AR-15/M16: The Rifle That Was Never Supposed to Be

The M16A1 field-stripped. The ease and simplicity of disassembly made cleaning easy. All AR-15/M16-series weapons disassemble in the same manner.

The M16A1 field-stripped. The ease and simplicity of disassembly made cleaning easy. All AR-15/M16-series weapons disassemble in the same manner.

This article is an excerpt from the Gun Digest Book of Classic Combat Rifles.

Reports from Vietnam of failures to extract in the field caused the subcommittee great concern. They investigated, finding the major contributor to malfunctions was ammunition assembled using Ball powder. The change from IMR extruded powder to Ball powder in 1964 for the 5.56mm ammunition was neither justified nor supported by test data, they found. The subcommittee also found the Ball propellant sole-source position enjoyed by Olin Mathieson for many years — and their close relationship with the Army — may have influenced Army Materiel Command.

Order Gun Digest Book of Classic Combat Rifles

This article is an excerpt from the Gun Digest Book of Classic Combat Rifles. Click the cover to order this book and read more gun histories.

They felt the AR-15/M16 rifle, as initially developed, was an excellent and reliable weapon. Further, certain modifications made to the rifle at the insistence of the Army — also unsupported by test data — were unnecessary. For example, both the Air Force and the Marine Corps found no evidence to support the expense and possible problems of the manual bolt closure (forward assist) device.

Gene Stoner was called to testify at the congressional hearings to explain the extraction problem; he explained the failure to extract was due to the use of Ball powder.

Gene Stoner [To Mr. Bray]: “Well, the cartridge tends to stick under high residual pressure in the barrel, and of course with this too-soon action you also have a higher bolt velocity. In other words, your bolt is trying to open at higher speeds, so you have an aggravated condition where the cartridge is tending to stick in there a little longer or a little harder, and you are also giving it a harder jerk by driving the bolt faster.”

The battle cartridges of the 20th Century ( left to right ): 7.62×63mm (30-06 Springfield); 8mm Mauser; 7.62×54mm Russian; 7.92×33mm Kurtz; 30 US Carbine; 7.62×51 mm NATO (308 Winchester); 7.62×39mm Soviet; 5.56×45mm NATO (223 Remington) and the 5.45×39mm Soviet.

The battle cartridges of the 20th Century ( left to right ): 7.62×63mm (30-06 Springfield); 8mm Mauser; 7.62×54mm Russian; 7.92×33mm Kurtz; 30 US Carbine; 7.62×51 mm NATO (308 Winchester); 7.62×39mm Soviet; 5.56×45mm NATO (223 Remington) and the 5.45×39mm Soviet.

Mr. Bray [To Gene Stoner]: “Then a faster rate of fire could cause that situation (failure to extract)?”

Gene Stoner [To Mr. Bray]: “This is probably one of the worst conditions you can get, by increasing the cyclic rate.”

Basically, Ball propellant causes the bolt to open prematurely, before the spent cartridge case has had sufficient time to contract. The result is the extractor shears off the rim of the spent cartridge case — which sticks in the chamber. Ball and IMR powders create the same peak pressure but the Ball powder reaches its peak much faster than IMR powder, causing a significant increase in the cyclic rate of fire.

Ball powder leaves significantly more fouling in the chamber and bolt assembly. Gene Stoner also pointed out the rifle had gone through more than 22 changes from his original design and neither Colt nor the Department of Defense consulted him on how some changes would impact his design.

The forward assist was one of the changes on which he was not consulted and Mr. Ichord asked Gene Stoner his opinion of the device.

Gene Stoner [To Mr. Ichord]: “I wasn’t in on that, except I was told the Army insisted on it. There were reasons for it.

One reason was that they felt that due to the fact that the M1, and the M14 rifle, and the carbine had always had something for a soldier to push on; that maybe this would be a comforting feeling to him, or something. I could never quite get it through my mind that it was necessary. I did not really advise it. I thought it was a mistake, myself. But I made my thought known to the people.”

4 thoughts on “AR-15/M16: The Rifle That Was Never Supposed to Be

  1. master gunny

    As the armorer for the 6th Engineer Bn I one had to use a hammer and screwdriver to force the bolt into full battery (with a round in the chamber!) in order to clear a malfunction. I was shocked because the weapons was not anywhere dirty enough to explain the severe malfunction. That same day I have another stoppage, same problem, but again the fowling was not that severe. I could go on and on with why I feel the weapon is a poor choice for an infantrymen but suffice to say that I will stick with my M1A and HK-91.

  2. master gunny

    Gents,
    With respects it’s obvious to me that you guys are too young to remember the controversy surrounding the introduction of the M-16. Not mentioned in yourt article were the constant complaints about the weapons, their unreliability, the congressional hearings on the malfunctions that that were literally getting our tropps killed in Vietnam. Numerous accounts of troops found dead in their fighting holes with their weapons diassembled were presented as evidence that the weapon was despised by the troops. Mothers would get urgent letters from their sons asking for cleaning gear and solvents because the weapons fouled so easily and severely. The forward assist, and chrome chamber were just a couple of the modifications necessary to solve some of the problems.

    More offensive to me was the remark that the M14 was prone to jams and problems and speaking from experience I can tell you that is exactly the opposite of the truth. The M14 was rock solid reliable, accurate, and robust. The M1-16 fragile, unreliable, ualofre

  3. tinock28

    I liked the article on the AR-15/M16 rifle very much, I remember an article back in 1956-57 in one of Gun Mag’s about the AR-10, I thougt at the time it was a good rifle.

    1. master gunny

      Read Colonel Moore’s book, “We were soldiers one and Young” to get a better understanding of how critical reliability is to a grunt. One passage, regarding Lt. Herricks surounded platoon, say it all. Troops fighting for their lives against overwhelming odds were forced to discard their weapons and pick up those of their wounded comrades in order to stay in the fight. Many times those weapons were also not functioning and so the troops had to rummage through the perimeter to find a working weapon. Trust me, that sucks

COMMENT