Opinion of Ruger Mini 14 .223?
aasb...@aol.com
Gunner Asch
>First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
You are lucky to get 3" groups at 100 yrds. Operation of most of them is
fair to reliable. Some of the newests ones are finished with sandpaper
and concrete slabs for polishing media.
Ive a 181 Series that has been reliable for ..humm...15 yrs..but..its
not something Id take out to shoot anything smaller than bunnies at less
than 100yrds..or JBTs out to 250yrds
They Can...can..can be made into decent shooters..but by the time you
stuff enough money in a gunsmiths pocket..you would have been better off
buying a AR-15 of some sort.
Minis are unfortunately..one of the few removable magazine semiauto
"battle" rifles allowed in California...and fuck Bill Ruger.
Shrug
Gunner
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
Karl Townsend
<aasb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4ukoj5h7sdjpgrdc1...@4ax.com...
> First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
Accuracy is a bit disapointing on mine. I'd agree with gunner's 3" group
estimate.
Tons o' fun to shoot. Never jams. Small and light wieght. Get a few 30 round
clips and go blast something full of holes.
I got the folding stock and have it handy for personal protection instead of
a pistol. At close range, a pistol is no match. I never much believed in
fair fights.
Karl
Buerste
Best rifles EVER made! I have two I could be talked into selling, I need
the cash for an operation for my dying mother. I take Visa and MasterCard.
TwoGuns
I used the mini-14 on the job for ten years. I spent a few days on the
range with the armory Sgt. sighting in weapons. We had a steady rest
set up and we shot a five shot group at 100 yards and another five
shot group at 150 yards. Usually we would be firing 30 weapons during
the day. One rifle in that 30 might shoot a one inch group at 100
yards but most all of them did good to hold between two to four inches
at a hundred yards. Close enough for government work I guess but I
would probably spend more than the original purchase price to get one
tuned up if I owned it.
DL
sta...@prolynx.com
> First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
Unless you're stuck with one because of state laws, an AR will
outshoot it any day of the week for one that costs about the same.
Minute of washtub was the rule for a lot of the older ones. As far as
operation, they've always gone bang. At one time, Minis cost about
half what an AR did, Mini price has gone up, AR prices have stayed
about the same, lots more competition in the market. Check out
magazine prices, too.
Stan
Pinstripe Sniper
>First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
As some have already said, it is not a tack driver (~4" groups @ 100
yds for me) but it is a very fun, problem free gun and I'm a full
sized M1A fan who is amused seeing them side by side. (has somebody
done a parent & child holding/using each pic? Parent holding Mini14
and child holding M1A especially :-)
I have a +15 year old Stainless with a Butler Creek folding stock.
So it's a fun, compact, relatively inexpensive semi auto .223 that
looks more utilitarian than military. (sometimes that's a factor -
don't get me wrong, I luv my black rifles too :-)
Now if it was more accurate out of the box and took AR15 mags...
PsS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A fictional account of how to drastically reform the financial world...
More at http://PinstripeSniper.blogspot.com and if that gets banned, check
www.PinstripeSniper.com
Joe Pfeiffer
> First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
I've got a stainless Mini-14; very picky about its ammo. With ammo it
likes it's quite reliable; with ammo it doesn't it might as well be a
single-shot (pull trigger, clear jam, pull trigger, clear jam....).
Unfortunately, it's been long enough since I took it out that I don't
remember which works and which doesn't. Barrel heating moves the point
of impact noticeably even with just a five-shot string. Waiting for the
barrel to cool between shots (see single-shot note above) gives
something like a 3" spread at 100 yds.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Jim Stewart
> First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
I had a 1976 Mini 14 that I gave to my brother
I shot it alot and it became his orchard rifle.
As others have said, the accuracy is so-so. I found
the operation to be very reliable, both with factory
and reloads.
It's biggest plus is the fun factor. It is just
a whole lot of fun to shoot, and it does not look
like a tactical piece to the uninformed.
Steve W.
> First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
Which version?
The versions up till about 2005 were all over the place when it comes to
being accurate. Some are great and some would be better used as clubs.
However with minor work they can be brought into 1-2" at 100 yards.
Better than that takes real money.
