PDA

View Full Version : "M16 rifle case study"


raubvogel
November 06, 2016, 11:46
Here is an interesting document called "M16 rifle case study" I found a while ago. I will not claim it is true or accurate, but it has some amusing paragraphs on

- Small caliber rifle ammo done in the US in the beginning of the 20th Century (Pig Board Report).
- Questions on what the (at the time) new M14 could do the Garand could not
- M14 vs FAL trials
- M14 vs M16 trials including gaming trials
- etc

As some of you know, I do make fun of the AR15. But this study makes me think it deserves more respect than many give it.

I could not find the article in the wayback machine so I am posting the link in case it goes away

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/02.pdf

meltblown
November 06, 2016, 13:54
Scanned it. Didn't realize the real issue was ball powder. I was under the impression it was all about no cleaning kits issued. What a croc of BS by the gov.

VALMET
November 06, 2016, 16:16
Interesting read. "The M16 Controversies" by Thomas McNaugher is another truly great read on the AR15/M16 and the politics of procurement.

SPEEDGUNNER
November 06, 2016, 17:36
This report is frightening on many levels, especially when you consider that decisions are being made by the higher ups with no consideration as to what is best for our guys on the ground.

The behavior of, and decisions made by many of the Generals at the time borders on criminal.

Plus, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the poor ba$tard who sat at a typewriter and punched those 168 pages out one key at a time.

Mebsuta
November 06, 2016, 17:55
I think they used to have typists that could knock that stuff out, who could also write in shorthand and things like that.

I read typewriters are kinda coming back because they can't be hacked.

MistWolf
November 07, 2016, 12:23
Typewriters have their own security risks

lysanderxiii
November 07, 2016, 12:36
Here is an interesting document called "M16 rifle case study" I found a while ago. I will not claim it is true or accurate, but it has some amusing paragraphs on

- Small caliber rifle ammo done in the US in the beginning of the 20th Century (Pig Board Report).
- Questions on what the (at the time) new M14 could do the Garand could not
- M14 vs FAL trials
- M14 vs M16 trials including gaming trials
- etc

As some of you know, I do make fun of the AR15. But this study makes me think it deserves more respect than many give it.

I could not find the article in the wayback machine so I am posting the link in case it goes away

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/02.pdf
Right off the bat, I can see a few glaring inaccuracies:

1) "The Pig Board" - the information as presented in this paper runs contrary to what the report itself states, and seems to ignore the Navy/USMC's experience with the 6mm Navy cartridge and its combat use in both China and the Philippines.

2) Further, none of the wounding mechanisms were "new revelations" in 1928. Bullet tumbling and hydrostatic shock were long suspected in wound ballistics to trump caliber, the "pig board" merely confirmed what everyone already knew and some people had taken advantage of. This is why the British placed aluminum or cellulose in the tip of the spitzer .303 (fielded in 1910), and the other nations chose long slender bullets.

3) MacArthur rejected the smaller caliber cartridge in 1932,on logistical grounds after he was assured that a .30-06 semiautomatic of the Garand design was feasible. Further, in his judgment, the rifle, squad automatic and machine gun ammunition should be interchangeable, for simplified logistics, both tactical and strategic/national levels. He expected a war with Japan would occur before a suitable squad automatic and machine gun in the new caliber were perfected. Given the state of military procurement and funding during the Great Depression, he was correct. If a .30-06 semiautomatic turned out to be impractical or its development suffered major delays due to the caliber change, he would have presumably endorsed the smaller caliber.

4) The author also fails to mention the fact that in the 1920s and 30s, due to experiences in WW1, long range lethality was important, especially in machine guns, everybody in the world was improving the range and performance of their standard ammunition to increase the maximum effective range. The Germans adopted a 198 gr spritzer boat tail as standard, the British developed the Mk 8 .303 with improved aerodynamics, and the US adopted the M1 Ball, both heavier and more streamlined. Artillery and the machine gun were far more likely to inflict causalities on the enemy so their performance should be maximized. The "pig board" had admitted the draw-back of smaller calibers was reduced effective range, due to more rapid velocity loss.

5) The USMC only expressed interested in the M1941 Johnson Rifle only after the Army informed them that due to limited production capability in mid 1941- through 1942, and priority of Garand delivery was to the Army, the USMC would likely see delays in fielding.

4) The USMC never adopted the M1941 Johnson rifle, period. It never considered it seriously. They took over the delivery of a few thousand that were made for the Dutch East Indies Army, after the Dutch when under during the Nazi invasion, and couldn't pay for the rifles (and the US was still neutral, so they couldn't deliver them in any case). It was an expedient to obtain semi-automatic rifles when M1 deliveries were to be delayed (see above).*

That's 1-2/3 errors per page, in the first three pages. If the remaining pages are as inaccurate as these, it is not worth the time is took to down load it.

(I hate to see what mis-information he has on the T-44/T48 trials.)

_____________________________

*Most people that praise the Johnson M1941, have likely never shot one. They are unpleasant to shoot, maybe even brutal. They are awkward to handle, and ill-balanced. It has its good points, I'll grant it that, but it is not all that and a bag of chips over the Garand.

FALonious
November 08, 2016, 06:08
I found this to be a decent look at it way back when. Bought it years ago.
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rifle-Retrospective-Modern-Military/dp/0889351155

Scanned it. Didn't realize the real issue was ball powder. I was under the impression it was all about no cleaning kits issued. What a croc of BS by the gov.
What they did was criminal....all for the almighty dollar.

Mebsuta
November 08, 2016, 07:06
I think spherical powder is used to this day: WC 844. Search for TM 43-0001-27 for more info, which is a little dated, but still.

lew
November 08, 2016, 11:42
This report is frightening on many levels, especially when you consider that decisions are being made by the higher ups with no consideration as to what is best for our guys on the ground.


When has that never not been the standard?

lysanderxiii
November 08, 2016, 12:30
I think spherical powder is used to this day: WC 844. Search for TM 43-0001-27 for more info, which is a little dated, but still.
Winchester 844 is still the primary propellant for all 5.56mm ammunition.

WC844 is basically the same stuff as WC846, it just has a lower CaCO3 content.

Most of the blame can be placed at the feet of the OSD, that:

1) Incorrectly assumed the AR-15/.223 combination was a fully developed system, when it was not.
2) Had a bit of a "fanboy" attitude about Stoner and was unreceptive to constructive criticism of the system. The fact is the ".222 Special" designed by Stoner was marginal for what the Army required. (Not really Stoner's fault, he didn't have much experience with Army requirements, that tend to change; Springfield Arsenal, which had experience with this sort of behavior, had designed what would be the .222 Magnum, which had more room for growth, something .223 does not).
3) Didn't really read Winchester's own proposal letter for WC846 carefully, which stated: "...In discussions with Frankford Arsenal personnel. ...the only areas of performance where reservations were expressed were in regard to muzzle flash and fouling. We agree that these are two performance characteristics which would have to be examined prior to qualification..." (my emphasis) WC846 was the obvious choice from a pressure and performance stand point, but no serious testing was ever done, and the most knowledgeable engineer on the subject (Stoner himself) was only consulted after WC846 had been approved.

EDIT: I would like to add that the problems with Winchester ball propellants and fouling are somewhat over-blown. They did cause some problems, but the major problem was a combination of several factors, lack of cleaning supplies/cleaning instructions, chamber corrosion, and the early light buffer which gave far too high a cyclic rate, especially when coupled with the higher port pressures given by the ball propellants.

Brian in MN
November 12, 2016, 16:11
That thing is long on "gun shop BS" and short on science and history.