I shoot them fairly often, take 500-1000rd classes a few times a year, have owned them for several years, I clean them after each class, lube of choice is mobil 1 synthetic, have almost always used 'good' quality brass ammo, MAYBE a handful of failures over the past 6-7 yrs, operator induced mostly, and one bad GI mag that was tossed, leading to only Pmags being the flavor of choice.
I only have three AR's, a BCM, a PWS, and a 6920, I shoot them fairly often, take 500-1000rd classes a few times a year, have owned them for several years, I clean them after each class, lube of choice is mobil 1 synthetic, have almost always used 'good' quality brass ammo, MAYBE a handful of failures over the past 6-7 yrs, operator induced mostly, and one bad GI mag that was tossed, leading to only Pmags being the flavor of choice.
I should, but I don't. I keep them wet, but not clean. I will clean them around the 3K round mark, but no hiccups. ARs will run forever if they are wet.
There were two functioning problems in Vietnam.
1. Failures to extract, ripped off case heads, to due to the use of ball powder which increased cyclic speeds. The gun was attempting to extract the case while the case was still under pressure. The case brass was not relaxed from the chamber walls.
2. Failures to achieve battery (bolt bounce) which was caused by the increased action speeds due to the use of ball powder. This problem was exacerbated by the use of the early buffer which did not have counterweights. The currently rifle buffer introduced in 1967 has counterweights to tap the BCG group shut.
The lack of chrome lining and lack of cleaning regimen are secondary issues and not the main causes.
One reason the first M16s sent to Nam for evaluation were so successful is because they were in the hands of highly trained and motivated personnel- the Green Berets. They knew how to operate and maintain weapons. I have been able to verify this, but I believe those M16s were issued with the original stick powder ammo and had chrome lined chambers and bores.
This is not true. There was no chrome lining of a bore or chamber until 1967.
The hot, humid jungles of Vietnam is a harsh environment. There are accounts describing how a brass case chambered in an unlined M16 barrel would corrode and get stuck in just a few short hours. Soldiers would chamber a fresh round in the morning at the start of a patrol and found their weapons inoperable before noon.
This is mostly a myth. What people believed were stuck cases caused by "corrosion" were actually caused by over pressurized brass upon extraction.
To answer the original question, while the modern M4 is a refined and battle hardened rifle, without maintenance, it wouldn't have fared much better. However, properly lubed and maintained, I think the handy size, reliability and SOCOM profile barrel for better cooling would have instantly endeared the M4A1 to the troops, especially with modern OTM ammo.
I don't necessarily agree. The modern AR-15 has been engineered to accept ball powder.
This is mostly a myth.
Is it mostly a myth, or is there any truth? Not trolling, I really want to know if it happened. Was it one of those things that did happen from time to time and was overblown? Legit curious.
Is it mostly a myth, or is there any truth? Not trolling, I really want to know if it happened. Was it one of those things that did happen from time to time and was overblown? Legit curious.
It is mostly a myth because stuck cases were caused by excessive action speed, causing the gun to run out of balance.
Chrome lining and cleaning could have helped some of this stuck case issue but wouldn't have solved it completely.
You will hear things like "the chamber got rusty from the humid jungle and the case stuck." The barrel of a rifle cannot rust this fast. In fact, the exterior of the barrel is more rust prone than the bore.
You will also hear things like "the humidity of the jungle caused the cartridge to absorb moisture and swell in the chamber". This is also a myth. Modern ammunition made in the past 150 years is waterproof and cannot absorb moisture and swell.
5.56 Bonded SP
10-13-17, 17:17
I am literally begging you to stop posting misinformation like this. Please. This is right up there with Mattel having made the weapons.
Not trying to argue one way or the other, but I wouldn't be surprised if a guys arm got blown off from some m193, especially if it was at close range. I have seen m193 do some very devastating things... And I have also seen it poke little 22 holes. It's performance in regards to fragmentation seems to be a bit random, but when it does fragment, it will mess stuff up. Seems to fragment more reliably than m855 from my personal experience.
In an alternate universe, I wonder how the AR-18 would have fared in Vietnam in large-scale general issue?
An AR chamber brush would be the most important item you could have if you could only pick one.
This is mostly a myth. What people believed were stuck cases caused by "corrosion" were actually caused by over pressurized brass upon extraction.
While there is indeed truth to that statement, I have seen pics in "The Black Rifle" from the era of the Ichord investigation that clearly showed heavy chamber corrosion. In fact disgustingly heavy corrosion. Doubt it crept up overnight though, more likely from prolonged lack of maintenance and the aforementioned powder and environmental issues.
Not trying to argue one way or the other, but I wouldn't be surprised if a guys arm got blown off from some m193, especially if it was at close range. I have seen m193 do some very devastating things... And I have also seen it poke little 22 holes. It's performance in regards to fragmentation seems to be a bit random, but when it does fragment, it will mess stuff up. Seems to fragment more reliably than m855 from my personal experience.
See Annex A, page 5 of this report. I'm wondering if some of these early reports were embellished a bit?:
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=AD0343778
Nice informed post. Thanks for putting that up.
There were two functioning problems in Vietnam.
1. Failures to extract, ripped off case heads, to due to the use of ball powder which increased cyclic speeds. The gun was attempting to extract the case while the case was still under pressure. The case brass was not relaxed from the chamber walls.
2. Failures to achieve battery (bolt bounce) which was caused by the increased action speeds due to the use of ball powder. This problem was exacerbated by the use of the early buffer which did not have counterweights. The currently rifle buffer introduced in 1967 has counterweights to tap the BCG group shut.
The lack of chrome lining and lack of cleaning regimen are secondary issues and not the main causes.
In an alternate universe, I wonder how the AR-18 would have fared in Vietnam in large-scale general issue?
Weren't a few, like a scant few, actually used? I heard mythic tales of British SAS posing as Australians. The SASR used FALs and all but again. Hearsay and Legend.
I dunno....overall the AR-15 is a bit better built than the AR-18 as it was, but as we know the design lives on in SCARs and 416s.
I imagine the buttstock would not have been so soldierproof for general issue
Mr. Goodtimes
10-13-17, 20:54
Why is this even a thread? This topic has been absolutely beat to death. There is no riddle, the AR-15 is an exceptionally reliable weapon system. End of story.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Skin is very elastic. I've seen personally that 5.56 is very effective, but blowing an arm or head off is a little hard to believe.
5.56 Bonded SP
10-14-17, 02:16
Skin is very elastic. I've seen personally that 5.56 is very effective, but blowing an arm or head off is a little hard to believe.
Even if it hit a 115 pound half starving viatnemese farmer in the elbow or wrist?
I'm not denying that some guys might have exaggerated. But I wouldn't be surprised if parts of limbs were blown apart, or chuncks blown out of people and soldiers being so surprised that the little bullets were so effective saying things like " holy sheet it blew his effin arm off " when in reality their arm had dangling by skin or something of the sort. Or " holy sheet it blew his effin head off" when in reality it just blew a chunck out of the guys skull.