Reliability: I've only had one malfunction related to the gun itself
(installed a buffer wrong and damaged the op-rod) MAGAZINE related
problems abound if using the cheap crap made in the year prior to
clintons gun ban. Use a GOOD mag (factory, Masen, PMI and the early
ramlines)
Keep in mind the Mini-design was NOT intended for super accuracy, it was
intended to be a reliable battle rifle in all conditions, easy to
operate and take down. Able to place rounds into center of mass on a
human target at 100-200 yards.
--
Steve W.
Buerste
"Steve Ackman" <st...@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhjq8tv...@sorceror.wizard.dyndns.org...
> In <Zr2%m.2$Ef...@newsfe07.iad>, on Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:21:47 -0500,
> the right price... say, $300 for the pair. Just so
> happens, I actually have a Visa.
>
I'll sure miss good 'ol mom!
Wes
>First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
Can't say first hand. Most of my modern arms are Rugers, that particular model never got
rave reviews by people I know that owned one.
Always liked the look of it though.
Wes
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
<titter> What color's she dying, Tawm?
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
Hawke
> First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
You have to take the Mini for what it is. Most people want it to be more
but it's only a mediocre rifle in most areas. They are pretty reliable.
They are pretty durable. They are not very accurate. But they are light,
small, and can hit a man sized target out to a few hundred yards. If
those things are enough for you then it's a decent rifle. If you want
what an AR-15 can do don't get the Mini. That said. I like the Mini-14.
For a ranch, truck gun, or a short range self defense rifle they work
fine. They use them in prisons in the towers too. And as the Goober
said, it's the only thing close to an assault rifle you can have in
California. That's worth something if you live here.
Hawke
Buerste
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:mk0rj5thnle9akjge...@4ax.com...
Considering that she's dead, I'd guess she's dying purple. I could have
saved her if I sold my Minis.
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:mk0rj5thnle9akjge...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:21:47 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
>> <bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>
>>><aasb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4ukoj5h7sdjpgrdc1...@4ax.com...
>>>> First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
>>>
>>>Best rifles EVER made! I have two I could be talked into selling, I need
>>>the cash for an operation for my dying mother. I take Visa and
>>>MasterCard.
>>
>> <titter> What color's she dying, Tawm?
>
>Considering that she's dead, I'd guess she's dying purple. I could have
>saved her if I sold my Minis.
I'm sorry to hear that. You didn't find any suck^H^H^H^Hwise buyers,
eh?
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 03:43:10 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
> >...I could have
> >saved her if I sold my Minis.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. You didn't find any suck^H^H^H^Hwise buyers,
> eh?
I was warned that they were disappointingly inaccurate, like an AK. Is
there a simple fix?
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Sure is..sell it and buy a some sort of M1A
Or even an AR (spit)
sta...@prolynx.com
Same problem as the issue M14 had, a large reciprocating weight under
a skinny barrel. Guys have dinked with the gas system, put heavier
(and better-made) barrels on them and almost have arrived at the
accuracy today's out-of-the-box AR can do. My $89 chink SKS does
better than the b-in-l's Mini.
Stan
Larry Jaques
<kb1...@gmail.com> scrawled the following:
Buy a real rifle? ;) I don't know, as I've never even shot a Mini.
Buerste
"Jim Wilkins" <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2eb17d7-e129-4eae...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
***************************
There are a few. I did a bit of research a while ago and a few no-cost jobs
like re-torquing all the fasteners especially on the gas port interface,
floating the barrel and a bunch of stuff I don't quite understand. Both of
mine do a fine job, don't jam and such but they aren't match rifles by any
means.
aasb...@aol.com
>First hand experience on accuracy? Operation?
Ii went to the Fort Worth gun show today. Lots of ARs and Mini 14s.
The only non-auto .223 I found was a Savage. Not a $400 improvement on
my old Remington .222. Bought some ammo and went home.
Wes
>There are a few. I did a bit of research a while ago and a few no-cost jobs
>like re-torquing all the fasteners especially on the gas port interface,
>floating the barrel and a bunch of stuff I don't quite understand. Both of
>mine do a fine job, don't jam and such but they aren't match rifles by any
>means.
