The M16- How The US Sabotaged America's Rifle
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 05. 2024
- Joint the Shot Team here and get access to some awesome perks
/ hegshot87 The M16 has some really crazy stories of being unreliable but if you think it's just a lack of training and cleaning, you will be shocked to hear the real story.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @hegshot87
All my socials and discount codes in one place
linktr.ee/hegshot87
New Merch drop for 2024
hegshot87.myspreadshop.com/ ATTENTION: All Firearms Shown Have A Mag Limiter In Place because of CZcams's policy on magazines. No mags shown exceed the limit placed by CZcams
I never knew the whole story but, my grandpa was in the Vietnam war and he told me that they absolutely detested the M16. Said they’d jam up all the time and guys used to clean them with piss, if need be. I can’t imagine that smell. As grandpa got older, and I showed him my ARs, he couldn’t believe the M16 platform got as big as it did. RIP grandpa.
Lots of stories from WWII & Korea of GIs pissing on their Garands to keep them operating in sub-zero temps.
Rip gramps
Respect for Gramps.
Back in Vietnam the army wanted to be cheap and used cheaper low quality powder, which fouled the rifles more. Also didn't help cleaning kits weren't issued initially for the platform.
Jim Sullivan has a lot to say about the M16. He talks with Ian from forgotten weapons. Jim designed the ar15 along with Eugene stoner.
I found my dads letters from Vietnam to my grandparents asking for a cleaning kit. I remember in one letter in particular him saying. “They think our new rifles don’t need to be cleaned.” The letter went on to say how he was seeing guys coming back in from patrolling. And seeing the guns completely gummed up from 1 lack of proper maintenance and dirty burning powder. He mentioned in that same letter how he never seen such a dirty burning powder.
I must assume your pops is familiar with guns will before joining the military and participate in the war. Or that's just me
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 in viet nam you joined the navy, marines, or air force ! the army drafted theirs !
@@EDD519 if I remember correctly he wasn’t drafted he was enlisted
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 yes he was indeed very familiar with firearms….… and fishing for that matter both sides of his family were hunters and fishermen. Michigan native during the depression era his parents my grandparents and great grandparents used all those hunting,fishing,farming skills to survive.
I used both the 16 & 14. The 14 was better balanced, every trigger pull, one bullet until magazine was empty. . The 16 was unreliable in full auto and sometimes in semi.
The AK internals actually have more in common with the M1 Garand than they do with the STG/MP 44
Really wish the myth of the AK being based on the STG-44 would die.
Kalashnikov literally stated himself he took heavy inspiration from the garands operating system for his rifle because he like it.
At most the stg-44 influenced the intermediate cartridge concept for the AK and external ergonomics. But both of those could’ve been coincidental.
Correct. The only mechanical similarity is the Long Stroke gas piston.
The actual operating mechanism of the BCG in the StG44 is closer to the SKS-45; and, the SKS is literally a mini version of an older Soviet Anti-Tank rifle.
If anything, the StG44 borrowed from Soviet designs. (As they did with the G43, learning from captured SVTs, etc)
Well acktuallly 🤓
@@ICECAPPEDSKY There actually is evidence of the 7.62x39 being a independent concept and not directly influenced by the STG or 8mm Kurz. It's not crazy to think good engineers on both sides realized full power rifle rounds were kind of useless in urban combat and a shortened lower recoiling cartridge would be good in a semi or fully automatic firearm, the 7.62x39 intermediate cartridge project started back in 1943. (interesting to note too that around the same time Soviet engineers also experimented with 5.45 designs. there is a misconception that they totally took this from 5.56 in the Vietnam war; while studying AR-15 rifles and 5.56 ammo did influence their adoption and push to a high velocity small caliber cartridge it's actually something they dusted off from earlier experiments. Kalashnikov himself didn't like the idea and like many older guys at the time thought 7.62 was a minimum for a effective combat bullet, something you saw in the USA at the time too.)
Haven't really seen people aggressively arguing AK=STG44 on the Western Internet.
I always assumed that it's a Russian thing, because there are a lot Russians with self-hate tendencies, so they tend to disregard a lot of inventions as just copies of foreign stuff.
“ I had a M1 Garand in 30.06, if I hit a Nazi he didn’t get back up.” SSG Mike Marino WW2 vet
I'm still packing a 06, I wish they didn't ban the Accelerator round, 4080 fps.
@@bearwill4737... It's not banned.
You can buy the sabots from the E. Arthur Brown site to make them with.
But how do you make them shoot accurately?
"In accordance with the rules of the Geneva Convention, the 5 and 1 half caliber rifle is ideally suited to neutralize military age males in the Asia Pacific Theater"
o7,, Thank you for your service
I had a business dinner with Gene Stoner in 1986 or so when i was a newly minted ordnance enginner, and he confirmed the ball powder was the main issue. My engineering group was a division of Ford who competed unsuccessfully with GE for the A10 GAU8 gun contract about 10 years before my time. In my day we just did medium caliber cannon ammo development and production. Many stories i heard about that gun competition made your stories about the M16 ring familiar.
In war there are untouchable business men who make money, and at the low end, patriot soldiers that are sacrificed without a second thought. That is the sad truth about war.
Eugene Stoner went to Vietnam and found the problem was the gun powder. Chrome line bores in the jungle climate helped too.
mcnamara said they didn't need chrome lined barrels. .i guess they never did that in car production, so he thought he knew best.
Tiny gas tube didn't help any.
@user-ht1dh7uu7f gas tubes had nothing to do with it. The issued ammo was out of spec for the rifle. It burned at a faster rate, causing higher pressures in the gas system than the rifle was tuned for. Higher pressures led to faster port erosion, faster and more violent bolt carrier cycling and a the feed timing being thrown off.
Japanese rifles in WW2 had crome bores
@davidkermes376 you might be onto something with that one. Chrome was pretty much a beauty thing at the time in automotive. I think he was bean counting in an industry he knew zip about. He was fairly arrogant.
Lots of stories out there of GIs dead next to their M-16 with the upper pivoted away from the lower and BCG removed. Overrun and/or shot while attempting to unfoul their rifle.
