New American 6.8mm rifle

[Todg]

Originally posted by flykiller:
as I understand it, the AR15 was originally designed by a civilian to use a certain smokeless powder. it worked great, and when first issued to the airforce in vietnam (without cleaning kits) everyone was very happy with it. the army didn't want a weapon that wasn't designed by their own people, and when directed to use it they decreed that it would be loaded with ball powder, the army standard for many years. the weapon was not designed for this dirty powder, and became the problem everyone hears about.

The whole history of the M-16, including it's initial teething troubles, is well documented in Steve's and Ezell's "The Black Rifle". The rifle was indeed designed by Eugene Stoner, a 'civilian' employed by the armalite corporations. Why this is relavent I don't know, since there is nothing to suggest that civilian gun designers are any less compentant than military ones. in fact, one could make quite a case for the reverse. Most of the great military weapons have been designed by 'civilians' starting with the great Mauser rifle.

It is true that Stoner originally intended his rifle to be used with IMR powder because it prduced less fouling. The military preferred ball powder because it is more consistant and has a longer storage life.

Most of the initial problems with the M-16 were the result of a lack of cleaning kits and the fact that the chamber was not chrome plated, which lead to corrosion and failures to extract. The army had been chrome plating the chambers of their servive weapons since the 1930, but because Stoner had not specified a chrome chamber, Macnamara's wonder boys insisted the rifle be adopted as designed, assuming the Army was foot dragging.

After initial problems, cleaning kits were issued and a chrome chamber was specified, eleiminating most of the problems with the M-16. Solders who had the M1-6 in 1966-67 had a horrible experience. Those who received it afterward reported few problems (contrary to popular belief). The press ceretainly did a lot to further the bad reputation of the rifle, something that would have been incoceivable in WWII (and probably considered treasonous).

Contrary to popular belief, the M-16 was not withdrawn from service to be replaced with Thompsons, BARs, M1 or other older rifles. There is no documented evidence to supprt this. Indeed, Army studies conducted in the late 60s and early 70 showed that with the modifications specified by the Army and changed in PMC, the M-16 was as reliable as previously issued small arms such as the M1.

In curtrent studies of the rifle's failures (which have been remarkable few) on particular fact has come to light. The number one cause of problems is failure to properly clean and lubricate the rifle.

I experienced this myself as an infantry officers. Soldiers will frequently fail to maintain the very weapons on which their lives depend unless thier NCOs are right there insuring they do their PMC. You's think that troops would take care of the gear that their life may depend on, but that is frequently not the case.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Corejob:
Contrary to popular belief, the M-16 was not withdrawn from service to be replaced with Thompsons, BARs, M1 or other older rifles. There is no documented evidence to supprt this. Indeed, Army studies conducted in the late 60s and early 70 showed that with the modifications specified by the Army and changed in PMC, the M-16 was as reliable as previously issued small arms such as the M1.

My buddy Dawg indicated the procurement of these weapons was an 'unapproved' action on behalf of the troops. And, while the weapon was still problematic, the Brass caught wind of the troops carrying this unauthorized hardware (in his unit) and confiscated all such weapons, leaving the troops stuck with the problem-prone M-16. So they went through another round of procurement, and once bitten, many of the soldiers that had bad past experience didn't trust the weapon (understandably).

Further, as you point out subsequently, maintenance failures will result in weapon failures - and they'd probably get blamed on the weapon, which is another soldierly proclivity. But in the kinds of environment you can run into in that part of the world, regular cleaning means *repeatedly*, *frequently* and *correctly*.

I experienced this myself as an infantry officers. Soldiers will frequently fail to maintain the very weapons on which their lives depend unless thier NCOs are right there insuring they do their PMC. You's think that troops would take care of the gear that their life may depend on, but that is frequently not the case.

Who wasn't in the infantry?

My FN was problematic for getting dirty and requiring on-going adjustment (to avoid fouling). The C7 is a much nicer weapon in some ways, though more mechanically complex. I'm actually fairly certain it is more reliable, given field conditions, than the FN, or at least as good. However, it just can't do some of the things the much heavier and sturdier FN could manage. Still, I'd take a C7 over and FN - if for no other reason, for the weight I don't have to carry and extra ammo I can carry for the same weight.

And troopies are lazy. Even when being lazy can kill them. That's as old as Hannibul. That's what gives the NCOs something to do...

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Corejob:

I have nothing to add, except it is not always EM who screw up. I heard a story from a sergeant (I think in an Armored battalion) in Kuwait with a carefully cleaned and dry Ma deuce lubricated with a little graphite. His lieutenent took his ride to the range one last time. The first thing the LT did was dump a can of CLP into the receiver. They didn't get it clean again before they went into Iraq and it repeatedly jammed on him.

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
I have nothing to add, except it is not always EM who screw up. I heard a story from a sergeant (I think in an Armored battalion) in Kuwait with a carefully cleaned and dry Ma deuce lubricated with a little graphite. His lieutenent took his ride to the range one last time. The first thing the LT did was dump a can of CLP into the receiver. They didn't get it clean again before they went into Iraq and it repeatedly jammed on him.

Agreed. For the most part, there is nothing more dangerous than a secomnd lieutenant. I was an active shooter long before I got my commission. Most of my fellow LTs considered me a gun nut and rather anal when it came to gear in general.

Certainly, idiocy plays no favorites and is represented in all ranks.