"Only accurate rifles are interesting."- Col. Townsend Whelen
David R.Birch
>
> "Only accurate rifles are interesting."- Col. Townsend Whelen
This thinking led us to fight two World Wars with target rifles
instead of battle rifles and to use squads of riflemen supported by
machine guns instead of the more useful unit of machine guns supported
by riflemen.
David
Jim Wilkins
The accurate rifle concept apparently came from the Boer war where an
army of experienced hunters scored hits at half a mile plus on the
British. Previously gunpowder smoke often obscured the enemy too much
for carefully aimed fire.
It isn't really true of WW2, GIs carried a mix of the semiauto Garand,
the assault-rifle-like carbine, scoped Springfields, the BAR and
several 45 Cal submachine guns. Requirements varied rapidly in thick
forest or jungle, across the open fields around a town, and then in
its streets and buildings. The Germans who originated that tactic used
it for defense more than offense, and issued bolt-actions in quantity
until the end.
In WW1 the US was preparing Pederson sub-gun adapters for the
Springfield for the Spring 1919 offensive. In 1898 we had experimented
with machine guns in the attacks around San Juan Hill, but they were
too heavy to lead the advance.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/thgtl10.txt
(It's tedious before Chapter VI)
jsw
Gunner Asch
"On the other hand..reliable rifles can save your life"
Sergent Louis DeGree, Armorer, Da Nang, 1972
David R.Birch
> On Jan 3, 6:30 pm, "David R.Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>> Wes wrote:
>>
>>> "Only accurate rifles are interesting."- Col. Townsend Whelen
>> This thinking led us to fight two World Wars with target rifles
>> instead of battle rifles and to use squads of riflemen supported
>> by machine guns instead of the more useful unit of machine guns
>> supported by riflemen.
>>
>> David
>
> The accurate rifle concept apparently came from the Boer war where
> an army of experienced hunters scored hits at half a mile plus on
> the British. Previously gunpowder smoke often obscured the enemy
> too much for carefully aimed fire.
I say this more a testimony to the skill of the Boers compared to that
of the Brits.
>
> It isn't really true of WW2, GIs carried a mix of the semiauto
> Garand, the assault-rifle-like carbine, scoped Springfields, the
> BAR and several 45 Cal submachine guns. Requirements varied rapidly
> in thick forest or jungle, across the open fields around a town,
> and then in its streets and buildings. The Germans who originated
> that tactic used it for defense more than offense, and issued
> bolt-actions in quantity until the end.
The MG34 or MG42 supported by small arms was integral to the
Blitzkrieg concept, just as they used infantry to support armor, when
we were still doing it the other way around.
>
> In WW1 the US was preparing Pederson sub-gun adapters for the
> Springfield for the Spring 1919 offensive.
Fortunately, the war ended before that poor idea had a chance to fail.
> In 1898 we had experimented with machine guns in the attacks around
> San Juan Hill, but they were too heavy to lead the advance.
Gatling guns were repeaters, not machine guns. The Marines used 6mm
Colt-Browning potato diggers in Cuba, but there were still no medium
machine guns in use then.
David
pyotr filipivich
about Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:13:22 -0800 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:56:51 -0500, Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote:
>>>There are a few. I did a bit of research a while ago and a few no-cost jobs
>>>like re-torquing all the fasteners especially on the gas port interface,
>>>floating the barrel and a bunch of stuff I don't quite understand. Both of
>>>mine do a fine job, don't jam and such but they aren't match rifles by any
>>>means.
>>
>>"Only accurate rifles are interesting."- Col. Townsend Whelen
>
>"On the other hand..reliable rifles can save your life"
> Sergent Louis DeGree, Armorer, Da Nang, 1972
"A man finds a lot of redeeming features in something that does
that." A 3rd Lt's response after the Grizzled Vet said "I like it,
it save my life." in a discussion on various firearms the US Military
has.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
Larry Jaques
<dbi...@wi.rr.com> scrawled the following:
Lerps in 'Nam picked up muddy, always-usable AKs and tossed their
early, quick-jamming M-16s. The smart ones also quit smoking and ate
the same fishhead & rice diet the Vietnamese did so their smells were
the same, internally and externally. The M-16 was eventually
debugged, but lots of our guys died from the early models. That was
inexcusable.
