I make no claim to any Military service but a friend was regular Infantry in Viet Nam and that's exactly what he said. He said fire several mags through it to break it in and then clean it and take care of it and it was in his words "A good weapon".
My father did the same with his M16. He grew up shooting and it was just common sense for him to keep his weapon clean. He taught me and my younger brother to shoot almost as soon as we could hold a gun.
I once argued with a former Army soldier about his statement that "The bullet from an M16 starts to tumble as soon as it leaves the barrel.". I said "If it did that, which is impossible, you wouldn't be able to hit the side of a continent with it!" He INSISTED that it did because his drill instructor told him it did. I said, "Either you misunderstood what he said, or he was an idiot." BUT, since I wasn't a veteran, I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about. Sometimes you just have to shrug your shoulders and walk away.
I recently saw a news report on one of the networks where an ER doctor stated the very same false claim. That the “AR15 bullet” isn’t designed to shoot like other rifles, it’s designed to tumble to cause “maximum” damage.
I've had the same happen with a buddy of mine who did 2 tours to Iraq he insisted that with the 50 caliber rifle you could tear arms off at distance even if you missed. I had to sit with him and make him watch the 50cal vs house of cards video from Demolition ranch, and still after seeing the proof he said "yeah but those ain't military rounds" Some people just believe what they want to believe because reality is often kinda boring.
I remember in 1991 at Ft Benning in Infantry school we qualified with M16A2's after that we were given M16A1's for advanced marksmanship (Infantry AIT) We went to the range one day and the drill Sergeants cancelled it because they they sent us M855 instead of M193. We asked why and they told us that the A1 would not shoot the M855 because of the rate of twist difference in the barrel. ( my M16A1 was an H&R build one which was neat). I am glad they knew that. 10+years later I was in a National Guard Aviation Unit and we still had M16A1's and we were sent M855 (Green tip) and I was a range NCO and unit armorer. I just went to the Commander and shut it down. He did not believe me, so I shot 10 rounds at a 50 yard target and 75% key holed and they were all over the target. +1 for the NCO that knows his shit +2 for the Commanding Officer that listened to the NCO!
Same here Battle, I too did the same thing. From the ranges of FT McCoy (Wisconsin), FT Dix (now called Joint Base McGuire, Dix, Lakehurst, New Jersey) to Camp Blanding ( now called Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida). They said teach the standards, I did that also the reality. I told them I’m a gunsmith/sales clerk in my local town gun shop.
When I was in the Reserves our entire platoon had issues qualifying with our A2s because they had us use leftover rounds meant for the A1. Don’t listen to the soldiers tho, what do we know, right? 3/4 of the platoon ended up qualifying on the simulator. 😅
My dad was in the military 23 years and did 2 tours in Vietnam. He used the M1, M14 and M16 and said he loved the M16. The only complaint I ever heard about it was the short barrel variants would jam a lot but guys would still use them to look cool😆
My dad told me a story about how he went to basic and learned on the m14 then got to Nam and was given an m16 with zero instruction and got into a fire fight on his first patrol. He said he ran out of ammo and had to scavenge for an extra couple of mags. After that he said he loved the m16 because of how much more ammo he could carry. He was Army 1st infantry division, 1968
I think that was probably a major part of the reliability problem. Soldiers were trained to clean one weapon, and then issued an entirely different one. Imagine early on, with no institutional knowledge on the M16, how dirty those star chambers must have been.
I remember the many hours of rifle cleaning after a day on the range. Our armorers would not take back your rifle until they could swab it anywhere and get a still white, clean q-tip back. During my service it was M-16 A1 then A2. With both I shot low 230s on the 500m ranges (rifle expert) but I lost a couple points on the A2 due its very variable trigger pulls depending on where it was on the 3 round burst cam. I eventually learned to cycle twice between shots on the range to get only the light pull trigger action for the best results.
@@investigativeoutcomes9343 He's not doing well. He's handed over his channel pretty much to his brother. Problem with pancreatic cancer is it shows no symptoms until it's become advanced and the 5 year survival rate is very low.
When I was drafted in 1968, my knowledge of weapons was limited to a bolt action .22 and a single-barrel shotgun. Then I was introduced to the M14 in training and later the M-16, M79, and the M60 light machine gun. During my year in South Vietnam, I never had a problem with the M16. It was only a few decades later I started hearing stories about how terrible the M16 was. For a while, I started to believe some of the lies. Thank you for setting the record straight.
@@brianmead7556 True, I was fortunate to arrive much later in RVN but let's look at the larger problem that cause all these deaths. First, decisions come from the top down. What General or bureaucrat decided to use ball powder over the specified powder for the 5.56 cartridge? Who was the general who told his troops there was no need to clean their M-16s? I'm sure in both these situations, nothing ever happened to these individuals.
People forget that the AK had been out a whole before Vietnam. The initial rifle was stamped but they switched to milled because the rivits and shit were failing. I'm not sure why ppl think the AR was supposed to just run. Especially with all the push back the military gave Armalite then colt.
Hate to tell you this, MAC (and tbh, I'm shocked you don't know this), *Mattel did indeed make a host of VERY RELIABLE M-16s!* Mine came from Rose's department store in Burlington, NC, purchased by my mom in about 1976 - Think I was seven years old... Every single time I pulled the trigger, it made that satisfying "machine gun sound!" Never left me in the lurch, ever - Think I had a "German Luger" water gun that was the same way, fwiw *smirk😏
ROTFLMFAO! I think we had one too, from the Sears Christmas catalog. They sure got around the 1968 regulations. The funny thing is decades from now something will happen and only the first sentence of your post will survive, and the less intelligent of the species will use that as "proof".
Your point about other manufacturers making firearms is very true. At one point the Singer Sewing Machine company produced 1911 pistols (which are quite valuable if you can find one).
I was in-country 1967-68 w/the 196th LIB (later Americal Division). We trained on M-14's in Benning (Basic). I had been in in ROTC in college - M-1 Garand. I experienced no problems with the M-16 itself, and you could carry a full ammo complement of 300 rounds except for one thing: magazine springs. We loaded those 20-round mags to 17 rounds because, if you loaded 20, and didn't use it right away, that weak spring would cause an FTF. So the only problem I encountered was in the magazines. But, yeah, that gas tube getting clogged could present a problem. The piece had to be cleaned regularly just like every firearm I was ever issued. Thanks for the video!
I read letters from my dad to my Grandma asking for her to have my Grandfather get a 22 cal cleaning kit for his M16. I also remember him talking about the guys over there believing that the M16 was a self cleaning weapon. So that’s definitely something that is true. Well my dad was obviously smart enough to understand his gun needed to be cleaned. My dad never had anything bad to say about his M16. He also liked the weapon so much so he decided to get me one in 1999 2000 I can’t remember exactly what year. I just know I had one a year or so before he passed away. Well since I was one of very few even that late in time. I remember people telling me that BS lie about filling down the firing pin. And I can see how some one who didn’t own one could believe that. But since I owned one and was constantly looking at it and taking it down to just put it back together. I knew that made zero sense as a matter of fact I remember sitting in the kitchen looking at the BCG and thinking. No all that’s going to happen is I’m going ruin my firing pin. Also you had people that would say if you file a part off the trigger it would go full auto. And again I remember thinking if that part is filed off the hammer it’s just gonna follow the bolt home essentially ruining the gun. Eventually I realized the government isn’t going to add something to a weapon to stop it from being able to go full auto. What they did was take away a bunch of parts. Hence the 3 hole and Colt Match TARGET 2’s don’t have a 3rd hole. Actually my rifle has not only parts taken away but it in fact has all kinds of other stuff done to it to prevent it from EVER being full auto. Colt made sure those rifles and ones like it would NEVER be able to run a full auto burst EVER. Lol I still have my gift from my dad. And even though it’s a completely neutered husk of a what you can say looks like a M16. It’s still my favorite because of its sentimental value. That rifle was the last thing my dad ever got for me. So it holds a special place in my heart.
@@markrichards7452 Well, the tech guys AFT tried it with a piece of metal, but never really managed to transform a semi into a real full auto. #freeMattHoover #CRSfirearms
I have an old, police trade-in Colt LE-6920 that has a lot of those neutered features. Kinda sucks, but I just source Colt Sporter specific parts for it and it works amazingly and it's seriously the smoothest AR-15 I've ever had! Just because it's an old Colt doesn't mean it's not still an amazing rifle!
In 2005 or 06 I helped instruct a NG unit that had been activated and was going through training to deploy. One of it's tasks was combat rifle shooting. Moving and firing etc but first we needed to make sure that all them members of unit were proficient in just marksmanship. The group I was with was familiar with how US Army units maintained rifles, so the first thing we did at 0800 hrs in class was have them disassemble the rifle down to bolt and bolt carrier. No firing pin or or retaining pin. We then had them hold it by the bolt and lift it off the table with bolt carrier still hanging from it. Any bolt carriers that fell off the bolt had new gas rings installed, this was over 80%. After we did this, the inside of bolt carrier was lubed and light oil to all the moving parts. We then went out to firing range. No issues that day and instructed them on a field cleaning, cleaning chamber and bore and light drops of oil into carrier so gas rings weren't dry. We were doing 12 hour training days in an effort to get them going. Next day again on range and all sorts of failure to feed , cycle etc. We were like wth? So we grabbed one snuffy Pvt who told us the NCO's had them completely remove all the oil from the bolt carrier and everywhere else to make it parade ground clean. We stopped the training had everyone relube the rifles and go on. This happened 3 days in a row, finally we told CO of the unit if he didn't stop his NCO from this peacetime clean and dry we would flunk his unit and they wouldn't deploy. As I understood it the CO and lead instructor met with the NCO's behind closed doors and read them the riot act. This finally got there attention and we were able to finish training without problems. We did advise, yes completely break down rifle and relube and clean when you have downtime, but in the middle of mission outside the FOB isn't the place. Boresnake and drops of oil into carrier will be just fine
I have a quote from the official Report of the m16s failures in Vietnam. The report is called “Report of the M16 Review Panel” from June 1968. The quote, I think, shows how negligent the US Government was. Page 191 reads “The requirement for a chamber brush identified by the USAF marksmanship unit and the weapon designer. This information was given to HQ USACDC and HQ USAMC by the project manager, Rifles on June 3, 1963. A contract wasn’t awarded for procurement until 10 May 1966. As of February 1968, all riflemen in Vietnam have still not been issued a chamber brush even though adequate stocks were available in theater.” Reading this quote tells me many things. 1. The need for cleaning kits was acknowledged by the designers of the m16. 2. That the military was informed of this in 1963 (before it was even adopted). 3. Even after being informed of this, it still took them almost 3 years to issue a contract for major parts of the m16 cleaning kits 4. Even when these cleaning kits were available in Vietnam, the US Government still failed to issue complete cleaning kit to the troops. The Government is 100% to blame.
You’re totally off on this. The congressional report on this subject specifically names the ordinance board of the army as the entity responsible. The reason they issued the wrong powder and no cleaning kits was due to the traditionalists in the ordnance board. Who didn’t want to switch to a new rifle. They still wanted to maintain the m14 Please do your research and stop blaming “the government”. Whatever that means. Blame specific people or organizations in the government. In fact, the only reason we know any of this is due to a congressional committee on the subject
One of the problems was when the ammo was loaded with ball powder with 3 1/2 % calcium carbonate as a stabilizer it left a LOT of fouling throughout the gas system in the HUMID climate of Viet Nam..cutting the content to 1 1/2 % stopped that problem...
The "ball powder" was made from recycled powder as well, which was old, dirty stuff. As Eugene Stoner tells it, the change to IMR powder (what was supposed to be used) fixed it.
Stateside early1970s. Every M16A1 I was issued was a GM Hydra-matic manufactured. Nothing really strange about that because they were also the primary manufacturer of the M3 Submachine Gun. 1911A1s were manufactured by numerous businesses, their machines converted to wartime use. And my quest for a Singer Sewing Machine manufactured 1911A1 continues.
@@monteharrison1478 Exactly. I was just going to post that. They also made the FP-45 Liberator pistol, designated Flare Projector Caliber .45, to hide the fact from spies that a pistol was being mass-produced. GM was a MAJOR part of the arsenal of victory in WWII. The factory I worked at built tanks and tank destroyers before they made Buicks. The original M3s cost $30 to replace, and when stockpiles ran out, it cost $60 to replace them with an M3A1, when one of the 40 year old guns was destroyed. That was in the mid '80s, and one time an armorer brought a grease gun and M1911A1 in for me to "fix". They were both caught between the turret and hull of an M60A3 tank when the turret was traversed. Pay attention, and stow your gear properly or sh** happens! I inspected them both, noting everything broken, bent, or missing. When I turned in my paperwork, the armorer took them for a Direct eXchange wherever they got new guns from. This was in Germany and the division was spread out over several states, and we didn't DX anything there on the spot. I think they had to go to division headquarters. I don't recall ever seeing a Singer 1911 other than in a museum, but saw a few Remingtonn-Rand and US&S stamped guns. Remingtonn-Rand made typewriters, and Union Switch & Signal made railroad signals and switching gear. I saw at least one Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Mfg. M2 .50 cal, but over 99% of them I saw were made by A.C. Spark Plug in Flint, MI. A guy in my high school class' mom worked on them, and a bunch of little old ladies were blasting away with .50 cals in the basement to make sure they worked.
