Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Funny thing, I remember reading that jamming was a major issue with the '16 in the early days of its deployment (in Vietnam), but I thought they figured that all that was necessary was to clean them regularly.

There were three problems with the initial issue.

1. The troops were used to rifles, M-1 and M-14 that didn't require as much cleaning and lubrication.

2. The powder used in the first lots of ammunition were particularly fouling.

3. The chamber, when fouled would grab the cartidge casing and hold, splitting the cartridge and jaming the rifle.

The last was fixed with a different lining for for the chamber to keep the brass from sticking.

The second was addressed by changing the formula for the cartridge powder.

The first was addressed by increased training to clean, clean, clean your rifle.

A dirty or insufficiently lubed firearm will jam, as it heats up.

That can happen to any weapon.

Graphic Autist wrote:

I was shocked at how small the bullets for the M16 are when I first fired one.

Never fired an AK-47.

Yeah, the 5.56 NATO rounds are just too small.  There are other reports out there of clips being emptied into insurgents who fail to then die because the round is so insignificant.  Would you take a .22LR into combat?  Of course not.  Why troops take something .003" bigger is beyond me.

I don't know much of anything about firearms in particular, but didn't the MK 16 show some promise?

Prodding around the internet also produces the alternative of the HK416

sturner wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Funny thing, I remember reading that jamming was a major issue with the '16 in the early days of its deployment (in Vietnam), but I thought they figured that all that was necessary was to clean them regularly.

There were three problems with the initial issue.

1. The troops were used to rifles, M-1 and M-14 that didn't require as much cleaning and lubrication.

2. The powder used in the first lots of ammunition were particularly fouling.

2) is likely the biggest cause, esp. of the early woes. The 5.56/.223 was designed with a certain powder (even a different type; extruded vs. Ball) in mind; but the DoD found it could produce the spec'd ballistics with the same powder used for the 7.62 NATO /.308 Win, of which huge quanities were in stock. So loading them was fateful; tho it initially saved money, that powder is 10% calcium carbonate- chalk. Not a problem in normal climes and a larger bore, but in 'Nam, with that small bore, capillary action sucked water into the barrel whenever the muzzle was immersed. Chalk + water = bad. Daily maintenance was the only remedy until the powder was changed.

Tighter tolerances etc. are issues, but not on the order of the original. Many automatic weapons aren't designed for lengthy sustained fire anyway; even water-cooled HMGs need barrel changes reasonably often. Naval cannon might be good for 100 rounds, and sometimes that was even part of the design process- e.g. Italian ships seldom operated far from port and a relining job was not far away, hence were often designed quite 'hot;' the RN, OTOH, operated worldwide, hence usually had guns designed for lower heat, lower velocity operation in mind- heavier shells at a lower muzzle velocity. New barrels and/or liners could be far off in both distance & time.

(En passant, the 7.62 NATO wasn't designed to be an 'assault rifle' cartridge, but to produce near-30-'06 performance in a smaller cartridge case that used much less brass, conserving that metal during wartime. The Old School still held sway in the '50s).

The M249 is a 5.56mm weapon as well. Again, I prefer the heavier M60 with it's more rugged construction, and heavier round.

A lot of infantrymen find the increased range of a rifle over an assault rifle a big benefit in terrain like Afghanistan.

You want a round that has put down power, and range where you can reach out and touch someone with authority at 300 + meters. Even though 50 to 60% can't do that reliably at that range.

Wheels are better than they used to be over terrain/off-road. However, does that still equal tracked capability off/road?

sturner wrote:

A lot of infantrymen find the increased range of a rifle over an assault rifle a big benefit in terrain like Afghanistan.

You want a round that has put down power, and range where you can reach out and touch someone with authority at 300 + meters. Even though 50 to 60% can't do that reliably at that range.

Better to take them down at a distance if they tend to blow themselves up.

Treads 4 eva, bitches!

Ribtorus wrote:

The real debate is tracked vs wheeled armour.  I've seen the matter come to blows.

Are we ready to rehash the 'Springield vs. Lee-Enfield, 105mm vs. 25 pdr., BAR vs.' debates?* Those were always fun, too.


*NTM your beloved Brown Bess.

Does America's Army simulate maintaining one's rifle?

They leave a lot of things out in those games.

Congratulations, Private. You have successfully applied a Code Red to PFC Santiago

Achievement Unlocked: Hazing.
Tour of Duty Unlocked: JAG