RepackboxInline FabricationMidSouth Shooters SupplyLee Precision
Reloading EverythingRotoMetals2Load DataWideners
Titan Reloading PBcastco
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 112

Thread: What do you think they should do?

  1. #21
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,441
    Larry can address that far better than I can. He live it. That is just one of the issues on why the M16 had issues. McNamra and the slide rule boys made a bunch of changes to the M16 and ammo. They also ignored Stoner on most of his recommendation for productions rifles. The changes and lack of training created a very bad situation.
    Last edited by M-Tecs; 10-16-2017 at 08:50 PM.

  2. #22
    Boolit Grand Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    21,289
    "Are you trying to say the 14 twist didn't stabilize the bullet and it tumbled causing more damage? Might be where the story of smooth bore M16's got stated."

    Not stating that at all. I didn't mention anything about a "smooth bore M16" either. In above freezing temps the 14" twist gave the 55 gr FMJBT bullet minimal stabilization. That provided the required accuracy by the military. It also enhanced terminal effectiveness in that the bullet lost stability and did tumble inside a target. It was found early in testing in Alaska that below freezing accuracy was lost because the velocity dropped to the point the bullet was not stabilized. Hence the change to a 12" twist.

    Well, they could have been marked "XM" instead of "EX" as a lot of XM16E1s were made and used also by us. But they were black guns not green guns. The stocks of the first AR15s were brown and was reported they were the first tested with Marvin the ARVN in SEA. The stocks of the first early ones issued to SF in the Asian theater and to the 173rd Bde Sep (ABN) in the early '60s were green but shortly the black stocked XM16E1s were issued..

    They probably were marked XM as I was relying on memory of 62 years ago w/o researching it but then I was there and used them......were you?
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  3. #23
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,635
    I suspect that the origin of the smoothbore M16 myth came from very far sighted recruits looking down the bore when cleaning and seeing nothing. My older Brother was very far sighted and too stubborn to wear reading glasses. I once showed him a Japanese training rifle with two piece smoothbore barrel and he said the rifling was perfect. Whatever he saw it certainly wasn't rifling.
    I've also seen barrels , both worn and new, that had so much grease left in the bore after a cursory running through of a patch that they looked smooth bored.

    Which reminds me. A while back I read of a lot of M1 carbine barrels being sold off cheap that turned out to have only two grooves, both on the same side. Must have had worse quality control than Ruger on a Monday.

  4. #24
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
    "Are you trying to say the 14 twist didn't stabilize the bullet and it tumbled causing more damage? Might be where the story of smooth bore M16's got stated."

    Not stating that at all. I didn't mention anything about a "smooth bore M16" either. In above freezing temps the 14" twist gave the 55 gr FMJBT bullet minimal stabilization. That provided the required accuracy by the military. It also enhanced terminal effectiveness in that the bullet lost stability and did tumble inside a target. It was found early in testing in Alaska that below freezing accuracy was lost because the velocity dropped to the point the bullet was not stabilized. Hence the change to a 12" twist.

    Well, they could have been marked "XM" instead of "EX" as a lot of XM16E1s were made and used also by us. But they were black guns not green guns. The stocks of the first AR15s were brown and was reported they were the first tested with Marvin the ARVN in SEA. The stocks of the first early ones issued to SF in the Asian theater and to the 173rd Bde Sep (ABN) in the early '60s were green but shortly the black stocked XM16E1s were issued..

    They probably were marked XM as I was relying on memory of 62 years ago w/o researching it but then I was there and used them......were you?
    Larry I didn't mean to imply that is exactly what you meant. The story i heard was that the Air Force in some cold climate area (Alaska comes to mind) reported that the cold temperatures caused the bullets not to stabilize because the powder wasn't burning optimin. Stoner made an appearance at that base and verified it was true. That's when they switched to the 12 twist.

    These are the things I recall that made the M16 bad in the beginning: Too much calcium in the ball powder causing fouling, McNamra was too cheap to let the bores and chambers be chromed after Stoner recommended it, The first Frankfort Arsenal brass was too soft and coupled with corroded rough chambers caused it to stick and the extractor would rimp through the soft rims, the personal were told you didn't have to clean the M16 and they weren't issued with cleaning kits or instructions (you do remember the comic book like instructions that they put out immediately to resolve that along with cleaning equipment?), the barrels were thin and report of some soldiers bending the barrels while opening crates with the bayonets attached, the three prong flasher, although and excellent flash hider, snaged on tree branches, the smooth forearms were very slippery when wet, they didn't have forward assist at first (which many question if you really need it). It was fielded too soon. Like I mentioned before if they had the current M16 then, I believe it would have been a wholed different ball game.

    Hell look Larry, Japan is an island, and the Jappanese didn't waterproof any of their equipment in the beginning of the war including their ammo!!! They learned the hard way on those tropical islands.

