What Happened with the M16 in Vietnam?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- Sig Romeo5 Compact Red Dot Sight amzn.to/2KLPDy8
Sig Bravo3 Sight amzn.to/2LpZ46S
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/d...
Centurion Discount Codes:
Other/Misc: Code SAS10 for 10% off
Rifles: Code SASRIFLE for 3% off
Uppers/Lowers: SASUPPLWR for 5% off
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
bit.ly/2INZpgi
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challenget...
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410
I’m a Vietnam Vet. I served in the Marines in I CORPS. I did three tours over there. Finally, finally I have a sensible explanation of why the M16 had issues. I came close many times of being killed because the rifle jammed. Now I know why. Thank you for this video.
Henry Wilson this was the whole and entire reason I made this video. Thank you and thank you for your service!
Indeed..Thank You Henry for your service!! Thank You Sir.
I 3/1 here Henry..69/70. 16 was junk. They made us transition from the 14 in I think it was March of 69...they pieced it till everyone was required. They actually were used from the army. Nothing but problems..ammo gave us fits.
yeah, I've had them jam a lot in training
What types of malfunctions did you guys see most back then? When I served, we mostly had issues with extraction rather than failures to feed even though we would, every now and then, get a double-feed problem - that was usually because of lack of maintenance though.
The main issue I had with the weapon was the flexing of the receiver and thus the need of the bolt carrier to not only slide up that "ramp" inside but also to lock in with the eight lugs but to do that while the entire receiver is flexing and therefore it looks like a roller coaster especially when you fire on anything other than semi-automatic. Not to mention the direct impingement fouling the upper receiver after about three or four magazines fired.
Don't get me wrong, I love the rifle even though on my deployments I was not armed with the M16A2 but with the M249 and then I was eventually issued an M4 while I was still an AB on the M240 before I was moved to the main gunner role.
As a Marine I had qualified with the M~14 and had never even heard of the M~16 let alone seen one until I arrived in Vietnam in October, 1967.
I loved the fact that it was fully automatic, light weight and had a simple manual of arms. I immediately heard of the problems and how much the weapon was hated by the grunts.
I witnessed failure to extract but only occasionally. The problem was apparently corrected in late ‘67 and by ‘68 we saw no further problems.
My uncle was E 2/3, 1967 Operation Buffalo and the Hill battles to name a few. Both he and his CO in his book details marines killed due to the M16 problems.
I got to Vietnam Aug 1970. By then, the bugs had been worked out. I found the rifle to be superb in every way. The one area that it seemed the AK-47 had an edge was the size of the cartridge. The bullet would go trhough telephone pole! .... It (AK-47) was reliable as hell from jump. But, I fell in love with the M-16. Now my nephew 50 years later, has an AR-15. The M-16 ws light , easy to carry, had the kit in the stock, and , in a pinch, you could fire it non-stop for hours and hours. I never had one single problem with it. To this day, tho, I crack up thinking how one cartridge is the tool to completely disassemble the rifle. Plus, since the ammo was a tad smaller, you could actually carry more rounds. I always found ways to carry 2 or 3 more magazines than the others. But, there was a special sound theAK made, and when you heard it, you knew shit was gonna get real ... cuz it seemed they NEVER go into a fight unless they had the advantage. And by 1970, we all knew it was corrosion and a lack of chroming. None of us had any illusions. But I came home and had to listen to the bulshit the civilians had been fed. I loved that rifle then and love it now. It got wet, muddy, hundreds of rounds sometimes between cleanings... never a single problem. I always felt sorry for the poor saps the army sent into combat with a POS that rifle was at first.....through NO fault of the rifle itself. The freakin army .... sigh...
thank you for writing your comment.
I agree the M16 is a great rifle...Sound like the Army did wt they could do to make the rifle fail...Look at them now with the M4 doing nothing to up grade it when the whole can see the civilian AR 15 M4 is way better they rather save money then save lives....Thanks for letting the people know
Yo that was a great lesson in the M16 rifle that a lot of still today don't know....l always love the M16 l got the AR 15 tho the M16 they sell for alot money now....Thank you for Service
I don't know what kind of telephone poles you were shooting or what they were made of but an AK round won't "Go through one", not anyone I've ever shot before, maybe if it was an old discarded phone pole that the power company threw away and has been sitting on the ground rotting for 50 years.
I've never had a US .30, 7.62MM, 7.62×39, or a 5.56 go through a phone pole.
Just because an AK round is .30 cal in diameter doesn't mean anything, it's a medium capacity case that lacks the power of either a US .30 or a 7.62mm and under penetrates compared to either one of those, it's anemic compared to them.
@@CCs.p.i
He was there when they first got them, they were underdeveloped at that point and William Macnamara was responsible for pushing them on the troops in that state, he wanted the M14 replaced with the M16 because M16's were so much cheaper to produce and as Secretary of Defense he was trying to cut costs in the military.
But the original poster is correct, by the time he got there in 70 all the bugs had been worked out, the one's issued in 70 were the same one's issued when I was in the Army in the early/mid 80's, they were accurate and performed flawlessly.
My M16 in basic training in the early 80's had a six digit serial number and was marked XM16E1, making it a Vietnam era manufactured weapon but one that was made late enough that the bugs had been worked out, it fired perfect 40 out of 40 scores on the qualification range and earned me a trophy for highest scoring shooter in my basic training class.
The problem with the earliest one's were that they didn't have chrome lined chambers and bores and the early ammo issued with them burned very dirty causing the cases to be stuck in the chambers and were difficult to clear in the heat of the moment, once they chrome lined the chambers and bores and issued proper ammo the problems with them dried up and they turned into the first class weapons that they are today.
I was with First Recon, A-3, at Chu Lai. We were issued the M16 sometime in early 1967, if memory serves. During my first patrol carrying the M16 we stopped on a hillside. We were being followed. I was the last man in the group, when I opened up the M 16 jammed almost immediately and I couldn't extract the shell casing. Two Marines flanked me and took on the fight. After extraction I got my old M 14 back. The M14 never failed. Thanks for explaining the problems with the M 16.
Emmet Band were you carrying the M16E1 rifle non Chrome line Chamber and Barrel, you have to clean that type of rifle after couple hours of use the carbon will build up on the Chamber bore, there was deliberate shortage of 223 cleaning kits in the Vietnam war many Soldiers, Marines, Air Force and Navy purchase there owned kits from private dealers ( a similar situation was notice happen in Afghanistan and Iraqi theatre operation early 2001 -2004 Miltary personal buying Kevlar vest from private dealers) the Marine start issue order in June 1967s to maintain there rifles, sad thing to see Government and Miltary officials not care about the well being of the men they command thanks for your services.
I didn't keep a journal but I think we were issued the M16 in early 1967. That would be prior to the resolution of the corrosion issue. I believe that the problem was the ball powder.
@@emmetband4931 thank you welcome home.
@@bjornsmith9431 A friend of mine had to get cleaning supplies from his dad who owned a gun store. That was for his M14 which only got used once for real. He was in Signal Corp on a hilltop in central VN and manning an important radio relay complex. He had to brush down his M14 every day with some forgotten powder/lube his dad would send. Changed the color of his M14 to silver.
This dovetails the experience of another bud who was in the delta area. He had to clean his M14 twice a day to keep the rust down. He swore that gun would rust if you looked at it. FWIW he bluntly will tell you the M16 was a better rifle than the 14. He did 2 tours late 67 to enjoy Tet in Saigon/Delta, and 2nd one he transferred up to DaNang. He didn't see any legendary "rock apes" although there was plenty of scuttlebutt about encountering them in the jungle.
@@LuvBorderCollies yes, the M14 rifle wood would enlarge making it heavy for there users and mistline the Gun sight, the M14 was battle rifle, not Assault Rifle like A.K 47 in test with the M14 rifle the A.K 47 beat the battle rifle in time on target and slight control of the A.K 47.
I have watched a lot of documentaries about the Vietnam war. A lot of them stated the problems with the rifle
but never really truly stated what was wrong with the rifle so I thank you for your detailed description of the failures
My father was at the Chosin reservoir in Korea he prepared me well for infantry school when I enlisted in the US Army in 1980 I learned a lot from men like you and my father Semper Fidelis there sir You are still doing well alive and kicking Experienced combat veterans taught me how to be a better soldier Peace out from the left coast 2022
@garrettdalton3543 How do you feel about the Army today? I have family who served going back to Revolution-era militias, but I have severe doubts as to exactly what ends my efforts would go toward if I were to join in current times.
