View Full Version : From XM16E1 To M16A1
Explains some of the changes that occurred along the way...
https://youtu.be/AI_kSWMtdvg?si=mXwJmVKO-PnEupkT
As with most of his videos, plenty of inaccuracies (the XM16E1s had been used in combat well before Ia Drang, namely the 82nd ABN in the Dominican Republic and with the 173rd ABN in Vietnam), mischaracterizations (McNamara was most certainly not willing to wait for the Army to "militarize" the AR-15, having cancelled M14 production before picking an alternative) and biased simplifications (the entire argument that the Ordnance Corps was willing to sacrifice lives in order to get their M14s back.) Additionally, ball powder was not something new the Army introduced to sabotage the new rifle they had been saddled with, but rather the standard military powder since Korea. Finally, he's free to not like the forward assist on the AR, but saying that it is completely useless is just ignorant. We have a high profile case where the individual involved (Kyle Rittenhouse) made use of the forward assist.
It's an interesting subject matter, it's just a shame that the content creator has such an axe to grind he lets it color how he presents facts. If anyone is interested in the subject matter, I'd recommend Bob Orkand and Lyman Duryea's Misfire: The Tragic Failure of the M16 in Vietnam. I don't think it's perfect, and I disagree with some of their conclusions, but it does a better job of analyzing the situation and facts.
IMR 4475 was the original propellant used in .223/5.56mm. Where is that propellant today? Can you get a can of it? Does any company or military use it in .223/5.56mm?
NO.
Why?
IMR 4475 was originally developed for 7.62mm ammunition as an alternative to WC846. However, IMR 4475 had a bad tendency to show excessive pressure when loaded in M80 ball ammunition. For this reason the Army discontinued its use in 7.62mm. Guess what, IMR 4475 showed the same tendencies for high pressures in .223/5.56mm ammunition. Du Pont ceased production of it for these reasons.
And another thing, Ordnance Department did not set the requirements for small arms. The Ordnance Department did not decide what small arms were adopted. The Infantry Board set the requirements, and the Infantry Board recommends what small arms they feel are suitable for infantry use. The Chief of Staff of the Army has the final decision authority. The job of the Ordnance Department was to take the Infantry's requirements and develop a weapon around them either in-house (as with the M14 and M73), through contracting it out (as with the M60, M39 and M61), or purchasing a suitable design (FAL/T48, or M1/M2/M3 20mm). Operational testing is also not done by Ordnance, but at the time also done by the Infantry Board. Testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds is not operational testing, this testing does judge the item to the set requirements, but only to the extend that recommendations are made to correct deficiencies.
In short Ordnance was not in a position to push the AR-15 for adoption nor was it in a position to prevent it, except by showing through engineering testing that the design was incapable of meeting the Infantry's requirements. The few tests done by Springfield and APG were quite positive about the AR-15's performance. The only "unkind" things in the reports were the usual things undeveloped firearms, and offered suggested remedies. Further testing (denied by the SecDef) would have exposed all of the weaknesses in the design (bolt bounce, ammunition incompatibility, rifling, maintenance requirements, etc, etc).
IMR 4475 was the original propellant used in .223/5.56mm. Where is that propellant today? Can you get a can of it? Does any company or military use it in .223/5.56mm?
NO.
Why?
IMR 4475 was originally developed for 7.62mm ammunition as an alternative to WC846. However, IMR 4475 had a bad tendency to show excessive pressure when loaded in M80 ball ammunition. For this reason the Army discontinued its use in 7.62mm. Guess what, IMR 4475 showed the same tendencies for high pressures in .223/5.56mm ammunition. Du Pont ceased production of it for these reasons.
And another thing, Ordnance Department did not set the requirements for small arms. The Ordnance Department did not decide what small arms were adopted. The Infantry Board set the requirements, and the Infantry Board recommends what small arms they feel are suitable for infantry use. The Chief of Staff of the Army has the final decision authority. The job of the Ordnance Department was to take the Infantry's requirements and develop a weapon around them either in-house (as with the M14 and M73), through contracting it out (as with the M60, M39 and M61), or purchasing a suitable design (FAL/T48, or M1/M2/M3 20mm). Operational testing is also not done by Ordnance, but at the time also done by the Infantry Board. Testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds is not operational testing, this testing does judge the item to the set requirements, but only to the extend that recommendations are made to correct deficiencies.
