The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.
In Part I, I covered the saga of the M16 from a standpoint of personal remembrances. The trials and tribulations of the average grunt carrying "the little black rifle" in the field were especially frustrating because we were swallowing the party line totally. As far as I knew, my Corps had never lied to me before, and I could see no reason why they would. As it turned out, they too were being lied to, but too many in high places had put their "chop" on the "give us the M16 now" requests. Human nature dictates that very few people in high places like to back down, apparently even when lives are at stake (as long as it isn’t their life of course). Marines, too, tend to "link arms" and assume a "we’ll take care of our own" attitude and I assumed that this was simply an extension of this prevalent attitude. One statement by an outraged Colonel on the Division Staff finally changed my mind on the "we’ll bite the bullet and fix this thing ourselves" attitude. When Mike was called up to the Division Headquarters over the infamous letter published in The Washington Post, this Colonel asked Mike, "Lieutenant, where’s your loyalty to the Marine Corps?" (asked in a tone that indicated that the Colonel considered Mike to be a disloyal SOB). Mike turned the tables and asked the Colonel if they had lied to them in Basic School (the USMC Basic Officer’s Course)? "What are you talking about?" asked the Colonel. Mike replied, "we were told in Basic School that loyalty in the Corps went down as well as up! Does this mean that loyalty is only to be expected from the bottom up? The men of our company have been told from Boot Camp that the Corps takes care its own, and that’s what I’m trying to do. I’ve followed all the rules and regulations concerning malfunction reporting, with absolutely no results other than feedback that indicated that I was lying in my reports. I only stepped out of bounds when it became obvious that careers were more important than the lives of our men. Obviously the average Marine is expendable if political correctness appears to be at risk!" The Colonel dropped the subject. While I (mercifully) didn’t get in on the above interview, the word spread like wildfire on Mike’s return. I took it rather personally when it appeared that careers were more important than saving lives, and it became a sort of self imposed holy cause on my part to get at the truth. Some of the story below is a matter of personal opinion, and I have tried to identify that portion rather than simply make my point(s) by tall tales and innuendo. All the above having been said, here are the distilled results of what I found during the ensuing years. I have not attempted to make this a textbook, but a "what went wrong and why" primer. If you want more detailed information there are whole books out there on the subject. Many of the below listed facts are drawn from available documentation, and some are simply the result of personal experience. As I pointed out in Part I, the Marine Corps, with a rather warped sense of humor, sent me to graduate school to become an ordnance engineer. While a degree doesn’t necessarily make you an expert in anything (except on paper), people tend to listen more readily when you wave a degree at them. One of more interesting things about this one is that, having grown up around weaponry all my life, I knew virtually everything about small arms ordnance that I know now, before I went to school. I wrote an eight page statement on the problems (or at least my observations on the problems) with the M16 during the investigations of 1967, one copy of which was sent back to the 9th Marine Amphibious Brigade on Okinawa. A friend of mine stationed at the Brigade Headquarters, was sitting in the office when they read my statement. Since this individual was a long time friend, he listened with more than average interest when they got to mine. The Colonel reportedly read my contribution and tossed it in the trash can with the comment, "just who in the hell does he think he is? – some kinda’ expert?" From the time I heard of that one, I swore that I would find the truth, and here are the results of my efforts. Unfortunately not everything is documentable, but the information fits into the jigsaw puzzle rather well. Here we will deal with the problems and misconceptions surrounding the M16 Rifle and attempt to show what went wrong. The tale is rather twisted, but bear with me on this. Background (The Armory System of Weapons Development): You must understand that for many years there had been a faction of the American Public that was not happy with our "Armory System" of weapons selection. Rightly or wrongly, there had always been a feeling from the American public that the "small time" arms designer could not get a fair shake when it came to a new ordnance concept. The attitude also prevailed that any rifle or rifle design submitted to the Army had little or no chance of getting fairly evaluated, due to the "Not Invented Here" attitude of Springfield Armory. Although probably not true, that feeling was in the air when the M1 Rifle was selected as our new service rifle. The M1 had a myriad of nickel-dime problems with the first production models, such as the infamous 7th round stoppage, the rear sight that refused to hold its elevation and other problems. Melvin M. Johnson stepped in with his recoil operated rifle that tested very well indeed against the Garand, but was "picked to pieces" on little things, with the Army Ordnance folks pointing out