Some comments: I was issued my first AR-15 (we did NOT call them M-16's at the time) in either December 1963 or early 1964. They replaced our M-2 Carbines. I was on a 5th Special Forces Group A-Detachment in III Corp at a place called BuDop. The rifles were delivered by a full bird Colonel flying around in a fancy Caribou aircraft. Only Caribou I ever saw with a couple of rows of passenger seats forward in cargo bay. Wish I could remember his name. As I remember he was from R&D at Ft. Belvoir and split his time between Belvoir and Vietnam. The original rifles were Colt Armalite rifles, steel mags, NO forward assist and I don't REMEMBER a dust cover. Ammo was specific with a specific propellant specified by Colt. We DID clean our rifles, unlike a lot of the draftee types that came later. I am told that most of the problems came when Congress decided to buy a different propellant from Dupont in Delaware. There are those who suggest that this was a political decision. Using the prescribed ammo and keeping them clean, they performed well for us. And yes, we got shot at and we shot back! We did not fully load mags, probably because most of our 700 strong Steing Montagnards were armed with M-3's and Thompson's and it was believed that problems occurred due to fully loaded mags in those weapons and we wanted to play it safe.
Ever heard of an officer named Phil Byarley? I heard he was in 5th Group.
I read your post you left a year ago. You said "the draftee types" referring to soldiers other than yourself. Better than two thirds of all those that served in Southeast Asia were not drafted but enlisted of their own free will. Most of all the marines sent in 65 were volunteers as were most of the regular army sent before the Tet offensive in 68, also volunteers.
@@thomaspeters5889 Yes, yes. Semantics. The cleaning was still an issue regardless at first.
I'd bet if you reached out many guntubers would love to interview you, mightve literally been the first battle batch!
One of my uncles went to VN to help test the first batch of Hueys along with the SF. That was in 1962. I just recently found out about the 1962 deployment and not from him. He was super tight lipped about his work in '62. I found a stack of 8mm films of "sightseeing" and flying Hueys. They were still in their mailing boxes "APO San Francisco" 229th Av Btl, 1962. If it weren't for that discovery I'd never known about it. He took his work very seriously.
I was a sophomore in high school in 1965 when I started hearing problems about the m16. I read and saved as many newspaper and magazine articles as I could find, and did my jr & senior theme papers on this very subject. At that time I did not know about the change in the powder nor did I know of the lack of chrome plating. I did know the cyclic rates were too high causing cook off's which would render the gun out of service. The lack of cleaning kits and lube was also made known. Fifty some years later I learn of the powder being switched causing the high cyclic rates (no mention of cook off's though which I thought strange), the lack of chrome plating and a cleaning kit and some parts changes/upgrades. This was criminal. To this day we still have the forward assist which I have used on several occasions and it will only get you deeper into trouble. If you bolt does not go fully into battery forget the forward assist and extract the round. We should always give our men and women the best.
Have you seen the Forgotten Weapons video on the forward assist?
@@stephenzavatski8016 No, I have not, but if you have to use it it's best to extract the offending round and hopefully get a better one in.
@@buckshot4428 true, the video is about how the tests that were done found literally 0 use for it, but they left it on anyway.
@@buckshot4428 by using the forward assist you can jam the stuck round even further causing mayhem
@@MultiJennifer54 That was one of my points.
I received my M-16 in April 1967. I never had a problem with it. I kept it as clean a possible. Thanks for a informative program.
I arrived in Vietnam in April, '69. I was a scout/sniper with the 3rd Marines sniper platoon.On my first op I carried the Remington 700 sniper rifle. I learned from that that I wanted nothing to do with a bolt action rifle that held 5 rounds loaded one round at a time because most of the fights were at night. After that I carried an M-14 until the 3rd Marines were pulled out in September. I loved my M-14 because I trusted it. I was transferred to the 5th Marine sniper platoon. I wanted another M-14 but they said they didn't have any magazines so I was issued an M-16. It would not fire two times in a row without hitting the forward assist. And I cleaned it within an inch of it's life. I used a toothbrush on the locking lugs, a chamber brush and a bore brush, lots of patches in the bore and chamber. I disassembled the mags and cleaned them. No luck. Finally I got an M-14 to finish my tour. I've never figured out why my M-16 wouldn't work. (It was the original M-16 with the three pronged flash suppressor.) Maybe you have some idea what the problem was with my M-16. PS. My opinion of the AR has gone way up after watching a number of your videos.
Thank you for your service! This video will explain exactly what happened to your rifle.
My rifle in Desert Storm was a M16-A1. I remember thinking I'm glad I had full auto and not the 3 round burst. That might be the last war the M16-A1 saw not that I was the only one with it.
Still plenty of M16A1’s bouncing around in 3rd world conflicts, especially in south east Asia.
As a US Army veteran 1969-1972 I DI appreciate this. February 1969 we were the first cycle through Fort Gordon to get the M16’s. No bolt assist. I only had 2 times where I had to eject a round that undoubtably did not seat all the way. It was raining, just below freezing and red clay and sand everywhere. I loved the way it shot. Country boy from Mississippi that had been hunting since he was 6 years old with a weapon like that and how could I not fire expert? Joined the NG 1974-1983 and fired the A1 with not a whisper of a problem. I spent 3 years in tanks where I fired the 45, M-60 and 50 cal. I had heard of problems in Nam and was told LBJ wanted them real bed because Lady Bird had a good size interest in Colt. Still don’t know that for sure. I am going the get a few of these books and make sure my friends that went to Nam see this.👍🇺🇸🤙😃
I shot a perfect score during rifle qualification Ft Gordon August 1969. My DI just scratched his head and asked me how did I do that. I told him the targets were big - hard to miss. I too was a country boy from Mississippi. Grandfather gave me his Remington Speedmaster 241 .22 when I was 6 years old. Still have it. I was captain of the rifle team at Columbia Military Academy in the 8th grade. I carried a M16A1 in Nam. No problems with it.
Viet Nam 1969 173rd. Airborne. Issued M16A1 with tear drop forward assist, chrome chamber but not bore, black carrier and bolt, trapdoor butt plate and no cleaning kit. Several of us shared a kit and used copious amounts of LSA. Rifle never failed me... ever. Smoked a lot from excess oil. It saved my life.
Thank you for your service Sky Soldier. Welcome home!
the Nam '68 & '69 .. Central Highlands .. same here brother .. never failed me .. I would trust my life with it anyday ... wish I had my baby now ..
LsA... the very name brings back memories of that smell. And shaking up bottles of separated oil.
Not to mention that nice pearly colour and consistancy.
Viet Nam '69 & '70 25th Inf Div Air Mobile M16A1-Same same as you Chuck - except I got a cleaning kit - and I used it meticulous and regularly. Never failed me once. My company was called 'contact charlie' and my platoon was selected as the point element for the Cambodian invasion for the Div. It got a lot of use. I was asked to carry the '79', and I did for awhile, but couldn't wait to get my '16' back.
God bless you sir, and all the brave service men and women from present and past conflicts. My dad, Jim Whetzel was also 173rd Airborne over there chewing on the same dirt as you at roughly the same time. He was a RTO on many of the patrols that he participated in. Sadly, he passed away over 5 years ago from prostate cancer, no doubt contributed heavily to by Agent Orange exposure. I miss him very much.
I was a combat cameraman in Vietnam filming Med Evacs from the I-Corps area out to USS Tripoli. A Med Evac helicopter landed on the ship's flight deck and as the wounded were being lowered on the elevator to the triage area, a Gunny Sargent began slamming his M-16 on the deck destroying it and cursing it. Every M-16 in his unit had jammed leaving the sniper with an M-14 as the only marine with a functioning weapon...
Obviously, my motion picture footage of that event was conveniently lost...
@HH I am thinking that it was some time in 1967. I spent 26 months total in-country in 3-month periods from 1966-1972... I often don't remember the exact year that I was on any specific assignment.
@ Richard Crowe: Every Marine combat veteran of Vietnam that I have ever met - and I have known perhaps half-a-dozen or so over the years - hated the M-16 and loved his M-14. Stories like that one, the one you described, give me greater understanding why that was/is the case.