Also, a blast of full Auto 556 m193 from close range most definitely will mess some stuff up.
Not trying to argue either way, but I wouldn't be surprised if a skinny Vietcong got his arm blown off by a burst of 556. It would not surprise me at all.
5.56 Bonded SP
10-14-17, 02:30
See Annex A, page 5 of this report. I'm wondering if some of these early reports were embellished a bit?:
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=AD0343778
I have no doubt about people exaggerating or embellishing the effectiveness of 5.56.
Can you post a screen shot of the part of the article you wanted me to read? I'm a little too potato tonight to decipher it lol.
This is not true. There was no chrome lining of a bore or chamber until 1967.
Error on my part. I meant to say that I have not been able to verify the bores were chromed, but I believed they were. It was my belief that the first ARs sent to Nam for evaluation with our advisers had chrome lined barrels. It was my belief that the chrome lining was dropped when the M16 went into full production.
This is mostly a myth. What people believed were stuck cases caused by "corrosion" were actually caused by over pressurized brass upon extraction.
The reports I read stated the brass had turned green in the chamber and were getting stuck. Unfired cases were getting stuck. It wasn't from rust, it was from the dielectric action between the brass and steel accelerated by humidity, heat and lack of maintenance. The reports did state the brass was turning green in hours, but it also noted that the biggest problem was rounds that were left in the chamber for days.
I don't necessarily agree. The modern AR-15 has been engineered to accept ball powder.
I don't think that the pressure curve of the ball powder used at the time would hurt the reliability of the modern AR. The extra residue and lack of maintenance and lubrication in those conditions would have.
When I first built my AR pistol, it had a grossly over sized gas port combined with carbine weight buffer. Carrier speed was so excessive, I could feel a sharp sting in my trigger finger every time I fired a shot. It was painful. But not once did the extractor rip a rim off. I think the problem in Nam was excessive speeds combined with the dielectric action
One thing we don't know, or at least I have yet to see discussed, is how sensitive that ball powder was to temperature changes. Back in the day, pressure increases due to tropical heat was a real concern. That's why the Brits kept pressures low in their ammunition because it had to be safe to use in hot climates.
In any case, my point about OTM ammo was that it has better terminal performance than the 55gr FMJ
Wasn't the issue, not the ammo per say, but the powder used?
IIRC the Vietnam era platform was designed around a clean burning 'ball' powder, but when ammo was purchased by the military procurement establishment, it was awarded to someone who used a dirty 'flake' propellent.
Not quite.
The propellant issue is more complicated than just a switch from one type to another.
The issue was the .223, as developed by Armalite and Stoner was, was finicky about propellant. In order to meet the ballistic requirements of 3250 fps at 15 yards and be under 50,000 psi chamber pressure required careful selection of propellant lots. When the Army started to order ammunition by the millions, it became increasingly hard to cherry-pick propellant lots, and the chamber pressures started to inch up. Eventually the specification was relaxed to 52,000 psi, but even that was hard to meet.*
Olin's WC846 ball propellant showed great promise in that it could meet both the velocity and pressure requirements and was introduced. It should be noted that both Olin and Frankfort recommended testing to establish if there were any side effects, but the OSD nixed the testing and told the ammunition producers to proceed.
Later, it was noted that some lots of ammunition loaded with WC846 caused excessive fouling. By comparing know "bad" lots with known "good" lots, and analysis of the fouling residue, it was established that the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) content of the "bad" lots was towards the high end of the tolerance band and "good" lots were towards the low end. In the end, the specified CaCO23content was reduced.
A related side effect of the switch to WC846 was a higher port pressure, and an increase in cyclic rate. The higher cyclic rate started causing reliability issues. The solution to this was the improved buffer.
Just about every problem encountered during the fielding of the M16 was due to the fact that the AR-15 was sold to the Army as a "developed" system, it was not. There were a number of issues that would have been wrung out, had the Army been allowed to fully test and develop the ammunition/weapon system.
__________________________
* The simple fact is that the .223 is marginal for the velocity-pressure requirements originally set forth. The Army had developed another cartridge that was about 2 mm longer than the .223 (.222 Magnum) that was better suited to meet the 3250 fps/50,000psi, but the AR-15 was already designed around the 2-1/4 inch long .223 and they weren't going to entertain the idea of re-chambering it.
Error on my part. I meant to say that I have not been able to verify the bores were chromed, but I believed they were. It was my belief that the first ARs sent to Nam for evaluation with our advisers had chrome lined barrels. It was my belief that the chrome lining was dropped when the M16 went into full production.
The reports I read stated the brass had turned green in the chamber and were getting stuck. Unfired cases were getting stuck. It wasn't from rust, it was from the dielectric action between the brass and steel accelerated by humidity, heat and lack of maintenance. The reports did state the brass was turning green in hours, but it also noted that the biggest problem was rounds that were left in the chamber for days.
I don't think that the pressure curve of the ball powder used at the time would hurt the reliability of the modern AR. The extra residue and lack of maintenance and lubrication in those conditions would have.
When I first built my AR pistol, it had a grossly over sized gas port combined with carbine weight buffer. Carrier speed was so excessive, I could feel a sharp sting in my trigger finger every time I fired a shot. It was painful. But not once did the extractor rip a rim off. I think the problem in Nam was excessive speeds combined with the dielectric action
One thing we don't know, or at least I have yet to see discussed, is how sensitive that ball powder was to temperature changes. Back in the day, pressure increases due to tropical heat was a real concern. That's why the Brits kept pressures low in their ammunition because it had to be safe to use in hot climates.
In any case, my point about OTM ammo was that it has better terminal performance than the 55gr FMJ
The Project AGILE AR-15s had the then standard 1-14 twist, non-chrome plated barrel.
Kevslatvin
10-14-17, 15:55
Why is this even a thread? This topic has been absolutely beat to death. There is no riddle, the AR-15 is an exceptionally reliable weapon system. End of story.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is reliable today. Not so much when the M16 was first issued to combat troops in Vietnam apparently. Beat to death or not this thread has been very informative. Answered my original question and much more.
The original powder was NOT ball powder or flake powder. It was WWII cannon powder similar to H4831. It was a stick powder. Pressure curves are controlled by burn rate. Stick powder controls burn rate by how much surface is exposed to the flame. Surface is determined by diameter, length and sometimes the grains are hollow tubes instead of being solid.
Ball powders, on the other hand, control burn rate through the use of a retardant. If I recall, the retardant used by Olin-Winchester is powdered graphite. Winchester 748 is known to be one of the dirtiest powders known to man. It was ordered that the stick powder be replaced with the ball powder. The ball powder used also had a different pressure curve which resulted in increased carrier speeds. This lead to extraction problems.
Stick powder burns cleaner but ball powder flows better through a powder meter. In fact, ball powder was specifically designed to be measured by volume instead of weight. Ball powder is better for mass producing ammunition.
