Popular Mechanics August 1967: How good is our new M16 rifle?

[CJ]

http://books.google.com/books?id=CyoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=does+.223+bullet+climb+after+leaving+barrel?&source=bl&ots=uDh0tILxNx&sig=9Noqmt8oMJupjBNcUlawgHrSvsM&hl=en&ei=xVMJTqebF8-itgeEtZFX&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBQ

I'm sure some of you might find this an interesting read. It cuts through some of the bullshit that's stacked up over the years, and address a greatly blown out of proportion issue of the time.

[futant]

I liked you comments in the other thread about DI . Spot on.

the rotating bolt head (wrong term ?) is also pretty revolutionary , was it not ? improved accuracy right ?

I've always thought ARs were great weapons on many aspects, light , fairly ergonomic (except maybe the charging handle which shouldnt need to be used often) , great magwell, good sight platform, simplistic moving parts arrangement, modular.... list goes on forever

now the .223 , never been that fond of that. only real advantage i see is being able to carry tons of ammo, very low recoil (auto?) and maybe id go so far as to say its an accurate round for cqb vs others - namely the 7.62x39 . I don't really consider it good for distance, although a lot of ppl would argue against me. It has crap for power at exceedingly long ranges, and wind is a bad thing.
But where I really hate it is it's lack of ability to penetrate hard cover. That's just fucking bullshit! I don't want to go into battle with something the enemy can hide from. I think the AR/M16 platform should have been made from the get go on a .270 based / 6.8x43mm SPC .

Didn't stoner want that anyway? or was he more for the 7.62x51 style ar-10 chamberings?
308 Ar's are awesome too. The increased size though is a detractor for me. I'm not the size of CJ and can't carry no fucking M1A1 into battle! I have no idea how guys could lug around an m60 in the hot sweaty jungles of Vietnam all day.

[CJ]

I liked you comments in the other thread about DI . Spot on.

the rotating bolt head (wrong term ?) is also pretty revolutionary , was it not ? improved accuracy right ?

I've always thought ARs were great weapons on many aspects, light , fairly ergonomic (except maybe the charging handle which shouldnt need to be used often) , great magwell, good sight platform, simplistic moving parts arrangement, modular.... list goes on forever

now the .223 , never been that fond of that. only real advantage i see is being able to carry tons of ammo, very low recoil (auto?) and maybe id go so far as to say its an accurate round for cqb vs others - namely the 7.62x39 . I don't really consider it good for distance, although a lot of ppl would argue against me. It has crap for power at exceedingly long ranges, and wind is a bad thing.
But where I really hate it is it's lack of ability to penetrate hard cover. That's just fucking bullshit! I don't want to go into battle with something the enemy can hide from. I think the AR/M16 platform should have been made from the get go on a .270 based / 6.8x43mm SPC .

Didn't stoner want that anyway? or was he more for the 7.62x51 style ar-10 chamberings?
308 Ar's are awesome too. The increased size though is a detractor for me. I'm not the size of CJ and can't carry no fucking M1A1 into battle! I have no idea how guys could lug around an m60 in the hot sweaty jungles of Vietnam all day.

The AR-10 is the original rifle, it was the original design, and the one that stoner envisioned. However, that is not the rifle the military was requesting. The M14 originally was a full automatic weapon. The military and brass had complaints it was uncontrollable and troops could only carry 100-200 rounds of ammunition. The school of thought was since a .223 cartridge is 1/3 the weight of a 7.62x51 NATO it would give the troops more ammunition, and any round to contact the bad guys were knock that one out, so it was win win.

It was re-chambered by Armalite to .223 to meet the requirements set forth by the military, and eventually sold to Colt. One of the biggest innovations the M16 brought to the table was a direct lateral recoil path, which had never been done before in a battle rifle to my knowledge. Unlike the AK47 and just about every other rifle, the muzzle and barrel are higher than the stock to allow you to peer down a short tucked in sight - that obviously causes muzzle climb and makes full auto hard to control. The AR-15 has the giant carry handle (which was a really ugly odd ball design when it was first seen) and raised front sight block to accommodate a higher sight level. And because of this, you get an automatic weapon which you can control MUCH better than an M14.

For jungle combat as much as I love the M14 (and I do) it wasn't up to the task. They are extremely hard to control under automatic fire - I've fired one before, and the cyclic rate is amazingly fast for a .308, and it's hard to find something to grab ahold of when it climbs, the only then you can do is lean into it and then you're off target. Another thing is the climate and humid environment would certainly cause corrosion/mold/etc. with the wooden stock and receiver. Also, the M14 does not button up like an M16, so water and debris in the chamber/action is more likely. But primarily it's weight and weight of it's ammo coupled with its difficulty to control under automatic fire made it the shortest lived main rifle for our country. I like to think of the M14 as the pinnacle of refinement and accuracy of the traditional rifle. An unfortunate achievement of perfection on an obsolete premise. The M16 brought in the versatility and modular generation which we're still in today. And as the article says "A more effective weapon is not likely to become available for some time." How true that still is.