Thank you so much for all your channel's content. In Vietnam I was issued an XM16E1. I was very pleased to shed the M14 for something more realistic in Vietnam's environment. But, I was also made aware of some of the problems of the "16", which no one really understood at that time. Fortunately, being raised with some kind of firearm in my hands almost daily, I knew about cleanliness and reliability. So, fortunately, I was pretty well served by my rifle. My first cleaning kit was homemade from a 3-foot length of brass brazing rod, a toothbrush and a shaving brush. Later we got proper kits. Sometime after the Tet Offensive I was handed an XM177E2 (629) for a short time. I cannot put into words how much confidence (real or imagined) that carbine gave me. In the 1980s, after the service I opened a small gunsmith shop and in short time was building AR-15 rifles with mil surplus parts from the various distributors - all pre-ban. Needless to say, over the past 35-years or so, I have become intimately familiar with the fit and function details if that superb platform. Despite how much I've learned about the AR-15 family, I have had only a passing knowledge of the history of the rifle, Mr. Stoner's team and particularly all the stuff that happened at Colt. I have been binge-watching your channel and currently very interested in the JFK series. I have your Armorer's book which sits by the workbench which I use to explain things to customers. I want to thank you for all you do for the serious fans of the AR-15 platform.
Have a great 2022 and glad to see that you're healthy again and shed the tree-cutting body armor.
From what I can see all the problems with the M16 revolve entirely around massive corruption and what can only be called psychopathic greed within Ordnance Corps. Reminds me of the Mk 14 torpedo.
You stole my thunder. Mark 14 was a wake-up call for the US Navy. There is a long dark history of US ordnance bureau corruption and incompetence that goes back to even before the Civil War. BTW: It may interest you to know the Chief of the US Naval Bureau of Ordnance, who initially blame the Mk14 torpedo malfunctions on incompetence of the submariners and caused some of them to be cashiered, was promoted and later placed in charge of the US atomic bomb test at the Bikini Atoll.
May they ROAST IN HELL ETERNALLY!!!
@@badweetabix I think Admiral King was the wake up call for that crew of fuck ups
When sophisticated ordinance is too expensive to train with I think you are asking for trouble . I am thinking of the Javelin ATM which costs more than the Tank it is designed to kill I also think the Stinger is in the same situation too expensive to actually fire !
@@badweetabix Funny. Soviets/Russia suffers from the exact same issue with torpedo's.
Sir, I don,t know your name but I can tell you I was a Vietnam veteran and I was raised on a farm in Louisiana and if we didn't,t hunt at times we didn't, eat. I used an early m16 & had some problems, but I was issued a second one from the armored in 1968 ,and believe it or not with the cleaning kilt never , l repeat never had a problem with it, but I cleaned it religiously. Thank you for your program. Kudos!!!
BJ Tourere thankyou for telling us the truth. My dad was retired Army and did 2 tours and said the same thing.
Thank you for your service in our great country !!!
I know what you mean because I did 16WEEKS in Tiger Land and we had to clean are weapon all the time. They should have known when they first tried the M-16 at Fort Polk.
If you did 16 wks you must of been a repeat cause Tiger Land was only 8 wks of AIT training for 11B or 11C then Vietnam after a 30 day leave. I was a instructor on the demolition range from late 67 through 68. Co.B 1/2 1ST Inf Div. 66/67.
@@ozadarter I forgot to tell you that this was 1973 as part of the mercenary volunteer men the lives called us. You Nam guys called us stupid. By the way I was 11B. From there went to Cazy-Ass West Germany but that is another story.
"BJ Tourere" First thank you for your service ! May i ask years you served using the M16 both when it was not correct and when you had no troubles with it. I know some of the "Stick" IMR powder was used in a lot of rounds that i am pretty sure WITH CLEANING STOPPED THE ISSUES
I was in the Marine Corps from April 74 to April 78 and of course issued the M16 from duty station to duty station . I was stationed at Camp Pendleton , Okinawa and 29 Stumps , therefore 3 different M16's . I had no issues with the 16 , you just had to keep it clean as with all weapons . It was a very accurate rifle especially at 500 meters during qualification . The 5.56 was a pretty mean round with nasty characteristics . To make a long story short the M16A1 was a hell of good rifle in my opinon .
My dad was in Vietnam in 1966 as a Army Ranger, he and his war buddy would talk about how he ditched his M16 and used a rusted AK he found in a bunker and it worked. He would have loved this video, he died in 2009 of agent orange related cancer.
Joseph Anthony my uncle was a U.S army sniper and he also died due to agent orange . I think he was in his early forties
My condolences regarding your father. The Vietnam veterans deserved better than they got from our nation. The late Colonel David L. Hackworth - one of the finest combat leaders our country has produced and an expert practitioner of counter-guerilla warfare - was fond of doing a demonstration with his men in which he would dig up an AK47 which had been buried, and without cleaning it in any way save to make sure the action and barrel did not have mud or dirt blocking them, and then load and fire the weapon. He'd finish by saying that - unlike the M-16 (which he apparently didn't care for) - this was a "real combat rifle." Though the M16/M4-family of weapons now in use by the Army and Marine Corps are, by many accounts (though not all) good, serviceable weapons - the instruction of the platform back in the 1960s was a real fiasco. One so bad that it triggered a Congressional investigation.
@@felixway_stunna7070 Ever hear of "Project Eldest Son"? Project "Italian Green"? "Project Pole bean"? No? I can tell. The CIA was salting the NVA supply lines with sabotaged ammo, the propellant was replaced with high explosives. On firing it would drive the bolt through the shooters head, and injure anyone around with fragments. No platoon sgt worth a thing would have ever let his troops fire any AK unless he could guarantee the ammo source. But go on believing some crap you saw in a movie, It is however, not true.
Tartan Woods Chr I may of heard about reading the many books I have on Vietnam
Meus pêsames. ..fabrino fron Brazil
I fell in love with this gun as a kid. I had a fit to get a Mattel toy M16 around 1968 or 1969. When we played army the kids with the M16 were superior. As soon as I was old enough I bought a real AR 15, I own 3 today. Great video!
I was in Vietnam in 66. USAF 22nd TASS at Binh Thuy near Can Tho. I suspect that the army or the ARVN were running low on M-16’s so 6 months into my tour I was required to turn in my weapon. So for 6 months I was on base and mingled with locals with no weapon of any kind. I guess it is amazing that now 55 years later that I am here.
Thanks for showing the details of the operation of the M-16 and the historical background. I was in the Army in 1969/70 and used the M-16, both the XM-16E1 and the M-16A1. In my experience the rifles were not sufficiently reliable, especially mine as it would jam unpredictably. This was in spite of my best efforts to keep it clean and in giving it good care. The forward bolt assist never once helped to unjam a rifle for me, as I always had to breakdown the rifle and clean it. When we complained to our officers about the problem they just read back the line they had been given from the brass above, that we were not maintaining the rifles properly.
Jim Nesta you had a corroded pitted chamber sir. No amount of cleaning would have stopped the malfunctions.
Great video! I just had a different experience I guess, my M-16 was not a good piece of gear. I was a 13A from 1990 - 1996, carried the same rack # M-16A2 for a year at a time. I was an Artillery FSO, carried an A2 and a 9mm Beretta. We had to qualify with both every year, but made trips to the range quarterly at least. Maybe mine was just worn, or maybe we were shooting ball ammo, but malfunctions were an everyday occurrence. The range NCOs walked up and down all afternoon with cleaning rods clearing misfeeds and failures to extract. I couldn't get through 2 magazines on 3 round burst without a malfunction, or a double feed which would shut down the range for a few minutes. We were trained to use the forward assist, and this rifle needed it! My rifle was kept remorselessly clean. I just didn't like to shoot the A2 because it just never worked very well. I was never so glad to get back to my howitzers.
My brother had issues with the badly worn M16A1 at McClellan. The rifles were bad but the magazines were in worst condition. So problems galore. That is not how instill confidence in recruits. Falls under spending a dollar to save a nickel. However when he deployed overseas he was issued a brand new M16A2 AND brand new mags....sweet dreams had arrived.
A couple years my son-in-law had trouble with magazine bottoms falling off while shooting the M9. My brother mentioned that in Somalia about the awful contract of M9 mags. I guess the DoD boys were getting them replaced but they are still in the system.
I served two tours in Vietnam. 2nd tour 69-70 I initially carried an AK-47. Later in 1970 USARV and MACV prohibited American and allied forces from using the AK because is had a very sharp report ( sound of fire). Because it had a individual report as that of our enemy it was forbidden because the report drew fire from friendly forces. So my last few months as the company commander Bravo 125th Signal Battalion, I carried the M-16 and the M1911A1. My driver carried theThumper M-79 grenade rifle and the M-1911A1.
I'm not used to seeing ads on gun channels.... You're doing something right. Keep it up, I enjoy the education
ED SMITH luck of the draw if we get adds
You and Ian from forgotten weapons need to do a collab.
"As test after test showed that ball powder made the rifle fire too fast and then jam, the manufacturing company finally threw up its hands. Colt said that it could no longer be responsible for the M-16’s passing the Army’s acceptance test. It could not guarantee performance with the ball powder. One of the test requirements was that the rifle’s cyclic rate not exceed 850 rounds per minute, and six out of ten rifles were far above that when using ball powder. Don’t worry, the Army said, you can use whatever ammunition you want for the tests. But we’ll keep sending our ball powder to Vietnam.
"
It's a shame that youtube would remove a video with serious historical context for their own political agenda.
The do it all the time sadly. If it's not the history they want you to hear the edited it right away.
@@Lawiah0 do you have hard factual proof of that or is that your opinion?
oi vey
I'm a Jew and I love Chris....he is a national treasure!!! :-)
Jeff Walker
The CEO of UA-cam is Susan Wojcicki (a Jew). UA-cam is a subsidiary of Google. Google LLC and its parent company, Alphabet Inc. are owned by cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Larry Page is the current CEO of Alphabet and Sergey Brin is the President. They are both Jews.
I wasn't in combat, being a UH-1 repairman in Germany, but by 71 the M-16's worked pretty damn well. I fired hundreds of rounds on the range and never had a single failure. I know that's not the same as combat.
You must be a teacher. I served from '66 to '67 with the M14. This video is the greatest tutorial on the AR 15 I have ever watched in my 73 years on this Earth!
Ditto.
@@6NBERLS ...certainly very comprehensive...don't think cleaning out the gas tube with a pipe cleaner was mentioned, though...i've usually found that to be helpful...
My father was a Vietnam vet and hated the M16 and all AR15s for a long time. It wasn't until I got my own and showed him how reliable it was that he started becoming a fan. Unfortunately, due to the injuries he sustained he couldn't share the joy of shooting a (reliable) AR15 with me, but at least now we know why he and so many other veterans of the era had so many issues with the rifle.
I have watched this at least three times over the last three years.
Spring 1975, Ft. Bragg NC, 82nd Abn Div, I was qualifying on the range. Firing pin of my M-16 punched a hole through the cartridges primer cap and embedded, preventing removal and reloading. Platoon sergeant pokes a rod down the barrel but still had to disassemble it to remove the cartridge from the firing pin. Of course he told me it was because the weapon was dirty. I knew it wasn't but kept quiet. Next time on the range it was with an M-60. Platoon sergeant decided I would be best used as a machine gunner. I earned a rifle expert badge in basic. Go figure. I didn't want to carry that beast.
This video needs to have 250,000 views and 10,000 likes. it should be mandatory reading it you own any AR 15.
Unfortunately it did have those views at one time. But I’m sure it will again.
414k views and 10k likes April 23, 2021 :)
In the military 1967-1973. You're right about the major effect being the morale. We heard about the jamming long before seeing the rifle. The Marines seemed to have less trouble with eject failures. I think more focused rifle training and fewer draftees. The only eject failure I had was the M2 using 1944 ammo.
I’m learning a lot of things I didn’t know Ty, I got my colt sporter 37 year ago. My dad was a Korean War veteran, I want to thank all the veterans for there service.
My grandfather, in Vietnam in 69, said they told them to load the magazine with 1 round less to prevent jamming
First my creds: 11 Bravo, c-3-8, 4th ID, 1965-1967, RVN 66-67. I was issued my M16 new out of the box at Fort Lewis Washington during the summer of 1966. Included was a cleaning rod and bi-pod along with ? Mags. We were instructed as to how it was to be cleaned. AT NO TIME WERE WE TOLD IT DIDN’T NEED CLEANING. While in country most of us used the foil pack that contained TP and came with our Cs. It fit perfectly around the flash suppressor and when squeezed stayed on. This kept debris and water out of the bore. When you shot it it just blew off W/O any problem. I as well as many others ran a patch through the bore often, and had no malfunction problems. Those that did were negligent in maintaining their rifle. A Sgt. in our platoon had a round that had seized up in the chamber. When finally getting it out it was obviously in the chamber for some time. I was a hunter and firearm enthusiast prior to being drafted and had pre military experience in firearm maintenance.
I had no problems with my rifle. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸. PS, today I have a DPMS Panther and enjoy shooting it, and reload for it also. God bless the USA and protect us from liberal leftist democrats 🤮..
The real Yooper thank you for your service!
Agreed 100% thanks for your service.
C5/29 FA 4th ID Fort Carson 86-90
I carried the original m-16 while in the USAF '74-'78 and no forward assist. It never failed to fire and was very accurate.
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis none of them said Armalite
I carried the same version from '75-'86 and my experience was the same. I used it in woodlands, deserts, and jungles with never a problem. In my opinion, the forward assist is a useless solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
@@unnamed_boi It's been a long time and it wasn't something important so my memory could be wrong, but my recollection is that they were marked Colt M-16.
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis only made by Colt, General Motors hudromatic division and H and R...those three used in Vietnam. None said Armalite...the current Armalite company just stole the name and has nothing to do with original company who sold the writes to Colt
@@unnamed_boi That is definitely true, and I'm 99% certain that all the ones I saw were marked Colt but I'm less sure about the M-16 vs AR-15 marking.
We had 18 rounds in the magazine because the aluminum feed lips would spread and it would double feed. A death sentence in a fire fight!
excellent video!!! my late uncle was in nam he told me that when he was over there during his tour, his m16 jammed on several occasions, he thought it was due to the heat and severe humidity and the fact that he was not issued a cleaning kit for his m16, he was also told that the m16 was self-cleaning.
I'm not a weapons aficionado but was interested in the topic, you present in such a great manner, even me as a non english speaking listener was able to fully understand the issue. Great stuff!
I was in the Air Force from 1961-1965 and had to carry the AR-15 and it was a pain in the butt. If we trained on a Army base we had to be personally responsible for the rifle because the base commanders wouldn’t let us put them in their armories. Also they were having problems with the charging handles that were hard to lock properly and you could lose your cheek bone. Glad to see they got it worked out.
@William Cuthbertson
81105 67-71 I didn't really like it either. It was Light that's about all I could say about it.
Wow. This wasn’t a quick history, it was an entire 3 credit hour class on the subject. Impressive !!
Jesus, I like to listen to this stuff when I’m doing paper work, but I have to stop and listen to this while I’m not distracted. Too much good info, thanks.
I went into the country in 1970. I couldn't load more than 18 rounds in the magazine without it jamming. I had a real problem with carbon on the firing pin. Carbon was a real problem.
The early issues with the M16 in Vietnam can be attributed to Army leadership, not the rifle. Ignoring Colt's ammunition suggestions, ignoring cleaning requirements, ignoring proper troop training, caused the issues. Once they pulled their head out of their ass, the M16 proved very reliable, and still does so today.
As a 1969 Vietnam vet I can tell you this rifle was a huge problem. First firefight half the rifles continuously jammed. Asking a general if a rifle was good? What a laugh. We in the field were told the rifle was not at fault and we had under lubricated, over lubricated, didn't clean it good enough etc etc etc. I wonder how many troops lost their life because the weapon was not tested thoroughly enough before being issued. During AIT prior to Vietnam a number of troops had issues also. Those who were responsible should have been held criminally responsible.
J D 🙏🏻 brother, absolutly
Miss the M16A1. Class of 1972. Didn't have any issues with mine. In basic, i had one issue with the blank fire adapter. I left the port cover open low crawling. Got some sand in the bolt locking lugs. Lesson learned. Close bolt cover to avoid jams.
Now I build them from scratch. Been looking at the A1, lately, remembering the days when I was 18-21. I think I need to build one, soon.
I learned a few things I didn't know. Especially the firing pin.
