View Full Version : Need help writing paper on the M-16s early "teething" problems
kaltesherz
02-07-11, 17:53
So I need help writing a paper for my college US History class. We were allowed to pick a subject given a few broad topics and I thought I'd write something about the M-16s initial problems when it was rushed into service into Vietnam. I just read "The Gun" by C.J. Chivers about the development and history of the AK and it has quite a bit about the early M-16 failures, so I thought it would be an interesting subject to cover in this class. Anyway, I'm looking for other books I can use for research and it's bibliography as it seems the professor cares more about citations than content. I need 7 sources to reference, but 2 can be online. I've already got two, "The Gun" and "The Black Rifle" by Stevens and Ezell, so can you guys help me out with the other 5? What books have you Guys read that covered this subject, maybe even a little. Is the "M16/AR15 Rifle (A Shooter's and Collector's Guide)" any good? How about historical websites? I just found out today that our bibliography is due on this Wednesday (FML) so I'm kinda scrambling right now.
Thanks in advance!
Gutshot John
02-07-11, 18:03
Relevant to technological history (or any kind of history for that matter) is you're trying to show what something is the same or different from what came before. If you can show its "pivotal" nature, you're showing how it's different from what came before.
What you might want to consider is some level of comparing and contrasting with the development of other long arms employed by the US military as individual case studies and how the M-16 was either the same or different. For instance I think the trapdoor springfield had a lot of problems associated with its use in the field but moving forward comparing the M-16 to the 1903, M1 Garand and the reasons why it replaced the M-14 are valid perspectives from a technological history perspective.
Your university should also give you access to research databases like Lexis-Nexis and especially JSTOR which are reprints of scholarly journals like "The Journal of Military History". There should be plenty of information there.
kaltesherz
02-07-11, 18:20
I'd like to focus on why and how the M16 was rushed into combat and issues that surfaced while there (stuck cases due to non-chrome lined chambers and incorrect propellant, rust issues, lack of cleaning kits), as well as training issues (training up on the M14 then being issued M16 when in theatre). I'd also like to cover how many of the problems were largely ignored for a time before they were fixed with the M16A1. I was planning on explaining it's initial development of course especially in regards to the technological aspect, going from the M14 which is basically 1930's technology to the M16 which was space age for the time.
Thanks for bringing up the Trapdoor Springfield, that would be an interesting addition to the paper.
I'm actually at a Community College, so it's more like 13th grade than a university, so we lack a lot of those resources.
The M16 was initially touted as being a rifle that did not need cleaning or maintenance, while that proved to be wrong, the rifle's poor performance in Vietnam was not so much due to the rifle itself or flaws with the rifle directly, but rather the propellent used in the military's issued ammunition. It was worse than today's Wolf powder. Couple that with the wrongly touted maintenance free claim, and you had a bad situation made worse.
"We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19, Believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Practically every one of our dead was found with his [M16] torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it."
- Marine Corps Rifleman, Vietnam.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843858,00.html
This is one of the most influential statements about the M16 to this day that at some level or another relates to the reliability concerns surrounding the platform.
This article lead to a congressional investigation which found that the rifle itself was not so much the problem but more so was the ammunition used in the. Dupont could not meet the demands by DoD for ammunition. So the another manufacturer was able to produce the round meeting all requirements. However, it increased the cyclic rate from 850 to around 1000 RPM. This made the rifles more dirty much faster. Resulting in more frequent jams, etc.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899755,00.html
It was resolved by using a different buffer system. Thereby slowing it down to 650 to 850 rounds. Also I think this is when they began using Chrome lined barrels and began issuing cleaning kits with those comic like PMS manuals. Somebody keep me honest here.
Hope that helps
I also attend a community college and if you go to your library and speak with someone they should be able to show you how to access the databases that John spoke of. They will give you a user name and password to access them. It is a bit of a pain at first, but after you figure out how to navigate the searches it becomes much easier to locate good information. My college has them but they are not something that are a well known resource initially.
I'm not sure about the required length of the paper but as John recommended, a paragraph or two on the failures (or not) of the predecessors to the original m16, and a few paragraphs on the more recent updates such as the M4 and other specialty variants would help to add volume as well as depth to your paper(run on sentence). :D
Something like the following is what I would probably do:
-Catchy introduction
-Events/history leading up to the issue or testing of the m16
-Issue and problems of m16
-Action taken to remedy problem areas
-Service life of m16 and variants as m16
-Modern M4/specialty variants
-Closing paragraph
Just throwing out some ideas as I know how it is to write a paper!