In short Ordnance was not in a position to push the AR-15 for adoption nor was it in a position to prevent it, except by showing through engineering testing that the design was incapable of meeting the Infantry's requirements. The few tests done by Springfield and APG were quite positive about the AR-15's performance. The only "unkind" things in the reports were the usual things undeveloped firearms, and offered suggested remedies. Further testing (denied by the SecDef) would have exposed all of the weaknesses in the design (bolt bounce, ammunition incompatibility, rifling, maintenance requirements, etc, etc).
Why was the testing denied?
How long was the M16A1 in service?
bobcatdriver
09-17-23, 12:12
IMR 4475 was the original propellant used in .223/5.56mm. Where is that propellant today? Can you get a can of it? Does any company or military use it in .223/5.56mm?
NO.
Why?
IMR 4475 was originally developed for 7.62mm ammunition as an alternative to WC846. However, IMR 4475 had a bad tendency to show excessive pressure when loaded in M80 ball ammunition. For this reason the Army discontinued its use in 7.62mm. Guess what, IMR 4475 showed the same tendencies for high pressures in .223/5.56mm ammunition. Du Pont ceased production of it for these reasons.
I've never read much about the usage of it in 7.62 ammo, but wasn't it more due to "erratic" pressures in 5.56? Which naturally would include instances of "excessive" pressure.
The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective is a good book on the history and development of the M16.
https://i.imgur.com/N7Xb5TM.jpg
The "Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel" published in June 1968 is a fairly concise history of the M16 rifle (and it's issues) up to that point. Recommended for the history buffs:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA953110.pdf
...and product improvements:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA953121.pdf
IME, SAS has been full of equal parts bs and fact. The scale tipping towards bs. The guy is clearly biased and spouts more fudd nonsense than most of his gun tuber peers.
IME, SAS has been full of equal parts bs and fact. The scale tipping towards bs. The guy is clearly biased and spouts more fudd nonsense than most of his gun tuber peers.
I was always surprised by how much and who recommended him. I already have enough of my own bias without adding any of his.
I've never read much about the usage of it in 7.62 ammo, but wasn't it more due to "erratic" pressures in 5.56? Which naturally would include instances of "excessive" pressure.
The use of IMR 4475 in 7.62mm ended about the same time as it stopped being used in 5.56mm, and largely for the same reasons.
Why was the testing denied?
How long was the M16A1 in service?
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) was sold on the misguided belief that the AR-15 was a "fully developed system", and put out a memo stating that no testing would be done, except what they approved, which was very little. Frankford Arsenal stated at the meeting that the propellant change was first floated that they thought it would be reckless to change propellant without testing to see if there was any adverse effects. The request for testing was shot down immediately. Yet people like this guy continue to parrot, ". . . it was the Army's fault for the powder change. . . "
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) was sold on the misguided belief that the AR-15 was a "fully developed system", and put out a memo stating that no testing would be done, except what they approved, which was very little. Frankford Arsenal stated at the meeting that the propellant change was first floated that they thought it would be reckless to change propellant without testing to see if there was any adverse effects. The request for testing was shot down immediately. Yet people like this guy continue to parrot, ". . . it was the Army's fault for the powder change. . . "
Any idea why Mr Stoner developed the AR around IMR 4475?
The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective is a good book on the history and development of the M16.
https://i.imgur.com/N7Xb5TM.jpg
That is an excellent book for the facts, but the authors try to tell a false "story" with heroes and villains. The choice of "villains" is, of course the Army, in general and Dr Fred Carten in particular. In order to weave this "story" they do not present the facts in a strictly linear time line, but place some events out-of-time to try and imply the were sinister motives afoot . . .
One incident that best exemplifies this is the "water-in-bore" discussion. The AR-15 during rain testing in 1960 had an over-pressure incident. This was reported to both the Ordnance and the Infantry Board as a possible problem that needed to be addressed before the rifle be considered suitable for infantry use. Stevens and Ezell make a big deal about this being Dr. Carten seizing on a minor flaw and trying to kill the AR-15. They can do this because here in the future, we know that water in the bore can be drained by cracking the breech about a 1/2 inch, and out the water flows. But in 1960, nobody knew this. Nobody had ever intentionally filled a .22 caliber barrel and tried to drain it, and further, a .22 caliber bore will not self drain, the surface tension, weight of water and volume available cannot pull enough vacuum or allow air to bubble past the blockage. In order to self drain, you have to have a 1/4 inch bore of bigger. Dr. Carten did what any sensible manager would do: he asked the question is this correctable (and funded the quick study to get the answer, which they did), and looked to alternative calibers if it was an insolvable problem. The authors present this episode as Carten making a mountain out of a mole hill, and trying to force a change of caliber (and they completely ignore the fact the Infantry Board were the ones that brought up the idea of a .25 caliber AR).