My grandfather is a Vietnam vet, and maybe he's an oddity, but he loved the m-16. He served on a river patrol boat and saw a lot of action and obviously a lot of water, yet with proper maintenance he never had an issue. After 5 years and 2 deployments with the 101st in Iraq, I can say, the only jams I ever saw were caused by gross negligence. It looked like this guy threw sand in the open receiver. The ar15 is plagued with myth and misinformation. Now the cool thing to do is not lube your rifle, or to just waste lube where you don't need it. I've seen a guy on youtube lube his trigger pins...on the outside...and he has almost a million subs. It's insane how difficult it is to get people to use common sense. The history of the m16 is tragic, but I'm glad it is redeemed, and its platform has gone on to become the pinnacle of modern firearms.
Thank you for the excellent lecture on the evolution of the modern M-16/AR-15 rifle. My only comment is that it was unfortunate that the design changes had to occur based on battlefield problems where actual soldiers suffered from design flaws. Upside is what we have now is one damn fine rifle.
When a bunch of academics, bureaucrats, and desk jockeys think they know better than Mr. Stoner you end up with an inferior rifle and people die. Whoulda thunk?
The rifle wasn't inferior the U.S. Ordinance Corps deliberately sabotaged the development of the rifle so it would fail, and be deemed "inferior". Then they deliberately sent these rifles which had not been properly tested in safe conditions to combat hoping that the people in charge would see the "error of their ways" and let the Army switch back to the M-14 rifle. We had to learn the bloody way what the rifle needed to be the effective weapon it was intended to be for the Army which would not have happened if the Military had properly tested the shit out of it like they do today for ANY potential weapon systems in their arsenals.
Eugene Stoner was a firearms design genius, without question, but that doesn't mean he did not make mistakes. He didn't design enough flexibility into his light rifle - the M16 - to handle the inevitable changes to the ammunition - nor did he chrome-line the chamber or barrel. He and Kalishnikov met, shortly before Stoner's death. It would be interesting to know what they talked about...
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 I do believe that Stoner's specifications always included the correct powder and chrome lining. It was the Army Ordinance Corpse that screwed up.
Ordnance has much to answer for, but the real villains in this drama, IMHO, are Defense Secretary MacNamara - an executive from Ford Motor Company who somehow got the idea that he understood war better than professional military men - and his whiz-kids, the guys with their slide-rules and main-frames who thought they could chart out a war by the numbers. Ludicrous. MacNamara pushed the M16 into the field too soon, before its bugs, problems and the inevitable teething problems could be worked out and solved. He also abruptly cancelled the M14 program, which was already up and running and would have been able to supply our forces with a service rifle until the newer design was sorted out. This episode was neither the first -nor was it the last - time our higher-ups have pushed a new and untried design into combat too quickly, but in this case, good men died because of the gross negligence involved. Stoner was a genius as a designer, but that is not the same thing as saying he was perfect. He should have included an adjustable gas block on the AR15 to allow the user to dial in additional gas flow to continue to operate the rifle when it was dirty, fouled or cold. Ideally, too, the rifle would have been robust enough to withstand changes in its ammunition without all of the malfunctions which occurred. It is probably not a realistic expectation that ammunition manufacturers and/or the military aren't going to change those at some point. The M-1 Garand, for example, withstood a change from M1 Ball to M2 Ball - the M-1 had been designed around M1 Ball 174-grain FMJ, during the 1920s and early 1930s, but when the armed forces switched to M2 Ball 150-grain in the late 1930s, the M-1 continued to perform well. Why? Because Garand's design was robust-enough and had enough flexibility and adaptability built into it to withstand changes in its ammunition.
@Terry Bruce - McNamara was a real piece of work, wasn't he? Johnson, too. The guy swore he wouldn't ask American boys to get in a fight halfway around the world in someone else's backyard - but then he went and did exactly that. I've been alive a long time and am still waiting for an honest politician to come along....
Thank you, great video. I've learned more about the M-16 in less than a hour then in my entire 56 years. I carried and used this rifle for nearly 14 years as a Infantryman is the US Army with out any problems that I can remember. That is why I own a civilian version of it.
joseph gonzales You never heard anything of this background from the gov now did ya? Me either.........😖
I was recently commissioned to transfer a stack of tapes to digital audio of a point man Lance Corporal in Marine Reconnaissance for a woman who was only three months old when her father was killed in action in Vietnam. The recordings on the tapes are of her father to his friends and family. I was able to do that for her and she was able to hear her father's voice for the first time. In one of the tapes, he speaks about the M-16.
August 6, 1967 he states, "...oh and uh.. on our last patrol we used (the) M-16. We had six M-16s, one M-79 and my M-14- I carry an M-14; its the only weapon I got faith in beside(s) the 79. Anyway all six M-16s misfired- they weren't firing- they fired about one magazine a piece and stopped firing, my M-14 never misfired and kept firing, the 79 got one round off and it was broken- all it could get off was one round so uh.. everybody is gonna start tryin to go out with M-14s and shotguns now. I'll tell you the M-16 is a TOY it belongs back home with the kids."
The subject is changed but a few minutes later he makes another comment (speaking to his father, an Army WW2 veteran, "You said that when you came into the service you were just a boy at 19, Well as you know, the Marine Corps builds men. This is the Marine Corps, not the Army so you WOULD be a boy at 19. Boys play with toys! haha... Come to think of it that's probably what we playin with is them Mattel M-16s." -LCpl Gerald Paul “Peppy” Gauthier age 19. Killed in action January 2, 1968.
I have edited a version of the tapes in a compilation without the personal "back home" type material in hopes that the lady will allow me to publish to the public. The war stories are amazing, just listening to Peppy and his platoon speak on the tapes about life in Vietnam is extraordinary. Some of the stories are being recorded on the same day of the patrols in which one or more men were injured or killed by enemy contact.
A side note, this lady had given the tapes to me about 2 months ago and I didn't have a free weekend until last weekend. I baked the tapes for a day and began making the recordings on Sunday. My wife and I were listening to the recordings as they were being transferred into the next day. She commented to me, "This is amazing, what you're doing on Memorial day". It had not occurred to me. I have never had anything personal to remember or celebrate on Memorial day until I met Peppy and I'll never forget him. I couldn't accept a payment for the job after having heard the tapes. The lady came to pick up the thumb drive and tapes and gave me his purple heart and his service ribbons. I will make a shadow box. I hope to be able to share this story in more detail.
Dandypanty Did she allow you to share some of the tapes? I’d love to hear them
@ Dandy: I hope you'll do your best to find a home for those transcripts and tapes. Perhaps there is a Vietnam Museum somewhere that would welcome them into their collection. They ought to be preserved for posterity, don't you agree?
DOnt forget that Ordnance also forced the M1 to be converted from the excellent .276 Pedersen (10-shots) to .30-06 (8-shots)
My favorite stories were the guys would tell me how they had matel toys stickers on them and the parts were plastic blah blah blah and I would have a semi-auto version dated in the 60s with me and would ask them to show me. lol, Some of those guys were motor pool and supply guys unfortunately, the other guys that loved them for the most part were combat veterans.
Imagine how many names are on the war memorial in DC. Because the ARMY WAS A JACKWAGON.
VERY VERY SAD THAT WAS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!
Yeah, but - but.......muh Springfield Armory!!
you dont look like you served a day in your life -- you wear camo to look like a hardass- but you go on recon with me and ill betcha id find you before you know i was there?? then what ,,, it would be all over with . there would be just me left
@Terry Bruce I was there, Tonkin Gulf. Never knew so large a number of our KIA were so young. Such a long long time ago, far far away. 50 years last month we pulled acknowledge into Long Beach Naval Station.
I certainly don't know what it was like nor understand about being out in the bush and these wanna be's running around with their camouflage & ARs don't either.
Welcome home Mr. Bruce.
@Terry Bruce >>> People saying _"Baby Killer"_ should be SMACKED IN THE HEAD with an M16 rifle butt....
Enlisted in Marines 1967, went to 9 Marines 1968. I was trained using M14, M1, didn’t meet M16 until I went to WestPac. I was told the stories, I also carried an M3 grease gun rescued from downed chopper. Cleaned it up an used it as backup weapon. I was not a ‘Grunt’ but used both weapons a couple of times, in Ashua Valley. M16 was always a good rifle, it also a great gun to open cases of C-Rats.
You weren’t a grunt but fought in a shau valley? Plausible deniability lol
1974,Ft.Jackson,SC.....Issued M-16a1s....They worked fine,we were drilled to clean every part regularly,before they went back to arms room, inspected for proper cleaning and lube. CONFIDENCE high during service with the rifle. Renovations certainly improved it.
