Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Need help writing paper on the M-16s early "teething" problems

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    1,196
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    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!
    PRAISE THE FALLEN
    SSG Kevin Roberts KIA 7-May-08
    1Lt Nick Dewhirst KIA 20-July-08
    Cpl Charles Gaffney KIA 24-Dec-08
    Spc Peter Courcy KIA 10-Feb-09
    PFC Jason Watson KIA 10-Feb-09

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    834
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    out west
    Posts
    93
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    2,057
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kaltesherz View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,922
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockWRX View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Heavy Metal; 02-08-11 at 00:29.
    My brother saw Deliverance and bought a Bow. I saw Deliverance and bought an AR-15.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NorthWest USA
    Posts
    704
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by qsy View Post
    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!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    N. Alabama
    Posts
    2,043
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Get in touch with Daniel Watters.

    http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,427
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kaltesherz View Post
    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.
    Last edited by scottryan; 02-08-11 at 11:02.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,427
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin View Post
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by scottryan; 02-08-11 at 12:11.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,490
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Ancient Mariner

    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •