Eugene Stoner was a Genius!!

[Chaindog7777]

Ever since I bought my Bushmaster XM-15 I have had a newfound respect for Eugene Stoner and the wonderful AR design. My XM works with utmost pefection and is the epitomy of accuracy. Tonight while hunting for a raccoon this gun felt so natural with its screw in foregrip, and its 30 round magazine, and its wonderful sights that make you focus. Also it can be fired from either shoulder which is great with my left eye dominance...and it just feels ultimately comfortable and bad to the bone...anyone else have an AR they just love to death? Mine is named Lilith. ^_^

[Hawkmoon]

Ever since I bought my Bushmaster XM-15 I have had a newfound respect for Eugene Stoner and the wonderful AR design. My XM works with utmost pefection and is the epitomy of accuracy. Tonight while hunting for a raccoon this gun felt so natural with its screw in foregrip, and its 30 round magazine, and its wonderful sights that make you focus. Also it can be fired from either shoulder which is great with my left eye dominance...and it just feels ultimately comfortable and bad to the bone...anyone else have an AR they just love to death? Mine is named Lilith. ^_^
What screw-in foregrip?

I carried the original M16 in Vietnam in the late 60's. It was trash, and any GI who could grab an AK-47 did so without a moment's hesitation. The original M16s were the original jam-o-matics.

Granted, the DoD's change in the powder away from the powder specified by Stoner didn't help, but the rifle was still very sensitive to dirt. They still have that problem today in the sandbox. It was an innovative design, but I don't think of Stoner as a design genius the way John Moses Browning was a design genius.

And the original M16 didn't have any screw-in foregrip. If you have one, it's not something that was designed by stoner as part of the original package.

[Chaindog7777]

No that is something I added using the universal rail system. Also the original rifle made by Stoner was GREAT. Then this special group was made to alter it for military usage. They DESTROYED his original design. I wrote a report on the AR-10 the original Stoner design and it had very FEW design flaws until the military group that made the alterations destroyed his original workings. Finally a new movement in the quartermaster department made them chrome line the barrel like the original AR-10 was done, and they made them change back to stick powder yes. The original was a jam-o-matic yes, but I don't think it should be a bush gun either. Too sensitive. It is perfect IMHO for counter-terrorism and sniper work. I definently agree that the AK is a better bush gun, but for my purposes the XM-15 is beautiful and flawless, but I also know several marines who served in the first Gulf War, Mogadashu, and various other recent conflicts who will swear by it if kept clean. But I don't mean to debate you sir. I am fully aware of the original flaws but, however, such flaws were NOT reported in his original AR-10 design that was marketed to civilians after the military originally casted down his rifle. Which historically the Air Force were the first to recognize the greatness of the AR-10 since they were the first to procure them to defend air bases since the commander who witnessed the unparalled accuracy over the M-14 wanted them. Which of course he got the ORIGINAL design, not the messed up, militarized version. Also it was a joint effort that Stoner helped design the Picatinny rail system used on the modern M-16, M4 carbine, and my XM-15 which allows many wonderful attachments to be added with ease. He did intend it since he designed the foregrips that allowed for rail expansion. That is how my foregrip is on the gun and it helps its accuracy and control immensely.

www.bushmaster.com

[Chaindog7777]

I wanted to apologize if I seemed disrespectful sir, it was not my intent, I worried I might have sounded beligerent in my post. If so I duly apologize, I have nothing but the utmost respect for soldiers. But in my research it did shock me at how idiotically the military procurers did the implementing of the AR-10 and changed it to the M-16, the total recklessness. But I apologize, us AR enthusiasts can sometimes be militant about our favorite rifle, but I wouldn't own a Viet-nam era M-16, I would own the AR-10 but definently not the M-16...too many flaws. Thanks for the response though sir.

[Hawkmoon]

I wanted to apologize if I seemed disrespectful sir, it was not my intent, I worried I might have sounded beligerent in my post. If so I duly apologize, I have nothing but the utmost respect for soldiers. But in my research it did shock me at how idiotically the military procurers did the implementing of the AR-10 and changed it to the M-16, the total recklessness. But I apologize, us AR enthusiasts can sometimes be militant about our favorite rifle, but I wouldn't own a Viet-nam era M-16, I would own the AR-10 but definently not the M-16...too many flaws. Thanks for the response though sir.
I appreciate your zealous support of what is apparently your favorite rifle, but you need to get your chronology straight. The military did not procure the AR-10 and then adapt it. They rejected the AR-10 (which was chambered for 7.62 NATO, not 5.56 NATO) in favor of the M-14. The AR-15/M16 as adopted by the military is essentially as designed and submitted by Stoner in a subsequent bid for a rifle to replace the M-14, it was not adapted by the military from the AR-10. The military never adopted the AR-10.