--
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.
--Thomas Paine
Gunner Asch
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:30:14 -0600, the infamous "David R.Birch"
><dbi...@wi.rr.com> scrawled the following:
>
>>Wes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Only accurate rifles are interesting."- Col. Townsend Whelen
>>
>>
>>This thinking led us to fight two World Wars with target rifles
>>instead of battle rifles and to use squads of riflemen supported by
>>machine guns instead of the more useful unit of machine guns supported
>>by riflemen.
>
>Lerps in 'Nam picked up muddy, always-usable AKs and tossed their
>early, quick-jamming M-16s. The smart ones also quit smoking and ate
>the same fishhead & rice diet the Vietnamese did so their smells were
>the same, internally and externally. The M-16 was eventually
>debugged, but lots of our guys died from the early models. That was
>inexcusable.
Indeed. Very very true.
Gunner
pyotr filipivich
<st...@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> on or about Sun, 3 Jan 2010
23:30:52 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>In <rfq2k5hrt1g90bbt4...@4ax.com>, on Sun, 03 Jan 2010
>
>> "A man finds a lot of redeeming features in something that does
>> that." A 3rd Lt's response after the Grizzled Vet said "I like it,
>> it save my life." in a discussion on various firearms the US Military
>> has.
>
That's what "summer interns" from the Academies or the ROTC
programs get called. Whether you still get that temporary rank I don't
know, but you do get referred as that. While 3LTs maybe in the chain
of command, legally, you're in a world of hurt if they are the only
officer around. You're better off letting the corporal lead. Or the
PFC.
pyotr
Gunner Asch
<st...@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote:
>In <rfq2k5hrt1g90bbt4...@4ax.com>, on Sun, 03 Jan 2010
>20:30:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich, ph...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> "A man finds a lot of redeeming features in something that does
>> that." A 3rd Lt's response after the Grizzled Vet said "I like it,
>> it save my life." in a discussion on various firearms the US Military
>> has.
>
> A 3rd Lt?
A Logistics Master Sargent?
Gunner
jbsl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hmmm.. With the "target rifles" we won the two world wars we fought
with them. Then we fought the Korean "police action" with the same
target rifles. Then we switched to the toys and haven't won a war
since :-)
Regards,
J.B.
Eregon
news:jfs2k5110of0apr3l...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:30:14 -0600, the infamous "David R.Birch"
> <dbi...@wi.rr.com> scrawled the following:
>
>>Wes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Only accurate rifles are interesting."- Col. Townsend Whelen
>>
>>
>>This thinking led us to fight two World Wars with target rifles
>>instead of battle rifles and to use squads of riflemen supported by
>>machine guns instead of the more useful unit of machine guns supported
>>by riflemen.
>
> Lerps in 'Nam picked up muddy, always-usable AKs and tossed their
> early, quick-jamming M-16s. The smart ones also quit smoking and ate
> the same fishhead & rice diet the Vietnamese did so their smells were
> the same, internally and externally. The M-16 was eventually
> debugged, but lots of our guys died from the early models. That was
> inexcusable.
>
The jamming problem was NOT caused by faulty DESIGN but by faulty
AMMUNITION.
The Stoner-designed Armalite was designed to utilize IMR powder and, in
its initial testing and Air Force deployment, served so well that the
brass at the Pentagon decided to adopt it for the other services.
Unfortunately, however, the "geniuses" at the Pentagon preferred doing
business with Winchester rather than Remington and wrote the ammo specs
to require BALL powder in the cartridges. The dustier BALL powder
resulted in both frequent jamming due to powder fouling AND degradation
of bullet performance due to lowered velocities.
While the addition of a "Bolt Assist" helped (somewhat) to overcome the
fouling of the chamber by the dirty powder in the substandard ammunition,
the only "treatment" was frequent cleaning of the firing chamber.
I wonder if the REMF that wrote those specs got his Directorship with the
Olin Corporation when he retired...
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Steve Ackman" <st...@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote in
message
news:slrnhk32pj...@sorceror.wizard.dyndns.org...