Best of luck and if you'd be comfortable share it with us when you are done!
EDIT: I just read that you wanted to focus on the initial failures.
I'd like to focus on why and how the M16 was rushed into combat and issued that surfaced while there (stuck cases due to non-chrome lines chambers and incorrect propellant, rust issues, lack of cleaning kits), as well as training issues (training up on the M14 then being issued M16 when in theatre). I'd also like to cover how many of the problems were largely ignored for a time before they fixed them with the M16A1. I was planning on explaining it's initial development of course especially in regards to the technological aspect, going from the M14 which is basically 1930's technology to the M16 which was space age for the time.
Thanks for bringing up the Trapdoor Springfield, that would be an interesting addition to the paper.
I'm actually at a Community College, so it's more like 13th grade than a university, so we lack a lot of those resources.
As I understand it, there were conflicting reports on the performance of the weapon in theater. It wasn't until the Times article came out that there was an investigation. Prior to that, McNamara having reviewed various reports, none of which detailed many issues, etc surrounding the platform, approved the order for some 80,000 M16 rifle (XM16E1) and they were then rushed into battle. Also keep in mind that the war itself was very political and controversial. So things were not always done with the best interest of the war fighter.
Gutshot John
02-07-11, 18:41
I'd like to focus on why and how the M16 was rushed into combat and issued that surfaced while there (stuck cases due to non-chrome lines chambers and incorrect propellant, rust issues, lack of cleaning kits), as well as training issues (training up on the M14 then being issued M16 when in theatre). I'd also like to cover how many of the problems were largely ignored for a time before they fixed them with the M16A1. I was planning on explaining it's initial development of course especially in regards to the technological aspect, going from the M14 which is basically 1930's technology to the M16 which was space age for the time.
Thanks for bringing up the Trapdoor Springfield, that would be an interesting addition to the paper.
From a historians perspective it's hard to establish that one piece of technology was "rushed into combat" without establishing a baseline as to how other pieces were developed.
The trapdoor springfield is certainly instructive as to how problem weapons are dealt with, but a hundred or so years of intervening history will have to be addressed so the Garand might be another case you'd want to explore, especially given its revolutionary nature.
I'm actually at a Community College, so it's more like 13th grade than a university, so we lack a lot of those resources.
Don't knock CC, it's a great way to get some college under your belt before moving higher up the chain.
Your public library should have those resources. Additionally a state school or other local university should allow you to use their resources if you're at a CC.
Joh nis correct. If you have a State University near you, you have a right to use the university library as it is publicly funded and basically, a public library, much like you local city or county library.
I don't know if it would be of any help to you at all but the NRA published a booklet some years back, mid 1980's, that was entitled 'M16 AR-15, assembly, history, ballistics and reloading data for the U.S. Service rifle and commercial model'. In it are several articles that addressed quality control, the effects of ball powder on the rifle, and other topics. Possibly if you could find that reprint it would aid you in your assignment.
Pav
Looks like you got good advice. The only thing I'll add is as a grammar Nazi - consistently use the terms M16 and AR-15 (note hyphens). I remember getting dinged on inconsistencies like that in my college papers. :p
kaltesherz
02-07-11, 21:15
From a historians perspective it's hard to establish that one piece of technology was "rushed into combat" without establishing a baseline as to how other pieces were developed.
The trapdoor springfield is certainly instructive as to how problem weapons are dealt with, but a hundred or so years of intervening history will have to be addressed so the Garand might be another case you'd want to explore, especially given its revolutionary nature.
Don't knock CC, it's a great way to get some college under your belt before moving higher up the chain.
Your public library should have those resources. Additionally a state school or other local university should allow you to use their resources if you're at a CC.
Great points on both accounts, and I'll look into what resources I can find at the libraries.
Thanks for all the help guys, you've all helped me a great deal and I really appreciate it. This is my 2nd quarter, first that involves writing papers and I haven't done this kinda thing since I was in HS, which was in the nineties. Yikes.
If anyone has any other links or leads please keep 'em coming!
Another thing to consider is a comparison of the pre-M16 rifles that were issued to US advisers in Viet Nam prior to the rifles wide scale adoption. From early reports, these first rifles were well received because the users were well trained in it's use and maintenance, the ammo used the proper powder, and the bore and chamber were chrome lined.
When the M16 was more widely fielded, users were not given proper instruction on it's maintenance, the powder was wrong, and the chamber was not hard chromed in a cost cutting move. So the initial results were terrible, and the M16 carries the stink of those initial problems to this day.