EDIT:
If you have the pdf version of the book whose first page is a white title page, I have a set of comments that can be attached to it that discuss the issues I have with the book.
Any idea why Mr Stoner developed the AR around IMR 4475?
"The Air Force technical data package required the use of IMR 4475, and specified the velocity of 3250 plus or minus 40 feet per second, and the chamber pressure of 52,000 pounds per square inch (the commercial specifications). These requirements were also contained in the 16 August 1963 proposal for procurement of one million rounds of M193 ball cartridges. Both Olin Mathieson and Remington Arms, the two eligible bidders, took exception to provisions of the technical data package, but at the time, had no objection to the use of IMR 4475 propellant."
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA953114.pdf
"The Air Force technical data package required the use of IMR 4475, and specified the velocity of 3250 plus or minus 40 feet per second, and the chamber pressure of 52,000 pounds per square inch (the commercial specifications). These requirements were also contained in the 16 August 1963 proposal for procurement of one million rounds of M193 ball cartridges. Both Olin Mathieson and Remington Arms, the two eligible bidders, took exception to provisions of the technical data package, but at the time, had no objection to the use of IMR 4475 propellant."
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA953114.pdf
That quote does not answer the question, as the Air Force Data Package was written around Stoner's 1957-58 design.
Only Stoner could answer that question, but I am going to guess, because after initial outlines and calculation on chamber volumes and such, Armalite turned the development of the ".222 Special" over to Remington, who refined the cartridge and fixed a few problems. And, they would be inclined to use their own propellants, the only IMR in the required energy density and burn rate range (at the time) would be IMR 4475.
Since both Stoner and Remington originally cooperated on the development of the round, it's possible that Remington's engineers suggested the use of IMR 4476.
What year was the M16A2 adopted?
I was always surprised by how much and who recommended him. I already have enough of my own bias without adding any of his.
Yeah, he so consistently spouts BS, I'm surprised he continues to be shared around as much as he is. I'd have thought at a certain extent, word would get out that he's full of it.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) was sold on the misguided belief that the AR-15 was a "fully developed system", and put out a memo stating that no testing would be done, except what they approved, which was very little.
I think people always forget this fact, as well as the idea that the AR-15 design was supposed to be a short term, interim solution until the "next gen" solution was developed in a couple of years. If the bean counters and Whiz Kids had any idea of how much R&D the AR/XM16 really needed, I wonder if the M-14 would have been cancelled when it was thus necessitating the "one time buy" of Colt's ARs.
The Smithsonian did an over 4 hour long interview with Stoner in 1988 on the development of the M16 - including the M16A2.
He discusses all of the issues in this thread, as well as the attempts by some leaders to torpedo the rifle during the winter testing in Alaska. You can watch the interview here.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOSc8D2U-Hf6i9FT7ZzVpKZVDBsS6b3Ub&si=7eTwcBhm5YY0ec8L
https://youtu.be/kaIU0nCxwGg?si=NP5Dt-PgMkXDcgQC
The "next best thing" was supposed to be the Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW), which fired flechettes, or some such. It turned out to be a dead end.
Yeah, he so consistently spouts BS, I'm surprised he continues to be shared around as much as he is. I'd have thought at a certain extent, word would get out that he's full of it.
I hope Ian McCollum is reasonably accurate as I find his presentations interesting.
The Smithsonian did an over 4 hour long interview with Stoner in 1988 on the development of the M16 - including the M16A2.
He discusses all of the issues in this thread, as well as the attempts by some leaders to torpedo the rifle during the winter testing in Alaska. You can watch the interview here.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOSc8D2U-Hf6i9FT7ZzVpKZVDBsS6b3Ub&si=7eTwcBhm5YY0ec8L
https://youtu.be/kaIU0nCxwGg?si=NP5Dt-PgMkXDcgQC
"An attempt to torpedo his rifle" or "people told to disassemble a rifle with no technical instructions, improper tools and no spare parts botching the job"?
