AR-15/M-16 Reliability
Philip Shiflett
This is a hard item to post. One that will generate controversy,
because of loyalty, mostly, and for some, fond memories. It is
however, in light of recent fatalities suffered by American Soldiers,
IMHO, necessary.
In the more than 30 years of experience I've had with the Stoner
design, M-16/AR15, what ever you call it, I've come to the inescapable
conclusion that the basic design is not inherently robust enough for
infantry combat use.
This is not to say it's a bad design. It is a GOOD design, and its
performance at places like Camp Perry is stellar! I watched at local
matches as the evolved design has, slowly, over the years, edged out
the older M1/M1A in target competition. The M-16A2 is definitely an
improvement over the old M16-A1 I first used at Camp Geiger many years
ago.
My son's Bushmaster, with a bull barrel and a weighted butt stock, is
a great piece of machinery, and a pleasure to shoot, with an accuracy
and a repeatability that rival any quality machine.
But there is another side to this.
Reliability under adverse conditions.
The truth is that in 15 years of competing in local 3-gun
competitions, I can always place pretty well, even though I don't
practice and even though I don't spend a lot of money on my guns and I
shoot cheap ammo.
The reason I can always do fairly well with a minimum of effort is
because I shoot an SKS or an AK-47 variant or a friend's M1 carbine.
I can count on about 1/2 of the people using AR-15/M-16 and
derivatives, in .223, to encounter problems at some point during the
match. Usually with failures to feed, or ammunition feeding problems
of some type.
I can say about half because I actually got interested enough in the
issue to record the number of problems people had at matches. I've
actually got numbers. And these are on people that are NOT slovenly
or unfamiliar with arms.
Typically, if we ran a course of fire 3 times, about 20% of the ARs
would have a problem, clearable, on the first run, another 30%, (some
repeats) on the second run and by the third run, about half would have
experienced at least a feed problem, clearable by the shooter, and a
good 20% percent would be DNF or Did not Finish on at least one run.
This was in a sandy environment, ABQ, NM.
During the time I took data on this issue, I never once recorded any
feed failure or failure to extract from an SKS, AK,M1 carbine or Ruger
Mini14/30.
Oh yes, I know, some will say its lack of individual maintenance.
Some will say its bad magazines; some will say it's incorrect
lubrication, or another excuse or another, and another…
Well, these explanations are a cop-outs.
People who use AR-15/M-16s do NOT take less care of their firearms, on
the average, than people that don't. To blame individual maintenance
for all these problems is a slap in the face of the people that own
AR-15/M-16s and they simply are not people that are slovenly or
uncaring in their maintenance. In my experience and study, American
shooters in general, and American Soldiers and Marines, are MORE
caring in their treatment of their weapons than your NVA regular or
peasant soldier or Mujahadeen or Al Quaeda warrior or Somali
tribesman. To say Americans are pigs when it come to gun cleaning
doesn't explain why Americans with other guns have fewer problems! Is
the poor maintenance of guns a characteristic that is only exhibited
by people that own AR-15/M-16s!?
What is true is that people that shoot SKS/AK/M1 carbine/Ruger Minis
have a LOT less problems with failures to feed, and magazine problems
and, unsurprisingly, none of their guns have a 'forward assist'
mechanism.
The truth is though, that MOST of the time, not always, someone with
an AR-15/M-16 or derivative wins the local 3 gun match. Why is that,
if they're less reliable?
The reason is, from my observation, three fold. More of the serious 3
gun shooters use the AR-15/M-16 system. And for good reason! They
ARE better ergonomically than other designs AND they are more
accurate. There is no way an AK is going to be as accurate as an
AR-15; the firearms come from different design philosophies; different
military shooting heritages; different requirements for training and
use and these differences make the M-16/AR-15 a more accurate platform
for launching bullets.
The third reason they usually win, is that the AR shooters, IMHO, are
usually more dedicated. There is no way I'm going to spend the time
practicing that some of these guys do, and the practice pays off!