I had a M-16 A1 in the early to mid 70's while in the A.F., qualified as a marksman while in training, an was volunteered as augmented Sec. Police while I was in. Never had a problem with mine, an it ran flawlessly, loved it, still do. Heard all this B. S. while I was in, but worked with some Sargents who had served over there ( VEITNAM ) an they confirmed that it did jam in the early yrs due to the problems that we all know about. They did keep a cleaning rod taped to their rifle as they knew it would happen. But with the right components, bullets, powder etc. Ran like a swiss watch for me, don't know how many rounds I put thru mine, but it was alot. I hung out with some of the base armorers at the armory, an they showed me alot of things about them. An for the record, MATTEL did make a plastic rifle ( TOY M-16 ) . So thats maybe where that rumour came from. A friend of mine has one in a glass case hanging on his wall in his game room, along with the Scarface movie poster as a backdrop, really cool to look at, an yes its a plastic MATTEL M-16 A1, probably made either in the early 80's or 70's or the late 60's. I remember seeing them for sale to kids before everybody got all woke an sensitve, an easily offended. An yes I'm an a old goat from that time frame, Thx for the vid Mac
As an Army retiree, (25.5 Years) I joined in 1975 and retired in 2001! I have heard everyone of these myths and the Idea that the M16 was self-cleaning was in fact perpetuated by Colt! I saw MANY tags on M16's in Warehouse storage! In 1977 they were still attached and dept of the Army sent out a MOD. to all Armours to "remove and destroy those tags!
It absolutely did come from Colt (who of course were talking about the gas tube and avoiding mentioning the cleaning needed for the rest of the weapon) and the US military failed to address the myth. So it's a "real" myth in the sense that it had a real effect on the early reliability of the weapon.
What's funny is that MAC, in recent history, said he didn't oil his AR's because the carbon would do all of the oiling chores . That the graphite was the cleaning agent from the powder . They need a small amount of oil . :)
My maternal Grandfather was part of the congressional delegation that travelled to Vietnam to determine what was behind the early issues with the rifle when first fielded. I guess they wanted a Marine involved to legitimize things. :o) In fact, I still have a number of trinkets he picked up during his time there hanging on my man cave wall today! If I remember the story correctly, the biggest (by far) contributor to the problems was an unauthorized change in the propellent specification when full production began. Once that was corrected and soldiers were properly trained in maintenance the rifle came into its own. Your analysis is consistent with that of a man that was on the ground at the time so good job!
@@hairydogstail The powder originally approved was not the powder used in the early production runs. I'm not saying the problem power didn't receive approvals at some level.
I served in a guard unit in Michigan in the early 80s, a lot of our guys were Vietnam vets who would jokingly referred to the m16 as the mini Mattel machine gun but none ever said it was made by Mattel.
The hand guards over the barrel were made by mattel. Injection molded plastics weren't much of a thing in those days and the only company that they could find to make the shrouds in large quanities was mattel.
A great report . I was in country early in the 60's with an S F team. We really liked our M14's which could really reach out and touch someone . Shooting across a rice patty was no problem . After my three tours I came back and qualified for an Army rifle team . I spent the rest of my enlistment just shooting paper targets . A nice way to unwind from previous tours . We used the M14 .
I was issued an XM16E1 in late March 1967. Don't tell a good Marine that he doesn't have to clean his weapon! I was issued a cleaning kit, a bottle of LSA and a clothes pin type bipod. It all fit into a pouch that clipped on to my belt. I cleaned and lubed my "Sweet 16" daily. It never failed me. For my second tour I was issued an M16A1, same rifle with the exception of having a different nomenclature and a birdcage flash suppressor instead of that awful trident piece of junk that got caught on every vine that came along. Both rifles served me well and kept me alive on occasion.
@@intuitivefugitive8852 I disagree 7.62x39 is a short fat 30 caliber projectile that travels and energy transfer is about 50% greater than the long skinny 22 caliber 5.45x39. 90%+ of the time your target won’t be far away enough for 5.45 to really give you any benefit.
Yes it is crucial to set the record straight so let's start with the 1st falsehood Tim mentions. Anti gun media. There's no anti gun media, there's anti mass shooting media and if you've a problem with anti mass shooting media then your a monster. Secondly, the document Tim says does exist is called the Geneva convention. Combatants must be afforded every chance of surviving wounds in action. The additional resources needed to care for wounded soldiers instead of just grave detail is a by product.
Mattel did make an M16. I had one in 1966 or so (IIRC). It was a TOY, but it looked very close to the real deal and had a spring loaded charging handle that made the “machine gun sound”, and the red flame tip moved in and out. Loved it.
John Wayne smashed one into pieces against a tree in the movie," The Green Berets". You can tell it's a 1967 Mattel "Marauder Automatic Rifle" by the fact that it had an oversized magazine for the sound mechanism. Mattel's slogan: "You can tell it's Mattel....it's swell!"
In 1971 between my junior and senior year in college, I attended a six week ROTC training camp at Indiantown Gap Military Reservation 22 mils NE of Harrisburg Pa. During this time I was assigned an H&R manufactured M-16 rifle. This rifle did not have a forward assist on it, the bolt had a thumb groove on it so you could seat the bolt with your thumb. In field stripping the rifle, the handguards (which were triangle in shape) had stamped into the heat shields of both left & right insides of the handguards, the Mattel Toy Corporation Logo. Mattel was sub-contracted to make the handguards as H&R did not possess the machinery for working with extruded plastic But Mattel did. That is why the saying of "That Damn Mattel Toy!" came about. Also at one point n the movie "The Green Berets", John Wayne is seen breaking the but off a m-16 (Mattel M-16 Toy). Note unusual large size of magazine of the rifle, this held the shot sound unit and batteries. The fact that Mattel MADE M-16 parts is TRUE, but they did not make the working parts for it.
I always thought the ranges WWI rifles, and some pistols, were sighted for were insane. I get there was the idea of volley fire, but good job even seeing the target at the max range for those rifles.
It makes more sense when you remember that modern mortars didn't exist and machine guns were in their infancy, so if you wanted so suppress an area and didn't have field artillery, long range rifle fire was the best option. That said I don't have any sources to support this idea so take it with a grain of salt.
Volley fire at those ranges were "hammer that area where the enemy formation is and give them something to think about". Most wars in Europe until WWI were rapid maneuver and massed formation affairs and it was mostly the same for colonial uprisings such as Rourke's Drift. The American Civil War in many battles showed what was to come, but the Great Powers of the era didn't pay attention and didn't think they'd get into such a meat-grinding slugfest.
I think my favorite myth is that it ever needed to be replaced. The 5.56 x 45 perhaps needed to be changed to something else, but the M16 and M4 are just too good at what they do and what they offer. France created the FAMAS in the late 70’s and they are replacing that with the HK 416 which is just a piston driven AR. Even though the IDF has created the Tavor and X95 in the 2000’s, every time I see them on TV, the vast majority of their soldiers are rocking an M4 or M16. I really do hope the M7 is all that it COULD be. But I just feel like when we look back even 50 years from now, we’re going to realize that those M16’s and M4’s gathering dust in a crate somewhere are still more than effective in combat.
A lot of those people you're seeing on TV are funding their military with US tax dollars, which typically also means that they're going to be using our equipment.
@@evenmoremax2540 I understand that. That being said, the Tavor and X95 were set out specifically to replace the M16 and M4’s in the IDF inventory because the IDF supposedly wasn’t happy with the performance of either one of them in certain conditions and thought they could do better. The Tavor has been in service with them since 2001 so the idea that they are STILL using the M16 and M4 in the quantities that they are is a testament that the claims they were making towards the M16 and M4 were clearly overblown. They have certainly have had enough time to replace them completely, if they wanted to, but haven’t.
@@roc5291 My point is that they're going to whine and cry and take our money and weapons no matter what else they try to say about them. These things can, and likely are, even related.
Smaller and mechanized units get the Tavor. Shortened M4s are issued to almost everybody, including reserves. Tavor and X95 is almost 2X the price of their M4. They pay for the M4s from financial assistance they get from the USA, but they can’t use that money for the Tavor. So they are basically getting the M4s for free and must spend their own money on the Tavor.
One other company that made M-16 Variants was FN... I did see the M16A1s made by TurboHydromatic (General Motors) and H&R while I was in service. I ran into one original M-16 that was still marked Colt AR-15 and remarked US Govt Property M-16. Another funny one was an M-16A2 that was converted from an M16A1 that was marked XM16-A2 that a soldier of mine had in Iraq in 2009. I had never seen that before.
When I was in Iraq in 2009, I saw a TXARNG soldier sporting a Hydramatic M16A1 lower overstamped with the A2. The reason I spotted it was the finish of the lower was different than the finish of the upper.
Small world, I was in Balad, Iraq in 2009 with the Indiana Guard flying the "ring routes" moving people around in Black Hawks. I saw the same thing that one of our mechanics had a Colt M-16A1 lower remarked as XM16-A2.. Gray lower and black upper. .@@armynurseboy
@@hawkuser604 I was at Cp Cropper (the prison on Victory base at BIAP). We were exiting the TIF, so we were recovering our weapons from the gate shack (no firearms inside the wire). His rifle caught my eye because it looked so weird. Asked him if I could look at it really quick.
Been there many times.. nothing like flying around in Baghdad for hours on end breathing the wonderful burn pit fumes and smoke. The entire north side of Baghdad was an enormous trash burn pit if you did not get to see it. If you ever had a Hawk ride it was probably us.@@armynurseboy
While I was at Benning in the 80's, a dude in my platoon was issued an M16A1 that was so old the black anodizing on the lower was nearly completely worn off. It was a Colt gun. The thing was silver lol. The M16 is a fine, reliable, rugged weapon.
I was at Benning in 91 and we used A2's for BRM, but then got A1's that came in storage crates from god knows where. They were in all kinds of different conditions. One guy ended up with an original M-16.. no forward assist and marked Colt AR-15... US Property... M-16. Nobody could believe that thing slipped through the system without being modified after all those years. We had some that were marked the same, but were stamped after conversion to read M-16 then A1 MOD or just had A1 crudely stamped.
I did basic at FLW in "72. We had worn out a1's. Mine had failures constantly. When I got to Germany, the first time I had to draw and sign for my rifle, I looked at the armorer and asked him, "when did they start making these black"?
@@hawkuser604 your buddies gun likely went out of the US to a friendly nation ... and then came back after all the guns in US inventory went through the upgrade phase lol remarkable indeed!
That is what the armorer thought as well the rifles came in non-US looking crates packed with 20-25 in each one and had a weird mix of parts. Some had A-2 grips, some had the original flash hider. etc. It took a whole day to clean the cosmoline out of them! @@Odessa45
A google search will show you the various discussions about the topic you can find online: www.google.com/search?q=filing+firing+pin+ar15+machine+gun&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS847US847&oq=filing+firing+pin+ar15+machine+gun&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORigATIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCDQxNjFqMGo5qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
You're ignorant, the M-14 was way more reliable than that shitty little plastic Mattel toy. My unit had 180 brand new out of the crate, cleaned the cosmoline off of them and not one would fire! Not a fucking one.
@@panzerabwerkanonethose Ordnance Board officers should have been court martialed for dereliction of duty and premeditated homicide for all the deaths their petty actions caused...
The irony is enemy soldiers thought of the M16 much in the way some people think about the AK. Accurate, rugged, reliable, more deadly. Even while all these early M16 issues were being addressed. It's why Russia developed 5.45×39mm.
Indeed. The NVA thought that we had some kind of "poison bullets" due to the temporary wound cavity created by the 5.56 bullet at 3000+ fps. They didn't understand the physics of why their soldiers would have such atrocious wounds from seemingly minor bullet hits.
@@careylymanjones Yeah, and when it's coming out of a 20" barrel it's nasty to around 300 yards. . .which is why I don't like the 14.5" M4. The switch to 62 grain projectiles was an attempt to get something for nothing. We should have gone back to a lightweight M16A1 style rifle and just stuck with M193. The average soldier can't even see well to 400+ yards anyway, I know I can't.
@@life_of_riley88 In places like Afghanistan, where long shots were more common, heavier bullets and fast twist barrels make sense. For close-in stuff, M193 from an old-school 1:12 or 1:14 barrel is nasty AF.
@@life_of_riley88 The M855 was developed specifically for the SAW as a light MG round. It was intentionally optimized for penetration, which it does very well. The reason why it was used with the M16 as well was for logistic simplicity.
MAC I’m not a ballistics expert by any stretch, but what I can say is I hunt deer with 450 bush and 556. The only deer I’ve ever dropped on the spot were with 556. Maybe lucky shot or a sissy deer, but in action, the 556 seems to rattle the cookies of its target.
My supervisor (millennial guy a few younger than me) seems to think nobody can legally hunt with an AR15. He uses a bolt-action .270 win to take deer and he made it sound like that's the smallest legal cartridge to kill deer.