    We learned a valuable lesson in Vietnam...the hard way.

  5. #25
    Boolit Grand Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    21,289
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbutcher View Post
    This question is for Mr Gibson or M-Tecs.Now my memory is a bit fuzzy on this,so forgive me if wrong.What I heard about the M 16 malfunctions was this.They switched from IMR type powders to ball type to get the MV up to what they wanted.Now the way I understand the issue is this,Ball type leaves a residue that is not compatible with a high humidity environment as it leaves a residue that becomes sticky in the high humidity environment.Is my memory correct?Thank you for your time and consideration on this question.
    Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
    Leo
    Yes it is true the arsenals switched from the recommended extruded powder to ball powder. The residue left by the powder was a calcium/carbon deposit that was very hard. The gas piston of the M16 series is part of the bolt with the cylinder being in the bolt carrier. The hard deposits in the cylinder and on the gas rings caused the action to get sluggish. Soldiers are now taught (or at least they should be) to keep the carbon cleaned out of that area. Commercial tools ("scrapers") are available to do the job easier.

    However, the real problem was one of leadership. When men die in the military or elsewhere in is human nature to blame it on the equipment, in this case the rifle. While the XM or whatever M16 rifle was partially at fault the real blame was one of improper leadership. We were told the M16, being made of wondrous "modern space age material" did not need cleaning and was impervious to the elements. The only cleaning rods we had were one per squad and it was left in camp the first hew missions until we learned better. Many of us sent home for our folks to buy and send Outer .22 caliber cleaning kits. The first general issue cleaning rods were 3 piece that fit in the second issue bipod case. However only the squad AR men were issued the bipods.

    The real cause of the jamming was because of improper or no cleaning. In the high humidity or monsoon weather moister condensed on the brass cartridge cases, especially the one in the chamber. This cause rusting in the chamber which developed into small pits. When the minimal high intensity 5.56 cartridge was fired brass flowed into the small pits. The case stuck in the chamber with the small extractor ripping through the rim. The only way to clear the jam was with a cleaning rod but then the next round would jam the same way. We had an old NCO (WWII and Korean War vet) who figured out the problem. We polished several chambers with steel wool (scavenged from the mess hall) on 30 cal rods and a bit of valve grinding paste (scavenged from the motor pool) on the steel wool. We kept the fully functioning rifles well cleaned and oiled after that. Toward the end of '65 or early '66 ordnance folks showed up and TM'd all the weapons, a lot of M16s were pulled and had barrels replaced. I had my best M60 barrel replaced because it was a little shot out but that's another story.........

    Proper issue of cleaning equipment and proper training in maintenance of the M16 along with chromed chambers and bores of the M16A1 solved the malfunction problem for the most part. A change was also made to the powder removing the calcium which is a flash retardant.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  6. #26
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    I concur with Larry Gibson except for the use of the calcium in powder. It was calcium carbonate used to neutralize the acid in ball powder. In September 1969 Olin reduced the calcium to .25 percent.

  7. #27
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,635
    Calcium Carbonate also works as a coolant to reduce muzzle flash.

  8. #28
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Multigunner View Post
    Calcium Carbonate also works as a coolant to reduce muzzle flash.
    That's true Multigunner. It is my understanding that in the the two main ball powders they used in the 5.56, 844, 844T, and 846 that 844 has less CC in it then the 844T because it was needed to have the gases hot enough to ignite the tracers. There was also less CC in the 844 then the 846 because because large amounts of it creates more carbon just as Larry Gibson said and it was intended to make ball ammo burn cleaner in direct impingement rifles. CC's ability to reduce acidity of the powder which reduced corrosion of the barrel.

    I would say it all boils down to it done a lot of things and they selected those things independently to the application they wanted to fulfill. So in the 844 ball powder they weren't concerned about the muzzle flash as much as the other attributes.

  9. #29
    Boolit Master
    woodbutcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LaFollette Tn
    Posts
    1,398
    Gentlemen.Thank you for your replies.
    Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
    Leo
    People never lie so much as after a hunt,during a war,or before an election.
    Otto von Bismarck

  10. #30
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Tacoma,Wa.
    Posts
    564
    As far the first use of the AR/M16 in VietNam they were issued to the ARVN Airborne.They liked them.The weapons were then taken from the ARVN and issued to Army helicopter companies for use by pilots.

  11. #31
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,221
    It took us a while to get the AR-15 pattern rifles right, but it appears that we have, finally. The only improvement I'D like to look into, would be rechambering it for 6x45mm, with an 80gr. FMJBT leaving at or above 2750 f/s.
    For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Ecclesiastes 1:18
    He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool become servant to the wise of heart. Proverbs 11:29
    ...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40


    Carpe SCOTCH!