the obvious superiority of the M1. The Marines weren’t so sure. One contingent under Capt. (later Brig. Gen.) George Van Orden, the founder of the Marine Corps Ordnance School, were proponents of the Johnson Rifle, while the test conducted by the Marines on the West Coast held the M1 to be the best of the semi-autos, but chose to go with the M1903 over both of them. While I think the Johnson was a fascinating rifle, I’m personally damn glad that they picked the Garand. The Armory system actually made very few mistakes, but the public is a fickle mistress. I am reminded of the apocryphal inventor (as an example) who always claims that HE had the final answer to the "gasoline mileage" breakthrough, but the Government (or, the big Oil Companies, or whoever) came along and bought his patent (or paid him not to market the invention, etc.). At any rate, you get the picture, every inventor is convinced that HE had the answer, but no one would listen (or look, or whatever...). I’m not saying that some of this isn’t true, but a large portion is pure hogwash. The reason that many of the inventors were turned down by the lads at Springfield Armory was that they (Springfield) had already tried many of the ideas and found them wanting. There are very few "new" concepts in weapons design, once you get past the basic operating systems (manual, gas operated and recoil operated), although there are variations of incorporating them in a design (the short stroke piston, long versus short recoil, etc.). Most of these neophyte inventors wanted the government to take their ideas and run with them (spending Government money on R&D of course), and when the Government didn’t bite, the legend was perpetuated. Generally speaking, inventors who had developed a working model of a new design were welcomed at the Armory, and the weapon given a fair shake (John Garand falls roughly into that category). If one of these inventors happened to be working for a large corporation (such as Eugene Stoner and ArmaLite/Fairchild Aircraft), things changed a bit. The large corporation(s) had enough money to develop a new system on their own. Once major money was involved, (with a certain amount of ego or true dedication to their new idea cranked into the equation), the organization and/or the inventor tended to get irate if the Government didn’t jump on their new "gizmo" with both feet, kiss them on both cheeks and ask them why they didn’t come forward sooner! When this didn’t happen, the organization would often complain to their local Congressman or Senator, claiming Armory favoritism. Such things can tie things up in court or force the Government to try their latest gadget by greasing the appropriate palms, appealing to sympathetic Congressmen, or airing their grievances in a news hungry press. Since many constituents had stock in such corporations and more often than not distrusted the Government, political pressure was brought to bear that would not have been possible in a government procurement system; and therein lay the problem. I am certainly not downplaying Eugene Stoner’s genius in the arms designing field, but he was playing hardball in an arena with considerably more interest in profit margins than operational suitability. Eugene was indeed a talented gun designer, and perhaps rivaled John Browning in some respects, but every time he came out with a new design, Fairchild Aircraft would have more money invested in his concepts, and of course THEY had stockholders. His initial efforts were on the M16’s big brother, the AR-10. The AR-10 was essentially the little 16 with steroids. It did in fact use a man sized cartridge (the 7.62 NATO), but to put it politely, it was a "beast" to shoot (I’ve tried one)! It would supposedly float with about 1" of the buttstock protruding from the water if thrown in a swimming pool (you’ll have to take their word on that one, as I never tried it). The Government had been experimenting with a smaller service round for some time along with several other ideas such as the SPIW, and multiple projectile 7.62 rounds, but never with any real success. With the 5.56 (.223), they came upon a saleable product. Enter the Air Force: While initially, the U.S. Army wasn’t buying, the Air Force thought it would be a marvelous replacement for the aging .30 Carbine. Over many objections, the Air Force (with the support of General Curtis LeMay) finally obtained permission to buy a number of the little AR-15s as an airfield perimeter defense weapon. This was probably a task worthy of the "mouse gun", but would hardly qualify the weapon as a suitable rifle for the front line Infantryman. Comparative Cartridge Ballistics: In order to appreciate what the infantryman was giving up with the 5.56 mm, it is necessary to look at the specifications of the two cartridges and compare them to other rivals of the time – AND compare the results with the pipsqueak .22 Long Rifle: 7.62 NATO (M14 & M60 Machine-gun): Bullet Weight = 150 grainsNominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 2700 fps.Muzzle Energy = 2427 ft. Lbs.Muzzle Energy at 500 yds. = 1576 ft. lbs. 5.56 NATO (XM16E1): Bullet Weight = 55 grainsNominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 3185 fpsMuzzle Energy = 1239 ft. lbs.Muzzle Energy at 500 yds. = 252 ft. lbs. .22 Long Rifle (Generic .22 Rifle): Bullet Weight = 40 grainsNominal Muzzle Velocity = 1335 fps. (high velocity ctg.)Muzzle Energy = 158 ft. lbs Muzzle Energy at 500 yds. = ? 