The M16A1 corrected most of these deficiencies and put the M16 series back on track.
I'm going from memory though, so I could be wrong.
http://www.jouster.com/jouster_tales.html. Check out "Sea Stories", "The Saga of the M-16". The guy is an retired USMC "mustang" Major. His tales give an interesting perspective on the early fielding of the M-16 with the USMC in RVN.
So I need help writing a paper for my college US History class...
... it seems the professor cares more about citations than content.
I'm a history professor.
It sounds like you're dealing with a good professor. "Content" is meaningless if it isn't backed with evidence/citations (writing History properly isn't much different than arguing well here on M4C).
My advice to avoid GIGO: pick a body of primary sources, and write about what you find there. Put whatever pre-conceived notions you already have out of your mind until you actually see some primary sources.
Potential primary sources, of order of ascending preference: (1) contemporary magazine articles about the development/introduction of the M16, like those from Time, (2) reports/journals/memoirs of those involved in developing/fielding the M16, and (3) official DoD documents on the M16 and its introduction.
And proofread your paper. And then proofread it again. And then find somebody else to proofread it.
Good luck.
Heavy Metal
02-07-11, 23:28
Another thing to consider is a comparison of the pre-M16 rifles that were issued to US advisers in Viet Nam prior to the rifles wide scale adoption. From early reports, these first rifles were well received because the users were well trained in it's use and maintenance, the ammo used the proper powder, and the bore and chamber were chrome lined.
When the M16 was more widely fielded, users were not given proper instruction on it's maintenance, the powder was wrong, and the chamber was not hard chromed in a cost cutting move. So the initial results were terrible, and the M16 carries the stink of those initial problems to this day.
The M16A1 corrected most of these deficiencies and put the M16 series back on track.
I'm going from memory though, so I could be wrong.
The early ones did NOT have chromed chambers and bores. The users had proper cleaning gear, supplies and training and kept the barrels proeprly maintained in the tropical environment and thus avoided the corrosion problems that would plague the later conscripted soldiers that were inadequately trained and equipped to maintain the rifles that were later issued with the sub-standard ammo.
http://www.jouster.com/jouster_tales.html. Check out "Sea Stories", "The Saga of the M-16". The guy is an retired USMC "mustang" Major. His tales give an interesting perspective on the early fielding of the M-16 with the USMC in RVN.
Thanks qsy, that was a good read by Major Culver!
RAM Engineer
02-08-11, 06:57
Get in touch with Daniel Watters.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html
I'd like to focus on why and how the M16 was rushed into combat and issues that surfaced while there (stuck cases due to non-chrome lined chambers and incorrect propellant, rust issues, lack of cleaning kits), as well as training issues (training up on the M14 then being issued M16 when in theatre). I'd also like to cover how many of the problems were largely ignored for a time before they were fixed with the M16A1.
The M16A1 was not a replacement for the M16.
Both were concurrently serving rifles. Please do not keep perpetuating this myth.
Both the M16 (Colt 604) and Colt 603 (XM16E1) were adopted in 1964.
In 1967 the 603s name was changed to M16A1.
The M16 (604) did not go out of production in 1967 but stayed into produciton into the 1970s and had all the updates that later ARs had (fully chrome lined, modern bolt carrier group, modern buffer, etc).
The M16 was used by the Air Force and Navy.
The M16A1 was used by the Army, Marines, and Navy.
The only difference between these two rifles is the 604 does not have a forward assist and the 603 does.
I would also like to see you post this on here and on the retro forum on ar15.com so all of us can proof read it for technical errors.
Looks like you got good advice. The only thing I'll add is as a grammar Nazi - consistently use the terms M16 and AR-15 (note hyphens). I remember getting dinged on inconsistencies like that in my college papers. :p
Excellent point.
Also, avoid using statments like "the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16"
This statement is not really correct. The AR-15 is the original familiy of weapons that all other variants are derived from.
Some early M16s/M16A1s are also marked AR-15. The AR-15 is the commercial model name of the rifle. Every firearm has a commerical model name. M16/M16A1 etc. is the US military designation.
Do not refer to the M4 as a short carbine variation of a M16, either, if your paper goes into more modern developments. Refer to it as a carbine development referencing earlier short AR-15 developments like the XM177E2, model 653, etc.
My God. I wrote up a paper on "Personal Weapons In The Western World" in 1963 and included a few pages on the AR-15 at the time--based on what little I knew at the time (and how little it was!) I still have it, and some of what I wrote is pretty--dumb--for lack of a better word. Two years later I got my "greetings" and I got my very own M16 too. Goodbye college, hello SEA.