I arrived in-Country as a 1st Cav artilleryman with the Division of September 5 1965. We carried M14s as our personal weapons (our real weapons fired 33 lb bullets).In December of 1965, right after the Ia Drang fight, I along with the rest of my Battalion were issued new in-box, XM15A1s. As I recall, the rifle came with 7 magazines, bayonet w/sheath, a stupid clip-on bipod, and a CLEANING KIT.
Excellent video! To date you are the first to actually get it right!
I already knew everything you had to say so even as I sat on the edge of my seat the entire time, I wasn't able to learn anything new. 😢
My arrival in Vietnam was after all these "issues" were corrected.
I was in the USAF, my initial introduction to the M16 was in basic training. My reaction was... "What the hell is this? A toy?" Then I shouldered it & thought... "maybe, this could work."
After brief instructions in the classroom, we hit the range. I was in love! WITH THE RIFLE! I said USAF, not USN!
Anyway my TI (training instructor) drill sgt for those who served in one of the inferior branches, was a guy named Sgt. Stapper. He was the or one of the guys on the USAF shooting team at the famous birthday party when the M16 prototype made history.
We remained in contact for many years, mostly talking about "gun stuff".
My point to all of this is...
Your video was spot on and incredibly interesting, and historically accurate. However, one thing you really should have expanded on was the outright sabotage of this platform in favor of the M14. (I despise the M14 BTW!)
Once in country, I was actually issued a carbine but quickly "aquired" a rifle.
Neither ever skipped a beat! Even when embarrassingly filthy. Again this was later in the war when all the so-called issues were resolved. I was issued a cleaning kit with my weapon along with the "comic book" which I still have.
BTW, I never needed a fwd assist.
There's one angle I haven't seen pursued.
This video examines only the US experience with the M16 in Vietnam. I had wondered about the Australian experience.
Australia did not adopt the M16 as a standard rifle. The M16 replaced two weapons in the Australian infantry section, the Owen Machine Carbine (a 9mm SMG), and the M79. The Owen Machine Carbine was used by scouts, Section Leaders, Officers, and Sergeants (N.B. Sergeants don't lead Australian sections, corporals do that). Prior to the M16/M203 combination, the Section Grenadier used an M79, and an L1A1 SLR. Riflemen retained the 7.62mm L1A1 SLR.
Australian SAS units also used the M16, in addition to the XM177, and both the XM148 and M203 grenade launchers.
To round out the Australian history with the M16 (and platform), it continued in the Infantry section until the end of the 1980s, when it (and the L1A1) was replaced with the F88 Austeyr (Steyr AUG). The M16A2 lost out in competition with the Steyr AUG. I believe the tipping point was intellectual property, Steyr were more reasonable about licensing the AUG to Australia. Australian special operations units use the M4.
I possess an Australian Army manual for the M16 and XM16E1 dated 1965. This manual prescribes a cleaning procedure, and lists a cleaning kit as part of the standard equipment for the M16. I have never seen any indications that the Australian Army had any problems with the M16 rifle.
Does anyone know of any Australian issues with the M16?
I have done some checking online in the National Archives of Australia, and in Hansard. The National Archives contain some documentation on the initial purchase of AR-15s for trials (as a side note, the Australian Defence Attache in Washington who was on a lot of these documents went on to command 1 Australian Task Force in Vietnam, his tenure included the Battle of Long Tan). Hansard contains nothing about military use of M16s, and AR-15s (all the references to the AR-15 platform were in the context of gun fascism).
My conclusion - the Australian Army experienced no problems with the M16 rifle, neither did the Clearance Diving Teams of the RAN, and the Airfield Defence Guards of the RAAF. I haven't checked any state sources to see of there's mention of police special operations units having troubles with M16 rifles, but I anticipate nothing would come from such a search.
Never even touched a m16 till my first day in nam.looked as if was dropped in a mud hole.I cleaned it & took it to range test fire.the rifle felt like a toy small and light.very accurate.well a marine borrowed it for night ambush.he as wounded lost my m16.replacement was a m79 then another m16 that I never fired before leaving country .clean them and they worked.a marine grunt.
Thank you for this excellent video, Chris! Somehow I missed it until now even though I follow your videos and have your book Black Rifle II. I was in Vietnam 1968 and first had the M14 then the new M16A1 which sure was easier to lug around. It was great seeing your retro builds on the table and comparisons. I've watched your videos about them also. Funny thing, even though I was US Army and my M16A1 always was reliable I bought the Brownells BRN-601 retro version of the early US Air Force pre-M16. It's just so simple and different plus I have to tip my hat to the USAF and General LeMay for fighting hard to buy this fine rifle. I don't remember seeing a mean green jungle machine (gun) in 1968 but I have one now! Well semiauto...
QuentinQuatermass thank you for your service
I thoroughly enjoyed this documentary, one of the best I've ever seen. Thanks for posting it. I love getting into the technical specification and mechanics of anything, and I really appreciate your detailed, yet concise explanation and review of why specifically the M16 had issues. Thanks for the history too. Amazing video, it gave me something fun and informative to kill time. It never felt as long as it was. Why did youtube take it down? but I'm glad you put it back up.
This is a critical lesson for modern arms management. Where was Patton when we needed him?
This is the most comprehensive film or video regarding the M16 and it's malfunctions during the Vietnam War that I have ever seen. Thanks. That being said, the only problem I EVER had with my M16A1 rifle was caused by insufficient cleaning during a field exercise when we were firing a whole lot of blanks, and were given very little time for sleep, much less for cleaning our rifles. Blanks foul the shit out of these rifles.
they do that in all firearms...but in this weapon with its close tolerances the effect is particularly acute.....
We tried to avoid firing blanks so as not to foul our rifles when I was in the Marine Reserves.
A man I greatly respected and admired told me the M16 was a good weapon, but he preferred the M60 for its life-saving capabilities while serving in Vietnam
I don't remember cutting down to 28 rounds on the 30-round magazine because the spring was weak. I remember it caused misfeeds because there was too much pressure when 30 rounds were in the magazine.
I had no idea this channel was taken down by UA-cam. It just dawned on me I hadn't seen notifications from this channel in a long time and noticed I wasn't subscribed any longer
they tend to panic at the sight of a "black rifle".....even when the facts need to be known.......
Thanks for the video. I served in 1970 and 1971. I was in the second cycle of Basic Training to use the M16 at Ft Lewis. Basic was an M16E1, and A1 in Infantry school. A1 in Vietnam. I never had a malfunction with any of them except for a bad magazine in VN that caused a double feed. But I always ran it "wet". I believe the M16 was intentionally sabotaged by M14 advocates, it could not be accidental. Remember the torpedo problem in WW-II and the high ranking resistance to actually fixing the problem. The resistance to the Henry and Spencer in the Civil War. So its not the first time such things as the video states. I loaded mags with 18, it was "common knowledge". I don't recall a trapdoor stock in any of them and I was somewhat surprized year later when I bout an AR with one. We had cleaning kits by lat 1970. We used LSA in VN. I also used Dri-Slide on the bolt carrier and inside the upper where the bolt ran. I then filled the the bolt carrier at the bolt pin cut with LSA. First shot would then wet the inside of the upper with LSA. Mine would fire all the ammo I carried, 18-21 mags, without a hiccup. I had complete confidence in the M16 I carried.
graphite can be useful...have to laugh when I see all those WW II movies where the torpedoes always seemed to work...which was far from the truth.....
I kinda like the forward assist. Very handy when I need to quietly chamber a round. The normal way is as loud as slamming a screen door. Yo can slowly ease the round into the chamber then give the forward assist a little push. Works every time. Say if you're hunting and you would rather not scare everything away.
Should have already been locked and loaded
It actually works very well for that
Thank you for a reasoned intelligent explanation. I value this information, and it is vital for all those who own this cutting edge weapon. Today, it’s Americans most valued defensive small arm for the individual.
Melanite coating of the B.C.A. and bolt has improved the ability to clean the assembly/chamber and assured proper functioning.
Interesting how the Ordinance Corps said the weapon didn’t need to be cleaned, but in congressional hearings they said its problems were caused by not cleaning it.
Cleaning was not the most serious problem. It was the failure to chrome plate the chamber and the ball propellant. Lack of cleaning added to the more serious issues.
