While watching the History Channel one day doing a episode on the M16 Dr. Atwater said that his troops wouldn't keep a round in the chamber of their M16's overnight due to the case swelling and causing a jam. My question to those that where over in Vietnam is: Did you or did you not keep a round in the chamber over night? Now I could possibly see it if you were back at your firebase but if you was out on a LP,OP or ambush that wouldn't be very wise as I figure that the VC or NVA woould hear you chamber a round and put you into some deep dodo. I don't see how a round could swell that much overnight. I served in the U.S. Army during '72-'76, didn't go to 'Nam but went to Europe instead, and never even heard of such a thing.
Swollen case causing jam in M 16 Question.
- Thread starter dodge
- Start date
Watched the same show and was surprised to hear DR. Atwater say what he did. Went to Viet Nam myself but not as an infantryman. The big problem with the M16 was a failure to chrome plate the chamber. Sec Def McNamara was a sorry butt. He forced the M16 down the Army's throat without a chrome plated chamber. Yep, the Army made some boo boos too with the change to ball propellant.
The M16 did not have a forward assist. This came with the M16A1.
Read this article. It is a little over dramatic but points out the problems with the original M16. I have a good friend wholse job it was to investigate M16 complaints. Still have the letter from my brother who was KIA in Ia Drang Valley in Nov. 65. He states that no cleaning kit came with his new M16. Army claimed it did not need cleaning.
http://firearmwiki.com/mw/index.php?title=M16
armedtotheteeth
New member
Kinda like auto mobiles.. Improvement s happen over time. Find a more reliable and accurate rifle than a modern M16 / AR15 and Ill be surprised. Yeah, Aks are pretty reliable, but, I think the Ars and M16s are still victim of the Vietnam era.
MeekAndMild
New member
Perhaps this was from the time before chrome linings? Maybe the "swelling" was rust?
Aside from the lack of chrome lined bore and barrels there were other issues with the M-16. The ejection port was a serious design flaw as I see it. In every instance of training with an M-16 that involving low crawling, ie. infiltration training, ect. DIrt, sand and dust made its way into the chamber and when we reached the objective and were supposed to eliminate the threats the M-16 would cycle once and that was it, jammed everytime. This was more than incompetance on the part of the Ordinance dept this was criminal! The American soldier deserved a weapon that was as reliable as possible. Ordinance cut corners and improvised with lives of American men at arms. I take this seriously as my father did three tours in Viet Nam, from 64 to 67 and was KIA in '67. While his death was not the result of the failings of the M-16, I do remember his criticism of this weapon. The U.S. serviceman desereved much better and was failed by the powers that made these decisions.
Had they simply stuck with the original Stoner design and IMR powder most of the problems of the M-16 would never have happened. It would also have been a better stopper as the original twist allowed the bullet to wobble in flight creating wounds much larger than expected for .22 bullet. I find it almost impossible to believe a bullet could expand overnight. What internal pressure is necessary to cause a bullet casing to swell that much? 50,000 psi chamber pressure doesn't cause it to swell enough to prevent ejection in ordinary circumstances. I just don't buy it. Sounds to me like a damp chamber rusting. Just my two cents.
I was infantry in Vietnam, we kept our chambers loaded ALWAYS. I never had a problem. Not one.
I heard the BS stories about the failings of the M16 and wanted an M14. But we didnt have M14s, we had 16s, and it didn't take long at all to realize the M16a1 was a highly reliable weapon. I've crawled through the gum of rice paddies, dust, sand, dirt, water, everything imagianal. No problems.
Later I was in the AK NG, we did our annuel training in the winter. Like any metal the M16s would sweat in a warm tent and freeze in a pair of seconds after you got out side. Zero problems with the M16.
I delibertly didnt clean an M16a1 just to see how long it would function without maintainse. A couple thousands rounds later I had to clean it, not because if failed to function, but because I had to turn it in because I was transfered to another unit.
I was running a sniper school when a young LT from the regular army contacted me about taking some 5.56 off his hand so he could show an ammo ussage so he would loose his ammo allocation the next year. 30K of 5.56. I drew 10 M16s to from my marksmanship unit to see what ammo we could get rid of. We smoked those guns, turning the gas tube blue, and I'm sure we burnt up some barrels, but they functioned.
