Thoughts on Mr. Stoner and Mr. Kalashnikov

[Petrovich]

The only AK's I ever fired were those miserable, romanian knockoffs. I had on in 5.45x39 and another in 7.62x39.

The AK 74 started doubling and tripling and I discovered a sear pin that was falling out of the receiver.

The AK 47 still have but the trigger slap makes my trigger finger go numb after about ten rounds.

[Glock and dagger]

Wow. I'm hearing a lot of bashing on the AR-15/M16, but I know some Desert Storm and Iraq soldiers that tell a much different tale on the M16/M4 than what the ones in Vietnam would tell.

Then, the gun had the wrong rifling; the soldiers were told it was self-cleaning, but it clearly was not; it used ammo on full auto very quickly, out of the 20-round magazines, which was not a good thing (thank God for the heavy machine gunner); according to several sources, boot camp trainees were shipped out with knowledge of the M14, only to get there and be using unfamiliar arms, instead and the opposition had a gun that you could naturally assume was also self-cleaning, and it would still fire.

Now, the military has corrected the rifling problem; has modified the existing platform; has added the 3-shot burst to conserve on ammo, and the magazine capacity is now 30 rounds standard; the military trains with this arm, and deploys with this arm, and the soldiers are now trained in cleaning them properly; and with all these problems corrected, the rifle is bad butt!!!

[Mad Duck]

AR'S by Far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(but as Navy Chief stated there have at time been too many cooks in the
soup, exp: M4)

[marinecorpsmike]

I always appreciated the poor marksmanship training of the NVA.

[TunnelRat]

Wow. I'm hearing a lot of bashing on the AR-15/M16, but I know some Desert Storm and Iraq soldiers that tell a much different tale on the M16/M4 than what the ones in Vietnam would tell.

Yeah, I've read and heard a lot about M-16 failures in Viet Nam, but I never saw any. I was with the 1st Cavalry Division. We made it a point to clean our weapons at least once per day -- never had a problem!

Then, the gun had the wrong rifling; the soldiers were told it was self-cleaning, but it clearly was not;

I hadn't heard either of those things (doesn't mean ithey aren't true, just that I had never heard of them...).

it used ammo on full auto very quickly, out of the 20-round magazines, which was not a good thing (thank God for the heavy machine gunner);

Yup, you could buzz through ammo in a hurry -- and not hit squat! The standing order when I was platoon leader was semi-automatic only, except for a coupla well-trained guys I designated as the auto-weapons men.

We didn't have any heavy machine guns. The M-2, .50 caliber was just too darned big for us to hump through the jungle (though it was a very popular gadget on the forward fire bases). Instead, each of our rifle platoons carried two M-60, 7.62mm, light machine guns.

according to several sources, boot camp trainees were shipped out with knowledge of the M14, only to get there and be using unfamiliar arms, instead

Yup, that was my experience. I was trained on an M-14 but was issued an M-16 when I got into the combat zone. I had about a half day of familiarization with the M-16 and then was shipped out to my unit. I never even had time to zero my rifle! Thus it was several months before I developed any confidence with it.

and the opposition had a gun that you could naturally assume was also self-cleaning, and it would still fire.

I've never thought of the AK as "self-cleaning". Rather I learned that it would fire even when it was dirty (a trait the M-16 did not share).

Now, the military has corrected the rifling problem; has modified the existing platform; has added the 3-shot burst to conserve on ammo, and the magazine capacity is now 30 rounds standard; the military trains with this arm, and deploys with this arm, and the soldiers are now trained in cleaning them properly; and with all these problems corrected, the rifle is bad butt!!!

My son is currently serving with the Third Infantry Division in Iraq. This is his second trip to the fully-equipped sandbox. You're right: he has never complained about his M-4.

[TunnelRat]

I always appreciated the poor marksmanship training of the NVA.

Amen and amen!

[Glock and dagger]

Wow. I'm hearing a lot of bashing on the AR-15/M16, but I know some Desert Storm and Iraq soldiers that tell a much different tale on the M16/M4 than what the ones in Vietnam would tell.

Yeah, I've read and heard a lot about M-16 failures in Viet Nam, but I never saw any. I was with the 1st Cavalry Division. We made it a point to clean our weapons at least once per day -- never had a problem!

Well, good for you. My step dad served in several Special Forces and CIDG tasks, and he says some very similar things about the cleaning of his M16, but no one made a point of teaching the soldiers about cleaning the gun. Many of the soldiers quit using their M16's when the opportunity to seize an AK-47 from fallen VC's because of what the harsh environment and lack of cleaning were causing.

Then, the gun had the wrong rifling; the soldiers were told it was self-cleaning, but it clearly was not;

I hadn't heard either of those things (doesn't mean ithey aren't true, just that I had never heard of them...).

The earliest M16's had 1-12 rifling, which was not sufficient to stabilize the heavier ammo used in the guns. this caused poor accuracy and keyholing of the bullet. Once it was brought to 1-7, that problem was corrected.

We didn't have any heavy machine guns. The M-2, .50 caliber was just too darned big for us to hump through the jungle (though it was a very popular gadget on the forward fire bases). Instead, each of our rifle platoons carried two M-60, 7.62mm, light machine guns.

What can I say, different soldiers had different experiences. But yeah, the light machine gunners were nice to have, too.

I've never thought of the AK as "self-cleaning". Rather I learned that it would fire even when it was dirty (a trait the M-16 did not share).

Because it could fire ammo out of a bent tuna can after being dropped in the mud, I clearly made this an "assumption", because you and I both know if it fires any type of combustible propellant, it is not, nor will it ever be "self-cleaning", but that didn't stop the AK from working, right?

My son is currently serving with the Third Infantry Division in Iraq. This is his second trip to the fully-equipped sandbox. You're right: he has never complained about his M-4.

I've actually heard only one complaint. The soldiers were using a cleaner (I forget what it is), and it was drawing sand into the gun. Once they quit using this stuff, the problem was dramatically lessened.

Good thing, too.

[Petrovich]

My reading implicated the propellant used in the early manufacture of the ammunition was the main culprit for the M16 troubles.

Seems the government still had a lot of powder left from the manufacture of 7.62x51 and they wanted to use it up. It wasn't a fast enough burn for the smaller 5.56x45, however, and it left behind a lot of residue. The tight tolerances of the M16 didn't allow for much fouling before extractors and ejectors would get too gunked up to function, and the multi-lug bolts didn't go completely into battery. Toss in high humidity, and the typical crud combat weapons get into anyway, and it's easy to see how problems developed.

What I find interesting is that one of the 'solutions' was to add the forward assist which enabled the soldier to force the bolt into battery. Seems like it would have been easier to use a faster powder.

If I recall correctly, this was a classic 'macnamura' screw up. He pinched pennies over a bunch of leftover powder and went overboard redesigning the rifle.

My biggest question is why does the forward assist survive to this day?? In all the AR shooting I have done I have NEVER once had to use the forward assist feature.

[Buckshot]

The piston/transfer rod is reliable but again...is it simpler than the AR's gas tube??? Man, that WAS genius...who would have guessed all you had to do was blow some high pressure gas directly on a bolt carrier to make the thing go...no metal to metal slamming together...just a jet of gas.

You can't argue with the AR's accuracy either.

P4G,

Direct gas impingement. Such a new and novel idea!

It was such an advanced development that some Frog firearm experimenter invented it the 1920s.

MAS experimented with it from the 1920s until the 1940s!

Then they produced rifles using the design in at least 1940, 1944 and 1949!

A Swedish gas pump designer, tasked by his country with designing a semi-auto rifle to replace the M96 and M38 bolt actions used this same design in a rifle designed and built in 1942. The Ljungman AG42.

They modified this into the AG42B to correct some problems and then set up an assembly line in Egypt to build the Hakim in 7.92 X 57. This line was later converted to build a smaller version of the rifle in 7.62 X 39 called the Rashid.

All of these rifles exhibit the same kind of accuracy available with the AR15, it is the deletion of all the moving parts that interfere with free vibration of the barrel like op rods that does this, not anything special Stoner designed.

Yep, Gene Stoner had a real novel development here that he BORROWED to use on the AR10 and AR15.

Then, on his final set of designs, he dropped this abortion and went back to an op rod system for the AR16 and A18!

Even he finally figurd out that a rifle shouldn't take a dump the same place it eats!

Buckshot

[Petrovich]

P4G,

Direct gas impingement. Such a new and novel idea!.....

Thank you for a very enlightening post.

I haven't studied in near the detail you have...I admire your breadth of knowledge.

From what little knowledge I have aquired over the years; I have learned that virtually all gun designs borrowed from several others. It is rare, perhaps nonexistent, the firearm that is truly original in every respect.

I suppose the 'genius' I was referring to was bringing together original, borrowed and modified concepts into a firearm design that; taken as a whole, turned out to be truly original in its own right.

[Buckshot]

[Well, good for you. My step dad served in several Special Forces and CIDG tasks, and he says some very similar things about the cleaning of his M16, but no one made a point of teaching the soldiers about cleaning the gun. Many of the soldiers quit using their M16's when the opportunity to seize an AK-47 from fallen VC's because of what the harsh environment and lack of cleaning were causing.

Very untrue for most average line grunts. First of all, the officers prohibited it. 2nd of all, it was common knowledge (even if only partically true) that the CIA was introducing small quantities of 7.62 X 39 ammo loaded with C4 into the Viet Cong ammo system. Finally, using one of the enemy's weapon could get you killed becasue of the difference in noise. Your own guys would shoot at you because you were using an "enemy" weapon!

Yes, some special outfits carried AKs and LC actually made some 7.62 X 39 with an LC headstapm for these uses (see above about boll bean CIA ammo) but this was NOT light grunts.