One reason the first M16s sent to Nam for evaluation were so successful is because they were in the hands of highly trained and motivated personnel- the Green Berets. They knew how to operate and maintain weapons. I have been able to verify this, but I believe those M16s were issued with the original stick powder ammo and had chrome lined chambers and bores.
The hot, humid jungles of Vietnam is a harsh environment. There are accounts describing how a brass case chambered in an unlined M16 barrel would corrode and get stuck in just a few short hours. Soldiers would chamber a fresh round in the morning at the start of a patrol and found their weapons inoperable before noon. Adding to the problem was that the rifle was sold to the Army as self-cleaning. It was issued to the troops, many who were draftees, in the field with no cleaning gear or instructions on how to lube and maintain their new rifle. This was compounded by the sticky residue left by the ball powder.
No, on a few things:
1) The original propellant used was not WW2 cannon propellant. The original load developed by Armalite used IMR 4475. However, the ballistic properties of .223 loaded with IMR 4475 generally fell short of the velocity requirement or overshot the pressure requirement, unless selected lots of 4475 were used.
2) All propellants use a deterrent. Single perforated (single-perf) propellant does use the grain geometry to aid getting the correct burn rate, but that can only go so far. Single-perf grains will have a neutral burn rate, as the grain burns, the hole in the center gets bigger and exposes more surface area, while the outside shrinks and the surface area gets smaller. For small arms, you need a progressive burn rate, that is, you need the amount of gas generated to increase as time increases. This is done by deterring the surface of the grain, coating it with a flame retardant. Now, as the surface burns off, so does the deterrent, and the amount of gas generated increases. Spherical grains (ball propellant) have a regressive burn rate, unless heavily deterred. Seven-perf grains have progressive burn characteristics, the holes get bigger faster than the outside surface gets smaller. Seven-perf grain are primarily used in big artillery propellant grains.
3) All small arms propellant is coated with graphite, it has nothing to do with deterring, but acts as a lubricant, and reduces the possibility of static charge build-up. The typical deterrent used by all propellants is dibutylphthalate.
4) The reason ball propellant is "dirty" is because it usually has a high(er) percentage of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Ball propellant is popular for several reasons: one, it is made from reclaimed nitrocellulose stock, usually overage, or bad lots of other propellant*, two, most of the processing is done under water, so it is a safer propellant to manufacture, and three, balls meter nicely. Item #1, is the main reason for the CaCO3, when nitrocellulose breaks down it produces acids, CaCO3 will neutralize those acids, and it was thought that additional CaCO3 would increase shelf life. (This turns out not to be the problem it was though to be.) But, high levels of CaCO3 provide additional benefits, it that it is an excellent erosion inhibitor, it make barrels last longer. WC846 is now made in several types, one of which is known as "WC 846 + CaCO3", it is used in the manufacture of M80 Ball.
5) WC846 was the ball propellant used in the early M193. A few years after they reduced the CaCO3 content of WC846, Olin and the Army decided that the erosion reducing properties of CaCO3 were worth keeping, especially in the M60, that did not have a fouling problem, but a longer barrel life was desired. So, low CaCO3 WC846 was split off as WC844, and WC846 was returned to its higher CaCO3 content. WC844 is still used in M193 and M855 production. Ball propellants were not deemed suitable for tracer production, IMR 8208 or 8138 are the preferred propellants for those.
6) Project AGILE was the first used of the AR-15 is Vietnam, these ARs were issued to Vietnamese troops.
7) The problem with fouling was not in the chamber, or barrel, it was in the gas tube. Test showed that Propellant lots with CaCO3 content of 0.5 or higher had a hard crusty accumulation in the first four inches of the gas tube. It would completely block the tube in as few as 4500 rounds.
___________________________
* This is probably where you got the idea that WW2 cannon propellant was used. Reclaimed stocks of old propellant were most likely used in the production of new Ball propellant.
For any other history geeks that want to read about the early days of the M16 ammo saga:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a953114.pdf
Sorry if this is in the wrong section. If soldiers were deployed to a jungle environment like Vietnam with the current m4 but no cleaning kits( like those first m16s) would they fare any better? Is the chrome lined bore and chamber and proper powder enough to keep them running, or would there be stoppages and jams like the first time around? I'm not trying to troll it's just the whole AR vs AK reliability thing has got me thinking. Is the AR platform that much more reliable than it ever was or do we just know how to properly maintain them so they keep running now?
Really all they need is lube, with lube they will go damn near forever without cleaning.
The AR is far, far superior to the commie AK, in almost every way imaginable. Lube the damn thing and it will run.
And yes, I agree, we should fight another war against a commie country fielding the AK to more accurately determine the reliability and effectiveness of the modern Stoner design. I suggest arming our infantry as follows: 1) 25% with KAC 14.5 Sr-15s, 2) 25% with Colt 6920 14.5 SOCOMs, 3) 25% with PSA Premier 14.5-16 middy, and 4) 25% with BCM of some middy flavor.
I strongly suggest either another country in the ME, or perhaps change it up with an African war. Change is good for our troops' morale. God Bless America and modern day colonialism.
I would feel bad for the poor bastards stuck with the PSA's :lol:
sinlessorrow
10-14-17, 21:48
Not quite.
The propellant issue is more complicated than just a switch from one type to another.
The issue was the .223, as developed by Armalite and Stoner was, was finicky about propellant. In order to meet the ballistic requirements of 3250 fps at 15 yards and be under 50,000 psi chamber pressure required careful selection of propellant lots. When the Army started to order ammunition by the millions, it became increasingly hard to cherry-pick propellant lots, and the chamber pressures started to inch up. Eventually the specification was relaxed to 52,000 psi, but even that was hard to meet.*
Olin's WC846 ball propellant showed great promise in that it could meet both the velocity and pressure requirements and was introduced. It should be noted that both Olin and Frankfort recommended testing to establish if there were any side effects, but the OSD nixed the testing and told the ammunition producers to proceed.
Later, it was noted that some lots of ammunition loaded with WC846 caused excessive fouling. By comparing know "bad" lots with known "good" lots, and analysis of the fouling residue, it was established that the calcium carbonate (CaCO2) content of the "bad" lots was towards the high end of the tolerance band and "good" lots were towards the low end. In the end, the specified CaCO2 content was reduced.
A related side effect of the switch to WC846 was a higher port pressure, and an increase in cyclic rate. The higher cyclic rate started causing reliability issues. The solution to this was the improved buffer.
Just about every problem encountered during the fielding of the M16 was due to the fact that the AR-15 was sold to the Army as a "developed" system, it was not. There were a number of issues that would have been wrung out, had the Army been allowed to fully test and develop the ammunition/weapon system.
__________________________
* The simple fact is that the .223 is marginal for the velocity-pressure requirements originally set forth. The Army had developed another cartridge that was about 2 mm longer than the .223 (.222 Magnum) that was better suited to meet the 3250 fps/50,000psi, but the AR-15 was already designed around the 2-1/4 inch long .223 and they weren't going to entertain the idea of re-chambering it.
