"The M-16" on The History Channel tonight at 10:00

[clem]

Say what you want about it, but....

Well, I was with 1st Bn. 9th Marines "The Walking Dead" in 1967, as one of the unit's armorers, when we were issued the XM16E1 rifles to replace the M14A1. That black rifle sure killed a lot of us in the eight months I had left on my tour, because of it's poor design and operation and the political "get it in to the hands of the troops". Especially when we tangled with the NVA during "Operation Buffalo" (07/67) in the DMZ.

To this day I still don't trust it.

Clem
USMC Retired

 

[Blackhawk]

Vladimir,

"First off, do you have any experience with the Kalashnikov?"

Yes, dozens of times as a matter of fact -- AK-47s -- all from the muzzle end -- weilded by NVA and VC. They all missed....

 

[Blackhawk]

Clem,

Don't blame you at all for not trusting it. The introduction of the first M-16s into combat was a travesty. Did it even go through realistic field testing before being issued? Using Marines and GIs to test it in Vietnam should have resulted in some heads roilling, but I don't think it did.

 

[Blackhawk]

Hutch,

That's hard to say. My guess would be that Colt didn't start promoting the name Peacemaker until later. I don't know how long the Walkers were made, but calling one a "Walker" would be a little like "a boy named Sue" in that the meaning wouldn't be clear when referring to it. Baseball bats, lengths of pipe, etc., are often called equalizers. It seems that affectionate nicknames are applied to machines and things people depend on, and there's not much confusion about what's being referred to. Imagine the confusion in talking with "Walker, Texas Ranger" and a bunch of other Rangers all armed with Colt Walkers, or worse yet, a bunch of outlaws talking about their Walkers while Walker was hunting them....

 

[A.Rex]

Man, it's getting messy in here!

1st up, it was: "Revolutionaries, who can't afford an M16..."

next, I never really thought the FAL & M14 were assault rifles. I know the BATF does, but I class them as Battle rifles. Assault rifles are for assaulting (someone once said on the boards) and I agree with that. The M16 is a GREAT assault rifle, arguably the best. I don't wish to argue... to each his own. (Yeah, I love it).

The AK in full auto as controllable as the M16? AK=more recoil, muzzle flip/lift and smaller stock & grip? hmm.

Surprised the M16 is getting so much criticism. I must admit though, it's too bad the boys in Nam didn't have M4s. The rifle in it's tuned, fully developed stage would've been better (but not for the other side!).

 

[Blackhawk]

A.Rex,

"(Yeah, I love it)"

So do I, in case anybody got the impression that I don't. I also agree on the M14 being a battle rifle. When first issued an M14 and bayonet, I wondered "why would I need a bayonet?" Later in training, I thought "using this thing with a bayonet is awkward." Still later, I realized that the M14 just didn't have the firepower to handle the human wave attacks we were told about that happened in Korea and earlier by the Japanese in WWII. I wanted something lighter so I could be more agile with it and with more firepower, especially because the training tales of Vietnam involved near if not close combat in forested terrain. I'd never heard of the M16 at the time, but that concept is what I was thinking of.

Fortunately, by the time I got to Vietnam, M16s had been adopted and the bugs worked out. In the interim, I had the pleasure of training with them in the States, and I've loved them since.

 

[clem]

Blackhawk, Heads rolled??? Only the victims. None of the brass that I recalled. But I'm sure some big checks were cashed.

A.Rex, "Assualt" rifles? Well, I've always concidered ALL of my weapons to be some kind of "assualt" weapon. You know, shot gun "assualt bird gun". Rem 700 BDL, "assualt Bamby rifle". So on and so forth.

Clem
USMC Retired

 

[johnAK]

yeah, I hated those 3 shot burst of M16A2,
personally, I like AK better because it's designed by soldier for soldier, not college educated engineer or desktop brass,
hey, as ex-enlisted man, I have healthy doze of distrust of officers,

 

[Vladimir_Berkov]

Vladimir,

"First off, do you have any experience with the Kalashnikov?"

