AR-15 556

Help Support Ruger Forum:

lgriff1968

Bearcat
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Wheatland, Missouri
Jeepnik said:
MoPrepper said:
You sir did; "Good range toys, but never something to bet one's life on." History and fact(s) say you are wrong in that statement.

Not my history and personally experienced facts.
You keep saying that but offer no examples or references. The ballistics and terminal effects of the 30.06 and the 308/7.62mm are well known and documented, as is the various 223/5.56 rounds.

The issue here is your personal history and experience(s) of the failure(s) of today's M16/M4 platform and ammunition when used as designed and recommended. Do not offer failure(s) to drop a bull moose at 500 meters and war stories of successes from 50-75 years ago. They are irrelevant in a current day discussion of today's rifle and round for self defense. The '06 and 7.62mm will kill, as will the 5.56.

Regards
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
7,302
Location
On the beach and in the hills
MoPrepper said:
Jeepnik said:
MoPrepper said:
You sir did; "Good range toys, but never something to bet one's life on." History and fact(s) say you are wrong in that statement.

Not my history and personally experienced facts.
You keep saying that but offer no examples or references. The ballistics and terminal effects of the 30.06 and the 308/7.62mm are well known and documented, as is the various 223/5.56 rounds.

The issue here is your personal history and experience(s) of the failure(s) of today's M16/M4 platform and ammunition when used as designed and recommended. Do not offer failure(s) to drop a bull moose at 500 meters and war stories of successes from 50-75 years ago. They are irrelevant in a current day discussion of today's rifle and round for self defense. The '06 and 7.62mm will kill, as will the 5.56.

Regards

Okay, here it is. 1971, a few folks decided to try and kill me and some others. The issued M16 (this was an original, not an A1) tore the back end off of a spent round and then tried to stuff a fresh round into the chamber. Even if the broken shell extractor had been around it really wasn't the time or place to try and use it. Fortunately, and older piece or ordinance developed by a true firearms designing genius, JMB, worked.

I got rid of the POS and found an M14 and never looked back.

My two go to firearms for anything serious are a Randall lefthanded 1911A1 and a Springfield Armory M1A Scout Squad.
 

lgriff1968

Bearcat
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Wheatland, Missouri
Jeepnik" Okay said:
**************************************************************************************************************************************
Jeepnik" Okay said:
If there was an original issue XM16E1 or early model M16A1 in service in 1971; that suggests additional problems besides this well documented failure.

An improved XM16E1 was re-designated M16A1 in 1967, so there should not have been a XM16E1 in combat in 1971. The XM16E1 had the charging handle under the carry handle and had no forward assist. The first designated M16A1 had the charging handle on the rear of the receiver, no forward assist and the chamber was not chromed. The early powder manufacturer could not provide the demand needed, so it was replaced early with a new, dirtier powder. In 1970, a newer WC 844 powder was introduced to reduce fouling. Some troops may have been issued this ammunition with the dirty 2nd gen powder in 1971. The early M16A1 did not have the improvement of a chrome chamber and barrel, so this combination, as well as documented inadequate care and cleaning, resulted in these failures. The combination of a chromed chamber and barrel, new powder, and issuance of instructions for care and cleaning, greatly reduced chamber sticking and fowling. The later M16A1 had the forward assist and chromed chamber/barrel.

Think about the described failure. With a stuck casing, the rifle attempted to extract to the point of separating the case head from the body (a problem sometimes in bolt guns), breaking the extractor, and then still picked up another round and attempted to chamber. Some say this suggests a robust internal operating system and not a design problem, but rather a combination of secondary issues that have since been remedied. Today, there is the choice of a gas piston impingement system, or the original direct gas impingement (DGI) system (SR556 v. AR556). Some choose the AR556 (DGI) as parts are more plentiful and cheaper; some find the system simpler to work on and a little more accurate. The piston system runs cooler and cleaner but may be somewhat less accurate (not an issue with many). If one buys the cheaper DGI rifle, he can purchase a piston driven upper and install it on the DGI lower. The modern day systems and ammunition work and are depended on worldwide.

Our choice(s) are our choices. Depending on circumstance(s), one can have too much gun, as well as too little, both can have unintended circumstances and results. It is great to live in a time and country where we have these choices in armaments, and individual responsibility for their use. John M. Browning rightfully has a place in firearms development history worldwide, as does Eugene M. Stoner.

Regards and Semper fi
USMC 1964-68 (3rd MarDiv 1966-67)
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
7,302
Location
On the beach and in the hills
MoPrepper said:
Jeepnik" Okay said:
**************************************************************************************************************************************
Jeepnik" Okay said:
If there was an original issue XM16E1 or early model M16A1 in service in 1971; that suggests additional problems besides this well documented failure.

An improved XM16E1 was re-designated M16A1 in 1967, so there should not have been a XM16E1 in combat in 1971. The XM16E1 had the charging handle under the carry handle and had no forward assist. The first designated M16A1 had the charging handle on the rear of the receiver, no forward assist and the chamber was not chromed. The early powder manufacturer could not provide the demand needed, so it was replaced early with a new, dirtier powder. In 1970, a newer WC 844 powder was introduced to reduce fouling. Some troops may have been issued this ammunition with the dirty 2nd gen powder in 1971. The early M16A1 did not have the improvement of a chrome chamber and barrel, so this combination, as well as documented inadequate care and cleaning, resulted in these failures. The combination of a chromed chamber and barrel, new powder, and issuance of instructions for care and cleaning, greatly reduced chamber sticking and fowling. The later M16A1 had the forward assist and chromed chamber/barrel.

Think about the described failure. With a stuck casing, the rifle attempted to extract to the point of separating the case head from the body (a problem sometimes in bolt guns), breaking the extractor, and then still picked up another round and attempted to chamber. Some say this suggests a robust internal operating system and not a design problem, but rather a combination of secondary issues that have since been remedied. Today, there is the choice of a gas piston impingement system, or the original direct gas impingement (DGI) system (SR556 v. AR556). Some choose the AR556 (DGI) as parts are more plentiful and cheaper; some find the system simpler to work on and a little more accurate. The piston system runs cooler and cleaner but may be somewhat less accurate (not an issue with many). If one buys the cheaper DGI rifle, he can purchase a piston driven upper and install it on the DGI lower. The modern day systems and ammunition work and are depended on worldwide.

Our choice(s) are our choices. Depending on circumstance(s), one can have too much gun, as well as too little, both can have unintended circumstances and results. It is great to live in a time and country where we have these choices in armaments, and individual responsibility for their use. John M. Browning rightfully has a place in firearms development history worldwide, as does Eugene M. Stoner.

Regards and Semper fi
USMC 1964-68 (3rd MarDiv 1966-67)

Read your history. The USAF didn't get rid of it's last M16 until the sometime around 2000. Just because a weapon has been replaced doesn't mean they all were taken from inventory.
 

lgriff1968

Bearcat
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Wheatland, Missouri
Jeepnik said:
Jeepnik" Read your history. The USAF didn't get rid of it's last M16 until the sometime around 2000. Just because a weapon has been replaced doesn't mean they all were taken from inventory.[/quote said:
You are deflecting with straw man. Not the same rifle from the 60's and 70's. Any older lowers were upgraded with newer uppers. BTW, do not have to read the history, my son is retired USAF (1991-2011); he was an armorer for part of his career. Agree to disagree.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
1,770
Location
Idaho
I have had a personal and up close M14 failure. 1 once ripped the head off the case and left the rest in the chamber as I was firing it.
But, really the M16 is like many items of military equipment. It started out with problems and been changed to fix them over the years like just about anything in inventory for more than a few years.
 
Top