Given the number of people here and on other discussion board asking which way the taper pins go, and mucking up roll pin installation I am inclined to believe the latter. (Remember, the idea of spring pins was a new thing in firearms, the typical Army armorer was used to things like the M1919 and BAR, which if you are not supposed to remove it it is staked in place.)
So, what were these "bad things" said about the AR-15 after arctic testing?
- There was insufficient room for the arctic mitten in the trigger well (with the floor pivoted away).
- Left handed shooters got a face full of hot brass.
- 8 mph sustained and 20mph gusts blew 55 gr bullet off the target.
- working the magazine release in mittens was difficult.
- People had a hard time picking up small parts, like the extractor pin, FP retaining pin and cam pin in arctic mittens.
- And without a flash hider and with smoky propellant you can see an AR further away.
All-in-all, the AR got a fairly good review.
They did try to torpedo the weapon. At the 27 minute mark of the first video, Stoner states that there was an understanding between Army leadership and himself that he would be present at any subsequent testing, and be given the opportunity to brief those conducting the tests on the rifle. Contrary to this agreement, rifles were shipped without manuals or spares to Ft. Greely, Alaska, and tested without Stoner's prior knowledge. He was only notified after they had "problems", which came about largely because they had needlessly disassembled the rifles, up to and including the front sight bases. They even went so far as to use pieces of welding rod to secure the sight bases. The base commander even shared his bias against the weapon with Stoner.
Stoner goes on to say that he was approached by Army officials about making a 6mm version of the AR15, which turned out to be a smoke screen in order to distract him from further working on the 5.56 variant. This, along with the Greeley tests insured that the M14 would be chosen over the AR15
They did try to torpedo the weapon. At the 27 minute mark of the first video, Stoner states that there was an understanding between Army leadership and himself that he would be present at any subsequent testing, and be given the opportunity to brief those conducting the tests on the rifle. Contrary to this agreement, rifles were shipped without manuals or spares to Ft. Greely, Alaska, and tested without Stoner's prior knowledge. He was only notified after they had "problems", which came about largely because they had needlessly disassembled the rifles, up to and including the front sight bases. They even went so far as to use pieces of welding rod to secure the sight bases. The base commander even shared his bias against the weapon with Stoner.
Stoner goes on to say that he was approached by Army officials about making a 6mm version of the AR15, which turned out to be a smoke screen in order to distract him from further working on the 5.56 variant. This, along with the Greeley tests insured that the M14 would be chosen over the AR15
You should be careful to attribute maliciousness, when simple incompetence could also be an explanation.
And another thing, in every weapons test I have a report on, complete disassembly was part of the test plan, so it wasn't "needless". So, what did they actually say?
"Evaluation of Small Caliber High Velocity Rifles," U.S. Army Arctic Test Board, 17 April 1959.
"5. (C) SUMMARY OF EVALUATION:
a. The AR-15 rifle was easily disassembled by test personnel wearing the intermediate and complete arctic hardware. Personnel wearing the intermediate and complete arctic handwear had difficulty in picking up small pieces, such as the extractor, extractor retaining pin, cam pin, and
firing pin retaining pin during assembly of the rifle (Test Nr 1, Incl l).
b. The AR-15 rifle was easy to clean with the exception of the gas system. Although the gas system on the two test rifles were never cleaned, each rifle functioned properly for over 10,000 rounds (Test Nr 2, Incl l).
c. Total number of rounds fired in two AR-15 rifles was 19,706 rounds as compared to 10,540 rounds fired in the two M14 rifles. The number of various types of malfunctions with the two AR-15 rifles was 20 as compared to 10 with the two M14 rifles. When the AR-15 rifle was fired by a left-handed rifleman, the ejected cartridge cases entered the clothing of the rifleman, and caused burns on neck and chest. The built in winter trigger of the AR-15 rifle was too short and there was insufficient space between the magazine recess and the trigger to allow personnel wearing arctic mittens [ed. the thick fur backed mittens] to properly trigger the weapon. The AR-15 rifle was stable during all automatic firing. Colley type winter triggers were attached to the M14 rifles and were used without difficulty by personnel wearing arctic mittens (Test Nr 3, Incl 1).