The M16s worked. Now I understand there there maybe a problem with the M4s because of the shorter gas tubes causing more gumming. I dont know because I dont have that much experience with the M4s, I know we had the CARs in Vietnam. They also had the short barrels and short gas tubes. They were normally carried by our point men who to my knowledge didnt fire anything but full auto. I can't understand why they didnt have the problems that some have reported with the M4s.
I have read the studies and surveys from the troops in Iraq about the M4s. The surveys I've read was that 20% of the end users (soldiers who used them) said they wanted something differant. Now I'm no math wizzard, but it would seem to me that if only 20% said they wanted something else, I would assume that 80% were satisified with the M4.
I understand that there is no weapon system that will satisfy everyone. Look at the other post about the reports of ejected clips of the M1s getting people killed. Wheather I believe that or not is not the point. The point is that the M1 was the best battle rifle of WWII. Yet still I know there are people reluctant to turn in their '03s for the M1, My father was one of those, like me, (my fear of the 16 when I frist went to Vietnam), my father after starting using the M1 wouldnt trade it for a box car load of Springfields.
Target shooters knew the world was ending when the M1s started showing up at high power matches, ruining the game with machine guns. History repeated itself, HP shooters figured the end was near when the service teams started replacing the M14s with the M16. I was one of the later groups. M16s could never compete. But like the 03 shooters I was wrong, M14s at Perry are scarce as hen's teeth. They were retired to their own match like the M1s.
Sorry for the long rant, but that M16 saved my butt more then once and I'll be the first to admit, I didnt take care of it like it took care of me.
I heard the BS stories about the failings of the M16 and wanted an M14. But we didnt have M14s, we had 16s, and it didn't take long at all to realize the M16a1 was a highly reliable weapon. I've crawled through the gum of rice paddies, dust, sand, dirt, water, everything imagianal. No problems.
Later I was in the AK NG, we did our annuel training in the winter. Like any metal the M16s would sweat in a warm tent and freeze in a pair of seconds after you got out side. Zero problems with the M16.
I delibertly didnt clean an M16a1 just to see how long it would function without maintainse. A couple thousands rounds later I had to clean it, not because if failed to function, but because I had to turn it in because I was transfered to another unit.
I was running a sniper school when a young LT from the regular army contacted me about taking some 5.56 off his hand so he could show an ammo ussage so he would loose his ammo allocation the next year. 30K of 5.56. I drew 10 M16s to from my marksmanship unit to see what ammo we could get rid of. We smoked those guns, turning the gas tube blue, and I'm sure we burnt up some barrels, but they functioned.
The M16s worked. Now I understand there there maybe a problem with the M4s because of the shorter gas tubes causing more gumming. I dont know because I dont have that much experience with the M4s, I know we had the CARs in Vietnam. They also had the short barrels and short gas tubes. They were normally carried by our point men who to my knowledge didnt fire anything but full auto. I can't understand why they didnt have the problems that some have reported with the M4s.
I have read the studies and surveys from the troops in Iraq about the M4s. The surveys I've read was that 20% of the end users (soldiers who used them) said they wanted something differant. Now I'm no math wizzard, but it would seem to me that if only 20% said they wanted something else, I would assume that 80% were satisified with the M4.
I understand that there is no weapon system that will satisfy everyone. Look at the other post about the reports of ejected clips of the M1s getting people killed. Wheather I believe that or not is not the point. The point is that the M1 was the best battle rifle of WWII. Yet still I know there are people reluctant to turn in their '03s for the M1, My father was one of those, like me, (my fear of the 16 when I frist went to Vietnam), my father after starting using the M1 wouldnt trade it for a box car load of Springfields.
Target shooters knew the world was ending when the M1s started showing up at high power matches, ruining the game with machine guns. History repeated itself, HP shooters figured the end was near when the service teams started replacing the M14s with the M16. I was one of the later groups. M16s could never compete. But like the 03 shooters I was wrong, M14s at Perry are scarce as hen's teeth. They were retired to their own match like the M1s.