Also, as a former ammo guy I can say that ball powder flows more evenly through the powder measuring equipment used in high rate loading of small caliber ammo, typically done volumetrically rather than by weight. Problem is the globular form of the powder presents less and less burning area as the surface recedes, known as a regressive form. This is the opposite of what you want for high velocity. They typically compensate by speeding up the base propellant burn rate and soaking an burn rate retardant material called a deterrent into the surface layers to make them burn more slowly at first. This is second best approach to geometrically neutral or progressive burn areas from tube or multi-perf formats. Deterrent leaves a less clean burn residue in general than the base grain.
You're spot on about the burning rate. I called the deterrent a buffer in my entry.
Was the early propellant nitro cellulose.
All smokeless powders are nitrocellulose based. Single base powders have only nitrocellulose as the propellant component. Double-base powder has nitroglycerin added in to increase the energy released by the burning powder. The deterrents are used to modulate the burning rates. Diphenylamine is one of the older deterrents in use.
Diphenylamine…Benadryl?
Thank you. That answered some questions I didn't know I wanted answered. Fascinating.
Ball powder -- No Cleaning Rods -- No Chrome in the chamber and rifling. We were told we didn't need to clean them.
It was safe and effective...
@@Tomken8d2 😆 I see what you did there!
It was still jamming in the 1970's
I thought the mag//follower were also a major issue.??
@@Nobluffbuff I injected a little sarcastic dark humor...
What was done to those soldiers by deliberately sabotaging the guns that they were issued is a crime. Thank you, you taught me a lot that I didn’t know. And you made my trust for the government go down, as it should.
I haven't trusted the guvment since 1967.
4:18 The AK-47 actually has virtually nothing in common with the STG 44 other than the fact they're both Assault Rifles. Their operating systems and manual of arms are completely different. The AK is actually somewhat related to the M1 Garand.
In fact: Mikhail Kalashnikov went on record to state that the M1 Garand was a strong inspiration for his long stroke gas piston system and 2 lug bolt. Just shrunken down a bit for 7.62x39.
the ak is a rip off of the stg-44 in every way shape and form. The Garand did not use an intermediate cartridge to bridge a gap between the sub-machine gun and the battle riffle. Sorry you fell for the bullshit.
What shockwave said is correct , the only thing that AK-47 has in common with the STG 44 is form factor and cartilage classification. Mechanically speaking AK-47 does borrow a lot from the M1 grand and Kalashnikov did State he got his mechanical inspiration from the grand's operation. The intermediate cartridge that the AK-47 used was actually already adopted and previously used in the SKS. The AK-47 has as much in common with the STG 44 as the m4 carbine does.
Fun fact: technically United States military had an assault rifle during the Korean war with their M2 and M3 carbines ( full auto M1 carbines).
@@tsiefhtes 7.62X39 was also being used with the RPD, which happened to reach a small number of troops during WW2 (Late 1945. Battle of Berlin iirc) for field combat testing
@@tsiefhtes IIRC, the StG44 also has a long-stroke gas system, but a tilting bolt. I guess one *could argue* the (short-stroke) SKS-45 has more in common with the StG44 than the AK.
In reality, the only inspiration/flattery is in the cartridge.
The SKS-45 being a miniaturized Soviet semi-auto anti-tank rifle, and the AK-47 being a reconfiguration of the US Garand's design.
I prefer to think of the M2/M3 Carbine as PDWs. The stated purpose for the design and original issuing, aligns perfectly with the modern PDW concept.
(+ the .22 Spitfire post-war commercial wildcat of .30Carbine, looks suspiciously like a modern 5.7x28. Makes me want to see a P90 in 7.62, if anything.)
The Kalashnikov is really an amalgamation of a multitude of designs, the StG-44 and M1 Garand being just two of them. The general form factor and the cartridge were inspired or heavily drawn from the StG, while the long stroke piston system drew heavily from the M1 Garand. An interesting one that I didn’t realize at first was that the long fire selector on the side of the AK was likely taken as a design idea from the Remington Model 8 rifle. For the underfolding stock models of AK the stock is almost a direct copy of the MP-40 stock.
Nothing has changed. I had Soldiers going straight to Afghanistan without proper training on their Thermal Sights because the Range Control didn’t want to make the effort to upgrade a Regular Army Range in favor of prettifying TRADOC Ranges.
I was issued Vietnam vintage M16A1s for the first 8 years of my army career and they worked as well as the operator maintained them, the only issue with ammo was when issued blanks for training.
Same here! My M16A1 ran flawlessly unless routine maintenance was not performed. The issued ammo in Nam was a really a problem.
Blanks are very dirty and if you don't have the BFD screwed on tight, there wasn't enough back pressure to energize the gas system
As a "data dink" in the Marine Corps back in the mid 90's, I didn't do much training with blanks, but on the few occasions that I did, I noticed the same jamming problem. It's been a very long time, but I can't recall any jamming when firing regular ammo.
@@i.r.oldairborneviking2823 My experience also. Clean, meaning really clean. Armorer once in a while would re-clean by assigning E-3 and E-4's from HDQ company the weapons - all of those not issued for that hour. Found some near bolt lockup - powder burn residue. He said several times " crap powder" made most of the problem. This video explains what later I learned in Civi life - handloading with varies powders. Do not recall the powder Name - sold surplus from some DOD contractor (Gov't had already paid the bill). This power shot well - velocity dependent - dirty like a wet pig pen. Loaded some 100 + or so - then burned the left over in an open line on the ground. One ealy lesson learned in handloading.
I was livid when I first read about the real causes of the jamming M-16s. If memory serves, James Fallows wrote a long detailed expose in the NEW YORKER circa 1980. Those stories of KIA GIs next to their disassembled M-16s are unfortunately true.
They wanted to prolong the war. American corpses accomplished that goal.
So treu that experience Vietnam vet use ak's tgey took from the Vietnam to use
@@rodniegsm1575 It was common practice. The AK's bolt has some wriggle in it while the M16 has tighter tighter tolerances which makes it seize up from dirt and mud as well. Numba ten gun...
The Army didn’t want the M-16 and that was it. They sabotaged test, cobbled up rifles by removing roll pins that would never need removal and putting in wire. McNamara deleted the chrome bore to save a buck. The Air Force bought the first M-16’s from Colt, without the forward assist and chrome bores and didn’t have issues.
Explains why my Dad (Late 'Nam era AF, non-aircrew) loved the AR-15, coming out of The Service.
@@LRK-GT I was non crew. Air police.
It wasn’t the Army, the culprit was Springfield Armory who tried to sabotage it. Criminal. This guy has the full story.