My dad was a platoon sergeant with the Big Red One in Lai Khe, Vietnam 1968-1969. He disliked the M16 so did many of the guys under him. As late as 1968 guys were still carrying M14's, M1 Carbines, a good AK47 . He even knew a few that carried Thompson Sub Machine Guns. To this day he still calls the M16 , " The Jam o matic."
one reason I've heard for the 1/7 twist is for the US 64gr tracer, apparently it won't stabilize in a lesser twist rate. i don't know if that's true or a myth but I've heard it more than once. I'm also a firm believer in the DI system, it's been in use by our military for long enough and worth today's modern nickel boron and nitrided bolts and barrel extensions it's only gotten better
My brother-in-law was telling me that he was in boot camp when the M16s first started showing up. He said he was jealous of the guys that got the M16 because it was so much lighter on the long hikes and runs. He also had to carry all that, much heavier.30 cal ammo.
My father, uncles and neighbors fathers and relatives worked at the GM Hydra-Matic plant in Ypsilanti, MI. I would work there myself many years later while working my way through college. But in early 1970's I knew several people who were taken off the transmission floor and moved to making M-16's. I didn't realize until watching your video that Hydra-Matic was a lesser known producer. In my circles growing up it was so common to know someone who worked in that department that it never occurred to me that they weren't one of the major producers. Especially knowing how many M1 Carbines were built by GM plants. PS. this was also the same plant that produced B-24 bombers in WW II when it was owned by Ford.
When I took my marksmanship in BCT, I had to do the pop ups with a non cycling M16 (bolt gun) 😂 I scored expert with it even having to charge it each squeeze. They then made me retest with another rifle because mine was malfunctioning. They hand me another one that I didn’t personally zero.. It shot way worse for me obviously and I only barely achieved Sharpshooter.. I got pissed off because all it needed was a new bolt dropped in. Lesson learned though and now I always have an extra complete bolt in my bag. I still hate seeing that Sharpshooter pinned to my uniform 🤦♂️ I got the shaft 😂 Had to share haha, Great video man!
Granted, my Dad didn't use one for long before he was issued a bloop tube, but the minute he could afford one later on, he got one. And he had done two tours right about the time the issues would have been starting to show. Obviously he didn't take issue with the thing. In fact, he never really said anything bad about it that I recall. I have heard the thing about it being plastic junk from at least one person who said he would have rather had an M14 because if he needed to pummel someone with the gun he wouldn't have needed to worry about it breaking. But if you're to the point of beating someone with the butt of the gun, something has probably gone very, very wrong anyway. Not that I would dare say it never happened, but I doubt it happened often enough to be a really valid concern. But I could be wrong, I don't know. I obviously wasn't there.
Thanks Tim possibly one of the best breakdowns of the AR-15 M16 family I grew up believing some of them myths but I have never stopped learning and thank you for teaching me more along with in it forgotten weapons Eric iv888 can't leave out Paul Harrell hope everybody has a little bit of love for him and best wishes with his medical condition
I bought my used Colt SP1 back in the mid 80. I guess I’ve put about 3000 rounds through it. I’ve only used ball ammo and have never had a failure of any kind. I think it’s a softer shooter than my Ruger 556.
The AKM had about 13 years to mature before faceing US Forces in Vietnam. The AR is so solid other NATO countries have been adopting them and replacing AKs in service.
The simple manufacturing for the AKM is what makes it "special" they worked hard to produce a rifle with "unskilled" labor and basic machinery. The M16/AR15 needs more engineering to manufacture, today we appreciate the tight tolerances and consistent manufacturing that lead to parts interchangeability/ compatibility with a wide range of different brands. Thats why we can put them together in our garage
Thanks for bringing more “old wives tales” to the conversation. This video was for people for you. You would benefit from another video, but one made for an AK.
The premise of your argument is correct, however, it was not Colt or Armalite who required the changes to chrome plating, powder, cleaning kits, etc….. It was the brass at the DOD, specifically McNamara, the war criminal, the tech geek, the traitor. The manufacturer did not agree with the changes, but were forced to go along
Combat troops also are not hindered with "taking care" of their wounded beyond initial first aid. Wounded are handed off to medical troops to evacuate and treat. Combat troops simply carry on their mission.
One aspect that caused the M16's to be a jam-o-matic, was at least in my era & my units, was the military's attitude that magazines were NOT disposable/ items that wear-out. Unless they were severely mangled, the troops had to live with what was issued. You can only re-adjust the mag feed lips so much. At least it provided a LOT of malfunction / immediate action practice. Fine for on the range, not fine when deployed. I'm so glad to see attitudes changing with that and also much more robust Pmags, etc being fielded.
...I've heard of the "wounding" aspect of firearms, but I have no idea if it was applied to the 5.56, or just bullets in general. But the concept of the enemy using resources to take care of their wounded soldier sounds really good on paper. ...Ballistically however, the 5.56 is really a devastating beast
It doesn't make sense at all. Armies factor in the logistics needed to take care of wounded. There are logistical tables that predict how many casualties you are expected to suffer in a said operation based on established models.....and they're actually fairly accurate. That's how the determine how many hospitals, MEDEVAC assets, Class VIII, etc they need to prepare before kicking an operation off. Even at the tactical level, combat troops don't get bogged down "taking care" of their casualties beyond initial first aid. They hand off their wounded to specialized troops who entire reason for existing is to take care of wounded soldiers. "Taking care" of wounded does nothing to combat effectiveness because combat troops don't do it.
The "Mattel Toy" myth was so pervasive that it made it's way into Canada, where I live. So too was the myth about being designed to wound and not kill.
Seems like the 5.56 round was adopted because it was half the weight of the 7.62, but had enough power to do what it needed to do on the battlefield. So it wasn't that it was "designed" to wound and not kill, that was simply one of the side effects of the much lighter round, and like you said, the logistics of supplying and carrying ammo, especially after the switch to full auto capability, were serious issues. The idea that wounded people were more of a burden than dead is certainly true. "Commies" didn't want to die either, so they would do what they could to take care of the wounded so that others might do the same for them. On the battlefield if you get hit with a 5.56 round, you're pretty much as likely to need to get medevaced as if you got hit with the heavier 7.62. So wounded is as good as dead tactically and to some extent long-term as well.
One of my favorite myths about the M-16 family is "they don't have the range of the M14!" Except that Army rates effective range on hit probability, and the A1 had the same effective range as the M14 and M1. The A2 pushed that out a hundred meters further, and even the M4 (with iron sights) has 50 meters on the M14.
Good video!! Retired Army with 30 years service. The M16A1, M16A2, M16A4 and the M4 ere the best Infantry rifle/carbine our military ever adopted. Everybody I know that served in the military now own at least one AR-15 or M4 carbine, but many will own several ARs since they know how it operates and it is designed to function in challenging environments. I purchased my first AR, a Colt AR-15A2 rifle, back in the the mid 1980s and since then, I’ve own several several Colt ARs/M4s since then. Plus, since the mid 1980s, at least one Colt AR has been part of my collection and that will never change since if I have to defend myself, I’m grabbing an AR!! I’ll admit that the first rifle I ever purchased back in the 1980s was a used HK-91, which I still have.
Although I think you have it a little bit twisted, you are generally correct. I grew up in that period of time and I was exposed to military from a sergeant that actually went through the introduction of the M16. First of all, Mr Stoner had specifically stated that the rifle was purposely made for Recon work and security work. It was never intended, ever, to be a battle rifle. In its prototype phase it did not have a chrome line bore even though he knew it would need one. The reason it didn't get one is the problem was actually posed to Robert McNamara and he said if they intended for it to have one they would already have one on it so he insisted that it not get a chrome lined bore. The Army brass who didn't particularly care for the firearm in the first place may very well have been complicit in this by not sending cleaning kits with the rifle. As for the powder snafu, the fact that they had suddenly started using this as their main battle device, the hi use of ammo created a lag of being able to produce the IMR powders. Winchester decided as a part of its structure to go ahead and start making the ammo with ball powder which, Not only was it dirtier, it also increased the cyclic rate in full auto buy somewhere in the neighborhood of about 70% or more. Having a partially aluminum and partially steel rifle in the wet conditions of Vietnam caused a galvanic action which would cause the aluminum to start to degrade quite quickly to top all of that off. As for the intentions of the rifle, the 55 grain bullet that is barely stable will cause vicious wounds. Even in extremities. And that was an asset especially for the intended use of the rifle. I grew up about 4 MI from where Gene Stoner worked and met him a number of times when I was younger. The original rifling Twist on the prototype rifle, if memory serves me correctly was one in 12. Which was more than adequate for the Range the rifle is intended to be used at. It quickly was made to 1 to 10, and 1 to 9. Even 1 and 7 so you can shoot heavier bullets that are more stable, so you can reach out and poke holes in people but not actually cause any incapacitating wounds. There have been reports from the field of the round being able to go through people but not slow them down to any extent. But that's another story. When the rifles were finally filled in Iraq and afghanistan, they quickly found that putting oil on the firearm Garage sand. Sand creates jacking, and quickly the rifle is out of specification and stops working requiring consistent cleaning of the rifle. Because it has no place for the dirt to go that doesn't impede operations. You've ever worked in the desert, you know exactly that sand is seemingly capable of getting through even what is otherwise considered airtight orifices. Stoppages in 2008 or 9 of the M4 and M16 were somewhere around one stoppage and 260 rounds or so. I tried to tell everybody I knew that was headed there to get some cans of dry Teflon lube and spray their weapon and leave it the hell alone after you clean it you spray it down again. You do not put oil on firearms that are exposed to sand. I don't know how many of them listen to me but I do know that a few did. By the way, just so you know, the 308 is technically an intermediate round. One of the reasons they made the 308 is precisely because it was a shortened 30-06. Making it fit the standard for an intermediate round. Which is how they voiced it on many countries that didn't like it have they adopted the 280 cartridge for the fal and use the fal like they should have, the story would have been completely different B AR-15 would have been the specialty rifle it was intended to be, nice fine rifle. I qualified expert Marksman in basic training with a 604 m16. Are fired expert Marksman the last time I qualified with it and that was with a 15 mph wind in my face at 8 Below Zero and I fired right and left Post in full auto and still shot expert Marksman. A wonderfully accurate rifle. The very first are pattern rifle I ever bought on my own was a Ruger sr-762. A little bit heavy, not bad recoil control, not nearly as nice as my FAL that I had purchased because I was on the list to go to Iraq in 2008. But it was a gun that was specifically cut for use of desert. In the advantage to it is that Ruger had tested the firearm to 25,000 rounds without cleaning and without malfunction before they would release it. They did have a few that had a problem with a misaligned bolt carrier group, in the 2000 serial number range, but those were quickly addressed. I would like to get one of the 308 Lars that they make, I understand that that's a pretty nice rifle, even though, with its muzzle brake it's a bit loud.
One myth I've heard a few times, including from my Dad who was in Vietnam in 1965, was that the VC could use M16 ammunition in their AKs, but GIs couldn't fire AK ammunition in their M16s. The implication there was that they shouldn't leave any ammo just laying around (which now makes me wonder if someone in the chain of command didn't start that rumor to serve exactly that purpose). Anyhow... Clearly we all know better these days, but I'm positive my Dad (and others) didn't just make it up for fun. I have to think somewhere, at some point, "something" in 30 caliber may have been close enough for "something" like that to be realistic, then the rumor just got twisted as the Americans played the telephone game all over Vietnam. Anyhow... I'd be curious to know the origin of it if anyone has an idea.
The cia I think would leave sabotaged ammo for the views and terrorist groups modern day. Idk how much good ammo they gave out before one double loaded round would appear to explode the enemy ak
Is it Possible they would gather the ammo for reloading into Ak? Powder could be refused and brass is expensive maybe bullets could be crushed and reused as well?
My dad never had a problem with his M16 in Vietnam during 1971. He never saw combat, but he and the guys on the hill shot their rifles probably every week in their free fire zone.
I met a very early Vietnam, SOG guy before the SOG was even started, he was in Vietnam as a Military Advisor, in the 1950's ! Before the M16, they had the very first of the AR15's. I can't remember if he personally bought them or how they were there doing" missionary work" , but they had the 1 in 14 inch twist rifle barrels. He described in details the effects of the new ammo and rifles, and how great the wounding effects was greater than the M1 with 30,06 ammo that would pass right straight through with a 30 cal entrance and exit wound of the smaller size statue of the enemies there. However to contrast the M1 with the new AR15 , he told me it appeared to create three holes! , one small hole going in and two large holes coming out as its wounding effects was incredible , and the bullets would go in one place and come out someplace else as it would break apart and violently upset or tumbling creating instant incapacitation. Don't get me wrong he said, the M1 would definitely kill, it was just that it didn't always produce instant incapacitating wounding effects, as the enemies could still move around for a moment after being hit, and it was especially true of the M1 carbine and its 30.cal wounding effects which they had used alot of them and issued them to friendly forces. I believe he told me that he was in Vietnam during the Korean War even, back in 1953 and mentioned he was there during the attack on the French and told me about listening to raido transmissions while a French outpost was being overran. He showed me photos of himself and his buddy wearing white tropical shorts and hawian looking white shirts like he was on vacation there! lol Doing Missionary Work! lol.
Wow! Makes sense but I was told in boot camp that it was designed to cause injury but I always wondered why I was shooting expert if the bullet tumbled at 500 meters. Also,it made a clean hole in the target, even at 500 meters.