This guy was a great educater on a fascinating subject
Can't believe I'm just finding this channel. Not a video I haven't learned somthing in.
This is perhaps the best video about the AR platform o have ever watched. The AR has gotten multiple reputations and there are 2 extremely different sides. People hear vietnam stories and think the weapon is garbage. Even guys I served with. But then there's me, so much shooting and I watched these guns chew through round after round and always wondered why people think they're unreliable. Every issue I've ever had had.beem magazine related. This is such a great video explaining the actual issues it had and why. Thank you.
This is Hands Down the most Factually Sound Researched Material with Accurate Documentation as to why the M-16 had problems in Vietnam. Please Like This Video. Cheers!
The forward assist can be used to more quietly chamber a round if you are in a patrol base and about to head out to conduct ambush.
There should be a round chambered at all times anyway.
I agree, but the military has thier rules.@@bobbysmitherjones9920
the Nam '68 & '69 .. Central Highlands .. never failed me .. I would trust my life with it anyday .. kept it clean - no problem .. wish I had my baby now .. I did enjoy seeing it again ... Very Sweet ... Thanks
As a young teen I remember reading about Armalite in " Guns & Ammo" magazine.
Fifty five years later I actually own one.
Vietnam. ..6/18/66 -6/18/67
1st Infantry Div. War Zone C, Blue Spaders
The rifle I was issued, all plastic parts looked like it was dragged on a gravel road. Training for proper care was all on the job.
No cleaning kits were ever issued. No oil, brushes, rods nothing. We had to improvise with toothbrushes, rags and any oil we cold fined.
Rifle faild to eject the casing on two occasions . I always thought that dust from from the helicopters was the problem or any dust.
Hated the rifle. I could Never trust it. Thanks for answering many questions.
I lived through that era and used both the M14 and M16 in the Vietnam War. I was informed that the army wanted a chrome insert in the chamber and that Secretary of Defense McNamara got wind of it and said that if the designer [Stoner] wanted it he would have designed it that way, thus over ruling the army at the time. The army was forced, initially in secret from what I was told, to later have the chamber modified with chrome insert. I was never informed as to the reason to use ball powder, however, more than likely the military decided to use it on their own initiative because the decision makers were not skilled weapon designers. I was still in the military in the 1980s and remember bottles of Break Free. Thank you for an interesting review.
From what I understand, the Army insisted on using ball propellant because they literally had tons and tons of it sitting on pallets which they used for 7.62x51mm ammunition. They didn't want to waste it even knowing that IMR propellant was better and caused almost no malfunctions and fouling to the M-16 when used.
Thank God my father survived Vietnam. He tells me about how the AR 15 would always malfunction and how impressive the modern AR 15 is today. He still loves the M 14 though but admits it didn't work well in jungle warfare(CQB) compared to the AK. This video is outstanding Simper Fi (from my old man)
I trained on an M14 in basic at Ft. Bliss. You had to clean those rifles and keep them oiled or they would jam. They did not like the dusty and dry conditions that prevail at Ft. Bliss.
The M-14 needed a synthetic stock.
@@patscally5390 ...that's available...saw several in the warehouse.....but no one seems to mention the obvious...the weight factor...both the rifle and the ammo....which meant a lot to someone who had to hump it all day......
M14 rear sight would move off zero when rapid fired.
Did your father ever mention anything about the L1A1 SLR gun used by the Australians in Vietnam.
My father served in the 1st ID as an Infantryman from Feb '67 to April '68.
He absolutely hates the AR-15 platform... which I completely respect and love, having served in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne as an Infantryman.
We'd always bump heads about the intricacies of the M16/M4.
I showed him this video and he said...."damn, that makes a lot of sense".
So thank you for your knowledge and straight talk.... Filtering through technical verbage to use words and portray ideas in an understandable and concise manner.
H Minus
All the Way!!!
As always, great information!!!!! The history is fascinating to me.
USAF, 366th SPS, AIr Base Defense Section, Tiger Flt, DaNang '71-72. Used the USAFs version of the M16 and it was impossible to fire less than three rounds on full auto. The came out the ejection port in a group of three spaced maybe two or three fingers space between; Army M16A1's fired distinctively slower. Only jams I ever suffered were with rifles used in training stateside, some of those had the very early green furniture too so were probably pretty shot out. I like the M14 as well but in a war where the enemy carried a controllable full auto AK47 the M14 was outclassed as it was uncontrollable on full auto despite various "cures" with changed stocks, heavy bipods, and muzzle brakes. The M15 version of the M14 as a replacement for the BAR never worked out and was probably one of the reasons the M60's were put on the squads, as they provided controllable full auto fire. Doctrine was a factor too, probably driven by ordinances eternal aversion to full auto infantry rifles. The M16's first setting off "safe" has always been "semi" while the AK's first setting off safe is full auto: illustrating I think US aimed fire doctrine versus Soviet volume of fire doctrine IMO.
We also note the return of the aversion in the emergence of the "burst" fire settings in later M16's and M4's. Frankly, in my time, my "burst" fire control was my trigger finger. USAF training was three round bursts, and at my best trained level, from prone in sling i could stitch a standard ISU silhouette with those three rounds at 100 meters. IMO the burst fire mechanism adds unnecessary complexity and potential of mechanical malfunction to an originally simple fire control group. Those spray and pray moments with the '16 were probably in trying to keep up with the AK's volume of fire plus you could stay fairly well on target; with the M14 on full auto after the 2nd round your muzzle was not going to be on target. Sometimes you need single shots, sometimes you need a bit of spray the room. My two cents anyway....
There is an M16 story I remembered about Vietnam, in which a Marine squad was badly ambushed by an NVA regiment while out in the open.
The Staff Sgt. who was leading the squad rifle started to jam up badly because he was in muddy terrain (he was already shot in the heal and was returning fire prone).
But because of the jamming he had to recycle his Bolt Carrier Group via charging handle. It got more and more difficult to recycle the BCG that he decided to get up and pry it open.
Only to be shot in the chest paralyzing him for life.....Tom Cruise would later portray him in the film "Born on the Fourth of July" (Although that film inaccurately showed them with M14s) .
My neighbor was among the investigators that discovered a lot of this stuff. Sad fact, his son was a firefighter who was in the World Trade Center when they fell.
In Singapore, in 1970, I trained with the Colt AR15.
We maintained the rifle meticulously. We had to draw them from the armory every morning, clean them for the day's training, there were regular inspection of the rifles by the trainers, and at the end of the day, oil them and return it to the armory. And that routine is repeated daily till the end of basic training.
The only problem we had with the AR15 was misfeed. For us, the magazine wasn't a throw away commodity, it was reused again and again. The magazines was accountable, every single one of them.
At that time, soda drinks came in glass bottles with crimped caps, and in the field/firing range, the alluminium magazines were great bottle openers.
Conscripts!
Brings back lots of memories with the A1, lots of classroom time concerning all of these topics, and lots of rounds down range.
the army did everything they could to discredit the rifle, including ammo, construction and maintenance. All at risk to our men of service. Unforgivable.
YES THEY DID COSTING AMERICAN TROOPS LIFE'S NOT M16 FAULT!
While I was in Vietnam, I discovered that the M16 would jam if it was not oiled. Even if the M16 was clean it would jam if not oiled.
@@sgoell75 M16 still had tons of problems
@@wilsmith6551 the gun was designed, tested. then the army added their changes. the army did not like the new weapon. look at why we did not use the FAL, but instead used the M14. the head of the US Armory played favorites and did not base his decisions on the science of the testing. It was politics and personal power that chose the M14. If that decision to go with a NATO rifle, after the US pushed to standardize, the boys in Nam would have been hefting FALs.
@@bbhrdzaz Hey yes, I just saw the video explaining about that. One person's ego kills a great weapon that would have made a huge difference in the Viet War. That FAL is great gun especially with the sand cuts. I am still a big fan of the M14 and M1 design- the M1 performed flawlessly WWII all terrains.
Just an FYI- 1.) The M14 was to be "redesigned" in Viet. but they chose the M16. 2) Proper muzzle breaks would have made weapon much more manageable. 3) It was too long and too heavy but alloys and changes would have helped. 4) There is an M1A1 Socom 16. It would be ideal for CQB....ua-cam.com/video/YXvJLR5a7Bw/v-deo.html.
But the FAL was a product of perfect testing and applying the changes it needed. Thanks
I just ordered a signed copy of your book. Very impressed by you.