Then, the gun had the wrong rifling; the soldiers were told it was self-cleaning, but it clearly was not;

The earliest M16's had 1-12 rifling, which was not sufficient to stabilize the heavier ammo used in the guns. this caused poor accuracy and keyholing of the bullet. Once it was brought to 1-7, that problem was corrected.

Do a little more research here and get the right info.

The ORIGINAL twist Stoner used was 1:14. This was changed to 1:12 after cold weather tests in Alaska. 1:14 would not stabalize the M193 Ball ammo.

The 1:12 twist and the M193 Ball ammo provided very good lethality in Viet Nam. The bullet was designed much like the British Mk. VII bullet, it would tumble and break apart after a couple of inches of penetration.

The twist was increased to 1:7 for the M16A2 and subsequent arms for use with the M85X series ammo, and specifically to handle the long bullet of this series tracer ammo.

Buckshot

[Safety Guy]

Buckshot wrote:

"The ORIGINAL twist Stoner used was 1:14. This was changed to 1:12 after cold weather tests in Alaska. 1:14 would not stabalize the M193 Ball ammo.

The 1:12 twist and the M193 Ball ammo provided very good lethality in Viet Nam. The bullet was designed much like the British Mk. VII bullet, it would tumble and break apart after a couple of inches of penetration.

The twist was increased to 1:7 for the M16A2 and subsequent arms for use with the M85X series ammo, and specifically to handle the long bullet of this series tracer ammo."

That's about how I understand it happened. Also, IIRC, Stoner had specified a certain ball powder, and the military changed to a flake powder, which resulted in more residue, with resultant problems.

It's been awhile since I read about this though.

Karl

[Petrovich]

Buckshot wrote:

"The ORIGINAL twist Stoner used was 1:14. This was changed to 1:12 after cold weather tests in Alaska. 1:14 would not stabalize the M193 Ball ammo.

The 1:12 twist and the M193 Ball ammo provided very good lethality in Viet Nam. The bullet was designed much like the British Mk. VII bullet, it would tumble and break apart after a couple of inches of penetration.

The twist was increased to 1:7 for the M16A2 and subsequent arms for use with the M85X series ammo, and specifically to handle the long bullet of this series tracer ammo."

That's about how I understand it happened. Also, IIRC, Stoner had specified a certain ball powder, and the military changed to a flake powder, which resulted in more residue, with resultant problems.

It's been awhile since I read about this though.

Karl

I mentioned this on another thread. The story as I read it was the government had a stockpile of old powder they wanted to use up. It was a slower powder designed for a bigger round....30.06 and 7.62x51 (NATO)/.308.

The result was a lot of residue that, when deposited on the AR's bolt mechanism, ejector, extractor etc. caused it to jam by not extracting/ejecting cases or failing to go completely into battery.

The 'fix' was the forward assist...

[Buckshot]

Buckshot wrote:

"The ORIGINAL twist Stoner used was 1:14. This was changed to 1:12 after cold weather tests in Alaska. 1:14 would not stabalize the M193 Ball ammo.

The 1:12 twist and the M193 Ball ammo provided very good lethality in Viet Nam. The bullet was designed much like the British Mk. VII bullet, it would tumble and break apart after a couple of inches of penetration.

The twist was increased to 1:7 for the M16A2 and subsequent arms for use with the M85X series ammo, and specifically to handle the long bullet of this series tracer ammo."

That's about how I understand it happened. Also, IIRC, Stoner had specified a certain ball powder, and the military changed to a flake powder, which resulted in more residue, with resultant problems.

It's been awhile since I read about this though.

Karl

Stoner actually specified a certain IMR powder from the DuPont company (I don't know which number).

The government substituted a ball powder with heavy deterrent coating and flash supressors added that they had been using to load the 7.62 X 51 NATO.

I don't think we are talking a few pounds of powder though, more like THOUSANDS OF TONS!

Buckshot

[Petrovich]

Buckshot wrote:

"The ORIGINAL twist Stoner used was 1:14. This was changed to 1:12 after cold weather tests in Alaska. 1:14 would not stabalize the M193 Ball ammo.

The 1:12 twist and the M193 Ball ammo provided very good lethality in Viet Nam. The bullet was designed much like the British Mk. VII bullet, it would tumble and break apart after a couple of inches of penetration.

The twist was increased to 1:7 for the M16A2 and subsequent arms for use with the M85X series ammo, and specifically to handle the long bullet of this series tracer ammo."

That's about how I understand it happened. Also, IIRC, Stoner had specified a certain ball powder, and the military changed to a flake powder, which resulted in more residue, with resultant problems.

It's been awhile since I read about this though.

Karl

Stoner actually specified a certain IMR powder from the DuPont company (I don't know which number).

The government substituted a ball powder with heavy deterrent coating and flash supressors added that they had been using to load the 7.62 X 51 NATO.

I don't think we are talking a few pounds of powder though, more like THOUSANDS OF TONS!

Buckshot

It's easy to understand the government's reluctance to surplus all that powder. Surely it could have had other applications?

Macnamara was well known for his penny pinching. I think he's the [deleted -- TR] that insisted they go with the existing powder supplies.