With that much time gone by it seems like the days of the Brown Bess.
I think you will do a better job on your paper than I did on mine.
kaltesherz
02-08-11, 14:36
The M16A1 was not a replacement for the M16.
Both were concurrently serving rifles. Please do not keep perpetuating this myth.
Both the M16 (Colt 604) and Colt 603 (XM16E1) were adopted in 1964.
In 1967 the 603s name was changed to M16A1.
The M16 (604) did not go out of production in 1967 but stayed into produciton into the 1970s and had all the updates that later ARs had (fully chrome lined, modern bolt carrier group, modern buffer, etc).
The M16 was used by the Air Force and Navy.
The M16A1 was used by the Army, Marines, and Navy.
The only difference between these two rifles is the 604 does not have a forward assist and the 603 does.
I would also like to see you post this on here and on the retro forum on ar15.com so all of us can proof read it for technical errors.
Ugh, thanks for the corrections and clarifications. I ordered a copy of The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective so I'm hoping that will clear up things as well.
I'd be glad to post my preliminary draft on here but I try to avoid arfcom at all cost these days.
I'll be focusing primarily on it's use in Vietnam, as my paper has to be directly connected with that conflict. I won't be touching any modern variations other than explaining that all of the issues that plagued it have now been resolved and that it remains highly popular with the troops (at least the ones that know how to maintain it and aren't repeating gunstore commando bullshit).
I'd be glad to post my preliminary draft on here but I try to avoid arfcom at all cost these days.
You need to post it on there in the retro forum as well as there are more experts on there about the historical aspects than on M4C.net
Check old issues of American Rifleman. There were several good articles written about the subject during the sixties. Also check back issues of Soldier of Fortune. Another source would be to check for articles written by Kokalis (sp?)
Get in touch with Daniel Watters.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html
Thanks for the plug. ;)
Ezell and Stevens' "The Black Rifle" is pretty much the standard to beat in an over-the-counter book. Besides the insights from Bill Davis, it also reprints portions of related military reports, including the Project Manager's Weekly Significant Action Reports.
The Ichord Subcommittee transcripts and final report can be accessed through the HathiTrust Digital Library. You will want to take the final report with a grain of salt once you have read the transcripts.
DTIC has a couple of volumes from the "Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel" available for download. This was the Army's reply to the Ichord Subcommitte Report. The most important for your use will be the first volume, "History of the M16 Weapon System."
As far as the Jouster site is concerned, you will note that Chivers incorporated Culver and other Marines' accounts in "The Gun."
McNaugher's "The M16 Controversies" and Ezell's "The Great Rifle Controversy" will also be of help.
kaltesherz
02-10-11, 16:47
Thanks for the plug. ;)
Ezell and Stevens' "The Black Rifle" is pretty much the standard to beat in an over-the-counter book. Besides the insights from Bill Davis, it also reprints portions of related military reports, including the Project Manager's Weekly Significant Action Reports.
The Ichord Subcommittee transcripts and final report can be accessed through the HathiTrust Digital Library. You will want to take the final report with a grain of salt once you have read the transcripts.
DTIC has a couple of volumes from the "Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel" available for download. This was the Army's reply to the Ichord Subcommitte Report. The most important for your use will be the first volume, "History of the M16 Weapon System."
As far as the Jouster site is concerned, you will note that Chivers incorporated Culver and other Marines' accounts in "The Gun."
McNaugher's "The M16 Controversies" and Ezell's "The Great Rifle Controversy" will also be of help.
Thanks for the help! "The Black Rifle" should be showing up any day now, hopefully this weekend I'll find the time to go through various resources and at least put together an outline. I've breezed through your webpage a few times and good lord it's impressive... and a wee bit overwhelming at first. I can't imagine the amount of time that took to put together...
Johnny Yuma
04-03-11, 21:37
Get in touch with Daniel Watters.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html
Very informative website ....
Thank You !!
Here's an early article written about the original Stoner AR-10 which laid the ground work for the M16
http://jeffersonian.name/g1957/G0357.pdf
Besides books you might want to try interviewing a Vietnam vet to get their take on the rifle. I know I used to believe a lot of the hype about the original M16a1 until I met a Vietnam vet who served with the 502 PIR. It was interesting to find out how some of those guys modified their rifles to make them run a little better. One thing that I remember him mentioning was they used the foil wrapper from a stick of gun to polish the BCG. I know they also drilled out a corner of the hand guards so they could carry a sectional cleaning rod on the rifle.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.