d. The average scores of four riflemen firing the AR-15 rifle were 139 points as compared with 163 points with the M14 rifle. Firing had to be suspended when winds of 8 mph with gusts up to 20 mph caused the Cal .224 bullets to drift completely off the target at a range of 500 yards. The AR-15 rifle was easy to aim. Trigger pull was excessive. The stock continually slipped down from the shoulder during firing (Test Nr 4, Incl 1).
e. Results of transition firing of Standard Course, Table VII and Table VIII with the AR-15 and M14 rifle were similar. AR-15 rifle was easier to handle and point or targets, however, it was more difficult to sight on targets (Test Nr 5. Incl 1).
f. The average number of targets hit during combat firing with the AR-15 rilfle was approximately the same as with the M14 rifle; however, the average total hits on targets varied from 88.2 for the AR-15 to 115.5 for the M14. The short length of the AR-15 rifle made it difficult for personnel crawling to keep the rifle bore free of snow. It was easier for personnel to maneuver with the AR-15 and 12 loaded magazines than with the M14 rifle with 12 loaded magazines (Test Nr 6, Incl 1).
g. The AR-15 rifle had more malfunctions than the M14 rifle during all phases of adverse conditions firing after weapons were exposed to blowing glacial dust and snow or buried in snow (Test Nr 7, Incl 1).
h. Personnel wearing arctic mittens experienced difficulty in depressing the magazine catch and removing the magazine from the AR-15 rifle. Small amounts of ice and snow on the AR-15's magazine made reloading of the rifle difficult. Twenty-six rounds could be loaded into a magazine for the AR-15 rifle [ed. these were the 25 round magazines] which would cause malfunctions, twenty-one rounds could be loaded into a magazine for the M14 rifle which would prevent the bolt from going into battery (Test Nr 8, Incl 1).
i. Short sight radius (18*1/4 inches) large rear sight aperture, thick front sight post and high sights of the AR-15 rifle made accurate sighting on a target difficult. The AR-15 was not provided with windage and elevation indexes. This made adjustments for windage and elevation and resetting of zeros for the sight system difficult (Test Nr 9, Incl 1).
j. Four front taper pins were lost and six parts were broken on the AR-15 rifles during testing. One connector lock pin was lost and two parts were broken on the M14 rifles. Bullets fired from two AR-15 rifles keyholed at 9,137 and 10,094 rounds. Bullets fired from two M14 rifles keyholed at4,449 and 4,826 rounds. Attempts were made to fire two each AR-15, M14, BAR, and M1 rifles at ambient temperatures ranging from -53° to -56° F. The two AR-15 rifles were the only rifles that functioned. After firing approximately 200 rounds automatic fire, the barrel of the AR-15 rifle became hot and melted a portion of the inner liner of the handguard, and the barrel of the M14 rifle became hot and charred and burned the stock and handguard (Test Nr 10, Incl 1).
k. The Cal. 224 cartridge perforated approximately the same number of pine panels at a 300-yard range as the 7.62-mm cartridge. The Cal. .224- had less perforation when fired at steel helmets with liners at a 500 yard range than the 7.62-mm cartridge (Test Nr 11, Incl 1).
l. The AR-15 rifle was easier to detect them the M14 rifle when fired from tactical positions-, The AR-15 rifle firing could be detected during daylight at ranges from 350 to 850 yards as compared to 175 to 400 yards with the M14 rifle. The AR-15 rifle firing could be detected during darkness at ranges from 40 to 82 yards as compared to 16 to 30 yards with the M14 rifle (Test Nr 12, Incl l).
6. (C) CONCLUSIONS:
a. The AR-15 rifle when modified to correct deficiencies listed in Inclosure 14 is a potential replacement for the M14-M15 rifle for Army use under arctic winter conditions."
Yes, that is a report that in trying to kill a rifle. Sorry, Mr Stoner, but your memory, 25 years after the event, versus a report written a few weeks after the event, you may be misremembering things.
Also remember that these were the first prototype rifles made at Armalite, not the Colt made stuff that came later with the suggested modifications incorporated. It should not be surprising, nor should be taken as insult, that a design that is on it first arctic test not do as well as a rifle that has been tested in the arctic four times prior. And, it should be noted (as was) the AR-15 did better in its first arctic outing than the T44 did . . .
EDIT:
We discussed the .25 caliber issue in post #13, and why they asked the question and why it was not a "smoke screen", we have that report too.