It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a unlined, bare steel bore and chamber in a jungle environment will rust if not cleaned. So lets not issue cleaning kits and tell the soldiers the guns need no maintenance!
It was a double down of derpage.
McNamara's "Whiz Kids" decided that chrome lining wasn't needed and deleting it would save the government money.
I watch a Bartocci video and it seemed like the military procurement of the M16 was a shit show. The way he explained was that the gov needed ammo, and therefore powders, faster, so they cut corners. The original bcg was chromed. Gov did away with that also. There were a few guys that got an "AR15" before the M16 was ever thought up, and it seems every report we have of that weapon in Vietnam used by special forces was very positive. That one was the original Stoner design, not the US Army changed one.
Some things were okay to change. Colt played with barrel length and buffer weights, one for short barrels, buffers for the changes in bolt/chamber interactions with the faster burning powders. Chrome BCG are not critical, but I like when people do them right (DD chromed is pretty awesome). Chrome chamber is pretty important. Cleaning and lube is important, but lube probably more than cleaning (see filthy 14).
The AR has quite the reputation to those that listen to the old war stories and congressional investigations. If people want to like their M14's or whatever crap springfields M1A is, they can go for it. More AR's for me. In a situation where volume of fire wins, I will take my AR over a larger caliber.
Actually, Lysander posted some stuff I hadn't been aware of before. Of the powder choking the gas tubes.
Rust isnt good but wont kill your gun.
But a blocked gas tube renders it a bolt
action, plus the problem with the inadequate counterweights.
The AR-15 is a hearty rifle but if the gas tube gets obstructed, thats it.
One or two slip ups stigmatised the rifle but it has more than proven itself now.
By now it is settled science. Its the best thing going until they make ray guns.
sinlessorrow
10-15-17, 01:24
Actually, Lysander posted some stuff I hadn't been aware of before. Of the powder choking the gas tubes.
Rust isnt good but wont kill your gun.
But a blocked gas tube renders it a bolt
action, plus the problem with the inadequate counterweights.
The AR-15 is a hearty rifle but if the gas tube gets obstructed, thats it.
One or two slip ups stigmatised the rifle but it has more than proven itself now.
By now it is settled science. Its the best thing going until they make ray guns.
Biggest issue was non chromed chambers and bore, combined with telling soldiers the gun didn't need cleaning and then the lack of issuance of cleaning kits. Rusted chambers lock up weapons hard.
...The original bcg was chromed. Gov did away with that also....
Technically, the bolt and bolt carrier of the original design was never hard chrome plated as some people state. It was "Electrolized", which is a proprietary Thin Dense Chrome plating (TDC) process, owned by Electrozing Corp of Los Angeles.
Hard Chrome plating (HC) is not a good choice for bolts. HC, by its nature, leaves micro-cracks in the chrome surface, these lead to the initiation of fatigue cracking. The correlation between HC and poor fatigue life has been well known since the early 1940s. TDC is different from HC in that it does not leave micro-cracks in the surface and is denser. At the time, (1958-60), TDC was only done in a few places, Electrolizing Corp being one of them. The dropping of the Electrolizing requirement not only decreased the cost, it increased the producability of bolt carrier groups (HC was available through many vendors, many in Connecticut, closer to Colt's), and did not hurt anything as the only parts of the bolt carrier group that benefited, functionally, from chroming was the interior of the gas key and the bore of the piston cylinder.
FAQ about "Electrozing" (http://www.electrolizingofla.com/FAQ/ElectrolizingFAQ.aspx)
I will venture (and hope) that people selling "chrome plated" bolts are actually selling TDC bolts, not hard chrome plated bolts.
...The way he explained was that the gov needed ammo, and therefore powders, faster, so they cut corners...
They didn't cut any corners.
The initial contracts for .223 military production were small lots of less than half a million rounds for testing and initial fielding. Once the rifle was adopted and put in service, the contract size grew to half a billion rounds per contract. When they were loading small contracts with IMR4475, they could cherry-picked through 4475 propellant lots to find the ones that would meet the velocity and pressure limits (and still required waivers at times). With the 500 million round contract size multiple lots of propellant were required, and cherry-picking was not possible. And, while some lots of 4475, could meet requirements, a majority could not. In fact, there was a point where none of the ammunition producers (Federal, Olin and Remington, and because Remington had the contract to run LCAAP and TCAAP, even these two as well) responded to a RFB for .223 ammunition, unless the pressure requirements were increased, the velocity requirements were reduced, or a change of propellant was authorized.
Lysander, just to be clear, the Project AGILE ARs were the ones sent to Vietnam for evaluation, prior to the rifle being approved for production and general issue?
PS- I've been taking notes
Lysander, just to be clear, the Project AGILE ARs were the ones sent to Vietnam for evaluation, prior to the rifle being approved for production and general issue?
PS- I've been taking notes
Yes, in 1962, a thousand Colt manufactured AR-15s were supplied to the US advisors and their South Vietnamese allies for evaluation. It was in large part the reports from this project that many of the myths of the "explosive" lethality of the .223 grew.
Such as:
...one (Vietnamese) Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one VC with 3 rounds with the first burst. One round in the head took it completely off . Another in
the right arm, took it completely off, too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about 5 inches in diameter.
You know.....people DO exagerrate.
What was "took head off" was likely just "yeah he canoed that dude. It was some good shit."
The initial contracts for .223 military production were small lots of less than half a million rounds for testing and initial fielding. Once the rifle was adopted and put in service, the contract size grew to half a billion rounds per contract. When they were loading small contracts with IMR4475, they could cherry-picked through 4475 propellant lots to find the ones that would meet the velocity and pressure limits (and still required waivers at times). With the 500 million round contract size multiple lots of propellant were required, and cherry-picking was not possible. And, while some lots of 4475, could meet requirements, a majority could not. In fact, there was a point where none of the ammunition producers (Federal, Olin and Remington, and because Remington had the contract to run LCAAP and TCAAP, even these two as well) responded to a RFB for .223 ammunition, unless the pressure requirements were increased, the velocity requirements were reduced, or a change of propellant was authorized.
Incidentally, this whole mess was a "self-inflicted wound", and could have been avoided.
The original bullet design was a scaled down version of the Caliber .30, M1 bullet, with the cylindrical section shortened to meet the 55 grain weight. Remington found that by decreasing the ogive from 7 calibers to 5.5 calibers and shortening the boat-tail about 0.020" they could produce the bullets easier and with better uniformity. Unfortunately, the ballistic coefficient was reduced and the down range velocity dropped. Since the remaining velocity at about 300 meters was the driving factor in bullet lethality, the original bullet design could have had its muzzle velocity decreased about 150 fps and maintained the 300 meter velocity (and the lethality). The ballistically inferior Remington bullet required the 3270 fps muzzle velocity to keep the 300 meter velocity required for penetration.