They run the courses quicker and do better!
The down side, for them, is that no matter how much more they
practice, no matter how much more time they spend, I still beat half
of them with a cheaper gun, cheaper ammo and no practice, because my
gun doesn't fail.
No SKS or M1 Carbine or AK or Ruger Mini I've use in a 3-gun
competition has EVER failed. NEVER EVER, NEVER EVER!!!!!
Some testimony to this;
http://www.freep.com/news/portraitsofwar/rhodes.htm
…Rhodes spots some Iraqi civilians in the distance, about 1,000 meters
away, walking toward his position.
"What are they doing?" Rhodes wonders.
He grips the M16 tightly. The rifle can hold 30 rounds, one in the
chamber and 29 in the magazine. But he's only using 25 today, so the
spring doesn't jam with sand.
…
http://www2.newszap.com/warwithiraq/03272003/news05.htm
SOUTHERN IRAQ - The message raced up the battalion like an emergency
telegram: "An enemy company is three miles south."
Pfc. Conan Doyle rushed 30 feet to the edge of his unit's territory,
dropped to the ground and lay ready to fire his M-16 rifle, wishing
one thing: Please let there be mines out there.
A blinding sandstorm was shrouding the desert in front of Doyle and
other prone soldiers in a swirling cloud of beige. An enemy attacker
50 feet away would be the cipher. And even if Doyle opened fire,
pelting sand would probably jam his automatic rifle, turning it at
best into a semi-automatic, requiring each round to be loaded
individually.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1347538,00.html
507th Maintenance Company…
All had their weapons jam due to sand kicked up as they traveled from
Kuwait.
Oh, yes, I know, some will use the 507th incident as evidence that
soldiers aren't caring for their weapons. And they're probably right!
If you think you need to convince me that support troops need more
training in arms and more time allocated for maintenance, you're
preaching to the choir. I'm sure Pvt. Lynch would agree. Everyone
always needs to train and do better maintenance. Everybody and
always!!
And, Oh, yes, I've heard them tell me it's all in maintenance; THEIR
AR never jams! They always tell me that right before their's jams and
then they come off the line and mumble something about 'forgot to use
my good mags' or some such excuse. I've seen that a hundred times.
Denial.
But here's the down side…
#From talking to several soldiers, and from personal experience in
using the AR-15/M16 system in a desert environment, (I lived in ABQ,
N.M.) the system WILL accumulate fine sand in the mechanism, after
cleaning, with the dust cover closed, even though not fired or used.
This fine sand will, from time to time, cause the rifle to fail to
feed or worse, fail to extract, almost immediately upon use. This is
also true of most machinery in a desert environment, including living
room windows, car engines and garage door openers.
Folks, this is a REAL issue; our soldiers are dying because their
rifles ARE NOT RELIABLE enough.
If our soldiers don't spend in-ordinate amounts of time and great care
with their M-16s, they will fail. If our soldiers spend in-ordinate
time and care on their M-16s, too many of them STILL FAIL!!
Although bad maintenance of any firearm guarantees failure at some
time, good maintenance of an M16 will not guarantee success all the
time!
Our front line Soldiers and Marines ARE NOT PIGS, they try their best
to care for those rifles, under both good and bad conditions.
This is not just another one of those AK47 vs. AR-15 arguments. Those
are pointless, no one is suggesting here that we adopt the AK-47 and
the AK-47 will never be adopted by the American military.
The truth is that if it requires extraordinary training and care to
get a battle rifle to function, then we need a better rifle!
It is time for the US to take the lessons of the past and best
features of the past and present weapons of both the Western Powers
and Com Block and develop a rifle for the 21st century. One that has
the accuracy and ergonomics of the AR and the reliability and
robustness of the Kalashnikov.
#From what I read, we are developing a new battle rifle, a Buck Rogers
gizmo with integrated smart ammo, grenades and et cetera.
I hope it can do one thing. Shoot reliably and accurately.
IMHO, we must develop a rifle that can tolerate moderate amounts of
dirt and that will actually be self-cleaning, to a certain extent.
I've used many tools where the action of the tool circulates air to
provide a cleaning function, such as a circular saw keeping the saw
cut line uncovered by saw dust or a sander that captures its dust,
leaving the work surface unobscured.
It would seem to me that a rifle could have a feature that moves air
through the action, as a result of its motion, that tends to purge the
firing chamber and receiver working spaces of foreign material. What
if the recoil spring swept volume had a vent that would allow air
compressed by the recoil stroke of the bolt to be released into the
chamber to help clear the action? Does anyone know if this has been
tried? I know machine gun designs have tried similar ideas for
cooling the barrel and mechanism.
Another basic concept with machines is that the smaller the material
the machine feeds, the smaller the parts of the machine, hence the
more precise its parts and the less tolerance it has for fouling.
Perhaps we should re-evaluate the size of the cases; the Russian
5.45x39 case is physically larger in radius and seems to have the
advantages of lighter weight ammo, smaller, high velocity, bullet but
retaining the larger bolt and feeding components of a .30 caliber
design. Is that a good compromise, small bullet, slightly larger
case?
I LOVE the way an M-16 breaks down for cleaning! You can get it apart
and clear a serious malfunction quickly! I wish the Kalashnikov were
so easy to break down for cleaning.
I LOVE the way the SKS magazine and bayonet are integral parts of the
weapon. Prevents loosing parts! Great idea! How about an infantry
rifle where the parts can all be cleaned without taking them from
their seating position in the mechanism, so some ham-handed old
Jarhead (like me) doesn't drop his freshly cleaned and lubed bolt in
the sand? Man, I hate when I do that!
Anyway, I'm no gun designer, and my ideas may never see daylight, but
certainly we have scientists and engineers that could get our
infantrymen a more reliable rifle.
It's time to finally admit the Emperor has no clothes.
The M-16 DOES tend to fail more than other designs.
It IS costing Soldiers and Marines their lives.
There is NO reason we can't have accuracy, good ergonomics and
reliability, and we should!
Philip Shiflett
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
GLC1173
#I can count on about 1/2 of the people >using AR-15/M-16 and
#derivatives, in .223, to encounter >problems at some point during the
#match. Usually with failures to feed, or >ammunition feeding problems
#of some type.
What kind of <I>lubricants</i> are they using? Remember, that Army unit
with lots of gun failures in Iraq during an ambush had not only M-16s fail -
but also M2s and other guns!
#American shooters in general, and >American Soldiers and Marines, are >MORE
caring in their treatment of their >weapons than your NVA regular or
#peasant soldier or Mujahadeen or Al >Quaeda warrior or Somali
#tribesman.
The SKS is more peasant-proof than the the AR or the M-16 - but it also
isn't very accurate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<B>Dissident news - plus immigration, gun rights, nationwide weather
<I><A HREF="http://www.alamanceind.com">ALAMANCE INDEPENDENT:
official newspaper of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy</A></b></i>
Scott Richards
it should be. It seems to stem from the use of raw combustion gases to
power the action directly versus the AK with its separate piston to capture
the gas pressure. As a battle rifle in a sandy environment it isn't the
best design. Aggravating this is the fact that the equipment our troops are
using is not always in the best of condition to start with (contrary to
popular opinion). This is not just limited to the M-16's. Did you notice
how much trouble gunners had keeping the 50 cal M2's running? The CNN and
Fox News coverage of the war showed this many times. I think that these
weapons systems could work better if they were in better shape. Those 50's
on the news may have been the actual units we used to win WWII.
Highest Regards,
Scott Richards
"Philip Shiflett" <pbsi...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:berd56$9c5$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
jon fishback
guys shooting in this region are shooting AR variants for the
carbine/rifle. A few shoot the M1A pattern weapon, and even fewer are
shooting the AK pattern. I sure haven't seen the percentage of problems
with AR style rifles/carbines you're seeing. In Area 1 matches AR
variants are stone reliable in 3 gun competition. Problems I've seen
with guys trying to use the AK pattern weapon in a 3-gun match is the
damn slow reload. AK pattern rifles also very reliable, but can't match
an AR on the speed of magazine changes.
Philip Shiflett wrote:
> ...
MagKnightX
The reason for the AR-15/M-16's accuracy is that it has very tight
tolerances, lessening reliability. The reason for the AK-47 and the
SKS's reliability is that they sacrificed accuracy with loose
tolerances. I would like to see if the air-cleaning system works. If
it does, and the military furthers the M-16, it might make it into the
A3.
Tom Line
piston to reduce front end weight to keep the gun quick handling in an
urban combat role. The strength of the AR design is it's great ergonomics.
Don't change that, including the weight distribution.
Lone_Wolf
> ...
My experience from NRA highpower matches is that the majority of failures
come from either bad ammo or poor maintenance, with the OCCASIONAL failure
of a trigger (usually a Bushmaster two-stage). I've seen one case where the
coach for a junior team didn't properly maintain a rifle and there was some
light surface rust in the chamber causing extraction problems. I've personally
had a problem with lubricants and powder fouling accumulating in the bolt
carrier and not allowing the bolt/firing pin to move far enough to guarantee
solid hits on the primer, I switched lubricants and also started paying more
attention to that spot during cleaning and have not seen the problem recur.
Looking at the reports from the convoy in Iraq, ALL weapons systems were
showing failures, not just the M16's. Reading the timeline for the convoy,
mention is made of downtime for sleep, but no emphasis on weapon's maintenance
during any halts.
James
> ...
> ...
Bill VH
<scottjr...@comcast.net> writes:
# Did you notice
#how much trouble gunners had keeping the 50 cal M2's running? The CNN and
#Fox News coverage of the war showed this many times. I think that these
#weapons systems could work better if they were in better shape. Those 50's
#on the news may have been the actual units we used to win WWII.
#
I made a conscious effort to ignore Clinton News Network, but the one time
I saw someone having trouble with Ma-Deuce was the Bn.S-2 having trouble
on the 3d ID run into Bagdad. On the second stoppage (same scene) I knew
it wasn't headspaced right. I guess Officers need more weapons training.
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Thermopylae had it's messenger of defeat, COME AND GET THEM !
The Alamo had none.
J David Phillips
posting it. Obviously, you've thought a lot about this, and that is very
much to your merit. I'm looking forward to all of the posts this will
generate.
Too bad we can't have a rifle as reliable as the Garand and the M1A
were/still are. Thanks again for your thought provoking post.
J David Phillips
1925 S.E.Hwy 19
Crystal River, Florida, 34429
352-795-2777
flm...@tampabay.rr.com
"Philip Shiflett" <pbsi...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:berd56$9c5$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# Dear Shooters,
#
# This is a hard item to post. One that will generate controversy,
# because of loyalty, mostly, and for some, fond memories. It is
# however, in light of recent fatalities suffered by American Soldiers,
# IMHO, necessary.
Bill VH
<gt6...@cad.gatech.edu> writes:
#
#Looking at the reports from the convoy in Iraq, ALL weapons systems were
#showing failures, not just the M16's. Reading the timeline for the convoy,
#mention is made of downtime for sleep, but no emphasis on weapon's
#maintenance
#during any halts.
#
It won't make much difference how well the weapons worked. The Press
and the Democrats are going to win Sadam's war for him. Just like with Nam.
and the Viet Cong.
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Thermopylae had it's messenger of defeat, COME AND GET THEM !
The Alamo had none.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Timm
"GLC1173" <glc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:beu0eu$fpp$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# Philip wrote:
# The SKS is more peasant-proof than the the AR or the M-16 - but it also
# isn't very accurate.
Every SKS, AR-15 series, AK type semi-auto and old Garands and M-1 Carbines,
could hit a Pepper Popper out to 350 yards. More accuracy than this you
really do not need in combat.
Geoff
Who believes long range precision marksmanship is for specialists with
special rifles.
Tony Williams
# How about keeping it the same, except for the gas system. Use a short
# piston to reduce front end weight to keep the gun quick handling in an
# urban combat role. The strength of the AR design is it's great ergonomics.
# Don't change that, including the weight distribution.
A different problem with the M16 is down to its layout. I have read
reports on the effectiveness of US weapons in Iraq and two things
stand out; that the M16 (20" barrel) is felt to be loo long and
cumbersome when getting in and out of AFVs, and also in urban fighting
(leading to a demand for more pistols); and that the M4 (14.5"
barrel), while very handy, doesn't have the punch at long range.
The only way to combine the handiness required with a long-range punch
is of course to go for a bullpup design, which implies rather
different ergonomics. I know that the main objection to this layout is
the difficulty of using such guns left-handed, but the new FN F2000
shows that this can be overcome.
Despite the results of their own reports, the US military seems to be
heading for another short-barrelled carbine type (the XM8 = G36) for
its next rifle.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
Ken Marsh
Tony Williams <Tony.W...@quarry.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
#Despite the results of their own reports, the US military seems to be
#heading for another short-barrelled carbine type (the XM8 = G36) for
#its next rifle.
Er... It's far to early to say where the US Army will go, especially
when lessons learned from GWII are considered.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Save the environment! Buy US-made
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | heavy industries products.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Morton
Tony.W...@quarry.nildram.co.uk (Tony Williams) wrote:
#The only way to combine the handiness required with a long-range punch
#is of course to go for a bullpup design, which implies rather
#different ergonomics. I know that the main objection to this layout is
#the difficulty of using such guns left-handed, but the new FN F2000
#shows that this can be overcome.
Actually all they really need to do is ditch the silly 14.5" barrel
and go to the same 16" barrel that the civilian carbines use. I've
got an Eagle lower and a Model 1 Sales 16" iron sight upper, and I
LOVE it. It's very accurate offhand at 200 yards (I NEVER shot my M1
that accurately offhand at 200 yards), and totally reliable.
The weapon would be just as handy (especially with the long handguard
version sold by Armalite), have better stopping power, and be more
accurate.
I'm thinking of going to a 6x45mm 16" heavy barrel upper if I can find
one for a reasonable price. I think THAT'S the way to go.
--
More blood for oil... in my name!
jercamp45
> ...
The objective of a combat rifle is to hit a man in the chest at
practical combat ranges, not a varmit in the head. Most combat is up
close.. but most combat rifles will do the job required out to 400
meters. The guys behind the gun...well that is another matter/ And
with todays mentality of auto fire and three round bursts, accuracy is
more about luck that marksmanship.
Jercamp45
Terry91246
#derivatives, in .223, to encounter problems at some point during the
#match. Usually with failures to feed, or ammunition feeding problems
#of some type.
Just thinking out loud here, but is it possable that some of the people having
problems are using "off-brand" or homebuilt AR-15s? All the parts needed to
bulid an AR-15 are commonly available, and it seems a lot of people want to
build one themselves. Lets face it, if you have never built a rifle in your
life it might be hard to get it perfect when assembling. On the other hand,
your SKS's were made in a factory that has built thousands of them.
Not saying this is the problem in every case, but perhaps in some of them.
Tony Williams
# Tony Williams <Tony.W...@quarry.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
# #Despite the results of their own reports, the US military seems to be
# #heading for another short-barrelled carbine type (the XM8 = G36) for
# #its next rifle.
#
# Er... It's far to early to say where the US Army will go, especially
# when lessons learned from GWII are considered.
Well, they seem to be fairly committed to OICW, which uses a version
of the G36 as the 5.56mm element, so it's no surprise that they have
announced the XM8 development programme. AFAIK no other weapon is
being considered at present as an M16/M4 replacement.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Williams
#
# I'm thinking of going to a 6x45mm 16" heavy barrel upper if I can find
# one for a reasonable price. I think THAT'S the way to go.
For other alternatives, see:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Marsh
Tony Williams <Tony.W...@quarry.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
#Well, they seem to be fairly committed to OICW, which uses a version
#of the G36 as the 5.56mm element, so it's no surprise that they have
#announced the XM8 development programme. AFAIK no other weapon is
#being considered at present as an M16/M4 replacement.
The US Army has also been fairly commited to lots of rifle replacement
programs. :) OICW has been around since what, 1994, where is it 9 years
later? 6 years until adoption? That's inertia, not momentum. Anyway, The
OICW won't be adopted as an M-16 replacement in its present form, it's
too big and heavy, and does not meet the goal of weight reduction.
What foreign observers fail to realize is just how many billions of
dollars the US pisses away in development programs that go nowhere.
I'm not saying the OICW won't make it someday, in some form... but I'll
bet even money that every front-line solder is not carrying one in 2010.
One in each squad replacing the M203, that I can believe. In this role
the carbine makes sense, as merely backs up the grenade launcher, which
becomes the primary weapon.
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Save the environment! Buy US-made
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | heavy industries products.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hawke
Nam.
# and the Viet Cong.
The press was the cause of the US losing the war in Viet Nam? Somebody
better tell the Vietnamese about that because all this time they've been
mistakenly believing that they were the ones who defeated the US in the war.
Or, wait a minute, I thought it was Jane Fonda who won the war for them.
Hawke
Christopher Morton
(Ken Marsh) wrote:
#The US Army has also been fairly commited to lots of rifle replacement
#programs. :) OICW has been around since what, 1994, where is it 9 years
#later? 6 years until adoption? That's inertia, not momentum. Anyway, The
#OICW won't be adopted as an M-16 replacement in its present form, it's
#too big and heavy, and does not meet the goal of weight reduction.
The thing which is REALLY going to kill OICW is the insane cost. If I
remember correctly, for what the OICW costs, you could give every
infantryman TWO Accuracy International sniper rifles.
#What foreign observers fail to realize is just how many billions of
#dollars the US pisses away in development programs that go nowhere.
But sometimes they hang around forever, returning from the grave, over
and over, like Christopher Lee in a Hammer Dracula movie. Prime
example: the Armored Combat Earthmover (ACE). When I was assigned to
the US Army Armor and Engineer Board (USAARENBD) in '84, they were
still working on it. There was one outside the Board offices... on a
concrete slab as a static display. The date on the plaque? 1964, I
think. They were finally fielded in time for the first Gulf War.
--
More blood for oil... in my name!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill VH
writes:
#
#The press was the cause of the US losing the war in Viet Nam? Somebody
#better tell the Vietnamese about that because all this time they've been
#mistakenly believing that they were the ones who defeated the US in the war.
Just when did the VC or NVA ever defeat us in battle. Not even in their
vaunted Tet Offensive. By the time that was over the VC had practically
ceased to exist. But by the U.S. press you'ld have thought they scored
a glorious victory. As I said, it was the Media and a bunch of Marxist
sympathisers that lost that one for us. And by the time the "Gang of
Nine" get through you'd think we should withdraw from Iraq and opologise
to Sadam for the inconvenience.
#Or, wait a minute, I thought it was Jane Fonda who won the war for them.
# /\
/ \
/ \
May she contract Vietnamese Crotch Rot and her guts fall out !
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Thermopylae had it's messenger of defeat, COME AND GET THEM !
The Alamo had none.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terry91246
#better tell the Vietnamese about that because all this time they've been
#mistakenly believing that they were the ones who defeated the US in the war.
they didn't defeat us... we got tired of the mess and decided to go home. we
negotiated a peace treaty that the Vietnamese signed, then later broke.
I won't say we won, as our objectives were not met, but I would not say we were
defeated either. We were not driven out by force as the French were.