The underlying idea of this thread is that the M16 was designed a much better gun than it was issued, mostly because of the IMR powder, twist rate and chamber pressure being shoehorned against the designer's warnings.
^^ this is of course arguable but I think there is a general notion that the GI's were put at a disadvantage, where they could have been at an advantage.
I am mostly basing this on my own experience with the IDF but the trigger that really got me thinking and wanting some discussion is this article that I somehow stumbled upon:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/
Also, the question isn't whether the M16 platform as a whole today is better than what was issued to GI's in the 60's - I am pretty sure it is, with all the work done and lessons learned 50 years later...
---------------------------------
My question
---------------------------------
As far as I understand: the M16 was tweaked to work with the revised cartridge... Which sounds as if it is still a compromise.
Have we since developed (and deployed into the 556 Nato round) a more suitable cartridge that reflects Stoner's idea or are we still merely improving on the M16 as issued (a totally different idea)?
* With Stoner's idea being to create an intermediate cartridge that maximizes terminal ballistics and works ideally with the "Direct Impingement" ("Internal Piston") system.
* And the US Gov's idea being to change the above system to be as much as possible inline with the "Marksman's Creed" - maximizing external ballistics (range and accuracy)
^^ this is of course arguable but I think there is a general notion that the GI's were put at a disadvantage, where they could have been at an advantage.
I am mostly basing this on my own experience with the IDF but the trigger that really got me thinking and wanting some discussion is this article that I somehow stumbled upon:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/
Also, the question isn't whether the M16 platform as a whole today is better than what was issued to GI's in the 60's - I am pretty sure it is, with all the work done and lessons learned 50 years later...
---------------------------------
My question
---------------------------------
As far as I understand: the M16 was tweaked to work with the revised cartridge... Which sounds as if it is still a compromise.
Have we since developed (and deployed into the 556 Nato round) a more suitable cartridge that reflects Stoner's idea or are we still merely improving on the M16 as issued (a totally different idea)?
* With Stoner's idea being to create an intermediate cartridge that maximizes terminal ballistics and works ideally with the "Direct Impingement" ("Internal Piston") system.
* And the US Gov's idea being to change the above system to be as much as possible inline with the "Marksman's Creed" - maximizing external ballistics (range and accuracy)