  12. #32
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South West Ohio
    Posts
    1,575
    There is increasing noise about moving off and up from 5.56x45...but what to?
    [

  13. #33
    Boolit Master


    nagantguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,704
    My vote which I don't have one is to keep the current crop of m4 platforms and 308 platform rifles as the investment is already made and start using ammo that will violently expand which already exists; I've seen very very nasty wounds on large critters from such bullets and I've also seen "bad guys" ventilated with Hauge compliment rounds and the difference is stark. They told us when we left Paris Island that with our Rifles we would rain death upon anyone who would do harm to our country;that's exactly what the arms and ammo we give give our boys should do.

  14. #34
    Boolit Master

    lefty o's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by AbitNutz View Post
    There is increasing noise about moving off and up from 5.56x45...but what to?
    seems people have been arguing, and speculating this since about 1967. if i were choosing, it would probably be something along the lines of the 6.5 creedmore.

  15. #35
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South West Ohio
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by lefty o View Post
    seems people have been arguing, and speculating this since about 1967. if i were choosing, it would probably be something along the lines of the 6.5 creedmore.
    I wouldn't have an argument against that.
    [

  16. #36
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by lefty o View Post
    seems people have been arguing, and speculating this since about 1967. if i were choosing, it would probably be something along the lines of the 6.5 creedmore.
    I'd have gone with a Grendel or similar, the barrel life on the Creedmore is too short for a service rifle. That gets important for sustained fire!

  17. #37
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,635
    There should probably be more designated marksmen two or more per squad armed with 7.62X51 rifles whether scoped or not. The M14 seems to fill that role nicely.
    The 5.56 weapons seem to be deployed as a substitute for SMG and carbine rather than as an infantry rifle in the classic sense. The M4 with its shorter barrel loses way too much velocity to be anything other than a carbine.
    Steel core or penetrators may improve the penetration of the 5.56 but it still can't equal the performance of a bullet that weighs twice as much or more.

    Its not a matter of lethality on unprotected targets, its how lethal the bullet may be after encountering substantial obstacles or body armor especially at range.
    Body armor is not commonly encountered these days but there have been many reports of police and military body armor being stolen by insurgents. They'd be fools not to use it when available.

  18. #38
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    What you fellows don't think about when suggesting cartridges you like or think are good performing cartridges such as the 6.5 Grendel and 6x45 is this. The Grendel is on the stubby side for a cartridge. It's also pretty much straight walled without much taper. In addition the 6.5 Grendel is too powerful to realized it's full potential in the AR15. It's hard on bolts even their new steel of 9310 and that's not even in combat. That's a terrible thing for reliable semi-auto and full auto functing especially in dirty enviroments that military operates in. The 6x45 just isn't enough improvement over a 5.56.

    I've heard two thing the Army is thinking of doing. A new cartridge in 6.5. In reading the description it's the 6.5 Carcano recarnated. The other is going back to the 7.62x51. I have to think deja vu on that 6.5 closely resembling the 6.5 Carcano. Many countries fielded various 6.5 caliber cartridges many years ago and we're thinking of going back to it?

    The is a problem with M16 full length rifles use in jeeps, tanks, and such. Look at some of the firearms used in WWII, the Germans at first has a very long 8x57, then shortened it in WWII. So in WWII two they had the fulls size battle rifle, the K98, a 9mm sub machine gun, towards the end the Stg 44. The Russian the Mosin Nagant in various disquises and the PPsH 41. The British the Smelly 303 and the Sten. Even the U.S. had the 1903 Sprinfield/ Garand and Thompson plus the M1 Carbine.

    Boils down to their is no one format of a rifle perfect for everything.

  19. #39
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southern Illinois
    Posts
    2,352
    If I remember correctly, there was a deal offered that we declined... if we would adopt the FAL in 7mm/08 ( it had a different name and was toned down just a little) , the rest of our Allies would too... I'm thinking the 7/08 had more at 600 than the 308 did at 500... I may have to get the FAL book out to check....but the 7/08 at the time was a very efficient cartridge and we should have done it... The terminal effects I know little about, though.... Dale

  20. #40
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by castalott View Post
    If I remember correctly, there was a deal offered that we declined... if we would adopt the FAL in 7mm/08 ( it had a different name and was toned down just a little) , the rest of our Allies would too... I'm thinking the 7/08 had more at 600 than the 308 did at 500... I may have to get the FAL book out to check....but the 7/08 at the time was a very efficient cartridge and we should have done it... The terminal effects I know little about, though.... Dale
    I also read that in the rifle trials the M14 was in that FAL actually beat it soundly! The 7mm-08 is a very good cartridge. The 6.5 Grendel has a trajectory very similar to the 7.62 NATO.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check