A 150 fps decease in muzzle velocity would have made the chamber pressure a non-issue as IMR4475 was capable of meeting this requirement of 50,000 psi.
This information was passed on the the OSD and the Technical Coordination Committee (TCC). However, the TCC was overly enamored by Gene Stoner and felt he could do no wrong, felt the Ordnance Dept was full of fools and idiots, and also mistakenly believed that the Remington bullet was the bullet designed by Stoner. So, the TCC ignored the recommendation from the Ord Dept and insisted on the higher Vm and Remington bullet design.
5.56 Bonded SP
10-15-17, 18:43
I learned a crazy amount of information from this video that I never knew before. It looks like our modern M4 has been updated in so many ways that I do think our troops would have done much better with the modern M4 or A4.
https://youtu.be/lLYLkrethQA
I learned a crazy amount of information from this video that I never knew before. It looks like our modern M4 has been updated in so many ways that I do think our troops would have done much better with the modern M4 or A4.
https://youtu.be/lLYLkrethQA
A few things....
1) The "not developed here bias" myth - The evidence for this myth just isn't there for the US Ordnance Department. The Krag, the M1895 MG, the Benét–Mercié, the M1911, the Vickers M1916 MG, the M1917 MG, and the M1918 BAR were all designed outside the US Arsenals by private firms or individuals, further just about all of the fore-mentioned weapons were competing against other private designs, such as the .45 cal Savage, the .45 cal Luger, the Lewis MG, the FAL and all the various semi-automatics entered in the semi-auto rifle competition that resulted in the M1 Garand. Weapons designed internally to the Ordnance Dept are really the minority.* The reason the Ord Dept initially did not like the AR-15 was they did not feel that the weapon was fully developed, and felt that it would be about 5 to 10 years before it was fully developed (and this turned out to be true, it wouldn't be until 1969 before all the wrinkles in the weapon and ammunition were ironed out). Further, the Light Rifle Program, that yielded the M14 had taken over 12 years to get a new rifle in production, and had cost far more than anticipated, they weren't about to admit, that after all this time and money, they adopted the wrong rifle, especially when they felt they hadn't. Besides, the SPIW was going to be the M14's replacement, when that program was finished.
2) He alludes one of reasons the M16 was frowned upon was the potential loss of jobs at Springfield and Rock Island. One, Rock Island had ceased being a production facility by the time of WW2 and Springfield was never intended to be a volume producer of the M14, they were supposed to cease production after the design was matured and proven to be producible. The only reason they got additional production contracts was because production from the two intended producers, Olin and H&R fell so far behind schedule.
3) Port pressure and Ball propellant. The ball propellant was not old stocks from WW2, Olin's St Mark's facility had been making ball propellant for 7.62mm NATO for years, this was the stuff introduced for M193. As to the port pressure, nobody had even looked at the port pressure for the AR-15/M16 before 1964-5. Nobody had any idea what the optimum port pressure should be or even was with IMR propellant. And further, they (Armalite/Colt, Olin, and Springfield) overlooked some basic principles when they adopted ball propellant as a replacement of the IMR propellant:
The area under the Pressure-Time curve (see the example below) from primer ignition to bullet exit is the muzzle velocity. With IMR propellant, the peak pressure was anywhere from 52,000 to 60,000 psi, They wanted to reduce the peak pressure, but maintain the muzzle velocity, which means the area under the curve has to remain the same. So, if you push the peak of the curve down, but keep the area under the curve the same, that means the rest of the curve has to go up. That means the port pressure has to increase. This fact was obvious to some of the engineers in the Ord Dept, but ignored by the OSD's TCC.
http://www.orions-hammer.com/blowback/chinn_pressure0.png
Incidentally, all of the information I have presented in all of my posts comes from Edward Ezell and R. Blake Stevens' "The Black Rifle", which is very well referenced, and has many excepts from the actual reports from the period, and quotes from interviews with many of the principal figures, and from reading the full reports called out in the book's bibliography, many of which are available through DTIC.
______________________________
* What Springfield, and Rock Island mostly did was take designs offered to the Government, test them and if they showed merit, recommended tweaks to refine the design to meet requirements. Which is exactly what they did with the M16.
So, small sample size, but during my work up for AFG, my group got new M4's. Like, out of the box new.
I had 2 or 3 bolt overrides in the 2 weeks of work ups. Using of course, standard CLP and M855. Magazine issue?
None of my ARs have been that bad. My point is, even current fieldings can have issues.
5.56 Bonded SP
10-16-17, 07:53
So, small sample size, but during my work up for AFG, my group got new M4's. Like, out of the box new.
I had 2 or 3 bolt overrides in the 2 weeks of work ups. Using of course, standard CLP and M855. Magazine issue?
None of my ARs have been that bad. My point is, even current fieldings can have issues.
Sounds like bad mags to me, worn springs or dinged feed lips? Bad mags have always been my #1 cause of malfunction with milspec AR's.
5.56 Bonded SP
10-16-17, 08:07
A few things....
1) The "not developed here bias" myth - The evidence for this myth just isn't there for the US Ordnance Department. The Krag, the M1895 MG, the Benét–Mercié, the M1911, the Vickers M1916 MG, the M1917 MG, and the M1918 BAR were all designed outside the US Arsenals by private firms or individuals, further just about all of the fore-mentioned weapons were competing against other private designs, such as the .45 cal Savage, the .45 cal Luger, the Lewis MG, the FAL and all the various semi-automatics entered in the semi-auto rifle competition that resulted in the M1 Garand. Weapons designed internally to the Ordnance Dept are really the minority.* The reason the Ord Dept initially did not like the AR-15 was they did not feel that the weapon was fully developed, and felt that it would be about 5 to 10 years before it was fully developed (and this turned out to be true, it wouldn't be until 1969 before all the wrinkles in the weapon and ammunition were ironed out). Further, the Light Rifle Program, that yielded the M14 had taken over 12 years to get a new rifle in production, and had cost far more than anticipated, they weren't about to admit, that after all this time and money, they adopted the wrong rifle, especially when they felt they hadn't. Besides, the SPIW was going to be the M14's replacement, when that program was finished.
2) He alludes one of reasons the M16 was frowned upon was the potential loss of jobs at Springfield and Rock Island. One, Rock Island had ceased being a production facility by the time of WW2 and Springfield was never intended to be a volume producer of the M14, they were supposed to cease production after the design was matured and proven to be producible. The only reason they got additional production contracts was because production from the two intended producers, Olin and H&R fell so far behind schedule.
