They may not of been working with them but I suspect their engineers knew all about them and would be itching to help out in anyway . My point was Who does one turn To when wanting to design a new product in a new material . A leading manufacture in that industry seems like a reasonable start .
What's Your Favorite Firearm Myth?
- Thread starter Bart B.
- Start date
dogtown tom
New member
Mattel made TOYS. No one valued their input on the applicability of Barbie doll plastic to firearm parts.
Almost every US gunmaker was well aware of plastic, having used plastic grips for DECADES prior to the M16.
I find it incredible that anyone would believe that the leading expert in high strength plastic in 1963 was a company that had never produced anything of the sort.
Well lets start with the same question just The other way around . I keep hearing how no one has ever seen a picture or a document showing Mattel made anything for the M-16 OK , Show me one document stating that Mattel never ever experimented with anything other than cheap Barbie doll plastic . I’ll hit you with one of my favorite statements , absence of evidence is not evidence of absence !
If you want to play that game, it goes back to the start. You can't just start demanding evidence from others after having made unsubstantiated claims of your own beforehand.
The original claim was that they had "expertise in injection molding and different qualities of plastics of the time" and were a " leading manufacture in that industry".
Is there any evidence that, during the timeframe in question, Mattel had any experience, or expertise, or would qualify as a leading manufacturer, in the field of high strength/performance polymers?
That wouldn't prove that they were involved in manufacturing firearm parts, but it would at least provide some rational basis for speculating that they could have been involved.
Failing that, is there any credible reason to assume that they might have had experience, or expertise, or might have qualified as a leading manufacturer, in the field of high strength/performance polymers? Jumping this hurdle doesn't really give us much to work with. We're admitting that we don't have evidence that they made parts, we're admitting that we don't have evidence that they had expertise in the kinds of plastics required for making parts, but it would suggest there was at least some logical reason to believe that it was at least possible they could have had the expertise to land a contract.
Frankly, I don't think we even have that.
You said:
Me said:
Me said:
I never once claimed anything , and never read past your first quote because you were wrong from the start . I just said it seemed reasonable or something like that . I have ZERO knowledge about all this . Others where making the blanket statements and using the absence of evidence " is" evidence of absence argument by claiming there evidence is that there is no evidence . All my point is one of the worlds largest manufactures of plastics seems like a good place to start asking questions when you want to make plastic things . This does not stop at types of plastic either . It "could" include making molds since Mattel was making just about every elaborate shape thinkable at the time . "Maybe" Mattel made and or supplied the molds . Not saying they did , It's just not unreasonable to think something like that "could" of happened .
Hope that makes it more clear that I'm not claiming anything , just enjoying a interesting conversation .
MG
aarondhgraham
New member
You can't be serious about self defense,,,
You can't be serious about self defense,,,
If all you carry is an inexpensive handgun.
Honestly, this one really cracks me up.
Aarond
.
You can't be serious about self defense,,,
If all you carry is an inexpensive handgun.
Honestly, this one really cracks me up.
Aarond
.
Lots of people have said they had "Mattel" marked M16s, no one has provided any proof and honestly, today, a photo isn't the 'proof" it once was.
Did see one account, though I can't remember where might even have been here on TFL where a fellow said "he was there" and said Armalite sought Mattel's expertise, designing the molds for the plastic parts.
I found that plausible. Again, no proof other than a man's word, but sometimes, that's all there is...or all that we get absent a detailed and exhaustive research project. (which might not come up with acceptable proof, either.
)
After all, every single piece of everything done isn't documented or photographed. I spent decades working on the production side of the govt's nuclear weapons program. Amazing the stuff we wrote down and documented. If you could FIND the record today (which are probably stored in the same warehouse as the Ark of the Covenant
) you could tell a lot of stuff, down to who changed what lightbulb, when, in some cases.
But I can also tell you with complete surety that there was a LOT of stuff that never got written down, or photographed and today is known ONLY to the surviving people who did it.
Did see one account, though I can't remember where might even have been here on TFL where a fellow said "he was there" and said Armalite sought Mattel's expertise, designing the molds for the plastic parts.
I found that plausible. Again, no proof other than a man's word, but sometimes, that's all there is...or all that we get absent a detailed and exhaustive research project. (which might not come up with acceptable proof, either.