I once got into an argument with a buddy's dad in highschool who was in the navy and I think he said he was at the time a seal, could be wrong about that, any who he stated, -" it was designed to wound not kill" and told him no and we just went back and forth on the topic until i gave up. At some point we got talking about the hk416 and he said he'd never heard of it and stated, "you play too many video games bc it's probably not real". Still confused to this day about this conversation I had in 2014
If someone claims there a navy seal during the 2010s but dont know what the 416 is i cant imagine there telling the truth. My 2014 the 416 was one of the seals go to rifles
Prior to my service I worked in a factory that made barrels for various firearm companies. Colt m16 barrels had a large spec variation compared to other companies. My army experience 1970, found m16 to be prone to jamming regardless of how much you cleaned it. Also way under powered for jungle battle.
I wonder if the self cleaning bit came from how its gas venting will push dirt out of the action like in a mud test. Real easy for something like that to get lost in translation
I think that is precisely the issue. The gas vents on the side of the bcg have a tendency to clear debris from the ejection port everytime the rifle fires, and someone probably commented on that with a turn of phrase like "The rifle is self-cleaning". And the DoD was all too happy to use that utterance to save money by then not issuing cleaning kits. There is a more nefarious explanation though, and I do lend this at least some credence. The people at the Springfield Armory gi arsenal wanted the M16 to fail (because it was a commercial gun that had replaced their M14). They and their friends in the DoD likely knew that the change in powder had increased the rate of fire to unacceptable levels, that the lack of chrome chambers would be an issue, and that of course it needed a cleaning kit. When a congressional inquiry was launched to find out why the M16 was failing in Vietnam, they said this was result criminal negligence, if not outright conspiratorial sabotage. They never could find out who specifically was to blame, though.
In my time in the USAF I carried the A2 variant and then the GAU 5P. I loved the GAU, armorers told me it was inherently inaccurate because of the shorter Barrel. I qualified semi-annually placing 100 rds, at 100 yards in the 9 and 10 ring! Before the military I had been shooting since I was 12 and at 50 cents a box for 22 LR we made every shot count. I spent 15 years, 8 months and 6 days in the service. The last time I qualified we went to the range with a Lt. from AGE and he bragged he could outshoot any SP alive. During course of fire I was two targets past his and he looked at everyones target to his but not past. After we cleaned our weapons they announced scores. His was announced at 95 hits and he beamed and bragged he was the best. When they came to my score they said 99, but the last shot likely went through a ragged hole, he didn’t say a word after that all the way back. That was 1990. I can’t shoot that well anymore at 73. Most of the men and women I served with shot 85 and 90’s and I wouldn’t want to be in a firefight against them! Thank God for all who served, all who gave all and those still serving!
In 1974 I bought my first Colt AR15 $310.00. In 1979 I joined the Army. So I am pretty familiar with the AR, I am 65 today. The Mattel thing was to ridicule the rifle (plastic) then it was called the "Meat Axe" because of the wounding. The 55grn bullet was dubbed "Inhumane" so they went with the heavier 62grn bullet. I own many firearms and several are the AR types. It is my go to (primary) weapon. Secondary would be the 1911 45acp, which I own several of. Both have served me well through out my life and I am very confident with both. Enjoy your new and improved weapons of today and I will just be happy with the tried and true (proven) Just pass on to future generations the right to bare arms! :)
I think the "File down the firing pin to make it full auto" is maybe an old gun store trick for when the hoodlums come in asking how to full auto questions 😂
I was skeptical in boot camp because of all the rumors surrounding the M16. My brother hated the M4. But the M16 quickly earned my trust. I qualified expert with an A2 that was older than I was, and showed it. In SOI and as a fleet Marine, I was introduced to the A4, and it was simply a fantastic rifle. Now I ust sort of roll my eyes when I hear these rumors repeated about the M16, because there is no other rifle I would rather run towards gunfire with than an M16A4.
Don't forget the change from the triangular handguard to the round on the A2 and the evolution of the flash hider - 3-prong to birdcage to closed bottom birdcage.
My ffl ar blew up because he used some crappy bubba loads he bought from a gunshow.. entire reciever exploded. Damn bubba must have triple charged it with tnt
When I went through Army basic at Ft Benning in the mid 80s, I was issued an older Colt with slick side lower. It had been hand stamped “M16A1” over the old markings. I had trouble in the manual of arms and inspection arms trying to close the ejection port cover, as it was flat against the receiver. After getting yelled at by my drill sgt a couple times, I put some tape on the cover to give enough gap for me to close it. I loved that rifle. There’s just something about those triangular handguards and the buttstock with the trapdoor, and the forward assist. Every time I fired it, I never had any malfunctions of any kind. We were still using the old 20rd magazines at the time. It was just a great rifle. I never saw an A2 while I was in the Army, and we were still using the A1 when I got out in the early 90s.
My dad's original M16 was a Colt with a pitted barrel. The barrel overheated and drooped to it was replaced with a General Motors M16. While he was in Vietnam 1970-71.
actually the armalite has seen battle in mindanao in the philippines in the 1970s..the army has always complained about its over heating the barrel when used in battle in jungle its range reduced ..so the M 14 was prefered in jungle warrfare ..now its barrel is very different from the pasts..
The barrel was overheating because they were likely blasting away on full auto. That is the easiest way to overheat a rifle barrel. Same with the M14 had it had auto capability.
I've heard using old gunpowder over-pressurized the gas operation of the M16, causing the bolt to slam too hard upon closing and thereby bounce, causing the rifle to jam. The solution was to put a sliding counterweight into the bolt, which slams forward, prevents the bolt from bouncing, and thus avoids jamming regardless of which gunpowder is used.
1.) If you rest the magazine on the ground when prone, you will induce a malfunction. 2.) You should only load 28 rounds. If you put 30 rounds in the 30-round magazine, calamity will ensue.
My understanding is the reason some teach the 28 round is because it can be hard to seat on a closed bolt with the full 30. I really haven’t attempted it myself to know but I’ve never heard total calamity as an argument
There will always be stories about how deficient a firearm was in combat. That is why if you simply look for the proven information available, you will be miles ahead of the story tellers.
I have heard most of those myths but the one about Matel was slightly different. Some of the old guys I served with said the handguards on some of their Vietnam era M16s were made by Matel. NOT the entire gun just some of the plastic parts. Since we know the Government goes with lowest bidder for parts that made this version of the Matel myth more believable.
I have seen pics before of Matel embossed stock or handguard, (don't remember which) this was probably 45 years ago. before photoshop or any altering programs existed. I find it equally possible they had a gov. contract (that was quickly ended due to WTF complaints) or this was a pic of a toy rifle part claiming to be actual.
When I was in basic training at Ft Sill Ok. the M16 I was issued had hand guards made by Mattel the reason I remember this because it was so odd, what is a toy company doing making military equipment.
I think Mattel came from the plastic on the gun. When I was in we still had some senior enlisted qualifying with the A1. They said when they got it they thought it looked like Mattel made it because of the plastic. They went from the M14 to a rifle with plastic on it so they thought of Mattel.
The M16 (as a specific model) and AR15 (as a specific model) are different guns. There are millions of such M16s and about 20 of such AR15s (all made by Armalite, all were select fire as Armalite designed the AR15 for a military role). As a family of rifles, that Armalite design has spawned many variations - some are still select fire, like the M16, some are semiautomatic only variants. However, the AR15 was originally envisioned as and produced as a select fire rifle, and pretending that didn't happen because it hurts one's feelings for some reason is very weird. To your video more directly, the M16A1 wasn't a follow on to the M16, they were contemporaries - the M16A1 was the Army's configuration, the M16 was the Air Force's. The M16A1 didn't replace the M16, contrary to popular belief.
@IvanPrintsGuns really where did you get your information? the M16A1 is an improved M16 and the AR-15 is the same rifle design.. the AR-15 is a miniaturized AR-10. if i remember right the rifle i was issues in Germany had 'colt AR-15/ m16A1' stamped on the lower receiver. if you have ever watched a video taken during combat in viet nam you will see army personnel using the M-16 with the open end flash suppressors, yes the M16A1 is a replacement for the M-16.
Colt 601s and 602s were AR-15s. The Colt 603 M16A1and 604 USAF M16 came after the 601 & 602. If I recall correctly, the original 1962 USAF contract was for AR-15s, which were 601 Green Rifles with chromed BCGs, triangle charge handles, 1/14 twist, slabside lowers with removable pivot pin, 3-prong flash hiders, 601 uppers with the different rear sight markings and a hole for the ejection port door spring tail.
When I was drafted into the army in 1972, I was issued an A1 M16 and it never let me down. I loved that rifle! I am glad someone is dispelling all the total BS some folks are spewing!
Carried one in Vietnam my whole tour keep it clean and maintained. Never had a malfunction. Take care of your tools and they will take care of you.
I make no claim to any Military service but a friend was regular Infantry in Viet Nam and that's exactly what he said. He said fire several mags through it to break it in and then clean it and take care of it and it was in his words "A good weapon".
You had to clean it at Fort Polk Louisiana. They should have tested it there but The Air Force didn't have a place like Tigerland to test it.
Mine operated flawlessly during my military stint.
My father did the same with his M16. He grew up shooting and it was just common sense for him to keep his weapon clean. He taught me and my younger brother to shoot almost as soon as we could hold a gun.
A friend of mine who was there in '67-'68 lubed his with G.I. bug repellant. Never had a problem..
I once argued with a former Army soldier about his statement that "The bullet from an M16 starts to tumble as soon as it leaves the barrel.". I said "If it did that, which is impossible, you wouldn't be able to hit the side of a continent with it!" He INSISTED that it did because his drill instructor told him it did. I said, "Either you misunderstood what he said, or he was an idiot." BUT, since I wasn't a veteran, I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about. Sometimes you just have to shrug your shoulders and walk away.
It happens sometimes at 100 yards but not often. Ak union got his to tumble once every 5 shots
High profile not these modern 1/7 . Early 70’s anti war studies show it tumbel’s 💥effect vs AK 7,62 is 🚄good because peaceful communist’s carry it😂
I recently saw a news report on one of the networks where an ER doctor stated the very same false claim. That the “AR15 bullet” isn’t designed to shoot like other rifles, it’s designed to tumble to cause “maximum” damage.
I've had the same happen with a buddy of mine who did 2 tours to Iraq he insisted that with the 50 caliber rifle you could tear arms off at distance even if you missed.
I had to sit with him and make him watch the 50cal vs house of cards video from Demolition ranch, and still after seeing the proof he said "yeah but those ain't military rounds"
Some people just believe what they want to believe because reality is often kinda boring.
@@jason200912that's a twist rate issue, either use lighter bullets or get a barrel with a faster twist rate.
I remember in 1991 at Ft Benning in Infantry school we qualified with M16A2's after that we were given M16A1's for advanced marksmanship (Infantry AIT) We went to the range one day and the drill Sergeants cancelled it because they they sent us M855 instead of M193. We asked why and they told us that the A1 would not shoot the M855 because of the rate of twist difference in the barrel. ( my M16A1 was an H&R build one which was neat). I am glad they knew that. 10+years later I was in a National Guard Aviation Unit and we still had M16A1's and we were sent M855 (Green tip) and I was a range NCO and unit armorer. I just went to the Commander and shut it down. He did not believe me, so I shot 10 rounds at a 50 yard target and 75% key holed and they were all over the target. +1 for the NCO that knows his shit +2 for the Commanding Officer that listened to the NCO!
Same here Battle, I too did the same thing. From the ranges of FT McCoy (Wisconsin), FT Dix (now called Joint Base McGuire, Dix, Lakehurst, New Jersey) to Camp Blanding ( now called Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida). They said teach the standards, I did that also the reality. I told them I’m a gunsmith/sales clerk in my local town gun shop.
That’s what good officers do.
HOOAAHH!!!
I did basic in 87 at Benning same thing A2's for qualifying then switch to A1's loved both shot great
When I was in the Reserves our entire platoon had issues qualifying with our A2s because they had us use leftover rounds meant for the A1. Don’t listen to the soldiers tho, what do we know, right? 3/4 of the platoon ended up qualifying on the simulator. 😅
My dad was in the military 23 years and did 2 tours in Vietnam. He used the M1, M14 and M16 and said he loved the M16. The only complaint I ever heard about it was the short barrel variants would jam a lot but guys would still use them to look cool😆
My dad told me a story about how he went to basic and learned on the m14 then got to Nam and was given an m16 with zero instruction and got into a fire fight on his first patrol. He said he ran out of ammo and had to scavenge for an extra couple of mags. After that he said he loved the m16 because of how much more ammo he could carry.
He was Army 1st infantry division, 1968
Big red 1
I think that was probably a major part of the reliability problem. Soldiers were trained to clean one weapon, and then issued an entirely different one. Imagine early on, with no institutional knowledge on the M16, how dirty those star chambers must have been.
I remember the many hours of rifle cleaning after a day on the range. Our armorers would not take back your rifle until they could swab it anywhere and get a still white, clean q-tip back. During my service it was M-16 A1 then A2. With both I shot low 230s on the 500m ranges (rifle expert) but I lost a couple points on the A2 due its very variable trigger pulls depending on where it was on the 3 round burst cam. I eventually learned to cycle twice between shots on the range to get only the light pull trigger action for the best results.
