PDA

View Full Version : NY TIMES 2 Part Article on the M-16


AM9000
11-02-2009, 3:48 PM
From todays NY TIMES: At War Blog.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/

Josh3239
11-02-2009, 4:15 PM
This again?

The article seems to start in Vietnam, briefly touch on the sand in the Middle East and end with the cartridge.

The failures in Vietnam were stuck casings which has nothing to do with the gas system. That was the wrong gun powder mixed with no chrome lining. Sand in the chamber has nothing to do with the gas system. People don't seem to understand that, when people say pistons run cleaner that means that the gas system isn't blowing unburnt powders and such back into the system. If sand gets into your chamber, barrel, magazine, FCG it will cause problems whether it is a direct impingment, gas piston, M1 Garand, AK47, AR15, or whatever.

Some one please explain to me how a gas piston will operate better when sand gets into the magazine before or during firing? Someone please explain to me how a gas piston will operate better when sand gets into the fire control group (FCG) before or during firing? Someone please explain to me how a gas piston will operate better when sand gets into the chamber before or during firing? Someone please explain to me how a gas piston will operate better when sand gets into the barrel before or during firing?

A gas piston doesn't blow unburnt powder and other materials back into the upper. This has (for the most part) nothing to with stoppages from the sand. This has to do with the troops getting minimum education of the platform if you ask me. They are given just enough info on how to lightly lubricate, give it a white glove style cleaning which is completely unnecessary, and it sounds like fire discipline could use some work. SPORTs is clearly not cutting it. Our troops need a better understanding of the rifle and not a very basic idea on how to clear a rifle.

As for the cartridge, a lot of our enemies have been stoned out of their minds on drugs that kill pain and give them that "super human" like look. The fact remains a lot of our enemies starting in Vietnam all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer breathing because of the 5.56mm. The 6.8 or 6.5 would possibly be better rounds but that hardly means the 5.56mm is useless.

dwa
11-02-2009, 4:36 PM
the comments are too funny, stopping power and "tumbler" rounds. then of course there's the back in nam crowd.

Booshanky
11-02-2009, 5:09 PM
I don't think you'll find any article about the m-16 that will satisfy everyone. I'm actually surprised that they did as decent a job as they did.

OCMI_Teddy
11-02-2009, 5:20 PM
Someone please explain to me how a gas piston will operate better when sand gets into the fire control group (FCG) before or during firing? Someone please explain to me how a gas piston will operate better when sand gets into the chamber before or during firing?

the only thing i could see gas piston have over DI is there's alot less need for lube and that can have less of a tendentcy to hold on to sand and dust which can cause stopages, but in all the story is a load of crap

Caeser2001
11-02-2009, 5:35 PM
Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes, how to define better? More lethal?

:shock:

SMGLee
11-02-2009, 5:43 PM
the only thing i could see gas piston have over DI is there's alot less need for lube and that can have less of a tendentcy to hold on to sand and dust which can cause stopages, but in all the story is a load of crap

I have a fail zero bolt carrier group in my DI gas gun, i can shoot the gun bone dry and no need for lube.

sd1023x
11-02-2009, 6:24 PM
I have a fail zero bolt carrier group in my DI gas gun, i can shoot the gun bone dry and no need for lube.

Question, so if the bcg is made of harder stuff than the receiver, does it wear the receiver faster?

Booshanky
11-02-2009, 6:39 PM
Question, so if the bcg is made of harder stuff than the receiver, does it wear the receiver faster?

Great question!

k_corj
11-02-2009, 6:48 PM
Funny. Other than the AK,FAL,G3,M1 garand/M14, the M16 is probably one of the most battle proven semi-autos today. It seems everyone and their mother is running articles like this. Any form of controversy about the military or the Iraq and Afghanistan is jumped on and exaggerated for more ratings.

dwa
11-02-2009, 7:12 PM
Funny. Other than the AK,FAL,G3,M1 garand/M14, the M16 is probably one of the most battle proven semi-autos today. It seems everyone and their mother is running articles like this. Any form of controversy about the military or the Iraq and Afghanistan is jumped on and exaggerated for more ratings.

id say it and the ak are the two most proven, Fal is a strong third garand g3 after that and m14 last based on numbers of users numbers in use and length of service.

Pryde
11-02-2009, 7:24 PM
id say it and the ak are the two most proven, Fal is a strong third garand g3 after that and m14 last based on numbers of users numbers in use and length of service.

I would say that the M14 needs to be kicked back a few notches. M14s were a drop in the bucket compared to your other choices in terms of number built/issued. IIRC, the G36, FNC and AUG are very popular rifles outside of the US and probably outrank the M14 on number of users, in use and length of service.

bomb_on_bus
11-02-2009, 7:30 PM
didn't that same author do an article praising the 5.56 a couple years ago?

IMO the 5.56 is just as good as any other rifle out there. Sure theres plenty of "stories" of where the gun won't take down crazed enemies that keep comming at ya. But everyone I have talked to says the 5.56 can stop a man dead time and time again with a critical hit. Sure you could survive a hit and live to tell the tale but you can bet its going to be a mangled azz telling it!

bwiese
11-02-2009, 7:36 PM
Question, so if the bcg is made of harder stuff than the receiver, does it wear the receiver faster?

This is the exact problem with chromed-externals bolt carriers (like the Youngs Mfg ones etc.)

