Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “Ichord Report: What If Congress Had Let the M16 Die?” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/ichord-report-congress-m16/.
Ichord Report: What If Congress Had Let the M16 Die?
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
This article is merely illustrative of American government at its finest. What we need is a blue ribbon panel, an investigation , oversight, etc. etc. etc. etc. to come to what conclusion? Lessons learnt? Here we are decades later still relying on these same processes with the same kind of windbags and nothing to show for it except long reports no one ever reads filled with jargon which muddies the whole thing.
Lab4Us
Professional
Yep, and they were a PITA to haul around, getting in and out of vehicles, in and out of weapons racks at various locations, etc. My time with it was 1976 to about 1988, when I moved into jobs that required more handgun carrying than rifle. Not sure there was viable option to replace it during the time I was carrying one.
As an aside, does it surprise ANYONE that a retired general would be involved in something making money for a contractor while screwing with boots on the ground?
As an aside, does it surprise ANYONE that a retired general would be involved in something making money for a contractor while screwing with boots on the ground?
SIW1911
Operator
I never really liked the m-16. The M16-A1 was the only rifle we had during my service of 9+ yrs. I wanted one in the toolbox because I knew it best. That said, I got to fam-fire a M14 once. I was part of a barracks unit and we had them for ceremonial duties. After just the 1st round, I had that Chevy Chase "I-I-I LIKE IT" FEELING. Sighting with irons was more natural and all the rounds went exactly as plotted. The weight of the rifle when firing in prone steadied it which when shooting at targets and taking your time seemed ideal. Lugging that heavier SOB would have been a whole different thing. I knew, we used both in different ceremonies. In short, it would have been nice if a middle ground, keeping the 7.62, was done IMO.
Nam62
Alpha
If you would like a PDF copy of the M-16 comic book here is the link or open the attached file.
Pretty old person here. During my Army career, I was issued the M-1, M-14 and M16A1. Favorites: M-1 for its balance and history. M-14 for its upgrade to a box magazin and hitting power. Too long? Put a shorter barrel on it. Duh. I never trusted the M-16 but the AR15 I have now suggests much better performance.
Couple things that might not have been mentioned about the 5.56 round is that it was derived from a "varmint" cartridge designed for woodchucks and coyotes. For people it was a wounding round unless well aimed and we didn't see widespread actual marksmanship in my '69-'75 experience. That teeny little bullet might have penetrated a mild steel helmet but a) Charlie didn't wear helmets and b) if that selfsame teeny little bullet hit some leaves or a branch, its trajectory was altered. My take is the M16 was derived from the AR10 chambered in 308/7.62 and that a lighter rifle would have been just fine, a heavier cartridge woudln't have added that much more weight and a 30 round magazine would have been preferable to the 20. I wish I had had an AR10.
Now keep in mind, Vietnam was soldiered by many draftees who had zero woodcraft or shooting experience and the spray and pray approach may have been their alternative to learning to shoot straight. And of course they were there to survive their tour, not win the war (which was unwinnable anyway).
Couple things that might not have been mentioned about the 5.56 round is that it was derived from a "varmint" cartridge designed for woodchucks and coyotes. For people it was a wounding round unless well aimed and we didn't see widespread actual marksmanship in my '69-'75 experience. That teeny little bullet might have penetrated a mild steel helmet but a) Charlie didn't wear helmets and b) if that selfsame teeny little bullet hit some leaves or a branch, its trajectory was altered. My take is the M16 was derived from the AR10 chambered in 308/7.62 and that a lighter rifle would have been just fine, a heavier cartridge woudln't have added that much more weight and a 30 round magazine would have been preferable to the 20. I wish I had had an AR10.
Now keep in mind, Vietnam was soldiered by many draftees who had zero woodcraft or shooting experience and the spray and pray approach may have been their alternative to learning to shoot straight. And of course they were there to survive their tour, not win the war (which was unwinnable anyway).
Icepick Mike
Operator
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance and Maintenance.
Hard to tell from the photo, but that looks like a shrouded barrel... more like S&W M76. I'm guessing you know the diff betweem .45 and 9mm!
While in the Reserves from 1973-1975, I was issued an M-14 semiauto with the plastic/fiberglass stock. I loved it. After hearing all the horror stories that came back from VN, I was happy to have that big pig rather than a Mattel failure. It shot really well. IMHO, it was unconscionable for the government to have issue any weapon to any servicemember without a cleaning kit, despite the claims it didn't need one. [rolling eyes] And to have continued to issue failure-prone weapons... terrible to think how many died as a result. Sad. :-(
I think a lot of Marines would have been happier lugging the M14 around. At least it worked and dropped people and penetrated cover. It also used the same ammo as the machine gun and a lot of the sniper rifles.
It also pointed well in poor light when you couldn’t see your sights much better than the M16.
It also pointed well in poor light when you couldn’t see your sights much better than the M16.
For battle, there is no comparison between the M14 and M16.
I think the M16 was a decently designed platform. Accurate variations work very well in prairie dog towns.
Laughable cartridge for man size targets. And here we are decades later, still issuing our combat troops "pop guns". Sad.
I think the M16 was a decently designed platform. Accurate variations work very well in prairie dog towns.
Laughable cartridge for man size targets. And here we are decades later, still issuing our combat troops "pop guns". Sad.
Recusant
Hellcat
Same thing happened during the Civil War. The Union Army did not fully adopt repeating rifles like the Spencer or Henry during the Civil War due to high costs, logistical hurdles, and conservative military leadership that feared that troops equipped with fast-firing repeaters would quickly exhaust their ammunition supplies, leading to logistically impossible resupply demands on distant battlefields.
Tangof1!
Elite
No that's a M-3 "Grease Gun" look at the ejection port. I bought one from a Seabee for $5.00 just to have it. Mine was so worn out it was probably around 200 RPM rather than the 450 it was supposed to be. I couldn't hit anything reliably at 100 meters but it was a cool carry when the village was on limits. I was issued a brand new M16A1 and it never, ever malfunctioned.Hard to tell from the photo, but that looks like a shrouded barrel... more like S&W M76. I'm guessing you know the diff betweem .45 and 9mm!
Grayfox
Professional
When I was at Ft. Hood with 2nd Armored, I was a tracked vehicle driver. I was supposed to have a 1911, but we didn't have enough. There was no rifle rack in the driver's compartment so I had to just lay my M-16A1 on the floor when driving. After I broke the third stock, our armorer found me a M3A1 to carry. I liked it way better than the M-16. 
KillerFord1977
Emissary
The FAL was passed over for the M14
The magazine of the Henry seems to not be a good design for combat conditions. As I recall, the Spencer cartridge was also lacking. The war came before these tools were fully developed. The Winchester was nearly around the corner.
Well the proto T44 but still, considering at that time NATO was adopting the FN makes you wonder how much graft and back scratching was going on.