@@bwise7739 I saw an interview with Stoner. He had a general get right in his face and tell him he was going to kill soldiers with his new rifle.
@@larry648 General was probably a WWII vet who loved his M1 much like the WWII Marines who hated the M1 and wanted to keep their 1903 Springfields.
It may be nitpicky, but "Corps" is pronounced 'core', and definitely NOT 'corpse'.
THANK YOU!
I was just about to post the same thing.
Hey, Obama talked about a Navy corpesman, you wouldn’t dare say HE was wrong, would you?
@user-tj2hw2gp2d yes, he was wrong too.
@@user-tj2hw2gp2d what kind of logic is that? We don’t worship cults of personality, like you do with leftist and Marx.
Yep. Annoyed me to the CORE.
Fact the US Air Force M16 Rifles had the original gun powder for this rifle. Ince the US Army got the initial rifles they changed the gun powder IMR which caused all the problem's with the rifles operational cycle of chambering and extraction. Also, the US Army Ordnance Board is responsible for the M16 rifles maintenance Manuals, parts and cleaning items. In a Nutshell they dropped the ball on doing their job.
They were PREVENTED from making McNamara looking BAD; they were prevented from DOING their job.
Note sure what you are trying to say with respect to the powder. The original powder was an IMR extruded powder. The Ordnance Board changed it to a Winchester Ball powder which was a lot dirtier.
Would the word sabotage be a word that would cover what they did.
@@patrickporter1864 SABOTAGE ! Intentional or “professed” unintentional it IS a destructive effect - it got souls damaged downstream of the ACT irrespective of intention. It was malicious, only the effect is accountable - HARSH, but the effect was harsh.
No, the purpose was to prolong the war. They did their job quite well.
My father was in the 199th LIB in a battalion integrated 1:1 with ARVN Rangers. The Rangers had the M-16A1 by '66. The GIs learned the M-16 from the ARVN Rangers, who'd been fighting with them for a while. They required Daily cleaning whether fired or not. Additionally, the magazines themselves needed to be stripped and cleaned every few days, as they were prone to the springs corroding.
My father broke his M16 buttstock buttstroking a VC as he captured him during a sweep.
I doubt daily cleaning
@@jason200912 out in desert storm, the fine powder sand, I cleaned mine every night. If it had lube on it , it was caked with dust . You could hear it in the action , it got into everything.
Daily cleaning was not needed but you have to keep the bolt carrier “wet”. LSA of the time worked great. By 1970 a M16 would shoot all the ammo a grunt was likely to carry without a hiccup. At least mine would and did. ALSO full auto is of limited usefulness. But I used it.
Your description is spot on from what I remember reading. Similar story to torpedoes in WWII. Total incompetence in the development agency who refused to believe that the torpedoes they designed were defective and blamed the submariners. Turned out there were multiple design flaws that they had never bothered to test.
They were prevented from testing due to the expense and Roosevelt had no problem throwing good people to the wolves for failures that he was directly responsible for. Untested torpedoes weren't a problem until suddenly they were, and to this day no one blames the guy that spent the test money on his yacht.
@@NemoBlank Except they ignored the reports coming from the field during the war and blamed the submariners. They never investigated until pressured.
:( Saw pictures of ARs during the trials comparing to M14 -- They showed signs of sabotage 1) cut off nails used in bolt carrier group to retain the firing pin. 2) front sight pins removed and replaced with pieces of coat hanger wire ( some front sights swapped from different ARs) so the front sight was found tilted. Wrong powder. My Mentor and Best Friend (miss him) served in that "police action" and told me "the brass couldn't have done a better job of mucking up a rifle".
That was the original ar10s that gene stoner designed. Military tested but they were way to influenced by Springfield. I admit I love the m14 but it was not needed and only because we were footing the bill for the world and still are, we wanted what we wanted and that was that. The British 270 and the FN FAL was a way better platform but as usual the US threw it's weight and bullied everybody into our way of thinking. Btw, that's the whole reason for the original Springfield arsenal being closed down. McNamara did that to get rid of the "good old boys club"
@JamesThomas-gg6il Thanks for the info. Humm wonder how the Original AR 10 would stack up with the present AR10 types - have not tried any current ones due to "everybody has own proprietary parts and designs", kind of limits parts supply options.
@@robertwikeljr-1522 exact same reason I don't have one either. Did look at Brownells version of the original, or as close as they could get, but always too late and several dollars short.
@@JamesThomas-gg6ilI'm imagining an alt-history where Springfield was told to pound sand, and the Brit .270 became 6.8mmNATO, with the US service rifle being an AR-10 development.
Actually, the original Belgian 7mm round the FN/FAL was first chambered in was ballistically superior to both the British 6.8 and 7.62x51. It would've made an excellent NATO standard cartridge...
My 16A1 would get carbines up bad and I used the mosquito repellent in the little squeeze bottle an that stuff would just wash off any fowling in the gas tube. Don’t k ow what the mosquito repellent was made of but it was a miracle found out of desperation.
*When Boeing released their B-29 they said we'll have it ready in a couple years after testing. General Curtiss LeMay wanted it now. But Boeing said no. So LeMay pulled rank on them saying **_"We'll test it in combat."_** That cost 100s of planes and 1000s of lives so...*
The original M1 design was magazine fed but the Army Ordinance department wanted it fed by a stripper clip or loader as they thought soldiers would waste ammo
My dad passed away in January 2019 just before his 71st birthday but he was drafted into the army in 1968, at 20. He was trained on the M14 which he loved, but sent to Vietnam with the 1st Air Cavalry Division and retrained on the M-16 which no one liked. He didn’t complain much, still did his job and cleaned it rigorously but never fell in love with it.
I served for 22yrs in the infantry. It took years for all of this to come out. The ordinance corp killed thousands. They never stopped using ball powder.
The ball powder was changed to reduce the fouling and they finally got it right with WC844 or what we call H335 now.
@@crashdsnowman1 that’s interesting to know I cannot remember what CFE223 is considered ball or ???!
@@Johnny-jr2lq CFE is a ball powder
There is a popular saying in the U.S. Army, " if it works, the army doesn't use it"
I have NEVER used nor seen the Assist button being used and my M-16A1 was a Vietnam Vet. Carried it for 10 years 1992 - 2002.
It's like an appendix: doesn't really have a use, but since it doesn't negatively affect functionality, just leave it on there.
@@armynurseboy Loved that rifle, had a chance to get an AR-15A1 (semi-Auto version) but Used it was going for just under $4K 8( dont make THAT kinda money.
