True, but the original rounds were pretty effective fired out of the 20" barrel of the M16/M16A1 because they’d yaw and fragment above 2500 fps or so.
Today’s SS109/M855 rounds out of M4 carbines aren’t nearly so effective, as they don’t go fast enough to fragment/yaw with the older rounds, and aren’t going fast enough to have some of the more damaging effects of high speed rounds, due to the shorter barrels and higher mass.
IIRC, the barrels also weren’t chromed. The problem with the ammo was that they initially used ammunition with ball propellant instead of the stick propellant the rifle was designed for. As for cleaning, I’ve read that the troops believed the M16 was a Space Age wonder weapon that didn’t require cleaning. So they issued a 16-page comic book.
7.62x51mm NATO/.308 Winchester is absolutely a full-power round; it’s got more or less the same punch as something like .303, .30-06, 7.62x54R or 7.92.57mm Mauser. Incidentally, rifles in .303 and 7.62x54R are still in service today.
6.5x55 Swedish or .243 Winchester are “medium power” rounds, IMHO.
If you ever put an M14 side-by-side with an M16, and disassembled both to compare (I have), I think you’d see the superior, advanced engineering design of the M16.
Whether the superior design carries through in practice, I dunno. I cannot speak from personal experience in that matter.
I know a guy who had a 5.54 bounce off his shoulder (it was at long range). A 7.62 would have killed him.
Yes. But for some reason the G3 and th FN FAL are perfectly controllable in full auto/burst. And each are 7.62 x 51.
The G3 and FN-FAL have pistol grips; the M-14 has a conventional rifle stock.
ISTR that the US Military was looking to switch to the .276 caliber rifle bullet, but WWII nixed the caliber change as there was a lot of surplus ammo from WWI kicking about, and war wasn’t the time to change calibers. I can’t remember why we didn’t go back to the idea afterwards, and went to the 7.62 NATO instead.
Commonality of supply. You want all the troops, no matter which country, to carry the same caliber.
Same reason the US dropped the .45 ACP for a 9mm(Baretta 92 in this case).
“Ongoing” is one way to put it. When I got out of Basic Training I bought my first copy of Army Times because it had an interesting article about the performance testing by the Army of the new rifle. 4 were being tested; Steyr, FN, H&K and Colt if memory serves. The replacent for the M-16 was supposed to come out of these trials. That was in 1989. The Army is still using a M-16 varient.
LOL! Thanks for the memories. I’d forgotten about all those old comic-style training manuals (and yes, I remember that particular one). Gotta have sexy babes appearing on every other page or the grunts reading them might fall asleep.
Not to highjack my own thread, but does anyone know if they still make/use those ‘comic books’? Has the increasing number of women serving in the armed forces resulted in any changes to the, um, character of those comics?
Thank you for the cite.
This was issued to soldiers when? It makes reference to a (hard-core) manual for use by soldiers…that was issued previously? That they have (or ought to have) in their foot locker or someplace?
In Basic they learn how to do this, proverbially, blind-folded…But in the field, is their “work” demanded and inspected by an NCO at any time?
How many armorers are there (by unit)? “Armorer” is MOS with higher rank? He also fights?
Yes, these comics are still made and distributed across the Army. The main characters are usually a dumb soldier, a crusty ole NCO, and the item of equipment itself. Yes, the equipment is always a character that complains about not being serviced correctly.
www.logsa.army.mil/psmag/pshome.cfm
There you go. There is a link on that page to their archives. 60 years of maintenance comics and still going.
I.e. this.
ETA language note: Above statement is tautological: the “id” in id est means “this.”
Sort of like saying shrimp scampi.
As several posts have said, the particular advantage of a lighter rifle in armies likely to have smaller soldiers than the US was not a conscious reason for support of the ‘Small Caliber High Velocity’ (SCHV) concept which eventually, round about, led to the adoption of the AR-15 by the USAF in 1962 and then by the US Army as a special forces weapon, then general use weapon for SEA and eventually official ‘standard rifle’.