In <rfq2k5hrt1g90bbt4...@4ax.com>, on Sun, 03
Jan 2010
20:30:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich, ph...@mindspring.com
wrote:
> "A man finds a lot of redeeming features in something that
> does
> that." A 3rd Lt's response after the Grizzled Vet said
> "I like it,
> it save my life." in a discussion on various firearms the
> US Military
> has.
A 3rd Lt?
--
�~��~�
pyotr filipivich
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
><st...@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote:
>
>>In <rfq2k5hrt1g90bbt4...@4ax.com>, on Sun, 03 Jan 2010
>>20:30:14 -0800, pyotr filipivich, ph...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>> "A man finds a lot of redeeming features in something that does
>>> that." A 3rd Lt's response after the Grizzled Vet said "I like it,
>>> it save my life." in a discussion on various firearms the US Military
>>> has.
>>
>> A 3rd Lt?
>
>
>A Logistics Master Sargent?
I didn't ask. He did say that his unit never had any casualties
because officially they never left Okinawa. If you got hit, you got a
retroactive transfer to an unit "in country".
It was one of those "stand round the fire and talk story". "The
Kid" was just back from Uncle Sam's Summer Camp for Wayward Boys, and
he and the Vet (I do not recall either of their names). were talking,
mostly about what the kid had just gone through. "Yeah, we had a
Master Sergeant give the lecture, and for every weapon, he had a
story." and so forth. Something got mentioned - a M1C key Mou-se -
and the kid, of course, having just come from the familiarization,
wasn't impressed, and said as much. The Vet said "It saved my life on
a couple occasions." To which the smart you lad said "A man finds a
lot of redeeming features in something that does that." Yep, he'll
do well.
It might be he was this generations smart Second Lieutenant. But
I haven't seen either gentlemen in over ten years, minimum.
jbsl...@gmail.com
IN 1964 and 1965 I was stationed at Nha Trang air base. 5th special
Forces camp abutted on the back of the Nha Trang airbase and I used to
eat in the S.F. mess.
When the first hullabaloo happened with the M-16 and people started
writing home to Mama about their gun jamming I mentioned this across
the supper table to a bunch of army people. I was told that 5th had
conducted the "jungle tests" of the M-16 and "we never had a
malfunction".
The statement was followed by the comment "Of course we clean our
weapons".
I can't comment from personal experience (the A.F. is the only service
that sends its officers out to do or die and stays safely at the base
:-) but I've always wondered about the stories of people who threw
their M-16 away to grab up a muddy old AK. Where did they get the
ammo? Did the U.S. Army maintain stocks of AK ammo because they just
knew that their people wanted it?
Regards,
J.B.
David R.Birch
We fought WWI mostly with British designed M1917 battle rifles, the
M1903 wasn't available in sufficient quantity. By the time we arrived,
most of the dying had already happened.
The Garand was useful as a semiauto rifle, but it's accuracy wasn't
significantly better that the Enfields, Mausers and Arisakas. It
didn't win the war. America's industrial capacity did.
David
Eregon
news:ub35k5dkdi6objroo...@4ax.com:
The "early testers" were supplied with Remington-produced ammo loaded
with IMR powder.
It was only when the Olin-produced, BALL-powder loaded, ammo was issued
that powder-fouling of the chamber became an issue.
With typical Pentagon brilliance, DOD preferred to modify the weapon
rather than admit that the ammo specifications were faulty.
Ed Huntress
"Eregon" <Era...@Saphira.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF788A4...@74.209.131.10...
There was a velocity issue with the original loadings, too, IIRC. The
version the Air Force accepted did not meet general Pentagon requirements
for service-rifle velocity. Supposedly, that's why there was a change in
ammo.
(Going strictly on memory here)
--
Ed Huntress
Eregon
news:4b439356$0$31286$607e...@cv.net:
> There was a velocity issue with the original loadings, too, IIRC. The
> version the Air Force accepted did not meet general Pentagon
> requirements for service-rifle velocity. Supposedly, that's why there
> was a change in ammo.
The "velocity issue" was that the IMR powder pushed those itty-bitty
bullets so fast that, upon impact, the projectiles would "keyhole" and,
thus, create more devastating wounds than the slower-velocity BALL
powder loadings.