IME, SAS has been full of equal parts bs and fact. The scale tipping towards bs. The guy is clearly biased and spouts more fudd nonsense than most of his gun tuber peers.
The author of the book Black Rifle Book 2 posted here in response to a thread that was critical of his book.
Here is a link to the thread that was critical of his book with some SMEs and Industry professionals posting: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?5913-Black-Rifle-Book-2
The author of the book posted under the handle of CRSBAR.
I hope Ian McCollum is reasonably accurate as I find his presentations interesting.
I'd say he's reasonably accurate. Not perfect, but his discrepancies tend to be more in the realm of framing something because of his biases vs inventing a narrative and substituting fiction in place of facts to suit that narrative. He's gotten better at that over the years as well, especially since breaking ties with In Range.
You should be careful to attribute maliciousness, when simple incompetence could also be an explanation.
And another thing, in every weapons test I have a report on, complete disassembly was part of the test plan, so it wasn't "needless". So, what did they actually say?
"Evaluation of Small Caliber High Velocity Rifles," U.S. Army Arctic Test Board, 17 April 1959.
"5. (C) SUMMARY OF EVALUATION:
a. The AR-15 rifle was easily disassembled by test personnel wearing the intermediate and complete arctic hardware. Personnel wearing the intermediate and complete arctic handwear had difficulty in picking up small pieces, such as the extractor, extractor retaining pin, cam pin, and
firing pin retaining pin during assembly of the rifle (Test Nr 1, Incl l).
b. The AR-15 rifle was easy to clean with the exception of the gas system. Although the gas system on the two test rifles were never cleaned, each rifle functioned properly for over 10,000 rounds (Test Nr 2, Incl l).
c. Total number of rounds fired in two AR-15 rifles was 19,706 rounds as compared to 10,540 rounds fired in the two M14 rifles. The number of various types of malfunctions with the two AR-15 rifles was 20 as compared to 10 with the two M14 rifles. When the AR-15 rifle was fired by a left-handed rifleman, the ejected cartridge cases entered the clothing of the rifleman, and caused burns on neck and chest. The built in winter trigger of the AR-15 rifle was too short and there was insufficient space between the magazine recess and the trigger to allow personnel wearing arctic mittens [ed. the thick fur backed mittens] to properly trigger the weapon. The AR-15 rifle was stable during all automatic firing. Colley type winter triggers were attached to the M14 rifles and were used without difficulty by personnel wearing arctic mittens (Test Nr 3, Incl 1).
d. The average scores of four riflemen firing the AR-15 rifle were 139 points as compared with 163 points with the M14 rifle. Firing had to be suspended when winds of 8 mph with gusts up to 20 mph caused the Cal .224 bullets to drift completely off the target at a range of 500 yards. The AR-15 rifle was easy to aim. Trigger pull was excessive. The stock continually slipped down from the shoulder during firing (Test Nr 4, Incl 1).
e. Results of transition firing of Standard Course, Table VII and Table VIII with the AR-15 and M14 rifle were similar. AR-15 rifle was easier to handle and point or targets, however, it was more difficult to sight on targets (Test Nr 5. Incl 1).
f. The average number of targets hit during combat firing with the AR-15 rilfle was approximately the same as with the M14 rifle; however, the average total hits on targets varied from 88.2 for the AR-15 to 115.5 for the M14. The short length of the AR-15 rifle made it difficult for personnel crawling to keep the rifle bore free of snow. It was easier for personnel to maneuver with the AR-15 and 12 loaded magazines than with the M14 rifle with 12 loaded magazines (Test Nr 6, Incl 1).
g. The AR-15 rifle had more malfunctions than the M14 rifle during all phases of adverse conditions firing after weapons were exposed to blowing glacial dust and snow or buried in snow (Test Nr 7, Incl 1).
h. Personnel wearing arctic mittens experienced difficulty in depressing the magazine catch and removing the magazine from the AR-15 rifle. Small amounts of ice and snow on the AR-15's magazine made reloading of the rifle difficult. Twenty-six rounds could be loaded into a magazine for the AR-15 rifle [ed. these were the 25 round magazines] which would cause malfunctions, twenty-one rounds could be loaded into a magazine for the M14 rifle which would prevent the bolt from going into battery (Test Nr 8, Incl 1).