The origin of the concept from US POV at least was studies, particularly by the Operations Research Office of Johns Hopkins (civilian think tank closely aligned with elements in the US Army at that time) in early 1950’s, resonating with a good deal of practical experience in war in the Army from WWII and Korea, that indicated the ‘full power’ .30 cal class cartridges were overly powerful for infantry combat at practical ranges. Hence that ammo and the weapons that fired it were heavier than necessary, especially if the individual rifle was to have automatic fire capability. A lighter cartridge and weapon could result in more combat lethality for a given total weight of rifle and ammo, with typical American size soldiers of that time in mind.
Armalite’s development of the AR-15 was directly influenced by the acceptance of such findings in much of the Army, which created an obvious marketing opportunity. The findings were less well accepted by Ordnance with its interest in promoting a basically product improved M1, that became the M14. Another excuse was the recent selection of 7.62mm as NATO standard, though that didn’t eventually prevent 5.56mm from prevailing. So that was a tug of war through the 50’s and especially after the AR-15 materialized and the M14 was finally ‘adopted’ in 1957, till the AR-15 finally made its way in through a side door, and when McNamara cancelled further production of the M14 in 1963 there was a larger gap the M16 filled as general use weapon in SEA and eventually official ‘standard rifle’ some years after the horse was already out of the barn.
Meantime the Army’s long term development became focused in late 50’s on the even more extreme approach of small ‘flechette’ (basically mini-APFSDS rounds) firing rifles, an initially secret project which came somewhat into the open in the '60’s but anyway failed eventually due to inability to overcome practical drawbacks, again leaving the M16 as de facto only game in town.
Another concept which goes back to those early 50’s studies is ‘medium’ caliber full power cartridge, 6.35mm was the particular cartridge used in late 50’s trials. That general idea (6.5mm or 6.8mm in more recent times) has had its proponents in the US military ever since.
Perhaps curiously, the German/Soviet idea of ‘full’ caliber shorter cartridge never had much of a following as a concept in the US Army. The AK47 was admired for its reliability compared to early M16’s in SEA, but not that ammo concept particularly.
linky no workee.
I’m on my phone in the desert. I will be back at a computer this afternoon, though. I will look at the link and see whats up with it, and then reshare it.
Manuals arent really issued, theyre just sort of “available”. Sometimes laying around. Sometimes on a shelf. Sometimes organized in a cabinet or something. Everything is pretty much going electronic now, though. Manuals and TMs are all in pdf format and available to download. Nobody bothers with paper TMs or FMs except during PMCS (because having a copy on hand is required) and certain formalized training where having manuals on site is require or expected.
Even that’s going away. As a Drill Sergeant, I had every needed manual on a Kindle. When I was running a ranhe, I would just open the appropriate references on the Kindle and set it on the range box. Sure beat lugging around paper manuals that get soaked and ripped up all the time.
Should be, if the NCO is doing his job. He’d be derelict in his duties otherwise.
Weapon maintenance should be done daily at a minimum.
No, armorer is kind of a misnomer in the Army anywway. An Army armorer doesnt have any special knowledge, skills, or training on weapon maintenance or anything like that. The “Armorer’s Course” merely teaches them how to maintain and run an arms room, and how to process broken weapons through the system to be repaired. They don’t repair weapons themselves. They just tag the weapons and take them to maintenance to be repaired.
There will be one armorer per company. Its not an MOS, just merely a position that is often given to a soldier or is either hurt or broken and recovering from some injury, or getting out soon, or otherwise useless to the unit. It’s not a prestigious gig. Rank is usually E-3 or E-4.
WWI???
I won’t restate the reasons above, which are valid. I liked the M-16, particularly at 200 yards, and the extra ammunition it allowed me to carry. However, I preferred the M-14 for competition shooting, especially at the 300-500 yard range.