Have we regained (or exceeded) Stoner's .223's original effectiveness?

M

Mustey

New member
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)
 
My own answer to this is: No. We are still shooting neat little laser holes and the amazing improvements suggested by experiments with small calibers in the 50's are being ignored.
M16's in the field jam much more than they should.

At least in the IDF, until the Tavor (which itself is highly liable to a lot of local politics and strategy unrelated to combat at all), we all felt that the M16's were "good enough, far from ideal".
Easy to see how even small modifications on standard issue guns yielded much more reliable weapons. Things like sourcing ammo from the civilian market made an obvious difference in cleaning - no idea if the civilian stuff emulates Stoner's original idea or is just a much improved version of the 5.56 Nato

The 556 we have I believe is a wonderful LMG cartridge. Especially if the design doesn't "poop where it eats". As for assault rifle performance, we know, by comparing casualties on each side, that the 762x39 round, per hit, causes more damage and 556, on the other hand, requires more hits to achieve neutralization.
 
Last edited:
When I was in the IDF we only had M16A1s and they were not well-liked. I spent most of my time down south and mine constantly choked on the sand and dust. I was happy when I was able to substitute to a Glilon or Mag58.
The "shorty" conversions seem to be popular, and I liked the one I got to use for a short time, but other than trying a prototype in the '90s, I have no experience with Tavors......and not a big fan of bull-pups.
To the present...I have now built 5 ARs and I love each one. They are solid, accurate, and very reliable. So my answer is that I think today's ARs are much improved over the earlier versions of the M16.
 
Over on jouster2.com, there is a 2 part story of the M16 in VN by Major Culver. There is first hand information from a rifle company commander, local armorer fix, and the part the Major played im getting congress involved. Look for the saga of the M16.

Edit: correct the web site from jouster to joister2. Sorry for misdirection-PWC
 
Last edited:
pwc said:
Over on jouster.com, there is a 2 part story of the M16 in VN by Major Culver. There is first hand information from a rifle company commander, local armorer fix, and the part the Major played im getting congress involved. Look for the saga of the M16.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to the article? Maybe I'm blind, but I spend a bit hunting around and couldn't find it.

Edit: found it http://www.jouster2.com/Sagaof16Part1.html
 
Last edited:
I read the linked article, and while it contains some accurate information, most of it is pure crap!

There are a number of significant facts left out, and many others are distorted, and incorrect conclusions drawn. This is about par for the course for firearms related material published in The Atlantic magazine.


One could write a few pages debunking the errors in the article, and pointing out the omissions. Here's just one...

However, advocates of the AR-15 enlisted the support of a redoubtable gun enthusiast, General Curtis Lemay, then the Air Force’s Chief of Staff. Based on his interest, the Air Force conducted further tests and inspections and declared the AR-15 its “standard” model in January of 1962
Click to expand...

Now, this is a fact, sort of, but it leaves out important information, such as WHY Gen LeMay supported the AR, and why he would do so against "the machine" of Army Ordnance. That kind of background information is needed in order to understand what happened, and why it happened.

LeMay was, almost literally, between a rock and a hard place. At the time, the primary "rifle" used by the Air Force was the M1 Carbine. For guarding airbases (the air force's primary use for a rifle) the M1 Carbine was sufficient.

HOWEVER, the Air Force got their small arms and support from the Army, and the Army had decided the M1 Carbine was going away.

That meant that LeMay wouldn't be getting any more carbines, or carbine parts...and he needed a replacement, and, soon.

After being shown the AR rifle, he felt it could do the job he needed. Tests were done, and it was adopted. NOT as a general use infantry arm, but as an acceptable arm for airbase security forces.

As Paul Harvey used to say "the rest of the story" matters.


* With Stoner's idea being to create an intermediate cartridge that maximizes terminal ballistics and works ideally with the "Direct Impingement" ("Internal Piston") system.
Click to expand...

Stoner designed the AR-10 to use the 7.62x51mm NATO round. Other direct impingement rifles have been made in 6.5 x55mm Swede, and 7.92x57mm (8mm Mauser) The DI system is not dependent on an intermediate size cartridge.

The original AR-15 was in .222 Remington. One of the first moves the Army Ord group (and yes they are the real villains of the piece) did, to try and prevent adoption of the AR was to create specs requiring a given velocity at a given distance that the .222 round simply could not achieve. The .222 Rem Mag round could meet those specs, but was a little too long to fit in the AR.