i. Short sight radius (18*1/4 inches) large rear sight aperture, thick front sight post and high sights of the AR-15 rifle made accurate sighting on a target difficult. The AR-15 was not provided with windage and elevation indexes. This made adjustments for windage and elevation and resetting of zeros for the sight system difficult (Test Nr 9, Incl 1).
j. Four front taper pins were lost and six parts were broken on the AR-15 rifles during testing. One connector lock pin was lost and two parts were broken on the M14 rifles. Bullets fired from two AR-15 rifles keyholed at 9,137 and 10,094 rounds. Bullets fired from two M14 rifles keyholed at4,449 and 4,826 rounds. Attempts were made to fire two each AR-15, M14, BAR, and M1 rifles at ambient temperatures ranging from -53° to -56° F. The two AR-15 rifles were the only rifles that functioned. After firing approximately 200 rounds automatic fire, the barrel of the AR-15 rifle became hot and melted a portion of the inner liner of the handguard, and the barrel of the M14 rifle became hot and charred and burned the stock and handguard (Test Nr 10, Incl 1).
k. The Cal. 224 cartridge perforated approximately the same number of pine panels at a 300-yard range as the 7.62-mm cartridge. The Cal. .224- had less perforation when fired at steel helmets with liners at a 500 yard range than the 7.62-mm cartridge (Test Nr 11, Incl 1).
l. The AR-15 rifle was easier to detect them the M14 rifle when fired from tactical positions-, The AR-15 rifle firing could be detected during daylight at ranges from 350 to 850 yards as compared to 175 to 400 yards with the M14 rifle. The AR-15 rifle firing could be detected during darkness at ranges from 40 to 82 yards as compared to 16 to 30 yards with the M14 rifle (Test Nr 12, Incl l).
6. (C) CONCLUSIONS:
a. The AR-15 rifle when modified to correct deficiencies listed in Inclosure 14 is a potential replacement for the M14-M15 rifle for Army use under arctic winter conditions."
Yes, that is a report that in trying to kill a rifle. Sorry, Mr Stoner, but your memory, 25 years after the event, versus a report written a few weeks after the event, you may be misremembering things.
Also remember that these were the first prototype rifles made at Armalite, not the Colt made stuff that came later with the suggested modifications incorporated. It should not be surprising, nor should be taken as insult, that a design that is on it first arctic test not do as well as a rifle that has been tested in the arctic four times prior. And, it should be noted (as was) the AR-15 did better in its first arctic outing than the T44 did . . .
EDIT:
We discussed the .25 caliber issue in post #13, and why they asked the question and why it was not a "smoke screen", we have that report too.
Thanks for posting this.
I did notice one inconsistency. In paragraph B, it says each of two rifles functioned properly for over 10,000 rnds, but in C, it says total rounds fired were only 19,706. It later becomes clear that one went over 10,000 rounds, in paragraph J. It also says there were 20 malfunctions (is this inclusive of stoppages, malfunctions, and breakages?) and says there were 6 parts broken.
It sounds like no part of the sentence in B is true.
Thanks for posting this.
I did notice one inconsistency. In paragraph B, it says each of two rifles functioned properly for over 10,000 rnds, but in C, it says total rounds fired were only 19,706. It later becomes clear that one went over 10,000 rounds, in paragraph J. It also says there were 20 malfunctions (is this inclusive of stoppages, malfunctions, and breakages?) and says there were 6 parts broken.
It sounds like no part of the sentence in B is true.
Well, to start with there were three AR-15s, serial numbers 000007, 000008, and 000009, that's the major error.
Each one of those paragraphs is linked to a specific test paragraph in the enclosure. Unfortunately, this is still a limited distribution document, and the 34 pages of test results cannot be posted. In regards to the 19,000 rounds, that was specific to two rifles used in the functional and endurance firing, the malfunction count given in this paragraph is also limited to that particular test. However, the maintainability test [#2, and para (b)], was an assessment of the total maintenance required over the all the testing done on all three rifles, two of which did exceed 10,000 rounds.
The malfunction count is restricted to each particular test, so as to isolate weak areas and allow for judgment in assessing results. For example, which do you think in a better weapon, one that has zero malfunctions fired from a rest, zero malfunctions in the rain test, zero malfunctions in the dust test, and 40 malfunctions after being totally immersed in mud, or one that has 10 malfunctions fired from the rest, 10 in the rain, 10 in the dust and 10 in the mud? You might say that neither are any good, but which one would you choose to further develop?
