I never really knew much about the actual reported problems of the early M16s. Someone shared this link on another forum and I found it very interesting and informative. http://www.bobrohrer.com/sea_stories...m16_part_2.pdf
I never though of McNamara as an idiot but this story sure shows another side!
Story is the key word; especially the part about the demise of Springfield Armory - unless McNamara controlled Congress the only thing that took down Springfield was Springfield itself. They were the ones that were rigging tests and pumping up the M14 as the weapon to be everything the Army wanted when in fact they were covering up failures and not testing the weapon under appropriate conditions.
But this isn't the story that everyone wants to hear, the m14 is god like and the m16 was put into the system by know-nothing college kids...
Its sad really.
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
I bet their 14 was working when they gave their life for their country.
I guess you missed the part about the fail rates of the M14 being covered up by Springfield Armory and the cover-ups they did...
Prior to Springfield being stripped of their status as arms supplier for the US military they were responsible for the testing of the weapons with little if any oversight from the armed services.
If McNamara is an idiot for being responsible in doing away with an antiquated and corruption filled acquisitions program then I think we are the idiots for thinking that that way was better.
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
I guess you missed the part about the fail rates of the M14 being covered up by Springfield Armory and the cover-ups they did...
Prior to Springfield being stripped of their status as arms supplier for the US military they were responsible for the testing of the weapons with little if any oversight from the armed services.
If McNamara is an idiot for being responsible in doing away with an antiquated and corruption filled acquisitions program then I think we are the idiots for thinking that that way was better.
Did you read the article? Honestly?
I'm going to hold my tongue. But I will ask for some sort of source on this, link, book etc. Have one?
Books or links still don't matter. This is a first hand account. Not fudged up by some history book or written by a politician. Cover ups or not, the M14 was a reliable rifle for these guys. There isn't a source or report in the world that can refute personal first hand experience.
McNamara, is an idiot because he's a number cruncher politician that got involved in something he had no personal experience with. The results speak for themselves.
I'm going to hold my tongue. But I will ask for some sort of source on this, link, book etc. Have one?
Books or links still don't matter. This is a first hand account. Not fudged up by some history book or written by a politician. Cover ups or not, the M14 was a reliable rifle for these guys. There isn't a source or report in the world that can refute personal first hand experience.
McNamara, is an idiot because he's a number cruncher politician that got involved in something he had no personal experience with. The results speak for themselves.
The source is in the US Congress, go look it up.
McNamara didn't design the M16 - but lets repeat the old-number-cruncher line...
There are several books out there that site the congressional hearings that stripped Springfield and changed the acquisition process - unless you think someone snapped their finger and these things changed without reason.
And personal experience is just that, personal experience - I wouldn't base my entire opinion of a weapon based on my 'personal experience' with a small sample of rifles.
History has vindicated the M16 - its shortcomings in Vietnam were not a result of the rifle but a result of ammo and failure to supply cleaning kits (also revealed in a Congressional hearing).
Lastly - what is the purpose of posting more garbage that trashes M16's on a M16 thread, yes, we all hate the M16 here...
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
McNamara didn't design the M16 - but lets repeat the old-number-cruncher line...
There are several books out there that site the congressional hearings that stripped Springfield and changed the acquisition process - unless you think someone snapped their finger and these things changed without reason.
And personal experience is just that, personal experience - I wouldn't base my entire opinion of a weapon based on my 'personal experience' with a small sample of rifles.
History has vindicated the M16 - its shortcomings in Vietnam were not a result of the rifle but a result of ammo and failure to supply cleaning kits (also revealed in a Congressional hearing).
Did you read the article? There were shortcomings in the rifle. But I agree 100%, the ammo was the majority of the problem.
Lastly - what is the purpose of posting more garbage that trashes M16's on a M16 thread, yes, we all hate the M16 here...
Not trashing, it's a part of the rifles history worth knowing. Keep in mind we're referring to the XM16 and A1 models...
Not hating especially since the A1 isn't in use anymore. Read the OP, it's an interesting article that is worth reading from the historical stand point. I thought it was worth while because I learned something from it. Someone else here did too I imagine.
Don't take it so personally
Lastly - what is the purpose of posting more garbage that trashes M14's, yes, we all hate the M14 here...
Lastly - what is the purpose of posting more garbage that trashes M14's, yes, we all hate the M14 here...