@@michaelernst3731 that's way overpriced. Most ARs run around $1000 for a milspec one. Even the Colt and FN clones run around $1500
@@armynurseboy I think it was a Pre 1986 Assault Weapons Ban. It was a very old looking but in good condition. That would make it worth more and I would have Loved to have it but $4k is just abit out of my reach.
I have. Kyle Rittenhouse. He had to use it because he was shooting one handed due to the close proximity and accidentally falling backwards on his butt. Which cause the round to not fully chamber so he smacked it forward rather than waste time ejecting it
The AK, while visually similar to the STG-44. Is actually a copy of the M1 Garands action on its side.
This ALWAYS happens with the Pentagon Procurement process. The Armalite was a great rifle as Stoner originally designed it in 7.62 NATO. It was a good rifle in 5.56 as Stoner designed it.
I carried the m-16A1 and was switched to the m-16A2. The only thing we liked about the A2 were the muzzle devices. 3 eound burst is retarded. When you need full auto, you need FULL auto.
I spent almost a decade as a US Army Light Infantry Squad Leader and today, I choose to carry an AR in .308.
Leroy Sullivan is responsible for the AR15. Not Stoner....though it was Stoner that made the overall design in the first place, giving Sullivan the base.
Sullivan's role was scaling the AR10 down, as he did with the Stoner 62.
@seaweeb2258 Once the Pentagon started adding the forward assist, etc. it was no longer Stoner's design. Stoner will be forever associated with the Armalite design, just like Browning is associated with the 1911, M-2 .50, etc. My opinion.
M16A1 and M16A2, US Military is not using dash - in designation of rifles, vehicles etc. (excluding aircrafts to which is using other designation act).
@@luke_pl3741 It can be found in some older documentation though. But indeed nowadays it's all without the dash and aircraft do have their own system with dashes in some places, but not all places.
@@brotherbrovet1881Nonsense.
Typical American bureaucracy.
18:49
Criminal, in a word.
McNamara s bean counters. at work.
Typical government bureaucracy.....in ANY country. Just follow the development and procurement of the British SA80 bullpup rifles and you realise that politics will always take control and priority over practical and vital decision making. As soon as you put a politician in the line between the designer of a great bit of kit, and the end user, (military or civilian kit), you instantly destroy any chance of getting what is required, at a realistic price, to the place it's needed. Too many deals, too many egos to serve and far too much money just thrown away. Day in, day out, year in, year out, through history. We have had all the same issues and cover ups in the UK going back centuries.
The huge one that will potentially be a breaking story somewhere down the line, is the criminal loss of money going on in procurement. It all comes down to greed and corruption. Too many ignorant people in charge of deciding what needs to be bought, and being ripped off by a contractor who sees the government money as a great way to make millions very quickly.
The M16 and 5.56×45 mm cartridge was tested and approved with the use of a DuPont IMR8208M extruded powder, which was switched to Olin Mathieson WC846 ball powder which produced much more fouling, which quickly jammed the action of the M16 (unless the gun was cleaned well and often).
20" Carry handle gang SOUND OFF!... WHOOT WHOOT!
I didn’t hear you talk about the Arctic testing and the resultant bullet instability in those frigid temperatures. They jacked the twist rate to stabilize the bullet in freezing conditions and then sent the rifles into steaming jungle conditions. Then there were horror stories about troops having to share cleaning kits because they weren’t given enough to go around.
Ultimately the M16 went on to help a lot of our GI's survive the war and earn a kill ratio of 8 to 1.
Loved my M14, absolutely reliable. Got handed a M16 when I arrived in country, little time to familiarize, get sighted in, out on patrol. Although we were instructed on daily maintenance, still had issues with extractor ripping through rim leaving me unarmed. 1st chance I dumped it with the armorer and picked up an M3A1!
The extractor issue was due to 2 reasons: 1) the out of spec ammo being hotter than the ammo it was designed for. This increased carrier velocity beyond the original design and 2) non-chromed chambers would rust and pit in humid tropical conditions. Pitted chambers tended to "grab" cases making them harder to extract. Marry those two issues together and you get ripped off case heads.
Glad you liked the M-14. I had the worst jam I ever saw with mine. The firing pin came out the back of the bolt and stabbed into the firing mechanism. It was disassembled to find out what happened with a grinder.
@@DonMeaker In round one I had an M14 select fire. Now that was fun! A full auto 7.62X51 made your dance card full! Kinda like firing a 06 on full auto that's not a BAR. Round 2 a M16A1.
not to nitpick, but as a previous member of Ordnance Corps, I gotta let you know that Corps is pronounced like 'core', with the P and S silent
You can thank public education and the dumbing down of America for that.
My favorite is the apple core.
No one cares
Maybe he's pronouncing it "corpse" due to the number of American corpses the corps produced?
I got the opportunity to shoot the select fire M14. It is very difficult to fire full auto. It’s not bad if you keep it at 2-3 round burst. Anything more than that it’s truly uncontrollable.
Did you use the flip up portion of the butt plate during full auto fire?
Was it as heavy as 10 moving boxes?
I didn't have any problems with it, yes full auto with the M16 definitely had less recoil but I didn't find either the M14 or the G3 I got to fire when training with the German military to be "totally uncontrollable" and don't understand why all the nightmare stories even exist in the first place, and it's a non issue anyway because all full auto is good for is burning through all your ammo, and what this guy and everyone else who makes videos that talks about M14's gets wrong is that M14's were never meant to be issued to the troops en mass with full auto capability, every M14 manufactured was shipped from the manufacturer 5 to a crate with the selector locks installed and the selector switches in an accessory bag that also contained the cleaning kit's, standard Army and Marine Corps doctrine was to have 3 men in every rifle squad issued selector switches with the rest of the squad only having semi auto capability, this can be seen in pictures of the troops in Vietnam with M14's, look carefully at the pictures and the vast majority you can see the little round selector locks installed instead of the selector switches.
Something else he gets wrong which is a common myth about the M14 is that the wooden stocks were supposedly an issue in the jungle humidity, M1's are virtually the same rifle and do you ever hear stories about their stocks being an issue in the Pacific? No, because there were no issues, matter of fact all the M21 sniper rifle variant M14's that saw service in Vietnam all had wood stocks.