)After all, every single piece of everything done isn't documented or photographed. I spent decades working on the production side of the govt's nuclear weapons program. Amazing the stuff we wrote down and documented. If you could FIND the record today (which are probably stored in the same warehouse as the Ark of the Covenant
) you could tell a lot of stuff, down to who changed what lightbulb, when, in some cases.But I can also tell you with complete surety that there was a LOT of stuff that never got written down, or photographed and today is known ONLY to the surviving people who did it.
As I stated in my last post (the part you say you didn't read, I suppose), you made two claims that are in bold above.
My point was that there is no evidence that Mattel was a leading manufacturer in high-strength/performance polymers nor that they had expertise in that field, nor even that they had any experience at all.
Did they know plastics? Yes, like they knew metal from making diecast Hotwheels. What I was getting at is that the idea that they were experts in high-strength polymers based on their production of plastic toys is just as hard to swallow without evidence as it would be to believe that they were experts in producing high-performance steel parts based on the fact that they knew how to make metal diecast toys.
Not only that, but from all the evidence I have seen, none of the plastic M16 parts (regardless of their sourcing) were ever stamped with any manufacturer name. It stretches credibility that the one manufacturer name that would be allowed to be stamped on the parts would be one that would obviously have such a negative connotation. As one person has aptly observed on this thread: "...if I were making a firearm and any part of it was made by a manufacturer famous for making toys . I would have it in my contract that their name is nowhere stamped on any of the products they make . That’s just asking for bad advertising . "
So what do we have to work with?
- No stamped parts. No evidence that any M16 plastic parts had any manufacturer name on them ever, let alone Mattel's.
- No credible pictures of stamped parts.
- No evidence at all, nor any claims from the Mattel side that they ever contracted to make parts for any military contracts or for any firearms.
- No evidence from the government or any military contractor that Mattel submitted any bids, received any payments, or delivered any parts.
- No evidence that Mattel ever worked with high-performance polymers.
Given the number of people who would have had to have been involved in the process, it's incredible (in the literal sense) that all the hard evidence could have simply disappeared without any trace. Given the continued interest in the myth, it's inconceivable that no one either on the government side, the firearm manufacturer side or from Mattel has ever come forward with anything conclusive.
In other words, we are forced to believe that the people involved were so incompetent and lacking in prescience as to allow a toy manufacturer to stamp military firearm parts with their name and then, after allowing that to happen, became suddenly superhumanly competent. They were then able to destroy every shred of evidence remaining. All the stamped parts, all the pictures of them, all the government paperwork, all the firearm manufacturer paperwork, all the banking/payment records, all the records at Mattel. AND, they managed to get to every person involved on both the contractor and government side and convince them to remain silent on the topic--not just until the end of the Vietnam war, but for half a century--up to present times.
Why spoil a good story with the Facts?
I had a 4.2" mortar tube made by Whirlpool...
My Grandmother had an International Harvester refridgerator!
We've had guns or parts made by all kinds of people, besides traditional gun makers...What was Rock-o-la famous for? it wasn't M1 carbines
Singer??
Union Switch & Signal?
The list is long...
However, all of those on that list have been documented. Most several different and unassailable ways.
Mattel making M16s (or any parts)??
not so much...
I had a 4.2" mortar tube made by Whirlpool...
My Grandmother had an International Harvester refridgerator!
We've had guns or parts made by all kinds of people, besides traditional gun makers...What was Rock-o-la famous for? it wasn't M1 carbines
Singer??
Union Switch & Signal?
The list is long...
However, all of those on that list have been documented. Most several different and unassailable ways.
Mattel making M16s (or any parts)??
not so much...
TheGlimmerMan
New member
My favorite myth is 1911s are obsolete and unreliable and 45 ACP lost the caliber wars.
My second favorite myth is the FN 5.7x28 is just a 22 magnum unsuitable for self-defense.
My second favorite myth is the FN 5.7x28 is just a 22 magnum unsuitable for self-defense.
reynolds357
New member
FN Five Seven will mess you up.
No.
Depends on whether you want to be factually or emotionally correct. It's kind of like typing a space between letters and punctuation marks.
Last edited: