Re: The saga of the M-16

26
Hadn't followed the story of the carbine versions in anywhere near this detail. Thank you for this information.

I'm getting a LGC lower in the new buy and that will be my first personal AR since leaving the Army during the Clinton Administration. I had no love for them during the 16 years in the green and I'm not sure why I'm giving them another chance.

I do know it's going to be a nice 20" A2 style fixed stock rifle with a chrome chamber ... ;)
Live like you will never die, love like you've never been hurt, dance
like no-one is watching.
Alex White

Re: The saga of the M-16

27
I think you'll be more pleased this time around. :happy: My biggest suggestions are to run an actual M16 bolt carrier (heavier than the semiauto carriers and the ATF recently decided it's okay to run a fullauto carrier in a semiauto rifle) and, if you do ever decide to do a carbine build, an H3 recoil buffer. I ran both of those in my M4gery and it never had a single malfunction in spite of never being cleaned or oiled. (I sold it because I needed the money to pay medical bills. :weep: )

A word on chrome-lined barrels: The official story as to why they only did the chamber - rather than the whole bore - was that no one had ever tried chrome-lining a .22 caliber bore before and they ended up with a lot of obstructed barrels, so they had to work on refining the process. They started chrome lining only the chambers in 1968, and fully chrome lined M16/M16A1 barrels didn't appear until 1971. Fully chromed barrels are now the standard... assuming you go with a quality manufacturer. A lot of AR-15 builders will sell you a non-chromed (not even the chamber) barrel by default, with chrome lining as an option for an extra $45.

Re: The saga of the M-16

28
CaspianSeaMonster wrote: ...fullauto carrier in a semiauto rifle) and, if you do ever decide to do a carbine build, an H3 recoil buffer. I ran both of those in my M4gery and it never had a single malfunction in spite of never being cleaned or oiled. (I sold it because I needed the money to pay medical bills. :weep: )
Be careful with the H3s. We tried using them in our Rifles and they would all short stroke during a rapid fire type test.
All problems can be solved with a copious amount of high explosives.

Re: The saga of the M-16

30
With luck my standard buffer will be good enough for the 10.3" barrel. If not, I can test out a few different weights if I go to the range with some of the ARFcommers who haven't run screaming from me. ;)

Worst comes to it I could possibly enlarge the gas hole but it'd be cheaper and better to just run a heavier buffer.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: The saga of the M-16

32
M4Builder wrote:
CaspianSeaMonster wrote:What barrel and gas system length?

10.3"-18" Both carbine and mid-length. All calibers.
Ooh...I may need to change my request to 300BLK. ;)
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: The saga of the M-16

34
Huh. Don't know what to tell you then. I know H2 is what the military is running right now in their Colt carbines. I ran an H3 in my BCM (16" carbine gas) and it went through 1500ish rounds with zero malfunctions. Pretty sure Pat Rogers' "Filthy 14" carbine is/was also running an H3 and a Wolff heavy recoil spring, and I don't think there's another AR-15 in the world that's racked up the round count that thing has.

I wouldn't run an H2 or H3 buffer with a 10.5" barrel unless it had a can on it. Then again, I personally would never run a 10.5" barrel without a can, just on principle. The rule of thumb though is still "run the heaviest buffer you can that will still let the rifle function reliably." With suppressors that typically goes much heavier than H3; that's what Slash's Heavy Buffers are for.

Re: The saga of the M-16

37
Honey, even if had you been pure normal like they want, there are still too many other things you can fall afoul of. Me? I was 10 minutes away from being in the army helicopter program. But, even thought I'm not fully color blind, I can't see the numbers in those god damn little circles. That's enough to keep you out, I learned the hard way...

I had a optometrist who knew exactly the right shade of contacts to fix the problem. I was probably tempted worse than many other moments that I failed and gave into temptation. But the danger of risking other peoples lives while flying? Just couldn't do it.

There is a part of me that regrets that moment over 30 years later. Another part of me considers it one of the few things in my life to be proud of. Take it as you will.
Live like you will never die, love like you've never been hurt, dance
like no-one is watching.
Alex White

Re: The saga of the M-16

39
CaspianSeaMonster wrote: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:39 pm :D Thanks. I'm always really hesitant to run that whole explanation; I've done it a million times before, and it gets tedious after a while. I've also been called all number of bad names for "defending" the early AR-15 and I've gotten quite tired of it. And also yes, of course, having my credibility challenged on the basis of gender. :wall:

M16 smear threads are like mousetrap bait for me though; I'm impressed I made it a whole four days without chiming in on this one!

wlewisiii: If anyone made a reproduction FAL in .280 Brit... oooh man... :yes: I'll take two, and a set of dies.

-------------------------

Since you guys seems interested enough and it is related to my last post, I'll add this little nugget of information. Like I said near the end of my writeup, the carbine variant AR-15s are a much worse story than the rifles.

Dwell time - that is, how long the gas impulse lasts, dictated by the distance between the gas port and the muzzle - is one of those things that plays into balancing an autoloading system. If the gas dwell time isn't long enough, you have to crank up the pressure and/or reduce spring power/bolt weight to get it to cycle, and now you're giving the bolt a sharp kick instead of a (relatively) slow push.

Colt's early attempts at building a carbine variant of the AR-15 all involved clipping the barrel off just in front of the gas block; in fact the very first one, the Colt Model 605, was nothing more than a Model 604 (USAF M16) with the barrel clipped at 15", no other changes. Most of the carbine prototypes had shortened gas systems (same length as the modern M4,) 10.5" barrels - literally almost having the flash hider screwed up against the front of the gas block - and shortened buffer tubes and buffers (same as on the modern carbines.) The carbine buffer was identical in design to the dead-blow rifle buffer but, being shorter, it was also lighter. Because the dwell time was so short, they couldn't go to a heavier buffer or it would short-stroke. Most of them actually had larger-than-standard gas ports to kick up the pressure, and gas port pressure was already a lot higher than on the rifle because the port was so much closer to the chamber; they had no choice but to run the bolt fast, and got all the same reliability problems that came along with that.

Eventually they bumped the barrel from 10.5" (XM177E1) to 11.5" (XM177E2), and added a small suppressor-like reflex muffler (GAU-5A) before finally giving up and just using a 14.5" barrel (Model 653 "M16A1 Carbine" and onward to the present M4 family.) This sorted out the dwell time problem, but you're still running higher gas port pressure than on the 20" rifle and still running a lighter recoil buffer. The carbines have always demonstrated the same over-gassing reliability problems that the original M16s showed. They implemented a whole bunch of band-aid fixes on the M4; cutting the feed ramps lower, making the magazines more reliable to keep up with excessive bolt speed,* using more powerful extractor springs with rubber buffers to fight centrifugal force - all of these being good improvements, but not addressing the root problem until they had the bright idea of replacing some or all of the steel anti-bounce weights in the buffer with heavier tungsten-carbide weights. That's where the H/H2/H3 buffers are from; having one, two, or all three steel weights replaced with WC. I think the heavy carbine buffers came out in the 1990's and the gov't finally started implementing them on the M4 and M4A1 some time during the Iraq war; after four decades of dicking around with the problem, the stupid things finally run reliably.

*Not to suggest that the magazines didn't work well to begin with, but the general rule used to be that a magazine that would run perfectly in an M16A2 would work okay in an M4, while a mag that would work okay in the M16A2 wouldn't run at all in an M4. Colt fine-tuned the magazines to death with new follower designs and more powerful springs.

--Katemonster
THE AIR FORCE’S NEAT-O GAU-5A: AN M-4 PACKED FOR EJECTION SEATS
The U.S. Air Force recently released some great images of their new GAU-5A Aircrew Self Defense Weapon in service. The rifle, first shown off last year, is designed to be packed in ejection seat bail-out kits alongside flares, a flashlight, a life raft, medical and survival modules, all intended for aircrew to use in an emergency if needed.

“We were asked to design a stand-off weapon that was capable of hitting a man-size target at 200 meters,” said Richard Shelton, Chief of the Gunsmith Shop, in an Air Force news article. “It disconnects at the upper receiver, is located inside the seat kit [of ACES 2 ejection seats], and can be put together within 30 seconds if needed.”

The GAU-5A must stow inside a 16 x 14 x 3.5-inch ejection seat compartment, according to a June 2018 Air Force Times report. The guns get that small due to the use of an M4 style collapsible stock, flip-up backup iron sights, an Israeli FAB Defense AGF-43S folding pistol grip, and a Cry Havoc Tactical Quick Release Barrel (QRB) kit.
Nice.

Re: The saga of the M-16

40
My first tour in Nam was 10/65 through 10/66 . At that time most Marines were issued the M14. In the early 60's for the Bay Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis we carried M1s, which in my opinion was a better rifle than the M14 and M16. The M1 just worked no matter what was encountered. The M14 was a poorly redesigned M1. It was Ok but it too had issues that were mostly magazine/FTF. You see war movies where the GIs tap the M14 magazine again a helmet. That was to assure the top round was seated properly. You had to pay particular to the retention tabs because they could get slightly bent and that was a FTF waiting to happen.

My second tour was from 5/67 through 2/68. It was cut by 3 months during the battle for Hue City by an AK round to my side. We were all armed with the M16 then. Most of the fixes had been made by then. But it was still a finicky rifle. You could bury an M1 in the sand with an open breech then load and shoot it, and it would work. The M14 was not as reliable when fouled with dirt, sand, mud, but it was better than the M16, which required a lot of maintenance for an infantry rifle. I actually hated the M16.

I was promoted to staff sergeant just before Hue. I could carry a M1911 in addition to the M16. I carries the pistol. When we were clearing buildings in Hue I would sling the M6 across my back and use the M1911. I did that because I had more faith in the pistol than in the rifle, and when the target is generally within 15 feet of you pistol accuracy was not an issue.

To this day I think the M1 was the best battle rifle ever and the M16 the worst.

Re: The saga of the M-16

41
richardw wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:22 am My first tour in Nam was 10/65 through 10/66 . At that time most Marines were issued the M14. In the early 60's for the Bay Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis we carried M1s, which in my opinion was a better rifle than the M14 and M16. The M1 just worked no matter what was encountered. The M14 was a poorly redesigned M1. It was Ok but it too had issues that were mostly magazine/FTF. You see war movies where the GIs tap the M14 magazine again a helmet. That was to assure the top round was seated properly. You had to pay particular to the retention tabs because they could get slightly bent and that was a FTF waiting to happen.

My second tour was from 5/67 through 2/68. It was cut by 3 months during the battle for Hue City by an AK round to my side. We were all armed with the M16 then. Most of the fixes had been made by then. But it was still a finicky rifle. You could bury an M1 in the sand with an open breech then load and shoot it, and it would work. The M14 was not as reliable when fouled with dirt, sand, mud, but it was better than the M16, which required a lot of maintenance for an infantry rifle. I actually hated the M16.

I was promoted to staff sergeant just before Hue. I could carry a M1911 in addition to the M16. I carries the pistol. When we were clearing buildings in Hue I would sling the M6 across my back and use the M1911. I did that because I had more faith in the pistol than in the rifle, and when the target is generally within 15 feet of you pistol accuracy was not an issue.

To this day I think the M1 was the best battle rifle ever and the M16 the worst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80

Re: The saga of the M-16

42
richardw wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:22 am To this day I think the M1 was the best battle rifle ever and the M16 the worst.
my rifle collection is "usgi main battle rifles" and while i own an ar-15, i don't consider it or the m16 a true MBR. in your opinion, am i picking nits?
as much as i appreciate my m14 clone, i am stunned by the way we took the m1 and "improved" it into a worse weapon.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: The saga of the M-16

46
lurker wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:47 am
richardw wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:22 am To this day I think the M1 was the best battle rifle ever and the M16 the worst.
my rifle collection is "usgi main battle rifles" and while i own an ar-15, i don't consider it or the m16 a true MBR. in your opinion, am i picking nits?
as much as i appreciate my m14 clone, i am stunned by the way we took the m1 and "improved" it into a worse weapon.
No, I think you are correct. After using the M14 I wanted an M1 back. The M14 was a boondoggle. The M16's early history proved it to be an inferior rifle. However, the gradual improvements made it better. Still the Corps switched to the M27 (H&K) for the infantry because the M4 was considered less than what was needed, but much better the the original M16.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests