PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
After WWI no one was unique, every new weapon had some construction elements of previous ones.
The Annals of Baaaaad Infantry Small Arms...
- Thread starter Kujo
- Start date
Trace Coburn
BattleTech Starfighter Analyst
Good engineering is always an iterative process of building on previous successes.
Vargas Fan
Head over heels in love :)
Not quite an infantry weapon, a class of its own really
The article about it
The article about it
Pakistani AK-style bolt-action rifle - Armament Research Services (ARES)
This post accompanies the twenty-first in a series of collaborative videos produced with ARES Researcher Ian McCollum, who also runs the Forgotten Weapons blog and YouTube channel. Using access to unique collections facilitated by ARES, this series of videos will examine a range of interesting...
armamentresearch.com
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Khyber pass copies are really a class of their own. Quite popular with American soldiers, while they could still get the guns home from Afganistan
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
No, the entire M16 fiasco was because the military at the time was filled with rifle mafia idiots who went out of their way to sabotage the M16. They literally stripped the prototype M16 with all the parts that allow effective operation (the design called for a chrome-lined barrel, and that was non-negotiable), gave it dirtier ammunition (although, this can be considered both a logistical point as well as screwing the weapon over, as the original powder was more expensive and slower to produce than what it eventually got), and, if some rumors are true, created the myth that it was self-cleaning.
Once it was discovered, McNamara and his posse in the military forced the US military to basically go back to the original specs and stomped out the 'self-cleaning' myth while distributing cleaning kits and manuals (my dad actually has one).
Tryglaw
Well-known member
About the gunpowder, from what I remember the M16 was designed to work with more modern, cleanly burning powder, while the US Army had vast stockpiles of WW2 era "dirty" powder that worked well enough in WW2 era guns, but in M16 not so much. Plus it liked to absorb moisture, which led to increased unburned residue...
Actually it was far simpler than that. The manufacturer of the 'new' powder that the Air Force was using proved completely unable to increase production enough for the Army order, and so a tender was put out for a replacement. The replacement powder was 'dirtier' than the original but worked well enough that the current powder is derived from it after significant refinement.
The lack of chroming the barrel was actually one of the 'whiz kids' cost saving efforts, and at no point did the Army ever say that the gun didn't need to be cleaned or failed to issue cleaning kits, those are urban legends. However they did base the cleaning guidelines on the Air Force experience, so with the switch in powder they needed to revise them. This revision is often mistaken for 'they didn't have any cleaning guidelines'.
The real reason that Army Ordnance disliked the 5.56mm round was because they feared it would be an illegal round due to fragmenting on impact, which would violate treaty restrictions against 'dum-dum' bullets. The Pentagon actually had to issue a legal finding stating that it would not be in violation as the rounds 'merely' tumbled on impact.
The biggest change that Army Ordnance insisted on for the M-16, and which both the Air Force and Stoner both publicly disdained, was the addition of a forward assist on the bolt carrier. The original -16s that were issued actually had a forward assist that was deliberately made nearly useless by Stoner as a form of protest, and one of the biggest improvements on the A1 was the Army putting their foot down and getting the large forward assist. This, of course, made it far easier to clear jams and malfunctions. Combined with the Army managing to argue McNamara around to the chromed barrel over the howling objections of the whiz kids, meant that the A1 was actually a very reliable rifle.
The lack of chroming the barrel was actually one of the 'whiz kids' cost saving efforts, and at no point did the Army ever say that the gun didn't need to be cleaned or failed to issue cleaning kits, those are urban legends. However they did base the cleaning guidelines on the Air Force experience, so with the switch in powder they needed to revise them. This revision is often mistaken for 'they didn't have any cleaning guidelines'.
The real reason that Army Ordnance disliked the 5.56mm round was because they feared it would be an illegal round due to fragmenting on impact, which would violate treaty restrictions against 'dum-dum' bullets. The Pentagon actually had to issue a legal finding stating that it would not be in violation as the rounds 'merely' tumbled on impact.
The biggest change that Army Ordnance insisted on for the M-16, and which both the Air Force and Stoner both publicly disdained, was the addition of a forward assist on the bolt carrier. The original -16s that were issued actually had a forward assist that was deliberately made nearly useless by Stoner as a form of protest, and one of the biggest improvements on the A1 was the Army putting their foot down and getting the large forward assist. This, of course, made it far easier to clear jams and malfunctions. Combined with the Army managing to argue McNamara around to the chromed barrel over the howling objections of the whiz kids, meant that the A1 was actually a very reliable rifle.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Interesting... I knew that the powder was used because it was expensive but that makes it less egregious.
From what I understand, the urban legends had a seed of truth to them.
From what I understand, it was that and the Rifle Mafia wanting nothing less than the .30cal/7.62NATO round...
Given that the Stoner 63 'family' worked perfectly well without a forward assist...
... although this makes Stoner look like a petty prick...
From what I heard, McNamara got wind of the entire fiasco and went WTF and forced the chromed barrel despite the objections of all sorts of idiots...
The forward assist is definitely something that is very useful for Soldiers in combat.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
From what I understand, it is quite useful but not 100% necessary given the various designs without such a system. If you can fit it in there without much fuss? Great, you'll lose less with the soldiers. It isn't vital though...
I can tell you for a fact that the M16/M4 is an absolute bitch to clean. Probably one of the the greater detractor for the weapon in my opinion.
It is not that bad Spartan
Sand? Sand everywhere? Seems like a reason to think so.Clearly you've never cleaned one downrange. Oh the horror...
Sand is terrible for firearms. it's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere
We had plenty of it at Basic. It was EVERYWHERE! Makes you chafe so much. I am lucky I got out of the NIC training as damd got on everyone then.