It can strip off the lining (accumulated plated out dried CLP on top of the SFL (solid Film Lube) interior coating, leading to premature upper wear.

Stick with a regular carrier.

TCWriter
11-02-2009, 8:51 PM
The article seemed very balanced, and the problems experienced by troops in hot, dusty environments have been documented by the military's own tests, which showed the M4 experienced about 4x more stoppages than weapons like the H&K 416, Scar, etc.

The problem with the M4 is simple; the gases dry out the lube faster, and while it's not necessarily a problem if you're heading back to the barracks at night and have time to clean/relube, it's clearly an issue for special forces types who are on the move for days at a time.

The convoy that was ambushed in the early stages of the war suffered many stoppages, and while some dismissed it as a cleaning issue, others pointed out that the convoy had been on the move for several days.

This Defense Industry Daily (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/) article tended to confirm what I'd been hearing for years; the direct impingment platform might be great for sporting use (low round count, plenty of cleaning time), but I think something less prone to fouling in dusty environments needs to be issued to our troops, who deserve the best battle rifle we can give them.

As for the lethality of the 5.56, the article makes a good point about the bullets currently in use, and everyone seems to overlook one of the key benefits of the 5.56 round - you can carry a lot of it.

As we discovered in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, when US forces are confronted by superior numbers, a lot of ammo is a good thing.

I'd say keep the cartridge, but replace the M4.

Loner
11-02-2009, 9:12 PM
They need to issue better lube, one that doesn't dry out.

sd1023x
11-02-2009, 10:04 PM
A better oil doesn't address the issue oil poses in the first place, that it promotes the attraction and accumulation of crud and dirt.

flyermike
11-02-2009, 10:35 PM
When i was in iraq they took away our clp lube and gave us some graphite powder lube that worked pretty good for our m4's and we used 10w30 motor oil in the 50's

Barney Gumble
11-02-2009, 10:41 PM
This is required reading before criticizing the use of lube in an AR/M16/M4: Keep Your Carbine Running, by Pat Rogers (http://www.ar15.com/content/swat/keepitrunning.pdf)

sd1023x
11-03-2009, 8:24 AM
This is required reading before criticizing the use of lube in an AR/M16/M4: Keep Your Carbine Running, by Pat Rogers (http://www.ar15.com/content/swat/keepitrunning.pdf)


So...I don't get it. In article he says clean your m4 and oil it to keep it running.

I'm not criticizing keeping your m4 lubed, my concern is having to keep anything overly lubed and how that promotes the attraction of dirt and crud.

If you want some interesting reading, someone already posted this on the thread, but... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/#testing. And read the results on some harsh condition testing. Somehow in the desert with a 50mph wind leaves a lot to the imagination.

SMGLee
11-03-2009, 9:45 AM
Question, so if the bcg is made of harder stuff than the receiver, does it wear the receiver faster?

This is the exact problem with chromed-externals bolt carriers (like the Youngs Mfg ones etc.)

It can strip off the lining (accumulated plated out dried CLP on top of the SFL (solid Film Lube) interior coating, leading to premature upper wear.

Stick with a regular carrier.

guys, there is no free lunch in this world, of course a harder surface carrier will have wear issue with the receiver, but at this point of my shooting the Fail Zero carrier, I have not notice any extreme wear on my MRP upper.

I was worried about that and However, after about 1.5k rounds, so far the fail zero is wearing a lot less than my Youngs mfg carrier did. I am thinking about at 15K rounds it may be a problem I not seen an issue so far at 1500 rounds. One of the differences between chrome carrier and Fail Zero finish is that, even though FZ is 40% harder, it has a lower coefficient of friction so it doesn’t gall or wear other surfaces as quickly. If you really want the ultimate solution, they have a extreme kit that includes a finished upper, bolt carrier and charging handle. it is supposed to solve a lot of the wear issues. I have not tried the extreme kit, but I figure the base test I am doing with the FZ are so far satisfactory.

I understand your point of buying standard carrier, but for some one that need a kit that will help with low lube and dry condition and lots of fire.. the FZ can be a solution that could help this situation...for a civilian hobbyist, it really depends on how much you want to sink into your gun! I for one do appreciate the FZ carrier, especially when I am traveling to demo, shows and training classes....

4thSBCT
11-03-2009, 11:40 AM
I'd say keep the cartridge, but replace the M4.

+1 But since a replacement would cost more money I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Loner
11-03-2009, 9:32 PM
So...I don't get it. In article he says clean your m4 and oil it to keep it running.

I'm not criticizing keeping your m4 lubed, my concern is having to keep anything overly lubed and how that promotes the attraction of dirt and crud.

If you want some interesting reading, someone already posted this on the thread, but... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/#testing. And read the results on some harsh condition testing. Somehow in the desert with a 50mph wind leaves a lot to the imagination.
Pat states in the article that he stays away from petroleum based lubes and prefers aqueous based ones like Slip2000. So we get rid of CLP and issue something that won't easily attract particles or burn off easily.

sd1023x
11-03-2009, 9:57 PM
Somehow I think its a bigger issue than running the right lube.

AM9000
11-04-2009, 7:21 AM
Here is the second half of the article.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/

...anouther article about what the Iraqi army thinks of the M16.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/m16-vs-ak47-iraqi-viewpoints/