From the Gun Thing’s archives and from Chris Byrne’s Arch Angle blog site comes this:
Why We Hate The AR15/M16/M4
By Chris Byrne (originally published on his Archangel site)…
There are a hell of a lot of people who REALLY hate the AR family of weapons, the 5.56 nato round, and the M16 in particular.
I’ve addressed this hatred before; and there are some valid issues, some not so valid issues, and some issues that were once valid, but aren’t anymore.
One of the groups that hates the M16 with the greatest passion, is veterans of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, who served in Viet Nam between 1964 and 1968.
They’ve got a very good reason; the M16, as issued, got hundreds, if not thousands of good soldiers and marines killed.
See, the M16 as issued at the time, was just as bad as everyone who hates it says it was.
But, why?
Clearly the M16 of today is a very different beast (though of course the 5.56 round is still not an optimal anti-personnel choice, and the gas system has its issues); and there’s no way the weapon would have been adopted as widely as it was, if it was so bad by design…
The post I wrote yesterday about tumbling bullets , and the earlier post about stabilization myths, brought this subject to the fore of a number of folks mind. Some have commented that they won’t buy a Colt product, and still blame McNamara; for cheapening out on the M16 to make more profit, because they didn’t care if the troops got a shoddy weapon, or even for bribes and kickbacks (a suggestion which I find ridiculous by the way).
Well, there are a hell of a lot of things to blame McNamara for (in fact, I hold him responsible for much of the way the Viet Nam war was conducted); and certainly he and his “whiz kids” share some of the blame; but really, the majority of the responsibility and recriminations should not fall on his shoulders.
You shouldn’t really blame Colt either. They were following the specifications and recommendations of the people who are truly responsible for the deaths of all those men.
No, the people responsible for the early M16 and its faults, were the Army Ordnance Board. They are the ones who changed the twist rate, changed the powder, and told colt not to chrome the bores.
They did it, because they were trying to sabotage the M16. They saw this black plastic toy, as being forced on them by McNamara and Curtis LeMay (com gen. of the Air Force, who bought them for the air force security police); when they wanted to continue using the m14.
Now, specifically a lot of folks blame McNamara, because he forced the Army to adopt the rifle, and is reported to have said “If it needed a chrome bore, Eugene Stoner would have designed it that way”.
It may have been true, and I’ve certainly heard the quote before; but it was definitely not Colts fault, or McNamaras fault even that the changes were made, or more importantly that the required changes to make the M16 combat ready for the jungles of Viet Nam, were not made until 1968.
If you read up on some of the stunts the Ordnance Board pulled during the acceptance trials, they boil my blood.
The AR platform was first tested (as the AR-10) by the Army ordnance board in 1956; and it was rejected, for various stated reasons only one of which was true. The original AR10 had a light weight composite barrel, which would shatter in heavy rain or extremely cold temperatures. During the original ordnance board trials, Stoner decided that the one legitimate complaint the board had was that the rifle needed a conventional barrel, and the bore needed to be chrome lined (in fact, Stoner had always thought so. The lightweight aluminum and composite barrels were not his idea, they were forced on him by the president of Fairchild, John Sullivan).
In ‘58, the board held the cold weather trials, and rejected the AR platform again, because of it’s “inadequate performance and failure to meet standards in harsh environments”, based on a ridiculous series of rigged tests, using deliberately sabotaged rifles.
Eugene Stoner reported that the commander of the tests told him that there was no way his rifle would pass, and that he didn’t understand why Stoner was trying to destroy the Army with his rifle. That he believed Stoner was unpatriotic, and honestly wanted to destroy the Army and possibly America; just because of this rifle.
These were not the sentiments of a rational and objective man.
Stoner also reported that when he arrived to oversee the trials, the rifles used for the test had all their pins removed and replaced with machine screws that had the heads ground off; that springs were deliberately clipped; that sights had been deliberately knocked off true etc… The army ordnance board was simply not going to allow this rifle to even be considered.
Maxwell Taylor, at the time chief of staff of the army (then chairman of the joint chiefs), personally hated LeMay to an unreasonable degree and “blamed” this new rifle on him. Taylor also directly intervened in the testing process to express his disapproval of the new weapon, preferring instead the more traditional M14; and letting his people know in no uncertain terms he expected the plastic toy to fail completely.
So, the AR was rejected again; and Stoner left Fairchild/Armalite to work with Colt, and Cadillac Gage. In 1961-62 he started working on his next design, the Stoner 62/63 weapons system, and later the Bushmaster cannon, leaving the AR to Armalite (the trade name the M16 is known under throughout most of the world).