When this difference was mentioned to McNamara's Finest, they panicked
and started screaming "instability" and "inaccuracy" since they would
never (even in their wildest nightmares) stoop so low as to actually
observe the phenomena much less make any attempt at discovering the
facts.
Besides which, Olin didn't load IMR powder and Remington didn't load BALL
powder. Thus Remington got the Rifle Contract and Olin got the AMMO
Contract - and everybody made money hand-over-fist.
sta...@prolynx.com
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote innews:4b439356$0$31286$607e...@cv.net:
Remington NEVER produced M16s, it was a COLT baby, and the reason that
IMR powder wasn't used was Dupont couldn't reproduce the ballistics
that original experimental batch had. See Black Rifle 1 & 2 before
spewing hash. Has the whole sorry story of the M16's early days.
McNamara's band has a prominent place but there's plenty of blame to
spread around.
Stan
Larry Jaques
scrawled the following:
>IN 1964 and 1965 I was stationed at Nha Trang air base. 5th special
>Forces camp abutted on the back of the Nha Trang airbase and I used to
>eat in the S.F. mess.
>
>When the first hullabaloo happened with the M-16 and people started
>writing home to Mama about their gun jamming I mentioned this across
>the supper table to a bunch of army people. I was told that 5th had
>conducted the "jungle tests" of the M-16 and "we never had a
>malfunction".
>
>The statement was followed by the comment "Of course we clean our
>weapons".
IIRC, they sent the first crates of M-16s over without cleaning kits
or with the wrong kits. But IIRC, the tighter tolerances were partly
to blame, too, with the weapons being dragged around the wet, muddy
jungle. They clogged at the slightest dust.
>I can't comment from personal experience (the A.F. is the only service
>that sends its officers out to do or die and stays safely at the base
>:-) but I've always wondered about the stories of people who threw
>their M-16 away to grab up a muddy old AK. Where did they get the
>ammo? Did the U.S. Army maintain stocks of AK ammo because they just
>knew that their people wanted it?
From what I've read, weapons and ammo were removed from dead VCs,
picked up during raids, etc. Large amounts were destroyed after the
VC started doing what we did: put high explosives in plain ammo to
booby trap the enemy.
LRPs didn't do _nearly_ as much shooting as their fellow soldiers who
were trying to take or defend areas, either.
Wes
>>
>> With typical Pentagon brilliance, DOD preferred to modify the weapon
>> rather than admit that the ammo specifications were faulty.
>
>There was a velocity issue with the original loadings, too, IIRC. The
>version the Air Force accepted did not meet general Pentagon requirements
>for service-rifle velocity. Supposedly, that's why there was a change in
>ammo.
>
>(Going strictly on memory here)
>
Since we are going on memory and I am also, where does the lack of chrome lining of barrel
and chamber fit it? IIRC that is.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:uQP0n.14520$PC4....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> With typical Pentagon brilliance, DOD preferred to modify the weapon
>>> rather than admit that the ammo specifications were faulty.
>>
>>There was a velocity issue with the original loadings, too, IIRC. The
>>version the Air Force accepted did not meet general Pentagon requirements
>>for service-rifle velocity. Supposedly, that's why there was a change in
>>ammo.
>>
>>(Going strictly on memory here)
>>
>
> Since we are going on memory and I am also, where does the lack of chrome
> lining of barrel
> and chamber fit it? IIRC that is.
>
> Wes
Don't know. The big issue on the supposed "keyholing" was a rate of twist
that was too slow. Colt made some of the guns with 1:18 twist, and they were
unstable. That's where the keyholing reputation started. The gun was
designed for 1:14 and they soon went to 1:12, but I think they're quite a
bit tighter twist now. At least some of them have 1:7 twist.
The whole twist issue was tied to the different bullet weights (lengths,
actually) and to different thinking about barrel life versus accuracy. It
was pretty much the same as the issue related to varmint rifles, which is
why it interested me enough to remember some of it.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>Don't know. The big issue on the supposed "keyholing" was a rate of twist
>that was too slow. Colt made some of the guns with 1:18 twist, and they were
>unstable. That's where the keyholing reputation started. The gun was
>designed for 1:14 and they soon went to 1:12, but I think they're quite a
>bit tighter twist now. At least some of them have 1:7 twist.