Sorry for the long rant, but that M16 saved my butt more then once and I'll be the first to admit, I didnt take care of it like it took care of me.
By the way:
I never saw an M14 with a chrome lined barrel. I may have missed them. I went through basic with a M14, I was in the 82nd before I went to Vietnam, we didnt have crome barrels in our M14s.
I went to sniper school using M21s, no crome line barrels. I had 24+ NM M14s and 48 Service Grade M14s in my Marksmanship unit, they didnt have crome lined barrels. I completed an armors course on M14s, never heard about crome lined barrels in M14s.
If someone has more information, let me know, I'd like to update my library.
Thanks
I never saw an M14 with a chrome lined barrel. I may have missed them. I went through basic with a M14, I was in the 82nd before I went to Vietnam, we didnt have crome barrels in our M14s.
I went to sniper school using M21s, no crome line barrels. I had 24+ NM M14s and 48 Service Grade M14s in my Marksmanship unit, they didnt have crome lined barrels. I completed an armors course on M14s, never heard about crome lined barrels in M14s.
If someone has more information, let me know, I'd like to update my library.
Thanks
A guy named Different has written a very long history of M14. Its available on the web http://www.imageseek.com/m1a/book.html
I have two M14 barrels. Both chrome lined, HRA barrels. I heard that special made NM barrels were not, but I am not an expert in this.
I have two M14 barrels. Both chrome lined, HRA barrels. I heard that special made NM barrels were not, but I am not an expert in this.
Dfariswheel
New member
As I've said elsewhere, remember, Dr Atwater and the other genuine experts that appear on the Discovery and History channel are reading from a script written by others who are NOT experts.
No doubt the experts know the script is wrong, but are told "Dr Atwater, please just read the script, we'll fix it later".
The idea that moisture could "make a brass case swell up", is ridiculous. Mosture won't make brass expand.
No doubt the experts know the script is wrong, but are told "Dr Atwater, please just read the script, we'll fix it later".
The idea that moisture could "make a brass case swell up", is ridiculous. Mosture won't make brass expand.
M16 failed in the field
The original M16, had problems with both chambering and extraction. I know, I was there and it happened to me, more than once. Rounds would also corrode in the magazines and then not chamber.
Where the M16 would have chamber fowling or corrosion or both, depended upon weather and location is SouthEast Asia, as well as humidity.
Besides no cleaning kits was the lack of lubrication of the chamber and bolt. More correctly, the cases did not swell per se, but they did corroded.
M16 chambers suffered from excessive corrosion of the chamber. Thus in the M16A1 besides chromed chambers and cleaning kits, came CLP, and instructions to lube the bolt and chamber well. So when the M16 was swapped out with the M16A1 in 1967 things got better.
Frankly, the M16, and M193 Ball should never have been issued to troops. But that is a different story.
The original M16, had problems with both chambering and extraction. I know, I was there and it happened to me, more than once. Rounds would also corrode in the magazines and then not chamber.
Where the M16 would have chamber fowling or corrosion or both, depended upon weather and location is SouthEast Asia, as well as humidity.
Besides no cleaning kits was the lack of lubrication of the chamber and bolt. More correctly, the cases did not swell per se, but they did corroded.
M16 chambers suffered from excessive corrosion of the chamber. Thus in the M16A1 besides chromed chambers and cleaning kits, came CLP, and instructions to lube the bolt and chamber well. So when the M16 was swapped out with the M16A1 in 1967 things got better.
Frankly, the M16, and M193 Ball should never have been issued to troops. But that is a different story.
bojack2575
Moderator
First I want to say thanks to all that have served, I know I would not have the freedom to be typing this if it weren't for yall.
I could be wrong on this, but haven't they had some problems with service rifles in Iraq. It seems like I remember hearing reports of rifles jamming because of sand and dust. Has anyone else heard this?
I could be wrong on this, but haven't they had some problems with service rifles in Iraq. It seems like I remember hearing reports of rifles jamming because of sand and dust. Has anyone else heard this?