In 1960, after seeing a demonstration of the AR15 at a barbecue in Texas, Curtis Lemay ordered 8,500 M16s for the Air Force (initially countermanded by McNamara, but later allowed to go through); believing that the light, handy rifle was perfect for air base security.
ARPA (the advanced research project agency) also acquired a quantity of the rifles, and sent them to Viet Nam with SF a teams; to be used as personal weapons, as well as to arm indigenous irregular troops. This order was allowed to proceed; and ARPA reported (with some unbelievable hyperbole one might note), that the rifle was an unqualified success.
McNamara stopped the M16 order for several reasons, including believing (rightly) that LeMay was too big for his britches; but his primary justification was the initial army ordnance board reporting. After the order was suspended, ArmaLite corporation (which was founded and spun off by Fairchild, who were Stoners employers when he created the AR design),who had licensed the design from Stoner, filed a complaint with McNamara about the original tests, which caused him to initiate an inspector generals investigation into the trials.
Two years after that, and after receiving an IG report showed that the original M16 trials were rigged; McNamara halted production of the M14 and ordered the M16 adopted; officially because economic and production analysis by the “whiz kids” showed the M14 was uneconomical (production costs were too high, and production could not be economically increased), vs. the M16.
Actually, much of why McNamara made the decision was because he was supremely pissed off at the Army Ordnance board at their deception (and they were continuing to insist the trials were legitimate even after the report came out). McNamara felt that he needed to force the board to heel.
Initially the AOB absolutely refused McNamaras order that the M16 be adopted. McNamara forced the AOB by direct order to retry the weapon, with ARPA as an overseeing agency. The board dickered so much, and insisted on so many changes to the rifle; in fact saying that even with the changes it was unsuitable; that McNamara ordered that they adopt the M16 as is, with no changes, anyway.
Those changes were actually rather important; including the chrome bore, the forward assist, and a different twist rate for the rifling. They would later be implemented in the M16A1 (and later revisions); but because of the boards hostility with McNamara, they were not put into the initial production models as issued.
After McNamara overruled the board completely, they went about deliberately making sure the M16 would fail; because they wanted it to be a spectacular disaster, so they could go back to the M14 and give McNamara a black eye.
The first, and most important thing they did, was change the powder from stick to ball; without testing the new powder, or changing the springs, gas port diameter etc… as would be required to properly function with this change.
...But it didn’t take changes in the rifle or ammo to sink it.
Even with the wrong powder, the weapon COULD have been a success. The board did something far far worse. Colt was advertising the civilian versions of the rifle as “self cleaning”, and so natural and intuitive that anyone could shoot it with no training. THe board thought they would throw those claims back in Colts face, and they specified that the rifle not be distributed with cleaning kits, didn’t have kits or supplies put into production, and didn’t create training manuals or standard procedures.
In fact, they didn’t even distribute armorers manuals (something done with any and all devices the military uses); and the flysheets that they DID distribute, instructed armorers to issue the weapon without kits, telling soldiers that they didn’t need to clean the weapon; that it was self cleaning (Colt picked this up as sales propaganda, but the AOB certainly knew better).
When the weapon initially went to field units, no training was conducted. Troops were given “field expedient familiarization”, which consisted of firing a few magazines off into the tree line. There was no training in stoppage drills, how to break the weapon down, how to field or detail strip it, how to maintain it at all etc.. The weapon was first issued to troops in late ‘64 and early ‘65, but cleaning kits and manuals weren’t issued until 1967.
What we CAN blame McNamara for however, is not listening to the troops reports of the weapons failures. He still believed that it was the AOB falsifying the problems in order to make the rifle fail. He was half right.
In 1968, finally realizing that they had lost the M14 fight, and that they had to respond to the issues the troops were having; the Army began issuing the revised configuration M16s (the E1, E2, and what was finally classified as the M16-A1), incorporating those changes initially recommended; as well as creating new manuals, procedures, and training; as should have been done in 1964.
All of that was a direct result of the ordnance board, and their desire to keep using the M14; and all of that resulted in the deaths of hundreds or thousands of good men. It’s not Colt or McNamaras fault, you can lay the blame squarely on the Army Ordnance Board from 1958 through 1968.
Response
The Myth of AR Unreliability
Ok guys, its time to smack down the bullshit here.
If an AR is properly maintained, and properly made in the first place, it is completely reliable. I have owned, been issued, and have used in harsh conditions, several AR's (including M4 variants); and I'm on my second M14. My AR's have been, without exception, more reliable than my M14's, more reliable than my G3, and in general more reliable than any other semi auto rifle I've owned.