1:7 takes a long bullet, not mag feed iirc.
>
>The whole twist issue was tied to the different bullet weights (lengths,
>actually) and to different thinking about barrel life versus accuracy. It
>was pretty much the same as the issue related to varmint rifles, which is
>why it interested me enough to remember some of it.
I'm still working on figuring the magic (as in best of all needs) twist for the AR I want
to buy before I leave this earth.
jbsl...@gmail.com
From memory, the original guns were made with fairly slow twist, for a
center fire .22, and added to that was the boat tailed bullets they
were loading. As I remember it the first stability problems came up
during testing in Alaska (cold air is more dense) which led to faster
twist.
As far as the closing assist, the original Air Force weapons did not
have it and I remember being told to load by pulling the bolt
retracting handle all the way back and release it - do not allow your
hand to contact the bolt retracting handle while the bolt was closing.
Sometimes this took several tries if the gun was a bit dirty.
Regards,
J.B.
jbsl...@gmail.com
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:05:50 +0700, the infamous jbsl...@gmail.com
>scrawled the following:
>
>>IN 1964 and 1965 I was stationed at Nha Trang air base. 5th special
>>Forces camp abutted on the back of the Nha Trang airbase and I used to
>>eat in the S.F. mess.
>>
>>When the first hullabaloo happened with the M-16 and people started
>>writing home to Mama about their gun jamming I mentioned this across
>>the supper table to a bunch of army people. I was told that 5th had
>>conducted the "jungle tests" of the M-16 and "we never had a
>>malfunction".
>>
>>The statement was followed by the comment "Of course we clean our
>>weapons".
>
>IIRC, they sent the first crates of M-16s over without cleaning kits
>or with the wrong kits. But IIRC, the tighter tolerances were partly
>to blame, too, with the weapons being dragged around the wet, muddy
>jungle. They clogged at the slightest dust.
>
I can't comment on what the Army manual actually said but I was told
by Army weapons people that the original Army manual stated something
like "due to the chrome plated bolt the weapon does not require
rigorous cleaning" which I understand that some of the Army
interpreted to mean "you don't need to clean it". I certainly remember
a survey, published in The National Rifleman, which said that soldiers
had reported their weapon jamming in a firefight. When asked if they
had cleaned the weapon after it jammed the individual being questioned
said "no".
I can't say about whether close tolerances mad the M-16's more prone
to jamming but I can say that the 5th troopers seemed to like M-16's
and I know that they had a choice since I made a number of cut down
M-1 carbines for them and I used to see them with Swedish K machine
pistols.
>>I can't comment from personal experience (the A.F. is the only service
>>that sends its officers out to do or die and stays safely at the base
>>:-) but I've always wondered about the stories of people who threw
>>their M-16 away to grab up a muddy old AK. Where did they get the
>>ammo? Did the U.S. Army maintain stocks of AK ammo because they just
>>knew that their people wanted it?
>
>From what I've read, weapons and ammo were removed from dead VCs,
>picked up during raids, etc. Large amounts were destroyed after the
>VC started doing what we did: put high explosives in plain ammo to
>booby trap the enemy.
>
>LRPs didn't do _nearly_ as much shooting as their fellow soldiers who
>were trying to take or defend areas, either.
Regards,
J.B.
Jim Stewart
> As far as the closing assist, the original Air Force weapons did not
> have it and I remember being told to load by pulling the bolt
> retracting handle all the way back and release it - do not allow your
> hand to contact the bolt retracting handle while the bolt was closing.
> Sometimes this took several tries if the gun was a bit dirty.
M16 - no bolt assist, open flash suppressor
M16A1 - bolt assist, closed flash suppressor
We had the M16 in Basic and they told us that
the weapons were returns from Nam that had been
exchanged for the A1 version. That was the last
time I ever saw one.
We had M14's in the Washington State Guard though,
a nice change.
Jim Stewart
> I can't comment on what the Army manual actually said but I was told
> by Army weapons people that the original Army manual stated something
> like "due to the chrome plated bolt the weapon does not require
> rigorous cleaning" which I understand that some of the Army
> interpreted to mean "you don't need to clean it". I certainly remember
> a survey, published in The National Rifleman, which said that soldiers
> had reported their weapon jamming in a firefight. When asked if they
> had cleaned the weapon after it jammed the individual being questioned
> said "no".
