McNamara, politics and the M14-16 debacle.

[togor]

Not problematic until you have to clean the damn thing. Clean any other gas gun then clean your DI AR. Poops where it eats. It turns out that KG-12 on a Q-tip is really really good at getting the rest of the carbon off of a chrome-lined (AR bolt carrier) or stainless steel (Garand piston) surface. But wear gloves because apparently this time The State of California isn't just making stuff up--there really are some nasty chemicals in it.

[S.A. Boggs]

Not problematic until you have to clean the damn thing. Clean any other gas gun then clean your DI AR. Poops where it eats. It turns out that KG-12 on a Q-tip is really really good at getting the rest of the carbon off of a chrome-lined (AR bolt carrier) or stainless steel (Garand piston) surface. But wear gloves because apparently this time The State of California isn't just making stuff up--there really are some nasty chemicals in it.

You have said a "mouse full" of fact, this is what I dislike! Why carry all that carbon and HEAT directly back to the center area of the action? Many have come up with good ideas to prevent this. This is one of the reasons why I like my Mini-14 over the action of the AR-15 is the cleaning problem.
Sam

[blackhawknj]

I have always disliked the gas system that cannot be disassembled and cleaned by the shooter. "Wrong powder" ? If a military weapon is too powder sensitive then it's unsuitable. In wartime you have to depend on what industry can provide and not what you'd like.

[Roadkingtrax]

Wrong powder example is no different than wong oil in a turbine engine? Understand the system, and operate it within its design parameters. AR had growing pains, they we're fixed. Blood priority has a way of getting design changes to accelerate, just ask the FAA.

This is just history. The gas system on the AR doesnt need to be cleaned anymore or less than an M1. The M14 has to be taken apart extensively.

[togor]

The gas residue in the bolt assembly is a minus but of course there is a lot to like about the AR platform:

Aluminum receiver eliminates bedding issues.

Two piece receiver allows cleaning barrel from the breech end.

DI system gives excellent service rifle accuracy.

Side eject port for simplified ambi optics mounting.

And of course the modularity.

[togor]

My engineer's sense is that the smaller 5.56mm cartridge produces less energy to cycle the action than a 7.62mm cartridge, and consequently is more susceptible to friction buildup due to carbon fouling in the bolt/breech area. Also, the mass/volume/surface-area relationships between momentum and friction in the action are more favorable for my AR-10 than for my AR-15s.

[S.A. Boggs]

My engineer's sense is that the smaller 5.56mm cartridge produces less energy to cycle the action than a 7.62mm cartridge, and consequently is more susceptible to friction buildup due to carbon fouling in the bolt/breech area. Also, the mass/volume/surface-area relationships between momentum and friction in the action are more favorable for my AR-10 than for my AR-15s.

Precisely why debris should be kept out of the action and the gas/fouling's channeled to the outside via an exhaust port. IMHO the most perfect system is the G3 and I am quite fond of the operating system. Easy to work with, simple and it works!
Sam

[Major Tom]

Re: Cleaning/disassembly/assembly. Compared to the AK47, the M16 is difficult and time consuming.

[Art]

One of the issues in selection was the folks at Springfield deliberately tried to discredit the M16 trials the weapon was involved in, sometimes by deliberate sabotage. Eugene Stoner was informed that during a trial in Alaska the M16's accuracy was found wanting. The M16 had some issues but inaccuracy was not among them. He hopped a flight and found the sights on the test M16s had been tampered with.

A similar thing happened with the adoption of the M9 pistols. The M1911 pistols that had been preserved in pristine condition in storage tested against it had more, and I mean a lot more malfunctions than the M1911 had in its acceptance trials. An officer involved, I believe an Air Force Officer checked and found a high number of damaged magazines used in the trial M1911s.

Anyhow, the efforts of Springfield Armory to sway the M16 results in favor of the M14 were a factor that McNamara used in his reasons to close the facility down.

Togor is correct about rushing a weapon into combat. If the 1936 version of the M1 had been dumped into combat immediately its reputation would not have been as sterling as it was. Four years of working out bugs helped a lot.

Major Tom is certainly correct about cleaning the M16 and any AK system weapon. Not only is cleaning easier with an AK, it is not required as frequently.

As a side note, our son has toted around an M16 regularly, including a couple of trips to sand box countries and has told us the use of solvents is prohibited, this makes cleaning the M16 considerably more time consuming.

[S.A. Boggs]

One of the issues in selection was the folks at Springfield deliberately tried to discredit the M16 trials the weapon was involved in, sometimes by deliberate sabotage. Eugene Stoner was informed that during a trial in Alaska the M16's accuracy was found wanting. The M16 had some issues but inaccuracy was not among them. He hopped a flight and found the sights on the test M16s had been tampered with.

A similar thing happened with the adoption of the M9 pistols. The M1911 pistols that had been preserved in pristine condition in storage tested against it had more, and I mean a lot more malfunctions than the M1911 had in its acceptance trials. An officer involved, I believe an Air Force Officer checked and found a high number of damaged magazines used in the trial M1911s.

Anyhow, the efforts of Springfield Armory to sway the M16 results in favor of the M14 were a factor that McNamara used in his reasons to close the facility down.

Togor is correct about rushing a weapon into combat. If the 1936 version of the M1 had been dumped into combat immediately its reputation would not have been as sterling as it was. Four years of working out bugs helped a lot.

Major Tom is certainly correct about cleaning the M16 and any AK system weapon. Not only is cleaning easier with an AK, it is not required as frequently.

As a side note, our son has toted around an M16 regularly, including a couple of trips to sand box countries and has told us the use of solvents is prohibited, this makes cleaning the M16 considerably more time consuming.

When our son's Ranger unit was first deployed to the Middle East, I gave him my Otis, an ample supply of Kroil #9 and Sweets 7.62. So far my Mini is doing O.K., will know next year after the first 5,000 fmj.
Sam

[Allen]

There may be hope yet.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/combat-troops-complaining-m4-m16-160000301.html

[Vern Humphrey]

Another study. We'll just study the enemy to death.

[Rock]

I could understand why we had to develop a fighter superior to the Zero or a tank superior to the Tiger or Panther in the middle of WW2. I can't understand why they had to replace a serviceable rifle and cartridge, that seemed to be well liked by the troops, during the Vietnam War.

[Vern Humphrey]

I could understand why we had to develop a fighter superior to the Zero or a tank superior to the Tiger or Panther in the middle of WW2. I can't understand why they had to replace a serviceable rifle and cartridge, that seemed to be well liked by the troops, during the Vietnam War.

So MacNamara could prove HE was in charge.