3) Port pressure and Ball propellant. The ball propellant was not old stocks from WW2, Olin's St Mark's facility had been making ball propellant for 7.62mm NATO for years, this was the stuff introduced for M193. As to the port pressure, nobody had even looked at the port pressure for the AR-15/M16 before 1964-5. Nobody had any idea what the optimum port pressure should be or even was with IMR propellant. And further, they (Armalite/Colt, Olin, and Springfield) overlooked some basic principles when they adopted ball propellant as a replacement of the IMR propellant:
The area under the Pressure-Time curve (see the example below) from primer ignition to bullet exit is the muzzle velocity. With IMR propellant, the peak pressure was anywhere from 52,000 to 60,000 psi, They wanted to reduce the peak pressure, but maintain the muzzle velocity, which means the area under the curve has to remain the same. So, if you push the peak of the curve down, but keep the area under the curve the same, that means the rest of the curve has to go up. That means the port pressure has to increase. This fact was obvious to some of the engineers in the Ord Dept, but ignored by the OSD's TCC.
http://www.orions-hammer.com/blowback/chinn_pressure0.png
Incidentally, all of the information I have presented in all of my posts comes from Edward Ezell and R. Blake Stevens' "The Black Rifle", which is very well referenced, and has many excepts from the actual reports from the period, and quotes from interviews with many of the principal figures, and from reading the full reports called out in the book's bibliography, many of which are available through DTIC.
______________________________
* What Springfield, and Rock Island mostly did was take designs offered to the Government, test them and if they showed merit, recommended tweaks to refine the design to meet requirements. Which is exactly what they did with the M16.
Thanks for the clarifications!
I have to say, the parts I found most interesting was the specific design modifications, buffer, disconnect, etc. I learned a few interesting things about the design.
This is a bit off topic but...
I also find the pressure curves very interesting, especially since I am a reloader, and I reload for more auto loaders than just my ARs. I have thought about it some, but this has made me think even more about it. With all the hot, and really soft loads; using various different burning powders, I have yet to have a malfunction from one of my hand loads in an auto loader. I think that it is interesting the wide variety of ammo my guns will eat up with no problems.
Right now I'm running about 25.6 - 26 gr of Ramshot Tac with 60-64gr bullets as a go to. For the past few weeks I have been thinking a lot about powder burn characteristics, and trying to find something that works great all around for a fair price.
Dr. Bullseye
10-16-17, 18:07
I'm new here and to ARs. This is a very interesting thread and I have seen the video. Question: even with a mil spec chrome lined barrel and BCG, would a lubricant designed for corrosion control be of benefit in terms of reliability? I use CLP and LP (a Breakfree product to lubricate and protect after cleaning). Would it be beneficial in terms of reliability to go to a product like Corrosion X ???????---Just to make sure?
5.56 Bonded SP
10-16-17, 19:15
I'm new here and to ARs. This is a very interesting thread and I have seen the video. Question: even with a mil spec chrome lined barrel and BCG, would a lubricant designed for corrosion control be of benefit in terms of reliability? I use CLP and LP (a Breakfree product to lubricate and protect after cleaning). Would it be beneficial in terms of reliability to go to a product like Corrosion X ???????---Just to make sure?
Long answer...
I've used motor oil for everything gun related for the past few years, and not a spec of rust anywhere, I believe fancy gun oils are an overpriced gimmick. 1 quart of motor oil will last years, and costs a fraction as much as gun oil. As long as you lube your rifle it will function fine. These pictures provide a good guideline for every deep cleaning... I only deep clean my guns after a few hundred to 1000 rounds. Your aluminum receivers won't rust either. If you live near the ocean or somewhere very humid, I would clean/ lube it more often. I have almost no humidity where I live, and have some guns I put a light coat of motor oil on 2-3 years ago, and they don't have a spec of rust.
Short answer, no some expensive gun oil will not make your gun more reliable, as long as you lube it properly with your lube of choice ( in your case clp ) it will function just fine.
480554805648057
ETA: not trying to say any quality lube is better than the other. Just saying as long as a quality lube is properly used the rifle will be just fine.
I'm new here and to ARs. This is a very interesting thread and I have seen the video. Question: even with a mil spec chrome lined barrel and BCG, would a lubricant designed for corrosion control be of benefit in terms of reliability? I use CLP and LP (a Breakfree product to lubricate and protect after cleaning). Would it be beneficial in terms of reliability to go to a product like Corrosion X ???????---Just to make sure?
I don't think anything crazy like that is necessary. I've lived in Florida and Alabama the entire time I've owned ARs and all I do is wipe the outside of the barrel down with some CLP every now and again. I haven't had rust problems anywhere else, but that is probably because I run my guns pretty wet.
It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a unlined, bare steel bore and chamber in a jungle environment will rust if not cleaned. So lets not issue cleaning kits and tell the soldiers the guns need no maintenance!
It was a double down of derpage.
Ahh, what 50 years of hindsight blinds us from.....
In 1960, nobody had ever chrome plated a .22 caliber bore. And, chrome plating a bore in more than just sticking it in a plating bath....
When the AR-15 was first proposed to the Army, they did note the fact that it did not have a chrome plated bore, and Springfield advised that funds should be allotted to develop the techniques to provide the AR-15 with a chrome plated bore and chamber just like the M14 and M60.
Reportedly acting on the advice of Gene Stoner, who claimed that the AR-15 bore and chamber needed no further improvement, OSD vetoed the Springfield recommendation. (The Black Rifle, Stevens and Ezell, page 218)
The technical difficulty in uniformly chrome plating such a small diameter hole, that is also very deep, is the reason only the chamber was initially plated.
While rusting and pitting were problems, the real culprit to the "stuck cases" was poor control of the case hardness. According to Bill Davis, the drawing specifications for the case were very vague on this point. Incidentally, this is the reason that Russian steel ammo causes problems, it is not an inherent problem with steel, it is an inherent problem with soft cases.
I'm new here and to ARs. This is a very interesting thread and I have seen the video. Question: even with a mil spec chrome lined barrel and BCG, would a lubricant designed for corrosion control be of benefit in terms of reliability? I use CLP and LP (a Breakfree product to lubricate and protect after cleaning). Would it be beneficial in terms of reliability to go to a product like Corrosion X ???????---Just to make sure?
You already have all the chemicals you need to keep your AR running well. CLP alone is also fine. Check out the lube point pics BondedSP posted above. If you feel like it, use a copper solvent in the bore once in awhile, but its not for reliability.
In today's modern, quality AR's, it's not really an issue. Like others have said, just keep it generously lubed and it will pretty much run indefinitely. I've used Mobil 1 and ATF (~3:1 mix) for years but now prefer a safer, plant-based lube (currently trying ALG Go Juice). Slip2000 EWL is really good.
I'm new here and to ARs. This is a very interesting thread and I have seen the video. Question: even with a mil spec chrome lined barrel and BCG, would a lubricant designed for corrosion control be of benefit in terms of reliability? I use CLP and LP (a Breakfree product to lubricate and protect after cleaning). Would it be beneficial in terms of reliability to go to a product like Corrosion X ???????---Just to make sure?
FYI motor oil works as a gun lube but its bad for your health. There's a reason mechanics wear rubber gloves when changing engine oil.
Doc Safari
10-17-17, 17:16
FYI motor oil works as a gun lube but its bad for your health. There's a reason mechanics wear rubber gloves when changing engine oil.
Really, I'd think you'd want to use rubber gloves no matter what you're using if they're available. I spent too much of the 1990's with my hands smelling like Break Free long after I'd finished cleaning and lubing a gun.
TactiCool1976
10-17-17, 21:36
i'd say the modern M4's and M16's would fare a lot better than the original ones that didnt have a chrome lined chamber or barrel... if you look at all the videos on youtube of people running their AR's for thousands of rounds without cleaning them or doing the bare essentials like wiping off the bolt or doing a quick clean of the chamber and barrel.. and then running it for another couple thousand rounds.. or the BCM filthy 14... now the only thing you cant recreate or simulate is the environment of Vietnam, with the humidity, rain, mud.. and having a M4 in that environment everyday...
i'd say the modern M4's and M16's would fare a lot better than the original ones that didnt have a chrome lined chamber or barrel... if you look at all the videos on youtube of people running their AR's for thousands of rounds without cleaning them or doing the bare essentials like wiping off the bolt or doing a quick clean of the chamber and barrel.. and then running it for another couple thousand rounds.. or the BCM filthy 14... now the only thing you cant recreate or simulate is the environment of Vietnam, with the humidity, rain, mud.. and having a M4 in that environment everyday...
First off - "The M16/AR-15 fails unless it is cleaned" is a myth, period.
The early M16 issued in Vietnam suffered reliability problems due to a number of problems, often blamed on the lack of cleaning tools, but that was just a convenient scapegoat.
1) Ammunition: Poor case hardness - because the specification for the .223 (later 5.56mm, M193) did not properly defined what it should be. Reports were that the case would stick in the chamber and could only be removed by knocking it out with a cleaning rod. When a case sticks like that in the chamber, it is not because it has a little dirt on it of the chamber is pitted, it is because the case has expanded during firing and not relaxed. Having a dirty or pitted chamber exacerbates this problem, but if a case relaxes properly after firing, normal extraction should be possible. Also, certain lots of ammunition loaded with WC846 would have fouling accumulate in the gas tube.
2) High cyclic rates: There are two causes for this - 1) Poor "Action Spring Guide" design, the original "buffer" used by Stoner was a very poor design which relies on a uniform amount of friction to work properly, Lubrication, or lack thereof, on the Edgewater-type spring changes the spring rate, and if enough dirt, or corrosion gets into the thing it ceases to be a spring and becomes just a solid block of aluminum. 2) Higher port pressure from all of the alternate propellants.
3) Intergranular exfoliation causing premature failure of the receivers.
5.56 Bonded SP
10-18-17, 15:24
FYI motor oil works as a gun lube but its bad for your health. There's a reason mechanics wear rubber gloves when changing engine oil.
I can't imagine motor oil being any more unhealthy than clp, rem oil, or hoppes. I do feel like I am burning brain cells every time I use gun solvents, but that smell of hoppes does have a nostalgia to it.. Reminds me of cleaning my 22 with pops as a 10 year old :)
FYI motor oil works as a gun lube but its bad for your health. There's a reason mechanics wear rubber gloves when changing engine oil.
I'm not saying new motor oil is healthy, but the used oil the mechanics change is loaded with heavy metals and other toxins.
Andy
5.56 Bonded SP
10-18-17, 18:08
I'm not saying new motor oil is healthy, but the used oil the mechanics change is loaded with heavy metals and other toxins.
Andy
I don't think any of us are using used motor oil.
I bought a new quart of synthetic motor oil for 5 bucks and it will last years for my guns. I don't see why people would want to use used motor oil when a quart of new motor oil costs a a couple bucks, less than a small fraction of what gun oil costs.
32 oz in a quart
quart of motor oil ~5$
Quart of gun oil ( 1 oz is usually ~ 5$ ) 5x32= 160$
So gun oil is roughly 32x as expensive as motor oil, yet motor oil has to meet industry highly regulated API standards, where as gun oil needs to meet no regulated standards.
Can't imagine why anyone would want to try and save money by using used motor oil 48095
Gasoline engine oils are carcinogenic when used. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentration is higher in used gasoline engine oil. Diesel engine oil does not show the same rise in PAH, and the carcinogenic properties of used diesel are less defined.
I would t bet on used motor oil in an AR being safe, but it’s not defined as a known carcinogen at this time... at least from what I’ve seen.
They ChemE in me suspects the oils will break down and be carcinogenic, at least to a degree.
Edit- he was saying why mechanics wear gloves(I think). That said, the motor oil becomes “used” after the first shot, the question is what organics does motor oil used in a gun contain? It’s all acedemic. Wear gloves when cleaning a dirty gun- it’s cheap insurance and your wife/girlfriend will let you touch her more.
5.56 Bonded SP
10-18-17, 18:34
I agree wearing rubber gloves is good. I do when I reload( make my own ) ammo too, but for other reasons.
Gun cleaning can cause lead exposure from what I understand, that is regardless of what lube you use.
I was indeed referring to mechanics wearing gloves due to the toxins (and now I know carcinogens) in used motor oil (as in used in a car). I use Mobil 1 in all my firearms. It's cheap and it works.
Andy
Dr. Bullseye
10-19-17, 17:10
I was indeed referring to mechanics wearing gloves due to the toxins (and now I know carcinogens) in used motor oil (as in used in a car). I use Mobil 1 in all my firearms. It's cheap and it works.
Andy
I saw 15w-50 Mobil One in Walmart yesterday. Is this weight the hot ticket?
I saw 15w-50 Mobil One in Walmart yesterday. Is this weight the hot ticket?
I have been using Mobile One 15-50, but have no idea what the best viscosity would be.
Andy
5.56 Bonded SP
10-19-17, 22:51
I saw 15w-50 Mobil One in Walmart yesterday. Is this weight the hot ticket?
I've used 0w20, 5w20, 10w30, and probably some other weights as well. They all worked just fine. Never had any problems. In fact, I find that motor oils keep my AR bolts wetter longer, leaving less hard carbon, and making them easier to clean after a few hundred rounds as well :)
Viscosity is probably area dependent but unless you live in the arctic circle it probably doesn't matter. Most motor oils are rated for below freezing weather, but that is where synthetic would shine... But unless you are operating on the north or south pole.. It probably wont matter.
Reference, it gets below freezing for months out of the year where I live.. never had a problem with my guns or my truck running 10w30 dino.
Dr. Bullseye
10-20-17, 20:28
You guys are making an impact on me with the motor oil talk. Motor oil does have ingredients which fight corrosion/rust. They also have detergents which hold bad things like carbon in suspension. Someone here mentioned this was not good and eventually would form a slurry, wearing on the rails for instance. But carbon is soft. Graphite, a type of carbon, is used in a slurry with oil for increased lubrication. What is not cool is dirt, sand, dust and so on in a slurry. But I am not sure motor oil would be any better or worse in this regard than gun oil. Anyone know?