7.62 X 39 (AK-47): Bullet Weight = 125 grains Nominal Muzzle Velocity = 2400 fps. Muzzle Energy = 1598 ft. lbs. Muzzle Energy at 500 yds. = 414 ft. lbs. .30 Carbine: Bullet Weight = 110 grainsNominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 2000 fps.Muzzle Energy = 976 ft. lbs.Muzzle Energy at 500 yds. = 182 ft. lbs. If you will notice, these figures list the velocity and energy both at the muzzle and for the maximum effective range of U.S. (shoulder) Small Arms, (generally figured to be approximately 500 yards or 460 meters). The proponents of the AR-15/M16 attempted to change the maximum effective range of the U.S. Service Rifle to 300 yds. as a more realistic figure. What they were really saying, was that the 500 yd. figure made the AR-15 look bad in comparison to the M-14, but the Army decided to stand fast. The 500 yd. figure had been taken from the combat experience(s) of a number of wars. Experience and first hand observation are hard to refute, unless of course, the figures of a conceived scenario better suit your purposes... and not all wars can be guaranteed to be fought in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Even for the mathematically challenged, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that the 5.56mm isn’t in the same league as the 7.62mm NATO. If you compare the muzzle energy of the .22 LR to the terminal energy of the 5.56mm NATO at 500 yds., you will find a difference of only 94 ft. lbs. Not exactly what I would consider a definitive difference. Sure we are talking muzzle energy compared to the residual energy at 500 yards, but the 5.56mm was (is) touted to have a maximum effective of 500 yards. Dream on! Accuracy, interestingly enough, has never been the problem. No one has ever complained about the accuracy of the "Mouse Gun" (after the change from a 1-14 barrel twist to a 1-12. Initially at least, the problem was the reliability of the issued weapon. Quite frankly, in 1967 I used to dream of a Marine Rifle Company armed with M1903 Springfields! I would have laid money that such an outfit could have taken Hanoi if given the mission. Nay, ‘twas not accuracy that was the problem... At that same 500 yards, there is a difference of 1324 ft. lbs. of energy remaining for the 7.62mm in excess of the energy of the 5.56 mm. The 5.56 is down to a puny 252 ft. lbs. versus 1576 ft. lbs. for the 7.62 mm. Only the .30 Carbine is outclassed by the 5.56 mm at 500 yards, and it (the .30 Carbine) was designed as a replacement for the pistol cartridge. No one in their wildest imagination would place the .30 Carbine’s effective range in excess of 300 yards. Yet even at that range the Carbine still retains 273 ft. lbs. of energy which exceeds the 5.56 mm’s remaining energy at its advertised maximum effective range by 21 ft.lbs. Folks, something is wrong here! To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single state in the United States that will allow the 5.56mm NATO round to be used as a hunting cartridge for a deer sized animal (a good sized deer will go up to 150+ pounds, or roughly human sized). Why in their remotest dreams the military feels that a cartridge that is acknowledged to be suitable only for varmints is a viable anti-personnel round, is beyond my comprehension. Penetration was not the long suit of the 5.56mm either. The common "Grunt" soon became aware that the "mousegun round" often ricocheted off of bamboo thickets, and had little effect on earthwork emplacements. The U.S. Ordnance manuals list the penetration of the .30-'06 as M2 ball as 36" of oak at 200 yds. Since the ballistics of the ball 7.62mm round are essentially the same, I can only assume that the 7.62 will do the same although I have never tried this personally. I DO know that a .30-'06 AP round will punch a power transmission pole at 200 yards like Swiss Cheese. I've been waiting for some bad guy to hide behind a telephone pole for years! The initial demonstrating teams for the 5.56mm loved to show the effect of the "mouse gun round" on a concrete block wall at 25 yards when the rifle was fired in the full automatic mode. The effect was truly awesome! I asked the demonstrating ordnance folks to try the same stunt at 200 yards. They grinned and said that such a demonstration would not give the desired impression of power. In other words they had the demonstrations rigged in favor of the 5.56mm! I wonder how many feet of oak the 5.56mm will penetrate at 200 yds? The rather miserable penetrating power of the mouse gun was proven to me in spades during a rifle requalification firing session on Okinawa in 1973. CWO-4 Marine Gunner Dave Luke (a former U.S. Service Rifle Champion) was supervising the butt detail. The rifle range at Camp Hansen is built between two mountains along the long axis of what can only be termed a wind tunnel. The wind on the Rock would often come whistling down that cut in the mountains giving a headwind of 25 mph. So it was on the day in question. The Marine Corps, being frugal, does not use fresh targets for each day's firing, reserving the virgin targets for qualification day (usually Friday). As a result, we used multiple target faces (repair centers) on our targets during our practice sessions, held to the target with a rather disgusting paste of roughly the same consistency of flour and water. This stuff dries hard, and after several days, the thickness of repair centers becomes relatively thick. Since this was a Wednesday, we had a fair thickness of repair centers on the targets. I was stationed on the firing line when I got a call from Gunner Luke in the butts. "Hey Major" said the Gunner, "I've got something down here you need to see!"