 

[sturn386]

I'm responding to an old series of posts here from page 1 I just read but thought I would express my opinions of M16, SAW, M60 since I used to carry all three at one time (not at the same time of course

)

I was in the US Army when we began the switch from the M60 to the M249 SAW. The initial complaints I heard and agreed with were the lack of firepower compared to the M60. Aside from the obvious range and penetration differences, the sheer noise difference was a large change. The M60 just sounds mean and I believe would keep an enemy pinned down more then the SAW. The SAW sounds like a pee-shooter and so I always thought many more hero's would be willing to leap frog under its fire then under an M60.

As for humping one or the other: I humped both and this may sound crazy but I would prefer to carry the M60 over the SAW for extended periods. I'm not talking about a generic road march down a nice road (SAW easier due to weight), but actually hoofing it through vegetation and poor terrain. The SAW is lighter but completely awkward with its large 200 round box towards the front. The weight was off balance and there were so many things on it that could be snagged on a branch or vine. I ended up carrying it M60 style with a "starter" belt and the boxes in my over-sized pouches which creates its own problems. The original boxes (not sure what is used now) were a green plastic that stood out too much and were noisy. The ammo belt would slip back and forth inside causing a rattling noise when the weapon was tipped up and down. I ended up taking the box's apart when they were issued and slipping a piece of cardboard (from ammo box) inside between the plastic and belt to prevent noise. The canvas bags started being issued later and helped with this. A M16 mag could be stuck in the side in an emergency, but from my experience they seemed to cause malfunctions more then average.

The M60 is an ancient design with many problems (extra barrel contained the bipod so as to make changes awkward and you or your ag carry more weight), but the 7.62 should have been kept and a new weapon designed. I understand the argument of using the same ammo in both weapon systems making it easier to support, but I think this personally would become an issue very, very rarely except perhaps in small special operations actions in which resupply is a problem.

The new 6.8 mm round sounds great to me on the surface but I'm still skeptical until it is well tested. 6.8 in both an M16 and SAW may solve the lack of firepower in the M249 while keeping both ammo's the same. I still would redesign some of the M249 to have less "snagging" parts (get rid of the carrying handle on top and redesign the bipod). The unbalancing issues with the box might be difficult to fix without adding weight to the weapon.

 

[montanakennedy]

Originally posted by Corejob:
The rifle was indeed designed by Eugene Stoner, a 'civilian' employed by the armalite corporations. Why this is relavent I don't know, since there is nothing to suggest that civilian gun designers are any less compentant than military ones.

Gene Stoner is IMNSHO a genius. Not only did he develop the second most successful family of small arms in the post WWII world (based in numbers if nothing else), but he also developed a weapons system that was completely modular in a period before modularity was commonplace.

The Stoner 63 family (carbine, rifle, and LMG) is one of those little footnotes that gets passed over - "Eh, nobody used it as a standard weapon..." It was a quality system that could be switched from mag to belt feed, served whatever purpose you would want, and was reliable. Navy SEALs caried them in an LMG role in Vietnam and with everything I have seen regarding it, no one complained about it - at least not as vocally as everyone bitches about 16s and 60s.

Dave

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by K. Webb:
I'm responding to an old series of posts here from page 1 I just read but thought I would express my opinions of M16, SAW, M60 since I used to carry all three at one time (not at the same time of course

)
...

Thanks for chiming in, K. Specops agrees with you on the M249, and they have a short, ligh version now. Google on the Mk 46 light machine gun. They tried to do the same thing in 7.62 NATO as the Mk 48, but it is less successful.

The Army's next-generation SAW will likely be the XM8 AR version. It has a 20" heavy barrel, bipod, snd a 100 rd "C-" magazxine. This not the Beta mag as it failed Bundeswehr tests, but a reworked HK model. Balance looks much better, easy to carry, and only about 3 lb. You lose the quick-change barrel but I'm not sure how often a SAW does sustained fire and needs a QC barrel.

Right now the 6.8x43 is specops only, although a lot of people assume it will become general issue. Before that happens I think the guys who developed the 6.5mm Grendel cartridge will sue for a competitive shoot-off.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by montana kennedy:
Gene Stoner is IMNSHO a genius. Not only did he develop the second most successful family of small arms in the post WWII world (based in numbers if nothing else), but he also developed a weapons system that was completely modular in a period before modularity was commonplace.

The Stoner 63 family (carbine, rifle, and LMG) is one of those little footnotes that gets passed over - "Eh, nobody used it as a standard weapon..." It was a quality system that could be switched from mag to belt feed, served whatever purpose you would want, and was reliable. Navy SEALs caried them in an LMG role in Vietnam and with everything I have seen regarding it, no one complained about it - at least not as vocally as everyone bitches about 16s and 60s.

Dave

Nobody bitched about the M60 until the late '70s when they were all worn out. Contrawise very few complained about the M16A1 after 1967.

The Stoner 63... The carbine and rifle were a lit heavier than the M177E1 and M16A1, but not noticably more reliable or accurate. The LMG was a bit light for sustained fire and tended to "runaway". SEAL gunners twisted the belt to jam the action when that happened.

The Stoner 63's main virtue was that it was a system, and back in '68 when I was twelve I was very impressed. But the trigger-pullers don't care about engineering elegance, just results. The LMG was the only part of the system to see any combat and even the SEALs retired them by the mid-70s.