You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
M 16 question
- Thread starter CLC
- Start date
![armymil20070719094207[1]pt2.jpg](/data/attachments/55/55343-86659d787d00ed0c8d187c62646270f4.jpg?hash=Kk_dZ857Nr)
Achilles11B
New member
In that first picture with the tiger, the tape is on the handguard. Perhaps it's to get a better grip in insane-humidity jungle environments? Just an opinion.
SOP was to tape cleaning rods to your M16. They were issued without cleaning kits and the very first M16s didn't have trapdoors for a cleaning kit.
When the army started procuring M16s they demanded that the 5.56 be loaded with old ball powder that was just fine in garands and M14s instead of Dupont's IMR powder that the M16 was designed for. Ball powder increased the cyclic rate about 30% and left carbon and scale deposits in the Chamber.
To make it worse, the army decided to save a couple dollars (literally) by removing the chrome bore requirement and telling soldiers that the M16 was self cleaning. To top it all off, the M16 was a full auto rifle in the hands of soldiers with lacklustre motivation and terrible fire discipline, so spray and pray became commonplace.
These REMF decisions caused an enormous number of malfunctions and casualties and still color many people's opinions of the M16 if they don't know enough to realize that the rifles we are issued today are really very different than the ones our fathers and grandfathers shot.
The cleaning rods weren't there or cleaning your gun. They were there to push a spent cas out of the chamber in a firefight so they had to be handy instead of stuck in a buttpack or ruck.
When the army started procuring M16s they demanded that the 5.56 be loaded with old ball powder that was just fine in garands and M14s instead of Dupont's IMR powder that the M16 was designed for. Ball powder increased the cyclic rate about 30% and left carbon and scale deposits in the Chamber.
To make it worse, the army decided to save a couple dollars (literally) by removing the chrome bore requirement and telling soldiers that the M16 was self cleaning. To top it all off, the M16 was a full auto rifle in the hands of soldiers with lacklustre motivation and terrible fire discipline, so spray and pray became commonplace.
These REMF decisions caused an enormous number of malfunctions and casualties and still color many people's opinions of the M16 if they don't know enough to realize that the rifles we are issued today are really very different than the ones our fathers and grandfathers shot.
The cleaning rods weren't there or cleaning your gun. They were there to push a spent cas out of the chamber in a firefight so they had to be handy instead of stuck in a buttpack or ruck.
I don'tthink the Army had much to do or say with the M-16. The Sec Defence called the shots. The Air Force liked the 16 and next thing you know it was issued. Stoner found if you used a stick powder it did not need often cleaning. Sec Defence wanted to save some $ so they used a ball powder which leaves more carbon and fouling. There vis a time and a place for stick or ball powder. I shoot an AR competively and know this is no where even being close to combat but I can shoot a long time with stick powder and not have any problems.
I have a small supply of GI 38 Spl from the Nam time frame. Being winchester who uses ball powder in thier ammo, it makes one heck of a mess out of my 686. There is a substance from shooting a box of 50 which is like tar and hard to wipe off with a soaked patch with Shooter Choice. If this is any indication of what was happening with the M-16, then I can find no fault with the platform.
I have a small supply of GI 38 Spl from the Nam time frame. Being winchester who uses ball powder in thier ammo, it makes one heck of a mess out of my 686. There is a substance from shooting a box of 50 which is like tar and hard to wipe off with a soaked patch with Shooter Choice. If this is any indication of what was happening with the M-16, then I can find no fault with the platform.
I agree too a point. The 223 bullet is a fast little sucker compaired to the 30 used by the Vet Cong. THe 223 was unstable which made horrid wounds. The M-16 and it's little round set the Russkey's on their back side because they thought we had come up with something. This in turn made them come out with thier own .22.All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
Last edited:
THe 223 was unstable which made horrid wounds.
This urban legend really needs to die. The 55 gr ammunition was well stabilized by the 1:12 twist of most issued M16s in Vietnam, even the older 1:14 twist was fine. The myth of "horrible wounding" was born when someone shot a miniature pig with an M16 and made sure that the video of the event made it look like a full size pig.
ALL rifle bullets become "unstable" when they contact tissue, the heavier rear of the projectile normally swings around and takes the lead, giving the "tumbling" effect that so many people believe is an instant manstopper. It isn't, it is just how spitzer bullets travel through tissue.
And as far as taping a rod to your rifle to eject stuck cases, well the 101st did that as part of Operation Anaconda. Some things don't change.
Jimro
madcratebuilder
New member
The tiger stripe uniforms was not normal dress for Army 11B. Tiger stripe was worn by arvn's, some ranger units, and LRP's. It was standard dress for SF's. The bottom pic is SF, four arvn and two sf, normal 11b did not work with arvn's.