Good job Tim, I heard all the wives tales too. Prayers for Paul Harrell as well.
what's up with pual harrell?
@@investigativeoutcomes9343 Pancreatic cancer.
@@investigativeoutcomes9343 He's not doing well. He's handed over his channel pretty much to his brother. Problem with pancreatic cancer is it shows no symptoms until it's become advanced and the 5 year survival rate is very low.
my mom died of pancreatic cancer@@jd9119, it is a horrible way to go.
When I was drafted in 1968, my knowledge of weapons was limited to a bolt action .22 and a single-barrel shotgun. Then I was introduced to the M14 in training and later the M-16, M79, and the M60 light machine gun. During my year in South Vietnam, I never had a problem with the M16. It was only a few decades later I started hearing stories about how terrible the M16 was. For a while, I started to believe some of the lies. Thank you for setting the record straight.
The problems were actually real, sadly the blame- "operator error" was misplaced on the tool.
It's a poor carpenter that blames his tools.😢
The thing was you came in three years after the problems were fixed.
@@brianmead7556 True, I was fortunate to arrive much later in RVN but let's look at the larger problem that cause all these deaths. First, decisions come from the top down. What General or bureaucrat decided to use ball powder over the specified powder for the 5.56 cartridge? Who was the general who told his troops there was no need to clean their M-16s? I'm sure in both these situations, nothing ever happened to these individuals.
People forget that the AK had been out a whole before Vietnam. The initial rifle was stamped but they switched to milled because the rivits and shit were failing. I'm not sure why ppl think the AR was supposed to just run. Especially with all the push back the military gave Armalite then colt.
Hate to tell you this, MAC (and tbh, I'm shocked you don't know this), *Mattel did indeed make a host of VERY RELIABLE M-16s!*
Mine came from Rose's department store in Burlington, NC, purchased by my mom in about 1976 - Think I was seven years old...
Every single time I pulled the trigger, it made that satisfying "machine gun sound!"
Never left me in the lurch, ever - Think I had a "German Luger" water gun that was the same way, fwiw
*smirk😏
ROTFLMFAO! I think we had one too, from the Sears Christmas catalog. They sure got around the 1968 regulations. The funny thing is decades from now something will happen and only the first sentence of your post will survive, and the less intelligent of the species will use that as "proof".
Your point about other manufacturers making firearms is very true. At one point the Singer Sewing Machine company produced 1911 pistols (which are quite valuable if you can find one).
I was in-country 1967-68 w/the 196th LIB (later Americal Division). We trained on M-14's in Benning (Basic). I had been in in ROTC in college - M-1 Garand. I experienced no problems with the M-16 itself, and you could carry a full ammo complement of 300 rounds except for one thing: magazine springs. We loaded those 20-round mags to 17 rounds because, if you loaded 20, and didn't use it right away, that weak spring would cause an FTF. So the only problem I encountered was in the magazines. But, yeah, that gas tube getting clogged could present a problem. The piece had to be cleaned regularly just like every firearm I was ever issued. Thanks for the video!
I read letters from my dad to my Grandma asking for her to have my Grandfather get a 22 cal cleaning kit for his M16. I also remember him talking about the guys over there believing that the M16 was a self cleaning weapon. So that’s definitely something that is true. Well my dad was obviously smart enough to understand his gun needed to be cleaned. My dad never had anything bad to say about his M16. He also liked the weapon so much so he decided to get me one in 1999 2000 I can’t remember exactly what year. I just know I had one a year or so before he passed away. Well since I was one of very few even that late in time. I remember people telling me that BS lie about filling down the firing pin. And I can see how some one who didn’t own one could believe that. But since I owned one and was constantly looking at it and taking it down to just put it back together. I knew that made zero sense as a matter of fact I remember sitting in the kitchen looking at the BCG and thinking. No all that’s going to happen is I’m going ruin my firing pin. Also you had people that would say if you file a part off the trigger it would go full auto. And again I remember thinking if that part is filed off the hammer it’s just gonna follow the bolt home essentially ruining the gun. Eventually I realized the government isn’t going to add something to a weapon to stop it from being able to go full auto. What they did was take away a bunch of parts. Hence the 3 hole and Colt Match TARGET 2’s don’t have a 3rd hole. Actually my rifle has not only parts taken away but it in fact has all kinds of other stuff done to it to prevent it from EVER being full auto. Colt made sure those rifles and ones like it would NEVER be able to run a full auto burst EVER. Lol I still have my gift from my dad. And even though it’s a completely neutered husk of a what you can say looks like a M16. It’s still my favorite because of its sentimental value. That rifle was the last thing my dad ever got for me. So it holds a special place in my heart.
If you accidentally put a piece of wire and bend in a funny way behind the trigger it will shoot full auto
Never happened 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@markrichards7452 Well, the tech guys AFT tried it with a piece of metal, but never really managed to transform a semi into a real full auto.
#freeMattHoover #CRSfirearms
@@markrichards7452 With a Colt SP1 or SP2, that wouldn't work
I have an old, police trade-in Colt LE-6920 that has a lot of those neutered features. Kinda sucks, but I just source Colt Sporter specific parts for it and it works amazingly and it's seriously the smoothest AR-15 I've ever had! Just because it's an old Colt doesn't mean it's not still an amazing rifle!
Eugene Stoner was a genius in small arms design and development. So ahead of the times.
In 2005 or 06 I helped instruct a NG unit that had been activated and was going through training to deploy. One of it's tasks was combat rifle shooting. Moving and firing etc but first we needed to make sure that all them members of unit were proficient in just marksmanship. The group I was with was familiar with how US Army units maintained rifles, so the first thing we did at 0800 hrs in class was have them disassemble the rifle down to bolt and bolt carrier. No firing pin or or retaining pin. We then had them hold it by the bolt and lift it off the table with bolt carrier still hanging from it. Any bolt carriers that fell off the bolt had new gas rings installed, this was over 80%. After we did this, the inside of bolt carrier was lubed and light oil to all the moving parts. We then went out to firing range. No issues that day and instructed them on a field cleaning, cleaning chamber and bore and light drops of oil into carrier so gas rings weren't dry. We were doing 12 hour training days in an effort to get them going.
Next day again on range and all sorts of failure to feed , cycle etc. We were like wth? So we grabbed one snuffy Pvt who told us the NCO's had them completely remove all the oil from the bolt carrier and everywhere else to make it parade ground clean. We stopped the training had everyone relube the rifles and go on. This happened 3 days in a row, finally we told CO of the unit if he didn't stop his NCO from this peacetime clean and dry we would flunk his unit and they wouldn't deploy. As I understood it the CO and lead instructor met with the NCO's behind closed doors and read them the riot act. This finally got there attention and we were able to finish training without problems. We did advise, yes completely break down rifle and relube and clean when you have downtime, but in the middle of mission outside the FOB isn't the place. Boresnake and drops of oil into carrier will be just fine
Amen. 444
The bolt will not fall out of the carrier unless the cotter pin is removed!
Chroming the barrel is a pretty significant change that made a huge difference.
I have a quote from the official Report of the m16s failures in Vietnam. The report is called “Report of the M16 Review Panel” from June 1968. The quote, I think, shows how negligent the US Government was.
Page 191 reads “The requirement for a chamber brush identified by the USAF marksmanship unit and the weapon designer. This information was given to HQ USACDC and HQ USAMC by the project manager, Rifles on June 3, 1963. A contract wasn’t awarded for procurement until 10 May 1966. As of February 1968, all riflemen in Vietnam have still not been issued a chamber brush even though adequate stocks were available in theater.”
Reading this quote tells me many things.
1. The need for cleaning kits was acknowledged by the designers of the m16.
2. That the military was informed of this in 1963 (before it was even adopted).
3. Even after being informed of this, it still took them almost 3 years to issue a contract for major parts of the m16 cleaning kits
4. Even when these cleaning kits were available in Vietnam, the US Government still failed to issue complete cleaning kit to the troops.
The Government is 100% to blame.
That's unreal but also totally par for the course when it comes to government
At this point I'd borderline blame espionage
You’re totally off on this. The congressional report on this subject specifically names the ordinance board of the army as the entity responsible. The reason they issued the wrong powder and no cleaning kits was due to the traditionalists in the ordnance board. Who didn’t want to switch to a new rifle. They still wanted to maintain the m14
Please do your research and stop blaming “the government”. Whatever that means. Blame specific people or organizations in the government. In fact, the only reason we know any of this is due to a congressional committee on the subject
@@Rokaize The ordinance board of the US Army is apart of the Government. So Im 100% right in blaming the Government.
@@Rokaize so..... it was the government then......
One of the problems was when the ammo was loaded with ball powder with 3 1/2 % calcium carbonate as a stabilizer it left a LOT of fouling throughout the gas system in the HUMID climate of Viet Nam..cutting the content to 1 1/2 % stopped that problem...
The "ball powder" was made from recycled powder as well, which was old, dirty stuff. As Eugene Stoner tells it, the change to IMR powder (what was supposed to be used) fixed it.
Stateside early1970s. Every M16A1 I was issued was a GM Hydra-matic manufactured. Nothing really strange about that because they were also the primary manufacturer of the M3 Submachine Gun.
1911A1s were manufactured by numerous businesses, their machines converted to wartime use.
And my quest for a Singer Sewing Machine manufactured 1911A1 continues.
" they were also the primary manufacturer of the M3 Submachine Gun." Well, actually... That was GM's Guide Lamp division
@@monteharrison1478 Exactly. I was just going to post that. They also made the FP-45 Liberator pistol, designated Flare Projector Caliber .45, to hide the fact from spies that a pistol was being mass-produced. GM was a MAJOR part of the arsenal of victory in WWII. The factory I worked at built tanks and tank destroyers before they made Buicks. The original M3s cost $30 to replace, and when stockpiles ran out, it cost $60 to replace them with an M3A1, when one of the 40 year old guns was destroyed. That was in the mid '80s, and one time an armorer brought a grease gun and M1911A1 in for me to "fix". They were both caught between the turret and hull of an M60A3 tank when the turret was traversed. Pay attention, and stow your gear properly or sh** happens! I inspected them both, noting everything broken, bent, or missing. When I turned in my paperwork, the armorer took them for a Direct eXchange wherever they got new guns from. This was in Germany and the division was spread out over several states, and we didn't DX anything there on the spot. I think they had to go to division headquarters. I don't recall ever seeing a Singer 1911 other than in a museum, but saw a few Remingtonn-Rand and US&S stamped guns. Remingtonn-Rand made typewriters, and Union Switch & Signal made railroad signals and switching gear. I saw at least one Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Mfg. M2 .50 cal, but over 99% of them I saw were made by A.C. Spark Plug in Flint, MI. A guy in my high school class' mom worked on them, and a bunch of little old ladies were blasting away with .50 cals in the basement to make sure they worked.
@@monteharrison1478 I was in a Armored Cav. unit every M3 we had said GM Guide Lamp Div.
I had a M-16 A1 in the early to mid 70's while in the A.F., qualified as a marksman while in training, an was volunteered as augmented Sec. Police while I was in. Never had a problem with mine, an it ran flawlessly, loved it, still do. Heard all this B. S. while I was in, but worked with some Sargents who had served over there ( VEITNAM ) an they confirmed that it did jam in the early yrs due to the problems that we all know about. They did keep a cleaning rod taped to their rifle as they knew it would happen. But with the right components, bullets, powder etc. Ran like a swiss watch for me, don't know how many rounds I put thru mine, but it was alot. I hung out with some of the base armorers at the armory, an they showed me alot of things about them. An for the record, MATTEL did make a plastic rifle ( TOY M-16 ) . So thats maybe where that rumour came from. A friend of mine has one in a glass case hanging on his wall in his game room, along with the Scarface movie poster as a backdrop, really cool to look at, an yes its a plastic MATTEL M-16 A1, probably made either in the early 80's or 70's or the late 60's. I remember seeing them for sale to kids before everybody got all woke an sensitve, an easily offended. An yes I'm an a old goat from that time frame, Thx for the vid Mac
As an Army retiree, (25.5 Years) I joined in 1975 and retired in 2001! I have heard everyone of these myths and the Idea that the M16 was self-cleaning was in fact perpetuated by Colt! I saw MANY tags on M16's in Warehouse storage! In 1977 they were still attached and dept of the Army sent out a MOD. to all Armours to "remove and destroy those tags!
Sir, thank you for your service and the great info!
Great history lesson and mystery buster. The M-16, M-4 and AR-15 are America's rifle!
It absolutely did come from Colt (who of course were talking about the gas tube and avoiding mentioning the cleaning needed for the rest of the weapon) and the US military failed to address the myth. So it's a "real" myth in the sense that it had a real effect on the early reliability of the weapon.
What's funny is that MAC, in recent history, said he didn't oil his AR's because the carbon would do all of the oiling chores . That the graphite was the cleaning agent from the powder . They need a small amount of oil . :)
My maternal Grandfather was part of the congressional delegation that travelled to Vietnam to determine what was behind the early issues with the rifle when first fielded. I guess they wanted a Marine involved to legitimize things. :o) In fact, I still have a number of trinkets he picked up during his time there hanging on my man cave wall today!