The purpose was that the story posted was rather liberal with its use of fiction and was historically inaccurate - though supposedly a historical story...
If history is whatever you want it to be and is free from having to adhere to what actually happened then yes, that was historical...
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
The purpose was that the story posted was rather liberal with its use of fiction and was historically inaccurate - though supposedly a historical story...
If history is whatever you want it to be and is free from having to adhere to what actually happened then yes, that was historical...
So the powders, timing issues, chrome plated chambers, cleaning issues, extraction issues, etc, etc, etc are all fictional. Thanks for that HISTORICAL perspective, but I continue to believe McNamara is patently a dumbA$$ who should never have had a job outside of the auto industry; especially as secretary of defense. I have 3 AR15s plus a 4th upper so I am not a "hater" of the product, but that does not indicate that I would ever want to be armed with it on a field of battle. The only arm in my posession that would provide me less confidience is the Marlin 60 that my dad left me.
I've got a son who must protect himself and his buddies with it in Iraq even as we speak. The fact that it is successful more times than not is a testament to the warrior, not the tool that some cadre of politicians and elitist bureaucrats cobbled together for him.
So the powders, timing issues, chrome plated chambers, cleaning issues, extraction issues, etc, etc, etc are all fictional. Thanks for that HISTORICAL perspective, but I continue to believe McNamara is patently a dumbA$$ who should never have had a job outside of the auto industry; especially as secretary of defense. I have 3 AR15s plus a 4th upper so I am not a "hater" of the product, but that does not indicate that I would ever want to be armed with it on a field of battle. The only arm in my posession that would provide me less confidience is the Marlin 60 that my dad left me.
I've got a son who must protect himself and his buddies with it in Iraq even as we speak. The fact that it is successful more times than not is a testament to the warrior, not the tool that some cadre of politicians and elitist bureaucrats cobbled together for him.
JMO
I guess you missed this part;
"History has vindicated the M16 - its shortcomings in Vietnam were not a result of the rifle but a result of ammo and failure to supply cleaning kits (also revealed in a Congressional hearing)."
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
No, I certainly didn't miss that part. Nor did I miss the discussions about barrel twists rates and the subsequent loss of 'hype' when bullets quit tumbling. I remember also how that same kind of hype and the subsequent negative spin happened when some of our operatives got hold of the first samples of the Russian 5.45X39 in Afghanistan and its purported buzz saw bullets. But long story, short story the statement about the M16 being vindicated does not in any way indicate to me that is indeed a suitable platform to wage war with. Not even in its 21st century configuration sporting its forward assist, chrome chamber and bore, 1-7 twist, different feed ramps, 3 shot burst, and multiple dozens of other modifications.
The author of that article doesn't regard it in that light either, because the vindication to which he referred can not elevate it to a position that is not within the reach of the 5.56 cartridge. He still regards it as a poodle shooter that finally has a degree of dependability inspite of the political machine that has continued throwing good money after bad for over 4 decades.
It is still not what I wish my son had to protect himself with.
No, I certainly didn't miss that part. Nor did I miss the discussions about barrel twists rates and the subsequent loss of 'hype' when bullets quit tumbling. I remember also how that same kind of hype and the subsequent negative spin happened when some of our operatives got hold of the first samples of the Russian 5.45X39 in Afghanistan and its purported buzz saw bullets. But long story, short story the statement about the M16 being vindicated does not in any way indicate to me that is indeed a suitable platform to wage war with. Not even in its 21st century configuration sporting its forward assist, chrome chamber and bore, 1-7 twist, different feed ramps, 3 shot burst, and multiple dozens of other modifications.
The author of that article doesn't regard it in that light either, because the vindication to which he referred can not elevate it to a position that is not within the reach of the 5.56 cartridge. He still regards it as a poodle shooter that finally has a degree of dependability inspite of the political machine that has continued throwing good money after bad for over 4 decades.
It is still not what I wish my son had to protect himself with.
It protected me just fine in the service.
Terms like 'poodle shooter' really? I guess the .30 cal crowd will never grow tired of throwing that term around. Just like the crowd that despised the switch from the .30-06 to the .308 - they called that a poodle shooter as well.
__________________ When I can't think of anything original to post I think to myself, 'what would Sprout say?' -PSLMAN