Tape on the hand guards for grip, tape on slings to keep noise down.
Tape on the hand guards for grip, tape on slings to keep noise down.
SF wasn't a Navy asset.
"These REMF decisions caused an enormous number of malfunctions and casualties and still color many people's opinions of the M16 " << This is the urban myth still perpetuated to this day that needs to be put down. The cleaning rod taped to the gun was to prevent a soldier from completly tearing down his gun in combat for what amounted to a stuck case. Just knock it out and reload - if it ever happens.
People blame the powder a lot, what also got misconstrued was Command claiming it was "maintenance free," which is the misstated version of "Needs less cleaning than the M14." The M16 does need less cleaning - you don't have to scrape rust off the iron parts, and keep the receiver, op rod, and all the furniture oiled. The alloy receiver got the mud knocked off and wiped down, the rubber or composite butt didn't rust, etc etc.
Another issue was the 4X ramp up in production the SecDef ordered - regardless that Colt wasn't ready. One outside source of barrels - Colt couldn't keep up - had tight chambers. That was a major source of problems that was hunted down in the field by contact teams gauging and replacing weapons literally within hearing of field combat.
Another problem was magazines - the 20 rounders worked ok, but push it to 30, and the excessive spring pressure coupled with transistioning to a straight mag well caused some mags to jam with all 30 rounds. By the '80s when I enlisted, it was still doctrine to download to 28.
Once the design got out of the oversight of Eugene Stoner into the hands of Colt, attempting to placate DOD, it no longer got a one stop decision maker who understood the entire concept. Committees of users began insisting on features and quantities that couldn't realistically be met in the time frames demanded. Because he would not listen to the subject matter experts, the SecDef created a situation that resulted in troops beta testing a gun that needed more refinement. It came at a price.
What is certainly arguable is how to quantify "enormous." Most of those claims have no basis in real terms or quantifiable numbers, just whatever a journalist or editor could get away with to slant a story. What is fact is that most weapons fielded are often modified to the A1 configuration, because the changes needed are important enough to differentiate. The better the system is, the longer it's in service, and that's why you see A4 models, or more.
"These REMF decisions caused an enormous number of malfunctions and casualties and still color many people's opinions of the M16 " << This is the urban myth still perpetuated to this day that needs to be put down. The cleaning rod taped to the gun was to prevent a soldier from completly tearing down his gun in combat for what amounted to a stuck case. Just knock it out and reload - if it ever happens.
People blame the powder a lot, what also got misconstrued was Command claiming it was "maintenance free," which is the misstated version of "Needs less cleaning than the M14." The M16 does need less cleaning - you don't have to scrape rust off the iron parts, and keep the receiver, op rod, and all the furniture oiled. The alloy receiver got the mud knocked off and wiped down, the rubber or composite butt didn't rust, etc etc.
Another issue was the 4X ramp up in production the SecDef ordered - regardless that Colt wasn't ready. One outside source of barrels - Colt couldn't keep up - had tight chambers. That was a major source of problems that was hunted down in the field by contact teams gauging and replacing weapons literally within hearing of field combat.
Another problem was magazines - the 20 rounders worked ok, but push it to 30, and the excessive spring pressure coupled with transistioning to a straight mag well caused some mags to jam with all 30 rounds. By the '80s when I enlisted, it was still doctrine to download to 28.
Once the design got out of the oversight of Eugene Stoner into the hands of Colt, attempting to placate DOD, it no longer got a one stop decision maker who understood the entire concept. Committees of users began insisting on features and quantities that couldn't realistically be met in the time frames demanded. Because he would not listen to the subject matter experts, the SecDef created a situation that resulted in troops beta testing a gun that needed more refinement. It came at a price.
What is certainly arguable is how to quantify "enormous." Most of those claims have no basis in real terms or quantifiable numbers, just whatever a journalist or editor could get away with to slant a story. What is fact is that most weapons fielded are often modified to the A1 configuration, because the changes needed are important enough to differentiate. The better the system is, the longer it's in service, and that's why you see A4 models, or more.
You could always build your own.
http://www.nodakspud.com/AR Lowers.htm
http://www.nodakspud.com/AR Lowers.htm
Looks like the hand guards have been opened up and a stick taped between as a spacer,..perhaps to provide a wider grip.
I used tape on my weapon and other gear to provide a quick recognition aid since almost all army equipment looks the same, in the field you could pick your gear from everyone elses quickly.
I used tape on my weapon and other gear to provide a quick recognition aid since almost all army equipment looks the same, in the field you could pick your gear from everyone elses quickly.
Last edited:
bufordtjustice
New member
I am more surprised that no one has commented on the dead tiger! lol That is a great photo.