M14's were already being produced with the synthetic stocks before any troops even set foot in Vietnam, they were intended to be made with synthetic stocks from day one it's just that the program to develop one wasn't done by the time M14's were starting to be produced so just to get them rolling they started producing them with wooden stocks, the real reason they wanted synthetic stocks was because after making arms for two world wars already just in the first half of the century America was running out of acceptable walnut and birch timber for arms manufacturing, and they were afraid that in the event of a war with the Soviet Union that stock production could wind up being a choke point in the production of M14's, so development of a synthetic stock was ordered but it wasn't finished yet as of when M14 production began so they just started it with wooden stocks, but the synthetic stock was finished and the manufacturer's were already shipping M14's with synthetic stocks before any US troops were even in Vietnam, and they'd already started a depot program that was replacing already produced M14's wooden stocks with synthetic one's, all that nonsense about warping stocks is a bunch of exaggerated crap, like I said all the sniper M14's in Vietnam all had wooden stocks.
@@dukecraig2402 Yup, one full auto per squad. The rest with selector locks.
Here's the thing. Were you firing standing up at an indoor range at a target 25 yards away?
Or were you properly in a prone supported position?
sounds like some politician had stock in the ammo business.
@@tomjohnson7622 Yeah. Johnson's missus "Ladybird" had stock ownership in an ammo manufacturing company in Texas. Johnson made sure we committed more and more troops to 'Nam and consequently SCADS of their Ammo!
73 +yr old Vietnam Era Vet Here.
I Joined US Army Jan 1973, Used M-16 A1 In Basic, And Only 1 Issue, Quickly Solved.
M-14s Not Controllable At Full Auto -
(Even With 3 Round Bursts)
It just walks up on ya.
I had no problem staying on target with my M14 on full auto even though I rarely used full auto. (I still do not at 72 years old). I am always baffled by this proclamation. Once we made the move to M16 way too many combat personnel in Nam inappropriately used full auto. I continued to carry the M14 until until I had to start striping M60 belts for ammo. (just one old jarheads opinion)…
You are spot on sir…
Let me add to your explanation. My father was a duPont engineer specializing in smokeless gunpowder. The reality is even uglier than you describe. At the final testing phase, the specified muzzle velocity was higher than the AR15/M16 was designed to handle. This effectively took the duPont ammunition out of the running. The ball powder not only gummed up the works but it also messed up the designed synchronization of the automatic fire cycle.
It was his assessment that somebody from a competitor to duPont paid off the review committee to force through the increased muzzle velocity requirement.
Weirdly enough, decades later, the M4 was also sabotaged by similar instruments, whereby its cyclic rate was found to be too high and necessitated the insertion of a heavier buffer called the H-2. Similarly, the Mk18 had a similar phase of sabotage where its conveniently shortened gas tube also resulted in a higher cyclic rate. Similarly, commercially available rifles with an enlarged gas tube to accommodate commercial ammunition were also sabotaged by commercial vendors trying to accommodate such lower powder charges. The sabotage is everywhere. The saboteurs are in the rafters, in the sewers, the streets, even in my own home! They sabotaged physics! Similarly, the propellant gas itself is a common saboteur, sabotaging Eugene Stoner and Colt's god-given TDP specifications for the gas port, causing erosion, and increasing our Lord and Savior Eugene Stoner's specified gas port size! Sadly, us mere mortals worshiping at the Stoner altar like good Christians must do the humble thing and increase the buffer weights, add an adjustable gas block and other such small heresies. May Stoner atone us for our sins. Amen.
One of the reasons the military took on the m16 was McNamara
And his "Wizz kids"
It was a good choice as long as they didn't screw with it. They just failed to test it before mass producing
Wasn't McNamara's middle name "Strange"?
That was THE reason. He issued an order, that was it.
You didn't mention in your video that the Ordnance Corps eliminated the chrome plated chamber as a cost saving measure on the first M16's sent to 'Nam. In the rainy jungle environment this caused the chambers to corrode prematurely, and this would cause the rounds to get stuck in their chambers and fail to eject during firefights. This problem was corrected on later issued M16's which had a fully chrome plated chamber.
Exactly what I once heard from a USMC officer. This was in the late 1980s, he praised the M 16 as a very reliable weapon but required strict maintenance.
Brother I just bumped into your channel and I thoroughly enjoyed this video! Your narration style is very clear, sound is crisp , no annoying background music whatsoever, and you’re very well documented. Thanks so much for putting in the effort to produce this amazing content!
Cheers from 🇨🇦.
I joined the USMC in 75 using the m16a1 I heard many vets in that time saying they hated the m16 and liked the m14 better one was a scout sniper in Vietnam who got rid of his 16 in favor of the 14 in boot we had the m16 then when I went to a infantry unit I received received the m16a1 then the m203
Troops were calling the M16 Mattel Toys.
Mattel was stamped inside the fore stock
@bearwill4737 Not even remotely true.
@@drewschumann1 I assume you never seen it then, I did in the 1970's.
What we said was like the commercials......If It's Mattel It's Swell
@@bearwill4737 Then you are a liar. Mattel never produced the M16 nor did they produce the fore stock. Mattel produced one small experimental run of pistol grips, which is where this particular myth came from.
While I was unaware of the degree of sabotage, I did learn of the problems Vietnam Vets experienced with the M16. I took heed of what the veterans were claiming and steered clear of the AR-15. It is good that the initial problems are resolved.
I like the m14 and m16 I have clones but in the first m16's got a lot of infantry men killed.
My A1 ran like a champ. It would jam up in rock and roll, but as a semi, never had a problem. To carry it is number one. At a FOB M14.
Thanks. I’ve heard a lot of the complaints but never the full back-story. It would be nice if you provided the history of the M16 to M4 conversation as well.
With all said and done, here my take. I carried my M 16, slept with my M 16, killed with my M 16. I'm telling you this today because of my M 16
My M16 never jamed...but it did need cleaning due to the crappy taining ammo.
What I did not like were the back sights, they would flip from V to O when firing.
The Swedish CG M/45 was the most popular assault rifle with special forces, very simple desighn...they never jamed.
The rifling change from 1 in 14 to 1 in 12 was due to finding that in sub zero temps the 1 in 14 did not stabilize the bullets and accuracy turned to crap.
True story
Yup, my AR I have now has a 1 in 8 and is a tack driver with heavier match bullets.
Great video, thanks. I already knew about the issue with the powder type. A damn shame that our soldiers lives are traded for minimal savings on ammo!
