Teething issues with the M14?

[TexHill]

I think...words.

There's only one problem with your hypothetical situation, and his name was Robert McNamara. There's no way anything that you mentioned could ever happen while he was the Sec. Def. He was too much of a bean counter to let any of that happen. For example, he was responsible for the decision to not chrome line the bore and chamber on the early version of the M-16, just because he wanted to save $2 per gun. This was one of the major causes of the problems that the M-16 had early on in Vietnam.

[flenna]

My father was carrying an M14 on his first tour in VN as an automatic rifleman and swears on the reliability of the rifle. On his second tour they issued M16s and sent them out without a lot of familiarization with it. This was late 1967-1968 with the 5th Marines. He will tell you that the rifle was a piece of junk that got a lot of men killed because that is his direct experience. His third tour he got the M16A1 and then later right before he retired the A2. My father admits the A1 and A2 were good rifles but in his mind the M14 was a better battle rifle because of all the dead young Marines with jammed weapons he saw. Bottom line the old M14 vs. M16 debates are relegated to the experiences of those debating. The VN war veterans are slowly disappearing and 20 years from now it will be "M14 what?" .

[ABNAK]

My father was carrying an M14 on his first tour in VN as an automatic fireman and swears on the reliability of the rifle. On his second tour they issued M16s and sent them out without a lot of familiarization with it. This was late 1967-1968 with the 5th Marines. He will tell you that the rifle was a piece of junk that got a lot of men killed because that is his direct experience. His third tour he got the M16A1 and then later right before he retired the A2. My father admits the A1 and A2 were good rifles but in his mind the M14 was a better battle rifle because of all the dead young Marines with jammed weapons he saw. Bottom line the old M14 vs. M16 debates are relegated to the experiences of those debating. The VN war veterans are slowly disappearing and 20 years from now it will be "M14 what?" .

The Vietnam vets who swear by the M-14 are usually guys who were there when the M-14 was their original issue weapon and sometime during their tour they got swapped to the M16. "It was heavier, it was longer, but by damned it worked and punched through the jungle" [paraphrasing] seems to be a common theme.

[halfmoonclip]

... For example, he was responsible for the decision to not chrome line the bore and chamber on the early version of the M-16, just because he wanted to save $2 per gun. This was one of the major causes of the problems that the M-16 had early on in Vietnam.

There are some sins McNamara needs to answer for, but the chromed bore/chamber isn't one of them. According to The Black Rifle, the technology wasn't available early on to chrome such a small diameter barrel, and the chromed chamber, being bigger, came first.
I don't know that anyone claimed that the M16 required no cleaning, but the Army certainly sent the guys into harms way without vital cleaning equipment (a chamber brush especially).
BTW, the change in powder was an effort to maintain the originally speced velocity, rather than adopting a different bullet shape. The desire to keep the velocity was a leftover from the Army's effort to sabotage the SCHV program by demanding 500 meter effectiveness.
Moon

[flenna]

The Vietnam vets who swear by the M-14 are usually guys who were there when the M-14 was their original issue weapon and sometime during their tour they got swapped to the M16. "It was heavier, it was longer, but by damned it worked and punched through the jungle" [paraphrasing] seems to be a common theme.

An excellent book that covers this is The Hill Fights by Edward F. Murphy.

[MountainRaven]

There's only one problem with your hypothetical situation, and his name was Robert McNamara. There's no way anything that you mentioned could ever happen while he was the Sec. Def. He was too much of a bean counter to let any of that happen. For example, he was responsible for the decision to not chrome line the bore and chamber on the early version of the M-16, just because he wanted to save $2 per gun. This was one of the major causes of the problems that the M-16 had early on in Vietnam.

The AR-15 and the M16 did not have chrome-lined chambers or barrels not because McNamara but because it wasn't spec'd. And why would it? Chrome-lined barrels were the exception, not the rule. The FAL didn't have one. The G3 didn't have one. The M1/2/3 Carbine didn't have one. The AR-10 didn't have one. The M1 Garand didn't get chrome-lined barrels until the late 1950s or early 1960s. The AKM had one, but as far as the Army was concerned, it was an inaccurate, poor substitute for a submachine gun. Sure the M14 had one, but the Army wasn't going to get the M16 (except for SF and Airmobile troops) - until they did.

McNamara wasn't overly concerned about costs. He was concerned about quantities - about getting enough guns into circulation to arm more than just the infantry in Vietnam. Thus the axing of the M14 (Ordnance simply couldn't make enough of them quickly enough - but Colt could turn out AR-15s by the bushel), the change in powder in the 5.56mm ammo (DuPont couldn't make IMR 4475 originally intended for the 5.56mm and the M16 in the quantities needed to rearm the entire US armed forces - but Olin could produce WC 846 ball powder in the quantities needed), &c.

[ABNAK]

The AR-15 and the M16 did not have chrome-lined chambers or barrels not because McNamara but because it wasn't spec'd. And why would it? Chrome-lined barrels were the exception, not the rule. The FAL didn't have one. The G3 didn't have one. The M1/2/3 Carbine didn't have one. The AR-10 didn't have one. The M1 Garand didn't get chrome-lined barrels until the late 1950s or early 1960s. The AKM had one, but as far as the Army was concerned, it was an inaccurate, poor substitute for a submachine gun. Sure the M14 had one, but the Army wasn't going to get the M16 (except for SF and Airmobile troops) - until they did.

Not to split hairs, but some did.

[MountainRaven]

Not to split hairs, but some did.

As did some G3s. Depending on the contract. The original FAL did not have one. And most contracts did not spec a chrome-lined barrel. The Aussies had some L1A1s with chrome-lined barrels (probably in response to experience in Vietnam - although not all Aussie L1A1s had chrome-lined barrels) and the Brazilians have some IMBEL-made FALs with chrome-lined barrels... but, again, not all of them. I'm not sure on the exact time line, but I doubt there were very many FALs spec'd with chrome-lined barrels in 1964.

[ABNAK]

As did some G3s. Depending on the contract. The original FAL did not have one. And most contracts did not spec a chrome-lined barrel. The Aussies had some L1A1s with chrome-lined barrels (probably in response to experience in Vietnam - although not all Aussie L1A1s had chrome-lined barrels) and the Brazilians have some IMBEL-made FALs with chrome-lined barrels... but, again, not all of them. I'm not sure on the exact time line, but I doubt there were very many FALs spec'd with chrome-lined barrels in 1964.

Seriously? I hadn't heard that before. Which ones? Have a link? (not being a dick, I'd seriously like to know)

[Pappabear]

I know so very little about the history of the weapon, but I know I owned one that never malf'd with current day mags and ammo. I think they are good weapons but the LMT MWS made them obsolete. God Bless their history and what it did for our country.

PB