If I remember the story correctly, the biggest (by far) contributor to the problems was an unauthorized change in the propellent specification when full production began. Once that was corrected and soldiers were properly trained in maintenance the rifle came into its own.
Your analysis is consistent with that of a man that was on the ground at the time so good job!
The powder was authorized and even tested in limited numbers..
@@hairydogstail The powder originally approved was not the powder used in the early production runs. I'm not saying the problem power didn't receive approvals at some level.
You are correct, but the ball powder did go through limited testing and approval..@@douglaseuritt3919
77/81 I had no faith in m16a1 when I got I bought mini 14
Looking back probably them 20 round magazines
I served in a guard unit in Michigan in the early 80s, a lot of our guys were Vietnam vets who would jokingly referred to the m16 as the mini Mattel machine gun but none ever said it was made by Mattel.
The hand guards over the barrel were made by mattel. Injection molded plastics weren't much of a thing in those days and the only company that they could find to make the shrouds in large quanities was mattel.
In 2005, my M16A2 in infantry boot was stamped by the Singer Sewing Machine Co.
Correction. I meant to type M16A4. Basically the same damn thing with rails.
A great report . I was in country early in the 60's with an S F team. We really liked our M14's which could really reach out and touch someone . Shooting across a rice patty was no problem . After my three tours I came back and qualified for an Army rifle team . I spent the rest of my enlistment just shooting paper targets . A nice way to unwind from previous tours . We used the M14 .
Are rice patties like hamburger patties?
I was issued an XM16E1 in late March 1967. Don't tell a good Marine that he doesn't have to clean his weapon! I was issued a cleaning kit, a bottle of LSA and a clothes pin type bipod. It all fit into a pouch that clipped on to my belt. I cleaned and lubed my "Sweet 16" daily. It never failed me. For my second tour I was issued an M16A1, same rifle with the exception of having a different nomenclature and a birdcage flash suppressor instead of that awful trident piece of junk that got caught on every vine that came along. Both rifles served me well and kept me alive on occasion.
In the 70s when I was a kid I was told that the 5.56 bullet would kill you if it just passed by your head due to it's tumbling and the shock wave.
I had a friend who told me the 5.56 bullet was so light and fast that it would ricochet off of a leaf yet penetrate an engine block. Uh-huh.
oh yes, the 5.56 ANTO and the 5.545x39, that latrine parole hung arround for a long time, even in the 00s when I was in the military!
😂😂😂wtf
That's a new one. Some people think just because they heard something, it has to be true.
It's crucial to set the record straight and debunk the myths that have unfairly tarnished the reputation of such a reliable and versatile firearm.
Yeah but the AK’s rep is way more tarnished. 5.45 is superior to 7.62 imho
@@intuitivefugitive8852it was after that inrange video. Mind blown
@@intuitivefugitive8852 I disagree 7.62x39 is a short fat 30 caliber projectile that travels and energy transfer is about 50% greater than the long skinny 22 caliber 5.45x39. 90%+ of the time your target won’t be far away enough for 5.45 to really give you any benefit.
They tell you in the military it is meant to WOUND TO CAUSE THE ENEMY DRAW DOWN PERSONNEL TO EVACUATE WOUNDED MEN.
Yes it is crucial to set the record straight so let's start with the 1st falsehood Tim mentions. Anti gun media. There's no anti gun media, there's anti mass shooting media and if you've a problem with anti mass shooting media then your a monster. Secondly, the document Tim says does exist is called the Geneva convention. Combatants must be afforded every chance of surviving wounds in action. The additional resources needed to care for wounded soldiers instead of just grave detail is a by product.
Mattel did make an M16. I had one in 1966 or so (IIRC). It was a TOY, but it looked very close to the real deal and had a spring loaded charging handle that made the “machine gun sound”, and the red flame tip moved in and out. Loved it.
John Wayne smashed one into pieces against a tree in the movie," The Green Berets". You can tell it's a 1967 Mattel "Marauder Automatic Rifle" by the fact that it had an oversized magazine for the sound mechanism. Mattel's slogan: "You can tell it's Mattel....it's swell!"
I had one of those! Got it for Christmas in about 1972. I remember the box said "Air Force rifle"
Thanks so much for talking about these 'old wives' tales about the M-16. I carried one, it was a fine weapon.
Thanks Ken, and thanks for watching. I believe the M16 is the best infantry rifle of the 20th and 21st centuries.
In 1971 between my junior and senior year in college, I attended a six week ROTC training camp at Indiantown Gap Military Reservation 22 mils NE of Harrisburg Pa. During this time I was assigned an H&R manufactured M-16 rifle. This rifle did not have a forward assist on it, the bolt had a thumb groove on it so you could seat the bolt with your thumb. In field stripping the rifle, the handguards (which were triangle in shape) had stamped into the heat shields of both left & right insides of the handguards, the Mattel Toy Corporation Logo. Mattel was sub-contracted to make the handguards as H&R did not possess the machinery for working with extruded plastic But Mattel did. That is why the saying of "That Damn Mattel Toy!" came about. Also at one point n the movie "The Green Berets", John Wayne is seen breaking the but off a m-16 (Mattel M-16 Toy). Note unusual large size of magazine of the rifle, this held the shot sound unit and batteries. The fact that Mattel MADE M-16 parts is TRUE, but they did not make the working parts for it.
The so called thumb groove is for the trap door function..It was not meant to be a forward assist..
I always thought the ranges WWI rifles, and some pistols, were sighted for were insane. I get there was the idea of volley fire, but good job even seeing the target at the max range for those rifles.
Max engagement range with a iron sighted rifle is 400 meters
It makes more sense when you remember that modern mortars didn't exist and machine guns were in their infancy, so if you wanted so suppress an area and didn't have field artillery, long range rifle fire was the best option. That said I don't have any sources to support this idea so take it with a grain of salt.
Volley fire at those ranges were "hammer that area where the enemy formation is and give them something to think about". Most wars in Europe until WWI were rapid maneuver and massed formation affairs and it was mostly the same for colonial uprisings such as Rourke's Drift. The American Civil War in many battles showed what was to come, but the Great Powers of the era didn't pay attention and didn't think they'd get into such a meat-grinding slugfest.
20 years in the Corps and I heard many of these. As a Marine, I never heard the "self cleaning" one, that's for sure. Thanks Mac! Semper Fi.
I think my favorite myth is that it ever needed to be replaced. The 5.56 x 45 perhaps needed to be changed to something else, but the M16 and M4 are just too good at what they do and what they offer. France created the FAMAS in the late 70’s and they are replacing that with the HK 416 which is just a piston driven AR. Even though the IDF has created the Tavor and X95 in the 2000’s, every time I see them on TV, the vast majority of their soldiers are rocking an M4 or M16. I really do hope the M7 is all that it COULD be. But I just feel like when we look back even 50 years from now, we’re going to realize that those M16’s and M4’s gathering dust in a crate somewhere are still more than effective in combat.
A lot of those people you're seeing on TV are funding their military with US tax dollars, which typically also means that they're going to be using our equipment.
@@evenmoremax2540 I understand that. That being said, the Tavor and X95 were set out specifically to replace the M16 and M4’s in the IDF inventory because the IDF supposedly wasn’t happy with the performance of either one of them in certain conditions and thought they could do better. The Tavor has been in service with them since 2001 so the idea that they are STILL using the M16 and M4 in the quantities that they are is a testament that the claims they were making towards the M16 and M4 were clearly overblown. They have certainly have had enough time to replace them completely, if they wanted to, but haven’t.
@@roc5291 My point is that they're going to whine and cry and take our money and weapons no matter what else they try to say about them. These things can, and likely are, even related.
Smaller and mechanized units get the Tavor. Shortened M4s are issued to almost everybody, including reserves. Tavor and X95 is almost 2X the price of their M4. They pay for the M4s from financial assistance they get from the USA, but they can’t use that money for the Tavor. So they are basically getting the M4s for free and must spend their own money on the Tavor.
The X95 is a very good rifle
I recall a false rumor from the late '60s that the bullets were so inaccurate because they were deflected by leaves on the trees.
One other company that made M-16 Variants was FN... I did see the M16A1s made by TurboHydromatic (General Motors) and H&R while I was in service. I ran into one original M-16 that was still marked Colt AR-15 and remarked US Govt Property M-16. Another funny one was an M-16A2 that was converted from an M16A1 that was marked XM16-A2 that a soldier of mine had in Iraq in 2009. I had never seen that before.
I carried a FN M16A2 in Army basic training. It was brand new (the A2 had just been adopted). I was impressed with the build quality.
When I was in Iraq in 2009, I saw a TXARNG soldier sporting a Hydramatic M16A1 lower overstamped with the A2. The reason I spotted it was the finish of the lower was different than the finish of the upper.
Small world, I was in Balad, Iraq in 2009 with the Indiana Guard flying the "ring routes" moving people around in Black Hawks. I saw the same thing that one of our mechanics had a Colt M-16A1 lower remarked as XM16-A2.. Gray lower and black upper. .@@armynurseboy
@@hawkuser604 I was at Cp Cropper (the prison on Victory base at BIAP). We were exiting the TIF, so we were recovering our weapons from the gate shack (no firearms inside the wire). His rifle caught my eye because it looked so weird. Asked him if I could look at it really quick.
Been there many times.. nothing like flying around in Baghdad for hours on end breathing the wonderful burn pit fumes and smoke. The entire north side of Baghdad was an enormous trash burn pit if you did not get to see it. If you ever had a Hawk ride it was probably us.@@armynurseboy
Thanks MAC, I can never get enough m16 videos. For some reason, I can watch videos about the m16 all the time and still want more.
Thank you for this video. I get tired of all the lies and misconceptions I hear from the media and people.
The excitement you had just before introducing the furst wives tale is infectious and hikarious. Love it! Good video.
While I was at Benning in the 80's, a dude in my platoon was issued an M16A1 that was so old the black anodizing on the lower was nearly completely worn off. It was a Colt gun. The thing was silver lol.
The M16 is a fine, reliable, rugged weapon.
I was at Benning in 91 and we used A2's for BRM, but then got A1's that came in storage crates from god knows where. They were in all kinds of different conditions. One guy ended up with an original M-16.. no forward assist and marked Colt AR-15... US Property... M-16. Nobody could believe that thing slipped through the system without being modified after all those years. We had some that were marked the same, but were stamped after conversion to read M-16 then A1 MOD or just had A1 crudely stamped.
My brother’s rifle in the Airforce is an old “slab side” receiver. Likely, part of the first run.
I did basic at FLW in "72. We had worn out a1's. Mine had failures constantly. When I got to Germany, the first time I had to draw and sign for my rifle, I looked at the armorer and asked him, "when did they start making these black"?
@@hawkuser604 your buddies gun likely went out of the US to a friendly nation ... and then came back after all the guns in US inventory went through the upgrade phase lol remarkable indeed!
That is what the armorer thought as well the rifles came in non-US looking crates packed with 20-25 in each one and had a weird mix of parts. Some had A-2 grips, some had the original flash hider. etc. It took a whole day to clean the cosmoline out of them! @@Odessa45
Filing on the firing pin in order to get a full automatic rifle is the first time I've heard this rumor.
Whoever started that rumor must be a fed boi! Some duffus probably fudged his pin trying that! Lol that is hilarious!
A google search will show you the various discussions about the topic you can find online: www.google.com/search?q=filing+firing+pin+ar15+machine+gun&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS847US847&oq=filing+firing+pin+ar15+machine+gun&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORigATIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCDQxNjFqMGo5qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Interesting video, didn't realize the first M16s didn't have chrome lined barrel. No wonder they had issues in the jungle!
The amount of sabotage the army used against the AR-15 is absolutely wild. The guys upstairs really wanted that shitty old M14.
Read about how they sabotaged the FAL!
You're ignorant, the M-14 was way more reliable than that shitty little plastic Mattel toy. My unit had 180 brand new out of the crate, cleaned the cosmoline off of them and not one would fire! Not a fucking one.
Not the Army but the Ordnance Board in particular. It was a rifle that was not developed by them, was not made by a government armory.
@@panzerabwerkanone And they really loved the M14 because it's basically just a Garand. They were old men stuck in the past.
@@panzerabwerkanonethose Ordnance Board officers should have been court martialed for dereliction of duty and premeditated homicide for all the deaths their petty actions caused...
The irony is enemy soldiers thought of the M16 much in the way some people think about the AK. Accurate, rugged, reliable, more deadly. Even while all these early M16 issues were being addressed. It's why Russia developed 5.45×39mm.
Indeed. The NVA thought that we had some kind of "poison bullets" due to the temporary wound cavity created by the 5.56 bullet at 3000+ fps. They didn't understand the physics of why their soldiers would have such atrocious wounds from seemingly minor bullet hits.
@@life_of_riley88 M193 is nasty AF, when it hits soft tissue. Hit an arm, and the muscle hit gets pretty much stripped away.
@@careylymanjones Yeah, and when it's coming out of a 20" barrel it's nasty to around 300 yards. . .which is why I don't like the 14.5" M4. The switch to 62 grain projectiles was an attempt to get something for nothing. We should have gone back to a lightweight M16A1 style rifle and just stuck with M193. The average soldier can't even see well to 400+ yards anyway, I know I can't.