I had an M16A1 in Basic at Ft. Benning in 1986. My issued rifle had a GM Hydramatic Division lower rebuilt by Anniston Arsenal Depot in Alabama from 82 through 85 because they were stamped AND then the two digit year. The stock, barrel, handguards, were all new replacement parts. Infantry Basic trainees beat the shit out of these rifles every cycle. I never had a problem with it's reliability, function, and accuracy because my Drill Sergeants would always inspect our rifles after cleaning them after training before storage into the arms room. We were drilled to perfection to all malfunctions and immediate actions. There was no excuse for an infantryman to have a dirty and malfunctioning rifle. Ft. Benning Infantry Drill Sergeants were brutal when it came to weapons. I still love the M16/AR series that I own 5 of them. I have built 3 of them.
My issue weapon in basic training was also a GM Hydramatic M16A1- in 1972.
lilbeserk= Check out Forgotten Weapons or In Range TV about the M16 mud test. These guys slathered on mud on the M16A1 rifle and fired it. Never tried it during my time in service. I had my issued rifle in snow and the cold in Germany, and Ft. Carson. Hot summers in Carson again and a couple of NTC rotations. The jungles of Panama at JOTC and Hawaii's almost similarity in climate and terrain. Iraq 2006 through 2008 was more fucked up with sand storms during the hot summers. The M16A1,A2,A4, and M4s really worked well for me in training and combat. Even the AK had it's problems too. I have found AKs with frozen bolts because of dirt inside the bolt carrier and bolt with the locking lugs. Empty shell casings inside the dust cover blocking the hammer and bolt carrier. All of this was basic soldier operator error. The receivers on AKs majority of them are of course sheet metal. Never abuse them as using them as step ladders because they bend easy too. Even their best Russian, and Yugos had the same problem. Most of the stuff we found are mostly Chinese Norincos. Majority malfunction due to neglect and unfamiliarity. The Hadji insurgents especially the older ones really took good care of their weapons and were really good because they were veterans of Saddam's Army. The rest were young guys from 14 through their early 20s just fired them until it stopped. Either ran from us to fight another day, very few dumped them on the spot and ran. We had a lot more problems from the Taqfiris A.K.A. Iraqi Gang Bangers. They were the young guys who had no clue about taking care of any weapon in combat. They were trained by competent Arab Al Quaida guys from the Stan or real professionals from Chechnya. After training all that shit went out the window when it came to combat against American infantry in the open combat. An American infantry company can take down a city block quickly by blasting its way through buildings and houses if all the civilian inhabitants had left but that was not always the case. As far as both weapons they all need care even in combat or training.
@@reddevilparatrooper
In 1983 at Ft Bliss the Army put an M16 in my hands that was a Colt that was stamped XM16E1 and had a 6 digit serial number, at the time I knew nothing about the variables of M16's but I knew mine had a different stamping then the others the guys around me had, the day of practice for qualification I shot a 40 out of 40, the next day I went on the firing line and inserted the mag, dropped the bolt, tapped the foreword assist 3 times and when I went to shoot it wouldn't come off of safe, so they pulled me off of the firing line, took me to a rear area at the range and a DI took the lower off of mine and installed my upper on a different lower, I went through on the next firing rotation and shot another 40 out of 40 for the actual record, I can't think of another rifle where you can take the two major parts of a rifle, mix them with another and it'll hold zero like that.
Lackland AFB 1976 and only went to shoot one day. Qualified as marksman as nobody was paying attention. Qualified as Expert years later as a DPS officer. Never did pay attention to who made the rifle or the markings then, but I do own a Sig M400 now.
Duke Craig= Once you zero the upper receiver you are golden. All M16 lowers makes no difference, the lower is just to make it go bang. What can throw your zero off is if your unit is shooting 2 or 3 different lot number ammunition. Using the same lot number ammunition during zero and qualification is success.
When I took advanced infantry training in 1969, the weapon we were issued was a plain M-16 with no forward assist but it did have a chrome bolt and dust cover. Never had any problems jamming. In Vietnam, 1970, no problems with M-16A1 as long as you only loaded 17 rounds in the magazine. More than that you would have problems with double feeding jams.
I, too, am a student of this subject and might be considered very well read on this rifles history. Thank you for a very thoughtful and detailed account of this history. Though some of my info suggests that Sec. McNamara himself was a large source of the budget cuts and resulting changes to the M-16 that resulted in it's shortcomings in Vietnam. That aside though, everything you stated about what changed and why I found to be completely consistent with my own research.
As for my own experience, hands on, you touched on a big source of problems that can occur with any magazine fed, semi or full auto firearm, the magazine. When I was in US Army Basic Combat Training (Boot Camp in the Navy or Marines) back in 2001, we were issued M-16 A2's and while we did have a few stoppages we were assured that come final weapons qualification day we would have much newer magazines, and our rifles would be fine. Well our rifles were old and very USED, and those mags were likely just as used, maybe more so. I even experienced my one and only bolt over-ride's, which are rare and most soldiers are haven't even heard of such a thing. True to that Drill Sergeants word, come Qualification Day we got some much newer and nicer magazines and our old worn rifles performed flawlessly. Now I have many old surplus 20 and 30 round mags that perform just fine, but no matter how well a gun is designed or built all it takes is a crappy mag to ruin your day. I suspect many failures of the M-16 variants in Vietnam were the result of a magazine and not just the rifles. Later on I had a personally owned Ruger Mini 30 in 7.62x39 and all my after market mags were garbage. That rifle gave me a lot of failures to feed. My one factory Ruger mag however, flawless. I sold the gun anyway as I didn't want it anymore, but the gun store sales man, I consigned it through, told me he didn't even want any of those after market mags.
My issued M16 during basic training in 1983 had GM Hydromatic stamped on the lower receiver. Never had any issues with it. I called it my "Turbo 400"
Three things I remember my dad saying about his M16’s in Vietnam (‘69-70):
1) He liked the 3 pronged flash hider on his first issued rifle because it could be used to pry open ration tins.
2) He loaded 18 in each of his magazines after nearly losing his life when his rifle double-fed while walking point.
3) He was asked to field test the grenade launcher attachment and after one patrol he told them to get rid of that thing and just give him his regular duty weapon.
My high school debate coach was in Vietnam for one tour (he joined the navy hoping to escape the war and ended up on a river boat). He despised the M-16, repeating all the tropes and indictments, most of which he heard third hand since he was never in the jungle and primarily used mounted machine guns. I particularly remember him scoffing about how a part (the stock maybe?) was stamped “Mattel.”
Anyway, this is an amazing video explaining where much of the misinformation, mis-understandings, and legitimate gripes in response to Ordnance Department sabotage originated. Thank you very much for the video.
BTCAsia no Rifle was ever made or stamped Mattel
SmallArmsSolutions while he was a great debate coach and really did serve in Vietnam (he showed us little movies he made with him on the boat with his unit), I always suspected he played fast and loose with “facts” which were difficult to disprove (where do you go to look-up how something wasn’t stamped?).
In the decades since school, I read a great deal about the Vietnam War from many points of view. He had his opinion based on what he saw, he heard, and in the context of his own rigid political ideology. Anecdotal experiences and close-minded thinking are not a recipe for arriving at anything approaching the truth. So, while I respect his service and acknowledge his experiences, I think his view of the war was horribly skewed.
The number of outright lies and misinformation generally accepted as fact about Vietnam are staggering. The whole M-16 saga is another example.
One of the reasons your videos are so worthwhile, in addition to the detail, is you clearly delineate provable facts from your opinion. Thanks for making the effort.
Very informative, no nonsense, straight to the point.
The rifle had a design defect, the bores were not chrome lined at the time. The ball powder caused a severe damage to the chamber area (OXIDATION) when the round was detonated the brass was was forced into the oxidation in the chamber causing a failure to extract, men were taping a cleaning rod to the side of the rifle to push out the empty round from the chamber. We trained with the M14 1966 were issued M16's prior to shipping out (No forward assist and unplated chambers & bores. I know this to be a fact as my unit replaced 100's of barrels from older M16s until the modifications could be made. I know this as I was Tech/Sgt.Small Arms Repair spec. in the 9th Infantry Division, our units spent a lot of time in the Delta (Hot&Wet) I worked on weapons that actually had ripped a section of the rim during during extraction and left the case in the chamber of the barrel. Time in country 1966-1967