The M16 was developed and tested with Remington made ammunition. Competitive bidding was held for the new caliber ammo and Winchester won the contract. Winchester owns Olin chemical which does not make IMR powder. Olin makes spherical powder. The Olin powder chosen raised the cyclic rate of fire in full auto, so a buffer was added to reduce the rate. That buffer constituted the element that created deposits in the chamber that caused fired cartridges to stick in the chamber and cause the extractor to rip off the rim of the fired round. IMR powder produced little if any fouling so regular cleaning was deemed unnecessary, so cleaning equipment was not provided. When the guns began to jam no one knew why and when they did there was no immediate way to prevent it. It was the B-29 all over again. A high-tech unreliable weapon no one could immediately fix. Stop gap measures such as commercially available cleaning kits were rushed to Vietnam. Eventually rifles with chromed chambers and barrels could deal with the defective ammo on hand and eventually even the ammo was corrected. In time the light weight, 20" barreled 3200 FPS M16 has morphed into the 8.5 pound 16" barreled 2800 FPS M4 hung with everything short of tire tools. Proving once again how poorly the US government cares for and equips its soldiers whenever costs are emphasized over performance.
The buffer/buffer spring doesn't have anything to do with carbon residue being deposited into the chamber. The buffer was a counterweight that was in the buttstock. It also has nothing to do with case heads being ripped other than it was too light in weight for the out of spec ammo. You are correct in that the Olin ball ammo created higher pressures in the gas system, which increased the speed of the bolt carrier. A heavier buffer and spring helped to slow down the carrier speed. What caused case heads to be ripped off were the un-chromed chambers. These chambers would rust and pit in the humid tropical air. The brass cases would expand into those pits during firing, thus making them harder to extract. Marry that with the faster cycling bolt, and you get case heads ripped off.
A buffer? What do you mean? A buffer in the powder? What was the buffer made out of?
Great historical retrospective.... Small Arms Solution's CZcams channel also spoke about this topic specifically Rene Studler Col. U.S. Army who hated the M16...along with Bureau Ord. did everything to make the M16 fail so as to not be adopted by the U.S. Army....
Did he design it? Did he select the ball powder and blocking chrome lining?
@@oldrabidus2230 Indirectly as Bureau Ord. favored the wood and steel M1A not some newfangled aluminum/polymer rifle by some outsider (Eugene Stoner) not afilliated with Springfield Armory in Mass.( not the Illinois manufacturer). Bureau Ord. manipulated as much as possible to oversee the failure of the M16 and Col. Rene Studler was head of Bureau Ord. at the time of the M16 testing/ evaluation. It took Sec. Defense McNamara to force the Pentagon to accept M16 and shut down Springfield Armory as the M14 was not suitable for Vietnam service. It took Congressional hearings for the Pentagon to correct all the issues with the M16 such as stick powder for the 5.56 cartridges, chrome plating chamber and barrel and issuing cleaning kits to troops. Sadly, troops were killed in Vietnam due to this interference from Bureau Ord. and their manipulation of what would be a fine rifle.
@@michaelbarfield528 Interesting. Thanks! Kinda reminds me of the B1b and B52. Boeing bought Rockwall and slept with the Air Force to keep the 52 in front line duty while the bone was treated like a red headed step child even though it was better in every category than the BUFF.
@@oldrabidus2230 True! Yet this has been the military industrial complex Pres. Eisenhower warned us all about. In addition Electric Boat and the father of the nuclear navy (Admiral Rickover) were very "chummy" for years till Congress force him to retire after bribery allegations "surfaced" (pardon the pun Admiral Rickover was a submariner).
The 5.56 just bounced though the jungle, one banana leafed and the bullet was on its way to Tahiti
Units rocking 7.62x51 ran out of ammo and got overrun....
@@jimbob465 Units firing full auto and specters in the shadow never ran out of ammunition of course.
WEIRD how ammunition fired per casualty inflicted has gone into the hundreds of millions and keeps increasing.
@tedhodge4830 that's because our supply system keeps improving, giving our boys all the ammo they want to fire, and the more bullets fired the more money a war makes so the government is fine with it.
The biggest effect the STG 44 contributed to Soviet Arms was the ammunition.
The German rifle used the 7.92 x 33 round (bottleneck round) at 2,250 feet per second. The SKS and AK-47 used 7.62x39 rounds running at 2,336 feet per second. M-1 Carbine used 7.62 x 33 round at 1990 feet per second.
It never should have taken 50 years to fix all the issues
Well the 1911 and m1a are loved and they Dont even try to fix them
Back when you weren’t harsssed for owning guns I had a workhorse.38 Beretta. Liked to shoot when I was younger. It got used a lot and I never had any problem at all.
It can be done right the first time.
- Dan
The gas port stayed closed while the round was fired? This makes literally no sense, the gas port doesn’t open or close it’s a hole drilled in the barrel, once the bullet passes the gas port in the barrel gas flows into the gas port just like the m-14 and grand before it. And as far as the Vietnamese not being able the handle the m-14, also makes no sense, they could fire bolt actions in 8mm Mauser just fine and could fire nosing in 7.65x54 just fine why wouldn’t they be able to fire a m-14 in semi auto mode any worse then anyone else? This guys says a whole bunch of things that made me raise my eyebrow like wtf is he talkin about
What's a cold chamber?
@@richarddeveas4537 I think he was referring to a cold weather testing chamber.
One issue that is never talked about is what I always referred to as the french factor. Have you ever heard the phrase "never been fired and only dropped once" ? I'm not saying all indigenous units were cowards but many were. In Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and others not listed there were many that depended solely on American and allie troops to do the greater brundt of the fighting and loss of life while they rode on our coat tails doing minimal if any of their own fighting. They wanted to be liberated but did not want to earn that liberation by fighting for it. Two prime examples are Vietnam and afghanistan! After the foriegn troops withdrew from the conflict they folded in a matter of days.
@@jodemit655 Not the Tiger troops from South Korea in Vietnam.
every time i see that comment i remember how the japanese supposedly couldn't fly fighter planes because they were all too nearsighted.
A mid length upper with an A1 stock cuts almost 5 inches off. I believe that’s the perfect rifle.
a CAR 15
The Only thing I hate or we hate was M16's Carrying handle as rear sight instead of attaching any kinds of optics.