The intent appears to have been that since the specs couldn't be met by the AR, the AR idea would be dropped. It didn't work. Other people in Army Ord (and remember they were not a monolithic organization) created the 5.56x45mm (.223 Rem), which could meet the Army's velocity requirements, AND fit in the existing AR rifle.

Since that initial attempt failed, factors in the Ord group went on to change other specs and requirements, in order to discredit the AR rifle. To the best of my knowledge, no one was ever brought up on charges resulting from this, but they should have been! (IMHO)

* 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)
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure just what you mean by this. DO remember that the publicly stated "reasons" for what they did was essentially a lie, to cover their own behinds.

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
Click to expand...

IT is, primarily due to the changes introduced with the M16A2 series. Although, in my opinion, despite over a half century of tinkering with the rifle and its ammo, its not the best system possible. It works, well enough, and to the powers that be, that's good enough, for now...
 
I think one interesting thing about the M16 development between the 60's and now is how military use encouraged civilian use and then civilian use led to military improvements.

Civilian competition shooting of AR15s led to improvements in areas such as optics, free floating barrels, improvements in barrel accuracy and materials, and even in improvement in ammunition, such as the 77gr mk262 for long range use.
 
Aw heck, things went south when we dropped below the Brown Bess' 75 caliber.
and nothing's been the same since we quit the`61 Springfield's 58 . . . .

Right now the current M4 is doing just fine in the the Middle East -- and elsewhere -- on balance.
(You might talk me into a Grendel variant)
 
Mustey said:
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)
Click to expand...


Question 1, stoners idea of an intermediate cartridge. No the caliber is too small. when paired with the fact that generally a military is restricted to ball ammo you need a larger diameter bullet to be effective, speed is not enough. They need a bigger cartridge over all, bigger bullet, heavier bullet, bigger casing, better bc, no 2 ways around it.

question 2: the viability of the platform. the M16 platform has been stagnant for a long time. the reliability has been worked out. all that is happening now are superficial changes to suit a specific mission or shooters needs.
 
Last edited:
To put the question differently: If you took a modern military issued M16 and changed the barrel and cartridge to fit the original design (IMR powder, 1:12 twist, etc...) Would the resulting gun have better internal ballistics than the standard today?
 
To put the question differently: If you took a modern military issued M16 and changed the barrel and cartridge to fit the original design (IMR powder, 1:12 twist, etc...) Would the resulting gun have better internal ballistics than the standard today?
Click to expand...
I would say no.

Aside from the M855 cartridge with its steel penetrator, which I feel does not suit the current military's needs, the ballistics of modern 5.56 (such as Mk262, or for LEO use Winchester Powerpoint, Speer Gold Dot, etc) is much better than the original design.
 
No the caliber is too small. when paired with the fact that generally a military is restricted to ball ammo you need a larger diameter bullet to be effective, speed is not enough. They need a bigger cartridge over all, bigger bullet, heavier bullet, bigger casing, better bc, no 2 ways around it.
Click to expand...

The original loading of a 55gn bullet fired out of a 20 inch barrel, combined with the slower twist (1in 12 IIRC) all combined to make a very effective wound.

The bullet destabilized on impact and started to yaw. The forces imparted by velocity and yaw usually caused the bullet to fracture at the cannelure and it fragmented. This caused a very effective wound

Since then, we have increased bullet weight. shortened barrels (reduced velocity) and over stabilized a bullet designed to penetrate. None of those factors helped the wounding capability of the round. So, we end up with a Mil round that causes much less damage then it was originally intended.

Most of these shortcomings are overcome with LE loads, as mentioned above. HP, Soft point or ballistic tip bullets all cause the bullet to expand/fragment much better then any FMJ at slower velocities.

So, i think with proper ammo selection, even the shorter barreled M4/AR’s are very effective at the close ranges we see in typical LE/SD usage. Nothing is going to make. 10.5” barreled gun a 800yard “one and done” death ray
 
nothing under 30 cal has as any business being a military cartridge.
Click to expand...

Say what you want, but we'd have filled a LOT more body bags over the last 50 years if we'd stayed with the M14. No weapon or cartridge is going to be perfect in every situation. Until we start issuing golf bags to each soldier with an assortment of weapons to carry on the battlefield and allow them to pull out the perfect one for each situation we have to choose the one that is the most effective in most of the situations. The 223/5.56 has it's limitations, but I've still not seen a better alternative.
 