Yes, dozens of times as a matter of fact -- AK-47s -- all from the muzzle end -- weilded by NVA and VC. They all missed....

I am not trying to degrade your experience, but I what I asked was if you have ever tried out an AK for yourself. Lots of Americans are prejudiced against foreign weapons, especially AK's. Yet many have never taken the opportunity to really put them through their paces.

If the NVA and VC were armed with M16's, and we were armed with AKM's, the outcome wouldn't have changed much. If you give a poor illiterate concript soldier a rifle and no training, of course they will miss. The beauty of the AK is that it will at least work in poor environmental conditions. It is the soldier who is the weapon, and blaming the VC and NVA's combat skill on their rifle is an error.

 

[Blackhawk]

Vladimir,

I have the utmost respect and admiration for the AK-47, but no, I haven't fired one.

Their extreme ruggedness and tolerance of abuse were design criteria, and they met them with flying colors.

However, I disagree with you on this:

"If the NVA and VC were armed with M16's, and we were armed with AKM's, the outcome wouldn't have changed much."

M16's were high maintenance, and a large part of the VC's and NVA's effectiveness depended on limited resupply and the necessity of severely abusing their weapons by our standards.

I don't know, but I'll bet that you could do the research and conclude that they avoided using captured M16s and ammo caches because they couldn't trust them to fire after the typical abuse their AKs suffered.

On the other hand, if you captured an AK-47 with ammo, all you had to do was pick it up and fire it (one had been buried unprotected for a year with its owner's body. A sergeant made sure the barrel was clear, then emptied the clip on auto).

To be fair, the M16 was designed to be used under the care that Americans could be expected to give them (an early adoption mistake was not ensuring that they were properly cared for). The AK-47 was designed to be used under extremely abusive conditions.

Regardless of the above and preceeding posts, an M16's talents (ROF, climb on FA, accuracy, soldier ammo load, etc.) are technically superior to an AK-47's or any other assault rifle used in combat, and that was the issue. However, I don't know much of anything about AKMs. Have they been used in combat?

 

[Vladimir_Berkov]

I would have to agree with you there. I doubt the VC or NVA would be able to maintain a M16 for a long period of time, although with the life span of their average combat soldier that likely wouldn't be a problem.


I am speaking from a non-military perspective, but I do own 4 AK's and a AR-15, and shoot them a lot and carry them around the desert every once and awhile.

The AKM is a modernized AK-47 with a stamped receiver and rate reducer. It is lighter, with a lower ROF and increased accuracy. I see the increased ROF of the M16 as a disatvantage, as itt wastes ammunition and isn't as controlable as semi-auto. The AKM is very controlable full-auto, partially because of the much lower ROF and the slant muzzle brake.

Most of the concerns you have about the AK were fixed with the AK-74 (my personal favorite) which uses 5.45x39mm ammo. The ammo is just as light as 5.56x45 and because of the very effective compensator system the rifle has less muzzle climb than a M16. in fact, many AR-15's for sale today come with a AK74 compensator. The AK74 is also somewhat more accurate than a AKM, I can usually get 3-4" groups at 100 yards, and I am not a particularly good shot.

The only thing I really like about the M16 is the sights, which are far superior to the AK. However, with a collimeter sight on the AK, it becomes just as effective, although most military rifles wouldn't have one.

 

[Blackhawk]

Vladimir,

"I would have to agree with you there. I doubt the VC or NVA would be able to maintain a M16 for a long period of time, although with the life span of their average combat soldier that likely wouldn't be a problem."

And the reason for that short life span was -- M16s! (Sorry, couldn't resist....)

Disagree about ROF for combat. The only practical uses for auto mode on an assault rifle is to repel wave attacks or against moving targets. Slow ROF results in wide horizontal gaps of fire. Since perhaps only every 5th or so enemy is hit in a wave attack, the practical and psychological effect isn't that great especially when the attacking front has to be repeatedly swept. And no, you can't train soldiers to sweep slowly to reduce those gaps! With high ROF, what's in the sweep goes down, and the natural sweep arc becomes the duration of the clip.