Very easily fixed by simply forging a receiver with a 1913 picatinny rail as seen on almost every AR15 manufactured today
Small arms solutions did a really good vid on this subject. Glad to see the history behind these things being talked about. The ordinance corps & tradition got men killed...
I liked the M14. We trained with it in Basic in '69. It was a little heavy but it was a stout weapon. The M16s we used in 'Nam didn't seem to have problems when I was there. One of our officers actually had a Swedish automatic weapon, probably in 9mm.
My M16 during basic training in 1976 at Fort Riley, Kansas would jam after three rounds. After applying "immediate action" using the forward assist it was good for three more rounds. I tried turning it in to the unit armor sergeant. He threw it back in my face with an expletive. Such is the life when you are low man on the totem pole.
Ball powder relies on the thickness of a coating to determine burn rate. That coating was the cause of greater fouling than the IMR "rod" powder.
I just remember my brother was in Vietnam and greatly preferred the M14. I don't believe that he fired it full auto very often, where it is known to be difficult to control. The M14 did far more damage with a single hit. It is unfortunate, though, that the US never gave the Fal a fair chance. It is, to me, a well-made, sophisticated rifle. I like both though. Ar-15s today are a different gun from the original M16, one disadvantage of the early M16s that was an advantage in battle. The early M16s had a slow twist rate, which barely stabilized the bullet, so when it hit a human, the bullet started tumbling and did a lot of damage. The recurring opinion Vietnam Vets had about the M16 was that it was a "Mattel Toy" rifle. It had to be kept clean to function.
I saw an M-14 fire full auto without a Flash Suppressor, the flame out of that weapon had to be 5-10 feet long. I was in the Artillery in Nam. Hardly ever used my weapon except to test fire. Three or four times during my tour. The one item that everyone had with them, was a cleaning rod. The purpose, to extract the jammed rounds. The weapon fired so fast that the loaded cartridge was often pushed into the chamber before the expended round was ejected out of the chamber. Another flaw the load in the cartridge, usually caused the brass to expand into microscopic pits in the chamber. Jamming was a particular problem. I arrived in country in March of 67. We were told in formation the M16 that we held in our hands had something like 1400 changes since its introduction into service. It wasn't very well-liked in my unit.
While I was in Vietnam, I was switched from the reliable M14 to the finicky M16. On one occasion, I took two soldiers out in the field with me. On the way, I had them test fire their weapons. 1 fired once, and jammed. The other would not fire. Earl on the M16 was far from reliable. It suffered greatly from dirt and lack of attention. It's accuracy also was not as a person would have wanted. However, a clean weapon could empty a 20 rd magazine in 4 seconds. My son in law, a marine that went to the middle east reported the thr M16 model used was much better.
I have an old Savage 110e in .223 with a 1 in 14 twist rate barrel. It won't stabilize 55 grain 5.56 ammo, it likes 35 grain bullets.
I find it hard to believe that the first M16s had a 1 in 14 twist. That's what a varmint gun used. My understanding is that they went from 1 in 9 to 1 in 7.
They originally started with slow twist long barrel but later found that fast twist is better and that 1:9, 1:8 is perfect for standard 556 bullets of 55 and 62 gr
I was in basic at Fort Knox in 75, we had M16 stocks made by Mattel.
No you didn't.
I saw “Mattel” on an M16 in 1976
This is the reason one should never sign on for military service. The idea that the military would sabotage their own forces is disgusting. The government has a long track record of this behavior.
This story more or less parallels the British SA80/L1A1 the concept was a good (but when first issued to troops was a total dog) as we’d already been working on the EM-2, also known as Rifle, No.9, Mk.1 designed for a .280-inch calibre cartridge, but we were forced to abandon it when the US forced through the 7.62 NATO, with us adopting the FN FAL/SLR L1A1 in Semi Auto only.
The Army wanted to save a few pennies on powder ...
…and chrome.
They had a big stockpile and by golly, they were going to use it up.
They could count the pennies saved with innocent lives lost, 58,000 souls.
Being 74 years old and being Drafted in 1968 , I was exposed to many different opinions as far as the rifles we could use if we could get them. The issue was the M-16 with the 223 . Many my fellow soldiers would pick the AR10 or the Enemy AK 47 . The Stoner was a highly desirable machine gun but difficult to get. The Browning 5 was another held over from the trench wars of WW 1 . When you found yourself in a hilltop to hilltop situation the FN-FAL was difficult to not choose. The same is true from the Browning 30 caliber or the 50 caliber. The German MG42 with their ability to change out barrels and the rate of fire. The A-10 nose came from the Gatling gun of Old and with the Help of Mike Dillon the 30 mm Gatling gun makes Tank Combat and ground Armor a thing of the past
Back in 90's when I was back in High School, alot of documentaries and Vietnam Vets were saying M16 Jams Up when the rifle starts to over heat and AK47 hardly jams up and is very reliable. In the 90's M16 were in use in alot of countries but the Yanks were slowly phasing out M16 with M4. Also in the 90's alot of armies were saying 20 Inch Barrell is outdated.
When in was working Security Div in the navy from 88-92, we all had a dozen actice/usable M14s aboard our carrier in the magazine. Used for many reasons vs M-16A2 aboard ships.
We Also had a few .38 wheel guns, several 45 ACP pieces and a few 12 gauge slide action scatter guns.
The only bad part about requalifying at the range was carrying all the ammo cans/bags and all the different pieces.
Everyday carry was your choice of .38 special or .45.
When we did money runs for payday, the ships store and the ATMs, my outfit of choice was .38 and a 12 gauge.
According too the book 'The Black Rifle' Stoner was told in advance that the military wanted to use ball powder. This is because it meets better than tubular powder. This is not penny pinching, the greatest through life cost of any rifle is the ammunition.
Eugene Stoner was a criminal incompetent who was more interested in designing cool mechanisms than reliable weapons.
Great history…thanks. Love how you pronounce corps as “corpse” vs. “core.” Whether intentional or not, it fits this context. 👍
Nice historical review of the M16. This should be a reminder of the pitfalls of military procurement & testing. As many in the military have minimal corporate memory because of mandatory turnover, errors are often repeated. We need to learn from history to be effective.
yeah, and people now want mil spec parts for their ARs
The M16...only gun made with a place to beat on when it fails! I was lucky enough to carry an M14 when I was in Germany 83-86. My brother went in the Army in 67 and always managed to talk his way into keeping an M14. We grew up hunting and making every shot count...we were never part of the "spray and pray" crowd that, for the most part just wastes rounds.