Thanks to the Vietnam video and this thread we all have some understanding of the reliability problems, and reasons for them, in Vietnam era M 16s. But, feeding and magazine questions aside, does anyone have any tips for reliability in today's M 16 descendants?
5.56 Bonded SP
10-20-17, 20:47
Dirt/sand/dust is going to stick to any gun oil or motor oil.
If the rifle is lubed properly, getting a bit of sand on it probably won't cause any problems since it is such a sealed system. I've shot in some dust storms, and had no problems.
How to make sure your gun is reliable?
Two main things in my opinion
1. Lube it properly
2. use a quality made gun
Also make sure to check your parts once in a while, replace springs and extractors every few thousand rounds. How many rounds before replacing parts? That is completely subjective to a plethora of factors. Pistol length AR's tend to eat parts much faster than Rifle length AR's.
The same is needed for an AK, I wore out an extractor on a romanian AK which induced malfunctions.
AR's are machines, and all machines will need some type of routine maintenance.
hope that helps
YMMV
I don't think any of us are using used motor oil.
I bought a new quart of synthetic motor oil for 5 bucks and it will last years for my guns. I don't see why people would want to use used motor oil when a quart of new motor oil costs a a couple bucks, less than a small fraction of what gun oil costs.
32 oz in a quart
quart of motor oil ~5$
Quart of gun oil ( 1 oz is usually ~ 5$ ) 5x32= 160$
So gun oil is roughly 32x as expensive as motor oil, yet motor oil has to meet industry highly regulated API standards, where as gun oil needs to meet no regulated standards.
Can't imagine why anyone would want to try and save money by using used motor oil 48095
I think motor oil works as well as anything else. But look at the sds/msds and decide for yourself if its healthily or not. They are available online.
Motor oil makes a mess of your clothes
You guys are making an impact on me with the motor oil talk. Motor oil does have ingredients which fight corrosion/rust. They also have detergents which hold bad things like carbon in suspension. Someone here mentioned this was not good and eventually would form a slurry, wearing on the rails for instance. But carbon is soft. Graphite, a type of carbon, is used in a slurry with oil for increased lubrication. What is not cool is dirt, sand, dust and so on in a slurry. But I am not sure motor oil would be any better or worse in this regard than gun oil. Anyone know?
Thanks to the Vietnam video and this thread we all have some understanding of the reliability problems, and reasons for them, in Vietnam era M 16s. But, feeding and magazine questions aside, does anyone have any tips for reliability in today's M 16 descendants?
I really got fancy and mix 50/50 Mobile1 15/50 with synthetic automatic tranny fluid. Really, just about any lube will work. I use my mix because it works and it's pretty inexpensive.
TactiCool1976
10-21-17, 23:49
First off - "The M16/AR-15 fails unless it is cleaned" is a myth, period.
The early M16 issued in Vietnam suffered reliability problems due to a number of problems, often blamed on the lack of cleaning tools, but that was just a convenient scapegoat.
1) Ammunition: Poor case hardness - because the specification for the .223 (later 5.56mm, M193) did not properly defined what it should be. Reports were that the case would stick in the chamber and could only be removed by knocking it out with a cleaning rod. When a case sticks like that in the chamber, it is not because it has a little dirt on it of the chamber is pitted, it is because the case has expanded during firing and not relaxed. Having a dirty or pitted chamber exacerbates this problem, but if a case relaxes properly after firing, normal extraction should be possible. Also, certain lots of ammunition loaded with WC846 would have fouling accumulate in the gas tube.
2) High cyclic rates: There are two causes for this - 1) Poor "Action Spring Guide" design, the original "buffer" used by Stoner was a very poor design which relies on a uniform amount of friction to work properly, Lubrication, or lack thereof, on the Edgewater-type spring changes the spring rate, and if enough dirt, or corrosion gets into the thing it ceases to be a spring and becomes just a solid block of aluminum. 2) Higher port pressure from all of the alternate propellants.
3) Intergranular exfoliation causing premature failure of the receivers.
Lysander
Right!! i actually ment, if using today's M4's with 223 / 5.56 ammo vs OG M16's and the standard ammo back then.... i still think the modern m4's run better...
it's sad to think that, if all the m16's back then had been issued with a 2oz bottle of oil, and cleaning kit, and they didnt change the gun powder... we'd never be having these types of chat's at least once a year...
Lysander
Right!! i actually ment, if using today's M4's with 223 / 5.56 ammo vs OG M16's and the standard ammo back then.... i still think the modern m4's run better...
it's sad to think that, if all the m16's back then had been issued with a 2oz bottle of oil, and cleaning kit, and they didnt change the gun powder... we'd never be having these types of chat's at least once a year...
You're over simplifying the problem the XM16 faced during its adoption. There was a cultural problem within the Department of Defense in the early 1960s, in that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) believed that private industry was more efficient in developing stuff than the military. There was a letter published by the OSD that stated in no uncertain terms that the introduction of the M16 into service would be done "quickly and efficiently" and anyone "making waves" would feel the serious displeasure of the SecDef. Because of that there was never any serious endurance testing of the M16 nor any serious development of the ammunition.
To say that "shouldn't have changed the powder" ignores the fact that the cartridge, as designed by Stoner, was unproduceable in mass quantities. In order to get the velocity required and stay within the pressure limits requires tighter limits on the energy density content of the propellant than possible. There was no other option but to change propellant, or change the cartridge design. The OSD rejected the idea of changing the cartridge because "it was designed by Stoner/private industry", and therefore better than anything the Army could come up with...
To say a cleaning kit should have been issued goes without saying, but again ignores the OSD directive of "quickly" fielding the M16.
To compare the M4 to the M16 is actually "apples-to-oranges". The M4 when it was fielded, had undergone more testing and development than the M16, and the M4 was just a slight change to the original, not a completely new design as the M16 was in 1963.
Lysander
Right!! i actually ment, if using today's M4's with 223 / 5.56 ammo vs OG M16's and the standard ammo back then.... i still think the modern m4's run better...
it's sad to think that, if all the m16's back then had been issued with a 2oz bottle of oil, and cleaning kit, and they didnt change the gun powder... we'd never be having these types of chat's at least once a year...
I don't know if the M4 runs better or not but imo an A1 with a 16'' or even 20'' is the ultimate KISS weapon. The A1 sights are excellent, set it and forget it vs the A2 target sights. I prefer the lighter profile barrel myself. The hand guards not so much. But before optics became the norm the A1 had a lot going for it. Compared to everything else doing the time it was the shit. FAL, M14, and G3.
The M16A1 is still in use to some extant. Iranians used the M16A1 and DIO S-5.56 during the Iran-Iraq war. I think some of the Iraqi soldiers fighting with the Americans are still using M16A1's. So maybe another good question would be How reliable is the M16A1 today? I understand not the same environment or the same ammo. Several years back The Firearm Blog had a very short article about an XM16E1 still in service in Cambodia. Of course how reliable is that particular weapon? I don't think that a M4 is much if any more reliable than an M16A1.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.