@@life_of_riley88 In places like Afghanistan, where long shots were more common, heavier bullets and fast twist barrels make sense. For close-in stuff, M193 from an old-school 1:12 or 1:14 barrel is nasty AF.
@@life_of_riley88 The M855 was developed specifically for the SAW as a light MG round. It was intentionally optimized for penetration, which it does very well. The reason why it was used with the M16 as well was for logistic simplicity.
MAC I’m not a ballistics expert by any stretch, but what I can say is I hunt deer with 450 bush and 556. The only deer I’ve ever dropped on the spot were with 556. Maybe lucky shot or a sissy deer, but in action, the 556 seems to rattle the cookies of its target.
My supervisor (millennial guy a few younger than me) seems to think nobody can legally hunt with an AR15. He uses a bolt-action .270 win to take deer and he made it sound like that's the smallest legal cartridge to kill deer.
@@erickolb8581 in KY you can hunt with any center fire cartridge
My dad was a platoon sergeant with the Big Red One in Lai Khe, Vietnam 1968-1969. He disliked the M16 so did many of the guys under him. As late as 1968 guys were still carrying M14's, M1 Carbines, a good AK47 . He even knew a few that carried Thompson Sub Machine Guns. To this day he still calls the M16 , " The Jam o matic."
one reason I've heard for the 1/7 twist is for the US 64gr tracer, apparently it won't stabilize in a lesser twist rate. i don't know if that's true or a myth but I've heard it more than once.
I'm also a firm believer in the DI system, it's been in use by our military for long enough and worth today's modern nickel boron and nitrided bolts and barrel extensions it's only gotten better
My favourite m16 variet is definitely the m16/ m16a1 from the Vietnam era
Just watched full metal jacket. What a switch from the M14 to the M16 in training to deployment.
My brother-in-law was telling me that he was in boot camp when the M16s first started showing up. He said he was jealous of the guys that got the M16 because it was so much lighter on the long hikes and runs. He also had to carry all that, much heavier.30 cal ammo.
My father, uncles and neighbors fathers and relatives worked at the GM Hydra-Matic plant in Ypsilanti, MI. I would work there myself many years later while working my way through college. But in early 1970's I knew several people who were taken off the transmission floor and moved to making M-16's. I didn't realize until watching your video that Hydra-Matic was a lesser known producer. In my circles growing up it was so common to know someone who worked in that department that it never occurred to me that they weren't one of the major producers. Especially knowing how many M1 Carbines were built by GM plants.
PS. this was also the same plant that produced B-24 bombers in WW II when it was owned by Ford.
I love your videos. They are so informative. Some stuff I already know going in, but in every video, I learn something I didn't know.
When I took my marksmanship in BCT, I had to do the pop ups with a non cycling M16 (bolt gun) 😂 I scored expert with it even having to charge it each squeeze. They then made me retest with another rifle because mine was malfunctioning. They hand me another one that I didn’t personally zero.. It shot way worse for me obviously and I only barely achieved Sharpshooter.. I got pissed off because all it needed was a new bolt dropped in. Lesson learned though and now I always have an extra complete bolt in my bag. I still hate seeing that Sharpshooter pinned to my uniform 🤦♂️ I got the shaft 😂 Had to share haha, Great video man!
Granted, my Dad didn't use one for long before he was issued a bloop tube, but the minute he could afford one later on, he got one. And he had done two tours right about the time the issues would have been starting to show. Obviously he didn't take issue with the thing. In fact, he never really said anything bad about it that I recall. I have heard the thing about it being plastic junk from at least one person who said he would have rather had an M14 because if he needed to pummel someone with the gun he wouldn't have needed to worry about it breaking. But if you're to the point of beating someone with the butt of the gun, something has probably gone very, very wrong anyway. Not that I would dare say it never happened, but I doubt it happened often enough to be a really valid concern. But I could be wrong, I don't know. I obviously wasn't there.
Just wanted to add: the unreliability of the AR is overstated, and the reliability of the AK is also overstated.
Thanks Tim possibly one of the best breakdowns of the AR-15 M16 family I grew up believing some of them myths but I have never stopped learning and thank you for teaching me more along with in it forgotten weapons Eric iv888 can't leave out Paul Harrell hope everybody has a little bit of love for him and best wishes with his medical condition
the first step in escaping an echo chamber is recognizing that you are within one
I bought my used Colt SP1 back in the mid 80. I guess I’ve put about 3000 rounds through it. I’ve only used ball ammo and have never had a failure of any kind. I think it’s a softer shooter than my Ruger 556.
The AKM had about 13 years to mature before faceing US Forces in Vietnam. The AR is so solid other NATO countries have been adopting them and replacing AKs in service.
The AK is primitive. Does it work for it's intended purpose, yes. And that's about it.
The simple manufacturing for the AKM is what makes it "special" they worked hard to produce a rifle with "unskilled" labor and basic machinery. The M16/AR15 needs more engineering to manufacture, today we appreciate the tight tolerances and consistent manufacturing that lead to parts interchangeability/ compatibility with a wide range of different brands. Thats why we can put them together in our garage
Thanks for bringing more “old wives tales” to the conversation. This video was for people for you. You would benefit from another video, but one made for an AK.
Sure helps when big daddy U.S. GIVES your country free M4's and M16's as well.
Even when a European country adopts a different rifle for their infantry, their special forces often choose to use an AR based platform instead.
The premise of your argument is correct, however, it was not Colt or Armalite who required the changes to chrome plating, powder, cleaning kits, etc….. It was the brass at the DOD, specifically McNamara, the war criminal, the tech geek, the traitor. The manufacturer did not agree with the changes, but were forced to go along
When I was in, 1982 to 93, I was issued both the A1 and then later the A2, never once had any trouble out of either rifle...
A wounded enemy can come back to fight another day. That should be avoided.
Combat troops also are not hindered with "taking care" of their wounded beyond initial first aid. Wounded are handed off to medical troops to evacuate and treat. Combat troops simply carry on their mission.
Enjoyed the video. I have heard many of these things myself. Thank you for setting the record straight.
100 years ask Browning, 75 years ask Kalishnikov, 60 years, definitely the AR/M4.
One aspect that caused the M16's to be a jam-o-matic, was at least in my era & my units, was the military's attitude that magazines were NOT disposable/ items that wear-out. Unless they were severely mangled, the troops had to live with what was issued. You can only re-adjust the mag feed lips so much. At least it provided a LOT of malfunction / immediate action practice. Fine for on the range, not fine when deployed. I'm so glad to see attitudes changing with that and also much more robust Pmags, etc being fielded.
...I've heard of the "wounding" aspect of firearms, but I have no idea if it was applied to the 5.56, or just bullets in general. But the concept of the enemy using resources to take care of their wounded soldier sounds really good on paper. ...Ballistically however, the 5.56 is really a devastating beast
It doesn't make sense at all. Armies factor in the logistics needed to take care of wounded. There are logistical tables that predict how many casualties you are expected to suffer in a said operation based on established models.....and they're actually fairly accurate. That's how the determine how many hospitals, MEDEVAC assets, Class VIII, etc they need to prepare before kicking an operation off. Even at the tactical level, combat troops don't get bogged down "taking care" of their casualties beyond initial first aid. They hand off their wounded to specialized troops who entire reason for existing is to take care of wounded soldiers. "Taking care" of wounded does nothing to combat effectiveness because combat troops don't do it.
I heard that Robert McNamara personally pissed down every barrel and crapped in every batch of powder for the ammo.
The "Mattel Toy" myth was so pervasive that it made it's way into Canada, where I live. So too was the myth about being designed to wound and not kill.
Seems like the 5.56 round was adopted because it was half the weight of the 7.62, but had enough power to do what it needed to do on the battlefield. So it wasn't that it was "designed" to wound and not kill, that was simply one of the side effects of the much lighter round, and like you said, the logistics of supplying and carrying ammo, especially after the switch to full auto capability, were serious issues. The idea that wounded people were more of a burden than dead is certainly true. "Commies" didn't want to die either, so they would do what they could to take care of the wounded so that others might do the same for them. On the battlefield if you get hit with a 5.56 round, you're pretty much as likely to need to get medevaced as if you got hit with the heavier 7.62. So wounded is as good as dead tactically and to some extent long-term as well.
Thanks, Tim for setting them straight
One of my favorite myths about the M-16 family is "they don't have the range of the M14!" Except that Army rates effective range on hit probability, and the A1 had the same effective range as the M14 and M1. The A2 pushed that out a hundred meters further, and even the M4 (with iron sights) has 50 meters on the M14.
Most folks can't even distinguish a target out past 300m. That's why firefights usually take place at 100m and less.
@@armynurseboy Unless you're ".22 man" on Garand Thumb, who can see a coke can at 700yds with the naked eye. LOL
Good video!! Retired Army with 30 years service. The M16A1, M16A2, M16A4 and the M4 ere the best Infantry rifle/carbine our military ever adopted. Everybody I know that served in the military now own at least one AR-15 or M4 carbine, but many will own several ARs since they know how it operates and it is designed to function in challenging environments. I purchased my first AR, a Colt AR-15A2 rifle, back in the the mid 1980s and since then, I’ve own several several Colt ARs/M4s since then. Plus, since the mid 1980s, at least one Colt AR has been part of my collection and that will never change since if I have to defend myself, I’m grabbing an AR!! I’ll admit that the first rifle I ever purchased back in the 1980s was a used HK-91, which I still have.
Although I think you have it a little bit twisted, you are generally correct. I grew up in that period of time and I was exposed to military from a sergeant that actually went through the introduction of the M16.
First of all, Mr Stoner had specifically stated that the rifle was purposely made for Recon work and security work. It was never intended, ever, to be a battle rifle. In its prototype phase it did not have a chrome line bore even though he knew it would need one. The reason it didn't get one is the problem was actually posed to Robert McNamara and he said if they intended for it to have one they would already have one on it so he insisted that it not get a chrome lined bore.
The Army brass who didn't particularly care for the firearm in the first place may very well have been complicit in this by not sending cleaning kits with the rifle. As for the powder snafu, the fact that they had suddenly started using this as their main battle device, the hi use of ammo created a lag of being able to produce the IMR powders. Winchester decided as a part of its structure to go ahead and start making the ammo with ball powder which, Not only was it dirtier, it also increased the cyclic rate in full auto buy somewhere in the neighborhood of about 70% or more. Having a partially aluminum and partially steel rifle in the wet conditions of Vietnam caused a galvanic action which would cause the aluminum to start to degrade quite quickly to top all of that off.
As for the intentions of the rifle, the 55 grain bullet that is barely stable will cause vicious wounds. Even in extremities. And that was an asset especially for the intended use of the rifle. I grew up about 4 MI from where Gene Stoner worked and met him a number of times when I was younger. The original rifling Twist on the prototype rifle, if memory serves me correctly was one in 12. Which was more than adequate for the Range the rifle is intended to be used at. It quickly was made to 1 to 10, and 1 to 9. Even 1 and 7 so you can shoot heavier bullets that are more stable, so you can reach out and poke holes in people but not actually cause any incapacitating wounds. There have been reports from the field of the round being able to go through people but not slow them down to any extent. But that's another story. When the rifles were finally filled in Iraq and afghanistan, they quickly found that putting oil on the firearm Garage sand. Sand creates jacking, and quickly the rifle is out of specification and stops working requiring consistent cleaning of the rifle. Because it has no place for the dirt to go that doesn't impede operations. You've ever worked in the desert, you know exactly that sand is seemingly capable of getting through even what is otherwise considered airtight orifices. Stoppages in 2008 or 9 of the M4 and M16 were somewhere around one stoppage and 260 rounds or so. I tried to tell everybody I knew that was headed there to get some cans of dry Teflon lube and spray their weapon and leave it the hell alone after you clean it you spray it down again. You do not put oil on firearms that are exposed to sand. I don't know how many of them listen to me but I do know that a few did.
By the way, just so you know, the 308 is technically an intermediate round. One of the reasons they made the 308 is precisely because it was a shortened 30-06. Making it fit the standard for an intermediate round. Which is how they voiced it on many countries that didn't like it have they adopted the 280 cartridge for the fal and use the fal like they should have, the story would have been completely different B AR-15 would have been the specialty rifle it was intended to be, nice fine rifle. I qualified expert Marksman in basic training with a 604 m16.
Are fired expert Marksman the last time I qualified with it and that was with a 15 mph wind in my face at 8 Below Zero and I fired right and left Post in full auto and still shot expert Marksman. A wonderfully accurate rifle.
The very first are pattern rifle I ever bought on my own was a Ruger sr-762. A little bit heavy, not bad recoil control, not nearly as nice as my FAL that I had purchased because I was on the list to go to Iraq in 2008. But it was a gun that was specifically cut for use of desert.
In the advantage to it is that Ruger had tested the firearm to 25,000 rounds without cleaning and without malfunction before they would release it.
They did have a few that had a problem with a misaligned bolt carrier group, in the 2000 serial number range, but those were quickly addressed. I would like to get one of the 308 Lars that they make, I understand that that's a pretty nice rifle, even though, with its muzzle brake it's a bit loud.