308 is blowing off limbs but up close the recoil and lack of 30rds standard, the weight of carrying all those rounds make it ineffective. It has a role but not in infantry
yeah carrying 4 or 5 20 round mags was heavy and bulky.
I carried the M16 to Vietnam on the USS Walker in 1967, I did change the buffer while in Da Nang ,never fired a round while in Vietnam.l was transferred to the 362 sig. company. That company had M14,after Tet also had M60 . What I wanted to ask is what kind of barrow did the M16 have? I remember trying to clean the barrow,it looked like alittle rust,and smooth bore.the rifle was stored and we did not have unless there was alarm also only had 40 rounds, that was before Tet. I am just wanted to see if was remembering correctly. Thanks.
So much hate between the M14 and M16 and yet until recently both were being used. Neither looked like their original either.
Kind of sad even though the M-16/AR-15 was built for the military the civilian version AR-15 came out in 1963 before the military got the select fire version in 1964.
Interesting story. Thanks for going through this
My Uncle was in VIETNAM 66-68 he was issued an M14 he loved it. And when they were issuing M16s he lost a stripe because he wouldn't turn in his M14 ...
The first ones that came in were about 50 that went to a Air Force base that were semi automatic for guards at the base . Also the forward assist. Was a Army thing no body else wanted it but since the army always gets the most, they insisted, so that’s why I have forward assist and McNamara also had a hand call kick back in it
Ordnance “corpse”? They were old and immobile so I guess that works. I do appreciate the history- I think I even learned something new
The Kalashnikov is not a copy of the STG44, though clearly, it influenced the design, Mikhail Kalashnikov's denials to the contrary.
The AK-47 was not based on the STG44, it was based on the M1 Garand rifle. Kalashnikov said himself that he took inspiration from the Garand’s operating mechanism for his rifle.
At most the STG-44 influenced the external ergonomics and that’s it. Maybe the ammunition from the AK took inspiration from STG-44’s intermediate cartridge as well in concept who knows.
People keep perpetuating the myth.
@@ICECAPPEDSKY I concur.
Form follows function. They look a lot alike, but they don't function the same.
@@CaptainSeamus I concur. When you look at most modern military rifles, they all tend to look alike to a certain extent.
I would say that's a stretch. Most rifles fed from box magazines. The curved magazine was a result of the shape of the round. Pistol grips on submachine guns were also common. Select fire existed in things like the BAR. Multiple people independently invented the light bulb. It doesn't follow they were inspired by each other because they all looked similar.
The M1A us the only rifle I need for my set. Already have a Garand and Mini-14.
Maybe in time.
Small arms solutions did the definitive video on this subject. What happened with the m-16 in Vietnam. Chris goes through the history very thoroughly and shows how the ordinance corps got soldiers killed through negligence and a desire to hold on to outdated tradition.
While I really hate to support the Ordnance Board, they did actually have a fairly good reason for wanting to stick with a 30 caliber round. By the end of WWII, almost all of the ammunition we were manufacturing and delivering was M2 AP. The ordnance board did not believe that the smaller .260 Brit round could hold a large enough steel penetrator.
When shooting people, there is no question that the 30-06 is overpowered, and something like 6mm ARC or 6.5 Grendal might be optimal. But neither of those can shoot through 6" of concrete.
1:00
the inblock clip design was neither revolutionary nor superior.
it was already obsolete before the m-1 was approved for service.
multiple weapon systems had perfected the detachable magazines prior to the m-1.
the browning bar for example had reliable detachable box magazines in 1917.
years before the garand was introduced.
the smart thing to do would have been to adapt the m-1 to use bar mags.
They tried to use box mags for the Garand but had issues. I believe they were converted BAR mags.
@@oldrabidus2230
validating that it was obsolete the moment it was accepted.
too heavy, too long, too powerful, inferior loading system.
back to the drawing board.
John garand originally designed the garand with a mag in 1919. It was basically a m14/bm59 before m14 existed.
@@jason200912
then they should have stayed with it.
but they didn't.
The clip is easier to mass produce, cheaper, and lighter than a magazine. Where higher capacity isn't needed it absolutely is superior.
What's really embarrassing is the mispronounced words, imprecise grammar, awkward phrases and technical errors in fact.
Or just keep your mouth shut.
Your beating a dead horse Bro!
I actually knew the whole story, long ago. I had a friend who was a "Military Advisor" to ARVN at the time they received the trials M16"s, and saw the amazing performance of those rifles, and then experienced the degraded performance of the M16's sent to our own troops. According to him it was as if it were an entirely different rifle. He actually saw soldiers discard their non-functional AR's after using the forward assist to seat a round, only to have the rifle fail to eject that round. I knew all of this 50 years ago, before I ever enlisted.
I love the effort you put into this video on the research side!, I hate using credentialism but I have some limited experience in writing a tertiary source and I have a few nitpicks but I enjoyed the video thoroughly outside of my pedantic notes!
the ar-10 had an aluminum barrel that burst , the m-16 had a carbon steel gas tube that would corrode quickly in the jungle . and they skipped the chrome lining in the barrel -- i fired the m-16 and the m-16a1 quite a bit --the m-16 was a jam-o-matic mostly cause of the 20rd mags just sucked , nose dive double feed , ever mag problem you can imagine the 20 round nam era mags had . i don't recall the m-16a1 ever jamming or misfiring and we used those things hard-- it took a while for the m-16s little tricks to be learned
Wasn't aluminum, but a stellite barrel that couldn't handle the pressure. The JASUP testing committee mandated it for only the AR10 and none of the other rifles.
The ak47 wouldn't be chromed for generations later and had no problems haha
ak 47 was designed off of the m1 grand the g 3 was designed off the stormgewehr
Wrong.
@@sharpe67the stg 44 did not inspire the ak im not wrong if you look at the two guns and think it looks like an ak your not wrong but that doesnt mean thet it was desined off of the ak
This was a good video. I knew a lot of this stuff vaguely but not in too much detail. Good job bro 👍🏼
I was in the Army Infantry when the M14 was issued prior to going on vacation in Germany, 1962. Great rifle for the Fulda Gap in West Germany. The only selector switches were on heavy barrel with bipods M15s. The M15 replaced the BARs in the Platoon. We only had 5 magazines with 20 rounds of ammo per each per foot troop. The M14 was never intended to be used full auto by the riflemen.