By 1970 there was a very heavy training emphasis
on cleaning and lubrication. Even comic books
showing how to do it.
sta...@prolynx.com
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> With typical Pentagon brilliance, DOD preferred to modify the weapon
> >> rather than admit that the ammo specifications were faulty.
>
> >There was a velocity issue with the original loadings, too, IIRC. The
> >version the Air Force accepted did not meet general Pentagon requirements
> >for service-rifle velocity. Supposedly, that's why there was a change in
> >ammo.
>
> >(Going strictly on memory here)
>
> Since we are going on memory and I am also, where does the lack of chrome lining of barrel
> and chamber fit it? IIRC that is.
>
> Wes
> --
Rust! If the chamber gets rusted through lack of cleaning, it's going
to pit. The fired case expands into the pits, the rim gets pulled off
and you get a nice jam. The brass were promoting it as a rifle that
never needed cleaning, so no cleaning kits in the butt, no rod
available to knock out the empty. I still have one of the early
buttstocks, it's solid, no trap. If the chamber is chrome plated, no
rust, no pits, and a better chance of good functioning, even given
draftee level of care. The Soviets knew this back before WWII.
Stan
sta...@prolynx.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Current twist availability is 1:9, 1:8 and 1:7. You can still find
some that run 1:12, there's a few guys that like the original AR-15
configuration and are replicating the looks of the old guns. 1:7 is
the currrent military barrel spec for 5.56, needed to stabilize tracers
(long for the weight). The match shooters like 1:8, they're single-
loading long(and heavy) bullets for the most part, over-length for
working through the magazine well. 1:9 handles most everything up to
at least 69 grains, pretty much what you normally get in a civvy AR
unless you go for military-style barrels. There's also a few guys
shooting twists as fast as 1:6.5 for really long and heavy bullets,
all pretty much custom stuff. The heavier and longer the bullet is
for a given bore size, the faster the rifling twist needs to be. The
original bullets were in the 50-55 grain range, issue ammo is a lot
heavier now.
Stan
Ed Huntress
<sta...@prolynx.com> wrote in message
news:1f68c453-e35f-4341...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
A 52 gr. bullet in a .223 is what I used to kill a javelina. It's an
excellent match and the same load I used on groundhogs, in a single-shot
Browning 1885 rifle. In humans...I don't know.
--
Ed Huntress
jbsl...@gmail.com
wrote:
I believe that is true and again I can only quote what the 5th S.F.
people said to me in late 1965 - early 1966. They certainly talked
very disparagingly about "Straight Legs", Regular Army troops, that
didn't clean their weapons. I remember one discussion in which someone
referenced the chrome plating and a M/Sgt said something like "I don't
give a sh-- what the T.M. says. Everyone in my team cleans their
weapon! And we don't have malfunctions".
The comic book "tech manual" does say something about the Army's
thoughts about the average soldier, doesn't it.
Regards,
J.B.
Roger Haar
I have a good friend who was in Viet Nam in about 1968.
Before during and after his time in the military, he was a
very good shot and took extremely good care of hie fire arms
(and all of his tools)
What he told me was that in Basic and Advanced combat
training they were taught that during cleaning they should
remove as much residual oil as possible from their M16's
(Maybe a good idea in a dusty environment). In Viet Nam he
kept his weapon swimming in oil and said he never had a
problem.
Thanks
Roger
Jim Wilkins
>
> The comic book "tech manual" does say something about the Army's
> thoughts about the average soldier, doesn't it.
>
> Regards,
>
> J.B.
The average soldier wasn't always literate in English, which says more
about cultural stubbornness than his intelligence.
Jim Stewart
I don't know. For one thing, there really wasn't anything
like an "average soldier", at least in the Nam-era. It was
very common to have high school dropouts and people with BS
degrees working together, along with minorities with very
limited English skills.
I suspect the training comic book predated Nam by a long
time. It was a clever tool given that most soldiers had
idle time on their hands. Just putting out a few copies
in the day room would get them read.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://www.ep.tc/problems/25/index.html
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766