I don't recall who decided against the chrome lining in the original M16s, but that was indeed one of the major problems with the early issue M16s such as I carried in Vietnam. The other was the DoD's choice of powder, which was a lot dirtier than the powder Stoner had in mind when he designed the rifle. However, one could argue that a military primary battle rifle should be designed to operate under all conditions, and as ingenious as the AR-15/M16 may be, that cannot be said of it. Even the newest (I own one myself) are finicky and like to be kept clean.

One of the things that makes the M1911 so timeless and such a magnificent military sidearm is the fact that in issue trim it does not demand operating room cleanliness to function. That's also a major attraction for the AK-47.

[theArmedRebel]

I carried the original M16 in Vietnam in the late 60's. It was trash, and any GI who could grab an AK-47 did so without a moment's hesitation. The original M16s were the original jam-o-matics.

I did a research paper about a year ago on this. The "blame" for the M-16 lies with the Army and Colt. It was a combination of "improvements" that the Army insisted on, their using the wrong ammunition and the Colt tolerances that caused about half of the M-16s to jam. The Air Force did not have any problems with the AR-15 that they were testing prior to McNamera putting the Army in charge of the whole thing. Also, the Army had Colt test their rifles with the DuPont powder cartridges, even though they were issuing the Winchester double ball base powder in Vietnam. Colt was aware of this as well.

For more information see:
R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell The Black Rifle -M16 Retrospective. Ontario, Canada, 1987.

Dick Culver. The Saga of the M16 in Vietnam Here (http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/)

James Fallows. “M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story.” In War and Peace, pp. 384-401. Edited by Edward K. Eckert. Belmont, California, 1990. pp. 392-393.

Robert

[Hawkmoon]

I am aware of the history of the M16 and the reasons it was unreliable when introduced to the Vietnam theater. It is difficult to blame the tolerances on Colt without also leaving Stoner in the mix. The fact is the AR-15/M16 was designed as a precision (close tolerance) weapon. That's one of the reasons I believe the M16 doesn't rise to the same level as the M1911 -- the 1911 was designed knowing that it would be used in battlefield conditions, and the fact that battlefields are less than clean-room sterile was taken into account. The M16 was intended as a battle rifle, yet was designed with tolerances that simply did not allow for "dirt."

Your comments on the ammunition are correct. The gummint switched the powder in the interest of saving money.

They also issued the M16s in Vietnam (initially, at least -- I was there in 1968 and I've read that they corrected this later) without cleaning kits and with no instruction on how to clean it. I was handed a rifle (on which the barrel was already rusty where it counts). Aside from running a brush and patch through it to get the rust out, I cannot recall ever doing any other maintenance, and I am 99.9% certain that we were not either shown how to do other maintenance nor informed that such was crucial.

The standing joke when I was in Vietnam was that the ones being sold at home by Mattel through Woolworth and Kresge's (they didn't become Kmart until later) were better than what we had in the field.

[theArmedRebel]

Your comments on the ammunition are correct. The gummint switched the powder in the interest of saving money.

They switched the powder because DuPont couldn't make the correct powder in quantity. The stuff they could make was then used to "test" the rifles to ensure that they operated correctly. Then they were shipped to Vietnam with only a cleaning rod and no instruction, to be used with different ammunition. (See Edward F. Murphy's The Hill Fights: The First Battle of Khe Sanh (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891418105/qid=1120425566/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/104-0224506-4591110?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) for more information and accounts on the jam/cleaning rod issue)


We can take Stoner out of the mix. The Army set the manufacturing tolerances for rifles produced by Colt. They also changed the design significantly. The early field tests showed the M-16 to be a decent gun (see Harold G. Moore's We Were Soldies once...And Young: Ia Drand-the Battle That Changed the War in Vietnam (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345472640/qid=1120425327/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/104-0224506-4591110?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) for first hand accounts of the M-16s performance).

It is true that the AR-15 (Stoner's rifle, the one the Air Force was looking at, not the "civilian" rifle that came later) was a precision rifle, it was not too sensitive to dirt. But we compare it to the AK-47, which was designed for a different role. The "problem" was that the Army wanted a Jack of all Trades rifle. In Vietnam they needed something bigger than an SMG but smaller than the M-14, but rather than finding a firearm that was theatre specific they screwed up the AR-15. Even the "fix" (chrome lined barrels) created more problems.

Also, I am aware that it is usually futile to convince someone that was there. However, this is one of those extremely complicated matters. Most of the people that were there had but a small percentage of the facts of the matter. Most of the information they had was based on personal experience (and I am in no way discounting that), on personal experience of others, rumor and misinformation. At the time, the Army held fast that the "problem" wasn't the rifle (or the alterations to the design), but was the fault of the men in the field not properly maintaining their rifles. You touched on a very important thing to consider, your rifle was rusted when you got it. Rifles that had problems often got their users killed. Those rifles were then reissued, usually without the cleaning rod. When those rifles malfunctioned again and got their new users killed/wounded they were reissued again.