One myth I've heard a few times, including from my Dad who was in Vietnam in 1965, was that the VC could use M16 ammunition in their AKs, but GIs couldn't fire AK ammunition in their M16s. The implication there was that they shouldn't leave any ammo just laying around (which now makes me wonder if someone in the chain of command didn't start that rumor to serve exactly that purpose). Anyhow... Clearly we all know better these days, but I'm positive my Dad (and others) didn't just make it up for fun. I have to think somewhere, at some point, "something" in 30 caliber may have been close enough for "something" like that to be realistic, then the rumor just got twisted as the Americans played the telephone game all over Vietnam.
Anyhow... I'd be curious to know the origin of it if anyone has an idea.
The cia I think would leave sabotaged ammo for the views and terrorist groups modern day. Idk how much good ammo they gave out before one double loaded round would appear to explode the enemy ak
Diesel can be used in gasoline car
Is it Possible they would gather the ammo for reloading into Ak? Powder could be refused and brass is expensive maybe bullets could be crushed and reused as well?
@@paxdrago1 no its cheaper to just hand off the ammo along with an ak then to go through the recycling logistics
My dad never had a problem with his M16 in Vietnam during 1971. He never saw combat, but he and the guys on the hill shot their rifles probably every week in their free fire zone.
I met a very early Vietnam, SOG guy before the SOG was even started, he was in Vietnam as a Military Advisor, in the 1950's ! Before the M16, they had the very first of the AR15's. I can't remember if he personally bought them or how they were there doing" missionary work" , but they had the 1 in 14 inch twist rifle barrels. He described in details the effects of the new ammo and rifles, and how great the wounding effects was greater than the M1 with 30,06 ammo that would pass right straight through with a 30 cal entrance and exit wound of the smaller size statue of the enemies there. However to contrast the M1 with the new AR15 , he told me it appeared to create three holes! , one small hole going in and two large holes coming out as its wounding effects was incredible , and the bullets would go in one place and come out someplace else as it would break apart and violently upset or tumbling creating instant incapacitation. Don't get me wrong he said, the M1 would definitely kill, it was just that it didn't always produce instant incapacitating wounding effects, as the enemies could still move around for a moment after being hit, and it was especially true of the M1 carbine and its 30.cal wounding effects which they had used alot of them and issued them to friendly forces. I believe he told me that he was in Vietnam during the Korean War even, back in 1953 and mentioned he was there during the attack on the French and told me about listening to raido transmissions while a French outpost was being overran. He showed me photos of himself and his buddy wearing white tropical shorts and hawian looking white shirts like he was on vacation there! lol Doing Missionary Work! lol.
Wow! Makes sense but I was told in boot camp that it was designed to cause injury but I always wondered why I was shooting expert if the bullet tumbled at 500 meters. Also,it made a clean hole in the target, even at 500 meters.
I once got into an argument with a buddy's dad in highschool who was in the navy and I think he said he was at the time a seal, could be wrong about that, any who he stated, -" it was designed to wound not kill" and told him no and we just went back and forth on the topic until i gave up. At some point we got talking about the hk416 and he said he'd never heard of it and stated, "you play too many video games bc it's probably not real". Still confused to this day about this conversation I had in 2014
If someone claims there a navy seal during the 2010s but dont know what the 416 is i cant imagine there telling the truth. My 2014 the 416 was one of the seals go to rifles
The 3 contractors for M-16 production were Colt, Harrington & Richardson and GM hydramatic division.
Elisco for the philippines under lic of colt
@@arturojrosis8906 true, I should've stated I was referring to the Vietnam war specifically.
FNH made every M16A4 I ever saw in the USMC.
@@03Grunt-arrino yeah, FN snuck in a lower bid. At the time colt didn't care because they had a sole-source contract for the M4.
Prior to my service I worked in a factory that made barrels for various firearm companies. Colt m16 barrels had a large spec variation compared to other companies. My army experience 1970, found m16 to be prone to jamming regardless of how much you cleaned it. Also way under powered for jungle battle.
Great video Tim you set the story straight thanks
MAC: "Can you imagine a service rifle being in service for fifty plus years?"
Brown Bess Land Pattern Muskets: "yes"
I immediately thought Mosin-Nagant and Lee-Enfield, but that's a good one
I wonder if the self cleaning bit came from how its gas venting will push dirt out of the action like in a mud test. Real easy for something like that to get lost in translation
I think that is precisely the issue. The gas vents on the side of the bcg have a tendency to clear debris from the ejection port everytime the rifle fires, and someone probably commented on that with a turn of phrase like "The rifle is self-cleaning". And the DoD was all too happy to use that utterance to save money by then not issuing cleaning kits.
There is a more nefarious explanation though, and I do lend this at least some credence. The people at the Springfield Armory gi arsenal wanted the M16 to fail (because it was a commercial gun that had replaced their M14). They and their friends in the DoD likely knew that the change in powder had increased the rate of fire to unacceptable levels, that the lack of chrome chambers would be an issue, and that of course it needed a cleaning kit. When a congressional inquiry was launched to find out why the M16 was failing in Vietnam, they said this was result criminal negligence, if not outright conspiratorial sabotage. They never could find out who specifically was to blame, though.
In my time in the USAF I carried the A2 variant and then the GAU 5P. I loved the GAU, armorers told me it was inherently inaccurate because of the shorter Barrel. I qualified semi-annually placing 100 rds, at 100 yards in the 9 and 10 ring! Before the military I had been shooting since I was 12 and at 50 cents a box for 22 LR we made every shot count. I spent 15 years, 8 months and 6 days in the service. The last time I qualified we went to the range with a Lt. from AGE and he bragged he could outshoot any SP alive. During course of fire I was two targets past his and he looked at everyones target to his but not past. After we cleaned our weapons they announced scores. His was announced at 95 hits and he beamed and bragged he was the best. When they came to my score they said 99, but the last shot likely went through a ragged hole, he didn’t say a word after that all the way back. That was 1990. I can’t shoot that well anymore at 73. Most of the men and women I served with shot 85 and 90’s and I wouldn’t want to be in a firefight against them! Thank God for all who served, all who gave all and those still serving!
In 1974 I bought my first Colt AR15 $310.00. In 1979 I joined the Army. So I am pretty familiar with the AR, I am 65 today. The Mattel thing was to ridicule the rifle (plastic) then it was called the "Meat Axe" because of the wounding. The 55grn bullet was dubbed "Inhumane" so they went with the heavier 62grn bullet. I own many firearms and several are the AR types. It is my go to (primary) weapon. Secondary would be the 1911 45acp, which I own several of. Both have served me well through out my life and I am very confident with both. Enjoy your new and improved weapons of today and I will just be happy with the tried and true (proven) Just pass on to future generations the right to bare arms! :)
If Mattel had really made the AR15/ M16, I wish as a kid that i could have had one!
I did have their toy as a kid, they were great!
I think the "File down the firing pin to make it full auto" is maybe an old gun store trick for when the hoodlums come in asking how to full auto questions 😂
Never heard anything about filing down a firing pin, it's normally got something to do with filing down part of the sear to allow for full-auto.
My issued M16A1 in 1983 was a GM .Run like a champ.
I was skeptical in boot camp because of all the rumors surrounding the M16. My brother hated the M4. But the M16 quickly earned my trust. I qualified expert with an A2 that was older than I was, and showed it. In SOI and as a fleet Marine, I was introduced to the A4, and it was simply a fantastic rifle. Now I ust sort of roll my eyes when I hear these rumors repeated about the M16, because there is no other rifle I would rather run towards gunfire with than an M16A4.
Don't forget the change from the triangular handguard to the round on the A2 and the evolution of the flash hider - 3-prong to birdcage to closed bottom birdcage.
What about it? Are those "myths"?
@@skepticalbadger too busy trying to find details to nitpick rather than understand the context of the video.
Ammunition reloading will be MUCH more profitable than Gunsmithing in the next 2 years !
My ffl ar blew up because he used some crappy bubba loads he bought from a gunshow.. entire reciever exploded. Damn bubba must have triple charged it with tnt
OR he gave my ffl a 300 blkout mixed into the box
When I went through Army basic at Ft Benning in the mid 80s, I was issued an older Colt with slick side lower. It had been hand stamped “M16A1” over the old markings. I had trouble in the manual of arms and inspection arms trying to close the ejection port cover, as it was flat against the receiver. After getting yelled at by my drill sgt a couple times, I put some tape on the cover to give enough gap for me to close it. I loved that rifle. There’s just something about those triangular handguards and the buttstock with the trapdoor, and the forward assist. Every time I fired it, I never had any malfunctions of any kind. We were still using the old 20rd magazines at the time. It was just a great rifle. I never saw an A2 while I was in the Army, and we were still using the A1 when I got out in the early 90s.
Great information on the Modern Sporting Rifle MAC! The more we can get people informed, the better off our 2A will be in general, baby steps🙏🏼
My dad's original M16 was a Colt with a pitted barrel. The barrel overheated and drooped to it was replaced with a General Motors M16. While he was in Vietnam 1970-71.
actually the armalite has seen battle in mindanao in the philippines in the 1970s..the army has always complained about its over heating the barrel when used in battle in jungle its range reduced ..so the M 14 was prefered in jungle warrfare ..now its barrel is very different from the pasts..
The barrel was overheating because they were likely blasting away on full auto. That is the easiest way to overheat a rifle barrel. Same with the M14 had it had auto capability.
I've heard using old gunpowder over-pressurized the gas operation of the M16, causing the bolt to slam too hard upon closing and thereby bounce, causing the rifle to jam. The solution was to put a sliding counterweight into the bolt, which slams forward, prevents the bolt from bouncing, and thus avoids jamming regardless of which gunpowder is used.
1.) If you rest the magazine on the ground when prone, you will induce a malfunction. 2.) You should only load 28 rounds. If you put 30 rounds in the 30-round magazine, calamity will ensue.
Those are some pretty big wives' tales for sure
My understanding is the reason some teach the 28 round is because it can be hard to seat on a closed bolt with the full 30. I really haven’t attempted it myself to know but I’ve never heard total calamity as an argument
utube rules.
ua-cam.com/users/clipUgkxpREDVMdzEKPYSbNcGVn9Sfv82j5w3ROl?si=zbxCWJ1UVEkKVqcF
There will always be stories about how deficient a firearm was in combat. That is why if you simply look for the proven information available, you will be miles ahead of the story tellers.
I have heard most of those myths but the one about Matel was slightly different. Some of the old guys I served with said the handguards on some of their Vietnam era M16s were made by Matel. NOT the entire gun just some of the plastic parts. Since we know the Government goes with lowest bidder for parts that made this version of the Matel myth more believable.
I have seen pics before of Matel embossed stock or handguard, (don't remember which) this was probably 45 years ago. before photoshop or any altering programs existed. I find it equally possible they had a gov. contract (that was quickly ended due to WTF complaints) or this was a pic of a toy rifle part claiming to be actual.
Nope. Not even one.
When I was in basic training at Ft Sill Ok. the M16 I was issued had hand guards made by Mattel the reason I remember this because it was so odd, what is a toy company doing making military equipment.
I think Mattel came from the plastic on the gun. When I was in we still had some senior enlisted qualifying with the A1. They said when they got it they thought it looked like Mattel made it because of the plastic. They went from the M14 to a rifle with plastic on it so they thought of Mattel.
Great video,
Years ago, really at your inception into UA-cam I knew you were a gem.
I love Mac but Chris Bartocci (Small Arms Solutions) has pounded this hooker of a topic into submission - check out his videos on AR/M16/M4 history.
Or, hear from THE MAN himself. See the youtube video"The Eugene Stoner Tapes - Part 2: Problems with the M16 in Vietnam and the M16A2"
The M16 (as a specific model) and AR15 (as a specific model) are different guns. There are millions of such M16s and about 20 of such AR15s (all made by Armalite, all were select fire as Armalite designed the AR15 for a military role). As a family of rifles, that Armalite design has spawned many variations - some are still select fire, like the M16, some are semiautomatic only variants.
However, the AR15 was originally envisioned as and produced as a select fire rifle, and pretending that didn't happen because it hurts one's feelings for some reason is very weird.
To your video more directly, the M16A1 wasn't a follow on to the M16, they were contemporaries - the M16A1 was the Army's configuration, the M16 was the Air Force's. The M16A1 didn't replace the M16, contrary to popular belief.
@IvanPrintsGuns really where did you get your information? the M16A1 is an improved M16 and the AR-15 is the same rifle design.. the AR-15 is a miniaturized AR-10. if i remember right the rifle i was issues in Germany had 'colt AR-15/ m16A1' stamped on the lower receiver. if you have ever watched a video taken during combat in viet nam you will see army personnel using the M-16 with the open end flash suppressors, yes the M16A1 is a replacement for the M-16.
Colt 601s and 602s were AR-15s. The Colt 603 M16A1and 604 USAF M16 came after the 601 & 602.
If I recall correctly, the original 1962 USAF contract was for AR-15s, which were 601 Green Rifles with chromed BCGs, triangle charge handles, 1/14 twist, slabside lowers with removable pivot pin, 3-prong flash hiders, 601 uppers with the different rear sight markings and a hole for the ejection port door spring tail.
👍🏻 Mine ALWAYs worked .. but I remember having a metal rod cleaning kit !
When I was drafted into the army in 1972, I was issued an A1 M16 and it never let me down. I loved that rifle! I am glad someone is dispelling all the total BS some folks are spewing!