To put the question differently: If you took a modern military issued M16 and changed the barrel and cartridge to fit the original design (IMR powder, 1:12 twist, etc...) Would the resulting gun have better internal ballistics than the standard today?
Click to expand...

No. In every way that matters - inflight ballistics, terminal ballistics, etc., the original M193 55gr round is a poorer performer. That’s why it isn’t used. It has more wind drift and sheds velocity quickly past 300m. It relies on yaw angle for its terminal effectiveness - which means it yields inconsistent results.

There is this popular myth that a 1:12 (or sometimes 1:14) twist rate increases terminal effectiveness by making the bullet more unstable; but this is just plain nonsense. No rifle made has a twist rate sufficient to stabilize a spitzer bullet in flesh. Every spitzer bullet will eventually yaw and flip post-impact. Twist rate is only relevant to stabilizing the bullet IN AIR.

M855A1 is superior in every category. It is more resistant to cross-wind, it sheds velocity slower, it has better penetration, and it doesn’t rely on yaw angle for terminal effectiveness.

As far as its use as a general purpose infantry cartridge, it all depends on what your overall strategy is. If you believe your troops will rarely acquire, let alone hit, a target past 300m, then the 5.56 is optimized to dominate that area. If you haven’t read Hitchman’s “Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon”, it is unlikely you’ll grasp the concept. That single, now-declassified study has driven U.S. small arms procurement philosophy for 50 years now and still has relevance even today.

As for assault rifle performance, we know, by comparing casualties on each side, that the 762x39 round, per hit, causes more damage and 556, on the other hand, requires more hits to achieve neutralization.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: That’s nonsense. And while I can explain the myriad ways that is nonsense, if necessary, all you have to do is look at the countries that used 7.62x39. What do they use now? 5.45 and 5.8.
 
Last edited:
As for assault rifle performance, we know, by comparing casualties on each side, that the 762x39 round, per hit, causes more damage and 556, on the other hand, requires more hits to achieve neutralization.
Click to expand...

Ah, once again the joys of studies reporting facts, but leading to mistaken conclusions...

First point, if you look at the least amount of damage a bullet can do, it's a bullet sized hole. Therefore the larger bullet will always do "more damage", because its bigger. But that damage could be, and often is only the difference between a .30 and a .22 caliber hole. In a given case, that may be significant. In another case, it may not matter one bit.

"More damage" might be technically accurate, but without a means to identify just what "more" means, in practical terms, its rather meaningless.

Next point; "..556, on the other hand, requires more hits to achieve neutralization." NO study can tell you that. The most any study can tell you is how many hits were used. There is a difference.

In a way, its like the old joke, "I don't know how many guys it took to throw me out of the bar, but they used six!" :D
 
Next point; "..556, on the other hand, requires more hits to achieve neutralization." NO study can tell you that. The most any study can tell you is how many hits were used. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

That’s another little understood point. There are literally hundreds of cases where the person was dead from the first shot. Not even a Star Trek medic team beamed onto the scene could have made the difference. But the person didn’t immediately die - because firearms aren’t death rays. And in the five to ten seconds between being killed and actually dying, a lot can happen.

And then there’s the observation-reaction gap. If you are trained to shoot until the target goes down and you have 0.2 splits, how many rounds are you going to fire between your first shot and your trigger finger receiving the message to cease fire?

There are so many variables involved that any “study” that purported to answer it would either be decidedly inhumane or not at all scientific.
 
Some random thoughts

The AR's of today are significantly better in every way than the original rifles, they continue to evolve and improve, are they perfect? no and neither is any other rifle.
For all those that rant and rave about how wonderful the AK 47 and the 7.62x39 is the Russians bailed out on the rifle and cartridge a long long time ago in favor of the AK 74 and 5.45x39 which is totally different and apparently much better. 5.45x39 ballistics are very similiar to 5.56x45, wonder why it works for them but not us?
The US doesn't lose wars or conflicts because of the M16 or M4, they lose them because of politicians.
 
I have always heard the 5.45 was superior to 5.56. as it was explained to me it mostly came down to bullet design combined with a little bit better case efficiency. The bullet, fmj with a hollow cavity behind the tip to induce instability similar to "match open tip" and better BCs. The casing is shorter and wider giving a more efficient powder burn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top