Oh, and the six broken parts were a total from all the testing. These parts were:
Trigger (apparently a casting flaw, it broke just behind the hump for the axis pin)
Extractor pin
Extractor springs (2x)
Automatic sear pin
Safety
Oh, and another, another thing.
When they say "malfunctions", they mean malfunctions that could not be cleared on the firing line. This heavily favors the AR-15, as there were over 300 stoppages that were cleared on the firing line for the AR-15, things like: failure to fire, bolt catch engaging during firing, bolt catch not engaging after the last round, failure of the trigger to reset, etc, etc. The M14 had a total 31 stoppages. You actually have to go into the raw data to find this gem.
This alone, in my mind, blows out of the water the idea they were out to destroy the AR-15 with this test. If the object was to make the AR-15 look bad, really bad, just publish that data without explanation:
TOTAL STOPPAGES:
AR-15 = 337
M14 = 31
Oh, and another, another thing.
When they say "malfunctions", they mean malfunctions that could not be cleared on the firing line. This heavily favors the AR-15, as there were over 300 stoppages that were cleared on the firing line for the AR-15, things like: failure to fire, bolt catch engaging during firing, bolt catch not engaging after the last round, failure of the trigger to reset, etc, etc. The M14 had a total 31 stoppages. You actually have to go into the raw data to find this gem.
This alone, in my mind, blows out of the water the idea they were out to destroy the AR-15 with this test. If the object was to make the AR-15 look bad, really bad, just publish that data without explanation:
TOTAL STOPPAGES:
AR-15 = 337
M14 = 31
Oh, that is pretty damning. Thats a stoppage every 3 mags. From my understanding, minus temps were pretty hard on the early generations of the gun. I’d be (and have been) pretty confident in cold weather with the current gun, though, barring the trigger finger mittens.
I’m surprised the M14 did that well, considering burying in snow was involved. That gun is inviting of ingress.
I served with an M14, I long ago stopped yearning for it. As close to an issue M4 as I can get is where I live. Procurement is fraught with bias and ineptitude, and greed, always has been, always will be. I'm grateful we've made it as far as we have. Thank you Lysander for your hard look at all the documentation.
Oh, that is pretty damning. Thats a stoppage every 3 mags. From my understanding, minus temps were pretty hard on the early generations of the gun. I’d be (and have been) pretty confident in cold weather with the current gun, though, barring the trigger finger mittens.
I’m surprised the M14 did that well, considering burying in snow was involved. That gun is inviting of ingress.
Many of the malfunctions were clothing related. There were a lot of failure to fire, and failure of the trigger to reset, theses were caused by the excess material of the arctic mitten to bunch up behind the trigger and keep it from working, or bunch up under the trigger and keep it from resetting, bulky clothing pushing the bolt catch, stuff like that.
Shooting in full arctic clothing and web gear on top of it is different from shooting in a tee-shirt and shorts. That's why they do the tests in the first place.
What were some of the recommended changes?
- Locking lugs difficult to clean, provide a tool to clean them.
- Magazines fit too tight in magazine well, increase clearances.
- Magazines difficult to insert, provide a flared opening.
- No directions for windage and elevation, provide an arrow for left and up.
- Hammer pin continually walked out of its hole, improve hammer retaining spring.
- Firing can be seen at night, improve flash hider.
There were some other ones, namely that penetration and wind bucking would be improved if the caliber was .25.
Oh, and the mittens aren't trigger finger mittens. Trigger finger mittens are technically "Cold Weather Mittens". Arctic Mittens are these:
https://i.imgur.com/zZA8bsw.png
No provision for a trigger finger.
I’m surprised the M14 did that well, considering burying in snow was involved. That gun is inviting of ingress.
Depending on what contaminates you are dealing with, easy ingress = easy egress.
With light icing the ice has to span free spaces, so it is thinner and easier to break. If the tolerances are too close, small amounts of water can freeze large surfaces together
So all this arctic testing may have been relevant to the Red Hoard pouring over the pole, we now turn around and go for SE Asia.
While I'm no authority on the subject, naah, I'm no authority on the subject.
While i do have Kin on the Wall, I can't lay it at the feet of procurement. Shit just happens.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.