Innit wierd? Some twat (hurricane) posts all this toss about automatic weapons and we all stop talking about ID cards, for 2 months? I think it went through, didn't it? what can we do to resist id cards, i think i'm gonna get an irish passport, a bit of a cop out, but i think i'd be less vilified when travelling in other countries. How can we prevent the ID card thing? mass non compliance? it's still an issue
we would need a huge number of people for non-compliance, because the government plans to fine any citizens who refuses to have an I.D card. The only hope is that if there is aenough public pressure to hold the Bill back. i think it is onto its third reading, which is scarily close, please alter this if I am wrong and it actually has completely passed. well my plan is to leave the country, to a country without a I.D card system where my civil liberties havn't been snatched away from me. and you are right, Hurricane destroyed this debate, but we cannot forget the issue itself peacex
We don't need huge numbers of people for non compliance, but i think they're combining it with driving lisense, so that'll get most people. I just think it's very unpopular, i dunno, i guess i should find out about the local anti id movement. We have a really good social center in manchester, the basement, lever st, i'll ask them what's going on in manchester.
I'm really scared for the short term future of things to come, not directly because of the cards but because of the step in a direction which I'm sure will carry on because of them. It's a big thing to happen and I really hope that things start to move in a more positive direction sooner rather than later :/
Hiya, I hear on 28th(this sunday) there's a meeting of the Anti-ID card people at the basement, manchester, 24 Lever St. So if you happen to be in the area, hurry down. If not i'll try and get contacts for regional groups and post them on here. Thing i worry about is shifting the burden of proof onto the ordinary person. Prove who you are! it's a detail, but significant, combined with the abolishment of habius corpus, the new proceeds of crime laws, and all the rest of those draconian laws that have come in since the start of the 90s. peace
The United States does have ID cards, and takes retina scans and thumb prints from every non-citizen who enters the country. The ID cards work from the Drivers License system on a State level, you literally cannot get a job without having either a drivers license or a State ID card. The Drivers License and ID card both contain details about height, weight and eyesight (whether you wear glasses or not). This ID also has to have current address information or a risk of a penalty fine if the address is not correct. All non-citizens who are given permission to stay or permission to work also have to carry their USCIS IDs and show them if requested by an official. We already have ID cards per-se in the UK - Drivers Licenses and passports. You cannot officially work in the UK without proving your identity and right to work via some sort of governmental issued ID. The main argument against ID cards seems to me that unrelated personal information will be shared amongst different departments, however there already exists in legislation the obligation on all governmental departments to share relevant information.
these ID card things are the shit! i'm old enough to buy both beer and cigs so they don't affect me, but it's a breath of fresh air to go into a pub without havin to look at a group of underage chavs drinkin and thinkin they're the shit. round my area, if you on't have I.D. to prove you're 18, you have to look at least 21!!! where's the point in that!!! luckily i have 2 i.d. cards which work in conjunction with one another hahaha dont ask.
ID cards are a waste of money, they're ineffective and yet another attempt at reigning in civil liberties. Definitely no....