Most of the issues with the M-16 could have been solved with a few simple adjustments. First, the rifle should have been re-timed with the issued ammunition (part of the problem was the rifle was cycling while the cartridge was still at full expansion). After all, when we buy a carry gun we don't test with one ammunition and carry an untested/unproven load. What's worse, Colt and the Army knew that the field load caused an unacceptable percentage of malfunctions/failures. their solution was to test the rifles with the Du Pont powder load, even though the Winchester load was the only one being used in the field. Second, there should have been a minimum chamber measurement based on the ammunition being used, not based on the Dupont powder load, as "tight" chambers (towards the maxim minus number) were one of the "faults" the Army found in its investigation. Third, a proper cleaning kit, and training on the use/care of the M-16, should have been part of the equation.

When I started researching this paper (it was from a year ago), I wanted to blame the design and McNamera for forcing it on the boys fighting in Vietnam. That turned out to not be the case. McNamera does deserve some of the blame, but Colt and especially the Army deserve much more of the blame for the deaths of those with rifles that malfunctioned.

Robert

[Hawkmoon]

When I started researching this paper (it was from a year ago), I wanted to blame the design and McNamera for forcing it on the boys fighting in Vietnam. That turned out to not be the case. McNamera does deserve some of the blame, but Colt and especially the Army deserve much more of the blame for the deaths of those with rifles that malfunctioned.
I think overall we agree on a lot and differ on a few points. Yes, my field experience was in 1968 with the "M16A0" model (no mods or improvements -- ours didn't have forward assist handles, for example) right after it arrived in country. But I have read up on the AR-15/M16 a lot since. As I noted in an earlier post, I own an AR and believe me, if I thought the rifles being built today were the same as what I carried in Viet Nam, I would have bought a slingshot and bag of stones.

But ... McNamara was Secretary of Defense, and the Department of the Army answers to the SecDef. I don't think you can separate the two. As for Colt, if the DoD (or the Army) provided the specs, you can't blame the manufacturer -- any manufacturer -- for providing a product that meets the customer's specifications.

[OD*]

Hawk,

Have you, in your research on the M16, read "The Black Rifle" by R. Blake Stevens & Edward C. Ezell? Great book on a great rifle (before McNamara and his bean counters took charge).

It covers why the M-14 was retained over the AR-10, by the time they add enough weight to keep them from self-detonating, they weighed as much as the M-14. It also goes into some detail as to how much the Special Forces liked the early M-16. Excellent book if you get the opportunity.

[OD*]

Great posts Robert.

In addition to Col. Moore's book, have you read "Point Man" man by James "Patches" Watson? He states his preference for the M-16 over the M-14 and his favorite weapon for point duty, the Ithaca M-37 and 4 ought buck. Of course his expertise may not be as "great" as other experts seeing he is only a plank owner on SEAL Team Two with 3 tours of duty in Nam and FOUR Bronze Stars with Combat "V." ;)

[Hawkmoon]

When I was in country a lot of guys preferred shotguns for point man duty. It wasn't supported by the supply lines at the time, but guys were having their personal shotties sent over from home and the command sort of turned a blind eye to it, because it was effective.

[theArmedRebel]

Agreed, because McNamera was in charge, he does shoulder ultimate responsibility. What I found in my research was that he put the Army in charge of field trials and then took a hands off approach to the whole thing. Unfortunately, there seems to be plenty of blame to go around, and plenty of people that deserve to shoulder some of that blame.

As for laying some of the blame on Colt, it's for turning a blind eye. Colt went to the Army stating the rifles did not meet reliability/failure requirements with the ammunition used in the field. The Army informed them that they should test with the Du Pont ammunition. Colt did.

OD* Have read The Black Rifle, but not Point Man. My neighbor pulled five tours in the Marine Corps (he was in artillery). His experience with the M-16 (and the M-14 before it) was positive, though he felt the cartridge lacked knock down power. They had private shotguns around as well.

I wonder what would have happened if they had simply issued select fire M1 Carbines or adopted a .223Rem/5.56 mm M1 variation.

Robert

[Hawkmoon]

I wonder what would have happened if they had simply issued select fire M1 Carbines or adopted a .223Rem/5.56 mm M1 variation.
When I was with the 4th Infantry Division in Pleiku, we had a group of ROK (Republic of {South} Korea) marines operating with some of our units. They had M2 carbines, and the NVA and Viet Cong were a lot more afraid of the ROKs than they were of us Americans.