A few days ago, in preparation for a range trip, I detail stripped my Bushmaster super light. I have had this rifle since the beginning of October, and I have averaged 250 rounds a week through it, plus 1500 rounds I put through it in the first week.
Whenever I get a new AR I do a few things with it. I clean it thoroughly, fully detail strip it, clean it down to bare metal (or finish). I then shoot 250 rounds through it and do it again, and 250 more rounds and do it again. From there, I then put as many rounds as I can through it until I get a stoppage. During the test all I do is wipe the gun down with a rag, inside and out, run a bore snake down the bore every 1000 rounds, and properly lube the gun.
I passed the 5000 rounds mark through this rifle last week, 4500 rounds since I detail stripped it last. I have not had a single stoppage because of the rifle in that entire time (I had one bad magazine that I crushed). I decided I had to stop shooting and clean the thing or the bolt would permanently carbonize. I have fed every sort of ammo there is through it in that time, including various shit from our nato allies, and even a few hundred wolf (damn that stuff smells like shit).
More in the extended entry ...
Now I will say, cleaning it was a stone ass bitch. I did a basic clean first with CLP, and pretty much every internal passage was hard coated with carbon, but it wasn’t even close to enough to make the weapon malfunction. After wiping off the CLP, I liberally coated every surface and filled every passage with a foaming solvent that will strip any fouling known to man. Its good shit.
That got about half of it.
Then I coated it all in RB-17 and let is soak for an hour, and cleaned it all off again with CLP, and that finally got the rest of it.
Yeah, it was a pain in the ass to detail strip and clean, and that's the design. That is the only consequence of the design that shits where it eats, its a pain in the ass to detail strip and clean. It was the trade off stoner made for a more accurate, lighter, less complex, and more reliable weapon. There's no op rod to break or bend, no gas piston, or piston seals, and if the gas tube does plug up (highly unlikely under normal conditions) its easy to replace. Not only that but it has less reciprocating mass than just about any other design out there, which makes the weapon more accurate, and easier to control in rapid or full auto fire.
I can't say the same of my M14. If I run good ammo through it, its a 100% gun, but with the shitty Greek and Indian 7.62 (not the dangerous corrosive stuff, I like my gun too much for that) I get a failure to feed about once a mag.
This is a custom built, Ron Smith rifle, not some cheap piece of junk either. I'm in the middle of doing the same test with this M14 to see how many rounds it will fire un-cleaned without a malfunction (with good ammo). Last week, I had a malfunction with the good stuff, having fired about 1000 rounds through it, now I'm going to clean it and see how nasty it is.
Let's note, the AR design isn't linked inextricably from the 5.56 NATO chambering. I'm a big of the AR-10, (and especially the SR-25) and if I could afford one, it would be in my locker right now. There is a reason I always refer to the design as the AR ,because the M16 is a specific rifle in a specific caliber, the AR family is the name for the design.
You know what I think is the biggest problem that people have with the AR? It's that they don’t read the -10 (note: the military operators manual for the rifle)
Shit man I've got that thing memorized (or at least I used to. I re-read it while I was waiting for the RB-17 to dissolve the carbon, and there’s stuff I had forgotten).
The next major problem people have is they don’t understand the difference between an assault rifle, and a battle rifle, or if they do, they don't like the idea of an assault rifle.
The AR design, as expressed with today’s A3 and A4 variants is the ultimate expression of the assault rifle concept, as practiced in U.S. Military doctrine, much as the AKM is the ultimate expression of the assault rifle as expressed by soviet doctrine.
Think about it, detail strip an AR and see how many functional moving parts there are. Then do the same to a G3, or even an M14. Its even worse when you look at reciprocating parts (parts that cycle when firing). The 16 is as simple as you can make a precision rifle.
There is actually very little that can break during operation, and if there is a failure its most likely caused by crud, bad ammo, or a dodgy mag, not by a part breaking. To get any simpler you need to go soviet, and that's a whole different philosophy.
The problem comes when people try and compare the M16 and especially the M4 (which is an assault carbine, not a full rifle), to battle rifles. A battle rifle will have an effective range of 600-800 yards, an assault rifle will have an effective range of 300 yards, and an assault carbine of 100 yards (according to the -Army, the effective range for a 20" barrel is 460 yards, 350 for an 18" and 50 yards for every inch or so thereafter. The Army spec says the M4 is a 200 yard gun)
Hmm, think we see a pattern forming here?
There are appropriate situations for each, and the vast majority of troops are best served with assault rifles, or assault carbines, in most situations.
The art of selecting a general issue weapon for military purposes is one of compromise. There is no weapon ideal for all missions, so you choose the one that has the most positive factors for it, in the most situations. A battle rifle has one plus, power, and everything else minus compared to an assault rifle or carbine. Individual small arms power is the primary concern for a rifleman, but not for an infantryman serving in a squad with a designated marksman, a grenadier, and a light machine gunner. His primary concerns are ammo capacity, packability, and general handiness.
So what it comes down to is, we probably compromised too far down with the 5.56 round. We did it with bad information, and a bad wounding theory, and converted everything over before we knew any better. Once we converted everything over, we didn’t have the time or resources to change it, and by the time we did, 30 years had gone by, and the entire world was stuck with it.
But whatever the weaknesses of the caliber (and they can be mitigated to a degree with proper load selection and bullet design) it doesn’t change the fact that the AR design is fundamentally both accurate, and reliable. If you start with a properly made gun, and just read the manual and do what it says, which isn't very hard, you'll never have a problem.
I've owned several AR's been issued several more, and served with and worked with hundreds of people who between them were issued hundreds. I have seen reliable weapons, and unreliable ones, and in almost every case the fault could be found in poor ammo, poor maintenance and cleaning, incorrect or out of tolerance repair (or original manufacture), and bad magazines. Bad magazines alone account for at least half the malfunctions I have seen, and improper cleaning and maintenance accounted for at least half the rest.
Let me say it again: When properly maintained, and properly manufactured in the first place, the AR design is highly reliable.
What isn't reliable, is people. I find that maintenance standards in regular forces are often poor, and the acceptance standards for the weapons in the first place are also poor. In particular I believe the acceptance standards, and maintenance standards for magazines are entirely unacceptable.
It never ceases to amaze me just how little soldiers, and especially officers, seamen, and airmen, know about their weapons, and how to properly maintain them. Even if they do know, the standard to which they maintain them is very frequently not up to spec. Perhaps we should have more armorers, and more armorers assistants, and I KNOW we should train our people to maintain their weapons reflexively (as I was trained; You clean your weapon every time you stop moving, whether you've fired it or not, no matter how reliable you think the design is).
Special operations units have a lot more weapons knowledge, and a lot more personal attention is paid to the weapons, as well as attention from armorers. Not only are their weapons 100% reliable (or they wouldn't be using them), but they are also highly accurate.
The AR "reliability problem" is one of lax maintenance, lax cleaning, and lax standards, pure and simple.
Now we can debate whether it is appropriate for a military rifle to NEED those higher standards or not, and it's certainly valid to suggest that they don't. My point here is that there is nothing inherently unreliable about the AR design.
Sure, it is dirty, and it needs more attention to cleaning than a non direct gas impingement design would. That's it. As far as I'm concerned that's a training issue.
There’s no gear required for basic cleaning. You need a rag, a bottle of CLP, a bore snake, and a tooth brush. You carry them in a pouch you can reach at all times and you clean obsessively (no-one uses the butt stock kit if they dont have to)
It doesn’t matter what kind of weapon you have, your weapon is your life, and you clean it and clean it , and clean it. The AR design is about the easiest weapon in the world to quickly clean (if you don’t let the gunk build up).
Cleaning your weapon is something you do like breathing. You move you clean. You shoot you clean, you piss you clean. A dust cloud goes by, you wipe off your weapon before you wipe off your face.
It isn't necessary to detail strip a weapon very frequently, if you do a detail strip on an AR every 1500 rounds or so (that’s 50 magazines worth), you'll be fine, and it will only take 10 minutes. If you detail strip your weapon every time you engage, before you roll up for the night, then it takes nothing. You can do it with a clean rag, a toothbrush, a toothpick, a bore snake, an empty cartridge casing, and a bottle of CLP.
Baby wipes are your friend. I have half a dozen packages of simple green cleaning wipes sitting with my gear. I have more in the trunk of my car. I have foil packed wipes in my LBE and in my gear bags.
An M4 breaks down for cleaning in less than 5 seconds. It takes less than a minute to pull the bolt and do a brush and wipe down, and another minute to clean the bore, lube the rifle, and pin it up again. It only takes another five minutes to do a detail strip and clean if you haven’t let the gunk build up for a while (like I did in the example above).
It actually take me longer to detail strip and clean my 1911, than it does to do my AR.
You learn this through training and practice, and we haven't trained enough of our people to use these patterns of behaviour, but that is not the fault of the rifle.
I posted a funny advertisement for it at the old site, I have to find that again.