 

[STLRN]

Black Hawk
The AR15/M16 weapons were tested in combat by US advisors and ARVN Rangers. It seemed at that time they really liked the weapon. That is also the point that the myth of the "self cleaning rifle" evolved because of the low maintenance required. But as you pointed out, many things including significantly a change in the powder (which in itself was reclaimed artillery propellant that had deteriorated to the point that CaCO3 was necessary in order to use it. The CaCO3 caused a plaque like build up in the chamber that caused rounds to get stuck) used in the rounds changed prior to the mass issue of the weapon.

 

[Blackhawk]

STLRN,

Thanks for that info. Any residue buildup in the gas tube would also contribute to cycling problems. A single shot assault rifle could get a guy killed!

 

[444]

"! A .50 BMG backs those you mentioned completely off the board, and there really were guys who not only carried them in Vietnam but could and regularly did fire them on the move almost as easily as "the rest of us" handled M-16s."

M2 Browning Machine Gun
Weight of Reciever Group = 56 pounds
Weight of Barrel = 26 pounds
Weight of complete gun on M3 tripod mount = 126 pounds
Length of gun overall = 65" (almost 5 1/2 feet long)

I don't think so.

 

[capnrik]

What a terriffic thread this turned out to be.

I have learned more about the M-16 and the AK in 20 minutes of reading these postings, than I have learned from any books on the shelf.

A wealth of personal experience is here, and the ability to share it in written words. AND, the ability to disagree like gentlemen!

Very enjoyable, and educational.

 

[Blackhawk]

444,

I don't think so.

Is that because you can't heft or hump 126#?

The gun weighed less than 90#, and somebody had to carry it through the bush. Typically, it would be carried on the shoulder with that hand on the barrel to steady and control it.

Did you think it was self-propelled? Seriously, how do you think companies moved their .50s?

(Sorry, I'm starting to smirk.)

If a 130# 5'3" tunnel rat was still expected to hump his 100# pack and load, do you find it incredible that a 6'8" 285# mass of muscle could easily sling a lil' ol .50 PLUS his pack?

Oh, I know! Those guys would be playing football or basketball during these days of the volunteer Army. Is that it?

 

[Nightcrawler]

The .50 cal isn't used as a manportable weapon. There is a trick where three guys grab a leg of the tripod and haul it, but that's just for emergencies. YOu said the gun is carryable. Maybe, but what about the tripod? Did they have someone ELSE carry that? Because you can't fire the M2 without one; its recoil is enough to rock a 13 ton armored personnel carrier (M113A2, when we fire our fifties at the range). This is NOT something you fire from the hip, and the M2 doesn't have a buttstock/bipod setup, as far as I know (it'd be terribly impractical).

Perhaps you're thinking of the air cooled Browning M1919? It looks a lot like the M2, but smaller, and troops did haul 'em around in Vietnam, as you described, until the M60 became standard and reached full issue.

I can't see much use of hauling a .50 cal around with you on patrol, though. It would take too long to set up if you got ambushed, the ammo is heavy, the gun is extremely heavy, and you can hear it firing five miles away.

 

[Cosmoline]

"In an infantry company, every man with an M-16 is like a walking WWII machine gun but with a higher rate of fire"

Well this is just plain silly! Comparing a little assault rifle with a tiny cartridge to the wholesale whoopass of an M2 in .50 BMG, or even to an antique German Maxim in 8mm Mauser is absurd. Real machine guns can and often did tear apart thousands of men in a few minutes. The only time an assault rifle or subgun does anything like that is in the MOVIES! I'm not saying assault rifles, including the M-16, are bad ideas. They're just different tools for a very different job. No soldier is going to be able to burn down hundreds of advancing troops with a hand-held M-16.

 

[444]

"Is that because you can't heft or hump 126#? "

That certainly is one reason.

"Seriously, how do you think companies moved their .50s?"

I know how they were moved when I was in the Army and I suspect it is the same way they were moved since it went into production in 1933.