"This is Why the Iconic M16 Rifle has Served..." Topic

… FOR SO LONG

"ugene Stoner and the folks at Armalite designed the AR-15 all the way back in 1956. It would be another six years before the U.S. Air Force would adopt the firearm, and a few years later, its M16 iteration would go on to become the weapon of choice for the entire United States military.

However, its adoption wasn't without controversy.

The Army Material Command initially rejected the weapon for the M14. Yet, an investigation launched by Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance found that the test was rigged from the start as the Army Material Command used match-grade M14s against out-of-the-box M16s disadvantaging the M16…"

Main page

link

Armand

Used both in the 1970s. The M14 was more durable in the field. Being made of wood.shooting was more accurate on semi. The M16 was made of plastic and lighter to carry.seemed to spread better on auto.

I would be curious for a grenadier who fired both the wood M79 and the plastic M203 would compare them.

I would be curious for a grenadier who fired both the wood M79 and the plastic M203 would compare them.

For accuracy there really wasn't much between them, TP, based purely on training ranges. For us the M79 was a supplementary weapon, so I had it slung on my back, unloaded and with barrel down beside my pack, and patrolled with my SLR, my primary weapon. The M79 would get in the way if not slung properly, get hung up in heavy scrub and was, to use an Americanism, a perpetual PITA. The M203 was easier to carry, I could carry loaded and it was much quicker to bring into action. Plus it gave us another auto weapon in the section.

As for SLR vs M16, give me the SLR. If they'd decided to sling a 203 under the SLR I would have been very happy.

I have a personal hatred for the M16, it having failed me a couple of times in RVN :( Would have preferred to keep my M14, weight and all. They have fixed a lot of the problems with them but still wouldn't have one !

It is worth reading Chiver's book The Gun on the development process for the M-16 and it's ugly communist brother the AK-47

Thanks.

Armand

Nice info @DalGavan.

Re: "If they'd decided to sling a 203 under the SLR I would have been very happy."

Were you aware that SASR in Vietnam did exactly that? (except with the M203 pred, XM148). Apparently workshops at Nui Dat would also cut and weld together 20 rnd SLR mags to make hi cap versions (30 or 40 rounds) as well as modify the SLRs for full auto, (or just use L1A2s?) Not sure if this an A2 in the pic with the XM148 barrel in dirt. Or a modified A1?

Thanks, MIL, I wasn't aware of that. I'm not surprised the chook stranglers tried it.

There were some some doctored L1A1 with auto and semi selection fitted (which is better than a match or ally foil under the sear, which only gives you auto), but the barrels were usually shortened to stop barrel droop- the L1A1 barrel wasn't up to high rates of auto. Even the L1A2 would cook off after a couple of minutes of sustained fire. It wasn't just SASR. One of my seccoes was on 5RAR's 2nd tour and had issues with the M16 (possibly similar to Wolfhanza). He was able to get himself a doctored SLR, because No 1 scouts needed it.

My old CSM in DCOY 2/4RAR, in '81-'82, was Kevin Smith (and the bloke on the left resembles him quite a bit). He'd done ? tours in Vieties with SASR. He told us the armourers in 1ATF came up with a trigger mechanism that would only allow bursts of three to five rounds, but it wasn't reliable and, if it failed, the weapon wouldn't fire. I don't know how much of that was just boozer waries, but the chook stranglers did explore outside the usual boundaries.

I'd say the stripped SLR with the GL is an L1A1, mate. The barrel's not hefty enough for an L1A2. There were plenty of 30 round mag's for the SLR/AR, so if the LAD was chopping them then they're probably 40's. Why, I don't know- it would make the weapon a bit awkward, especially in the prone position.

I liked the M14. I was hi-shooter in my Platoon at PI with it. The mags were bulky to carry and the forestock heated up so much I could not touch it.

Wolfhag

I originally qualified on an M14. Qualified and then was handed an M16 for service, lol. Carried an M16A2 in A'stan… that powdery A'stan sand got in every nook and cranny, so I spent an inordinate amount of time cleaning it!!!

On a different note, what is the camouflage gear the SAS chaps are wearing?

Thanks also…

Armand

The cams could have come from anywhere, Flanker. The SASR used whatever it could get, either by purchase or "acquisition" from allies. I know they had tiger cams and some US ERDL gear, from colour photos. A photo search on the AWM site may help.

link

No worries @DalGavan. Barrel droop? I guess from overheated barrels used with full auto? Nice. Yes I'd heard a lot of the SASR modded SLRs were shortened, I'd just assumed they were handier in the jungle that way. A shorter barrel is also going to generally give you less accuracy over range I'd assume?

It's cool you had a 'Nam guy in your unit during service. Sounds like they were quite experimental.

Right, L1A1 it probably is. Understood on the 30/40 round mags, makes sense.

@42flanker That is definitely US ERDL, the Aussies preferred I think the "brown dominant" version or verdant. That's what I've read anyway. Lots of images of SAS in Nam online, Tiger stripe seems to have been much more rarely worn, especially later. I think the pic I posted is from about 1970.

@DalGavan. Damn I hate the AWM search, it's so irritating have to close the woke pop up warning to 1% of the population(And I'd like to know what percentage of that 1% actually care – I'm guessing it was imposed by virtue signalling white people instead of because of any complaints from actual Aborigines.) every time I do a search, not even when I just initially visit. Honestly stopped me researching there as much as I used to..

Barrel droop can lead to multiple problems, not just accuracy. It also means the barrel life can be measured in weeks or even days. A shorter barrel is handier in thick scrub and reduced lines of sight, but does lead to reduced accuracy, and reduced muzzle velocity. But with most contacts taking place at less than 50m it wasn't a problem.

I joined up in '75, MIL, so all my NCO and officers above LT, and even some of the diggers, had been to VN. It meant we got very good training, both formal and informal, and a lot of exercises were unscripted so we'd make mistakes to (hopefully) learn from. It was also a time when Canungra, and later Tully, weren't shackled by the WHS restrictions as they are today. If you didn't bleed and/or bruise at some time, when going through Canungra, then you weren't putting 100% in.

As for the AWM, its search engine is one of the worst I've seen. However, the photo archives are extensive enough to make searches (usually) worthwhile. As for the opening warning, that's all from capital city activists. Boories are smart enough to know what they're looking at and don't need paternalistic warnings from inner-city idiots.

To answer the question implied in the in the title (I tend to avoid clicking on links), infantry weapons only achieved fast obsolescence during the 100 years between 1840 and 1945. The matchlock lasted about 200 years, the flintlock about the same. Then we went through percussion, rifled musket (using Minie ball), breechloader, magazine, high powered, semi-auto then assault rifle, all in ~100 years. Once the world got to the assault rifle no revolutionary developments have occurred that would force adoption of a new weapon, so the M16 action has been the standard for the USA since its adoption in the 60's.

On Barrel droop – I have been advised now. Thank you @Dal Gavan.

Must have been an interesting time to volunteer in '75? Anti military sentiment in the general populice I gather?

I wonder if today's blokes are willing to bleed and be bruised for our defence? I hope so.

On AWM 1,000,000% agree. Yeah there's good stuff in there. Managed to research my own Grandfather's full service record including combat in Borneo in '45. White people city activists are scum. They impose their activism on minorities who were never excluded from Australian society to begin with. Basic student level cultural Marxists. We should oppose them at every opportunity, because they seek to destroy any tradition or moral we ever had as Australians.

ACTUALLY, WE Should Destroy THEM. Fight fire with fire right? So instead of opposing pop ups that asks us to acknowledge that "Aborigines may find the images of dead people confronting" we should advocate that non-Aborigines may find the images of dead people enagaging and historically important.

Any ideas on how to actually achieve progress in this direction of anti-disestablishmenterranism is highly welcome. Chanks.

Must have been an interesting time to volunteer in '75? Anti military sentiment in the general populice I gather?

There was some, mate, but as usual it was just a noisy minority of mouthy "heroes" at the base of it. Far too few of them were brave enough to try it when we were in civvies, though (the haircuts gave us away).

As for the other issue, just ignore them. For virtue signallers it's all about getting noticed.

Shot both the A1 and A2 on active duty, as well as the M4. Not many malfunctions with the A2 with live rounds, and it seemed simple and straightforward to me, and easy to zero and qualify. I thought the M-4 was a little too front-heavy, and the stock seemed shorter, so of the three, I would say the A2 was my favorite. I think it's inevitable that a gas-operated weapon is going to be dirty, but some of the M-16's reputation for fouling comes from the experience of cleaning it after firing with a blank adapter on (which is REALLY dirty). I never found it to be too much of a chore to clean after firing live rounds.

Thanks again for the insight Dal.

No, ignoring them got us to this point. We have to start fighting fire with fire imo, definitely questioning and calling things out whenever we can. In fact I'm going to submit a formal complaint to the AWM now. If a few thousand others did the same, that stupid pop up would go away, I pretty much guarantee it.

In fact I'm going to submit a formal complaint to the AWM now. If a few thousand others did the same, that stupid pop up would go away, I pretty much guarantee it.

Not with the current government in power, mate. Linda Burney probably checks every relevant government site to make sure it's being displayed.

A counter-reaction is what the activists want. It reinforces their sense of facing down evil and being "right", and also gratifies their need for attention. The only way to get rid of them is to make them irrelevant. But in our completely flocked electoral system that is never going to happen. Loud voices are votes to be chased, so get attention.

I suppose you try depriving them of chardie, avocado toast and almond, caffeine-free, skim soy lattes, and see if deprivation sees them semi-catatonic and sucking their thumbs in a corner.

Hahaha, a lot of people said it was pointless to march against Covid restrictions too, but we did and they went away.

Doing nothing is far worse imo. Letting the lefties know that we haven't acquiesced is very important.

The left got their way and took over everything because they spoke up and were the loudest. We have to start shouting back. Remember, we outnumber them.

Convservatives have "taken the high ground" and turned the other cheek for far too long.

Elections matter too and I think Dutton is going to be PM soon. The results of the Voice show the common sense majority is still there.