This. They are a great baseline to go to when you want a lesson in what not to do by changing some significant components or parameters between testing/proving and production.Log said:
In short, the switch in powders, combined with trial by fire in a hot, humid environment and the assertion that they were self-cleaning. Instituting proper cleaning techniques and a chromed chamber and bore helped assuage things.
No matter where you go, there are going to be issues. Deploying in the ME has desert related issues, Europe has winter issues, Afghanistan has fairly extreme environments ranging from deserts to subzero temps in the higher elevations, SE asia has tropical issues, etc.jwoodmd said:
Regardless of testing and development, anyone thinking that the environment of Vietnam was the place to first deploy a new system was crazy.
No argument with any of that. I've been to all those places and familiar with the issues they bring. Try performing surgery in a field environment in each of those and you'll face similar learning curve issues. Just in my humble opinion, and growing up around machinery, tropical issues seem to be a bit on the higher end of the scale. Just my two cents from experience. But, again, issues would be there no matter where it was first deployed so not trying to argue and I agree with your comments.schmellba99 said:No matter where you go, there are going to be issues. Deploying in the ME has desert related issues, Europe has winter issues, Afghanistan has fairly extreme environments ranging from deserts to subzero temps in the higher elevations, SE asia has tropical issues, etc.jwoodmd said:
Regardless of testing and development, anyone thinking that the environment of Vietnam was the place to first deploy a new system was crazy.
That's a pretty good way to look at things really.schmellba99 said:No matter where you go, there are going to be issues. Deploying in the ME has desert related issues, Europe has winter issues, Afghanistan has fairly extreme environments ranging from deserts to subzero temps in the higher elevations, SE asia has tropical issues, etc.jwoodmd said:
Regardless of testing and development, anyone thinking that the environment of Vietnam was the place to first deploy a new system was crazy.
Quote:
"Report on Tests for Ad Hoc Committee on Accuracy and Testing of 7.62mm Ammunition and M14 Rifles." Seven rifles each from batches accepted from H&R, Winchester, and Springfield Armory had been shipped to Aberdeen for testing to find and cure the causes of the M14's inability to meet its accuracy requirements. Examination and testing of the 21 rifles uncovered the following:
All of the rifles from Winchester and H&R exhibited excessive headspace.
All of the rifles had loose handguards.
95% of the rifles had loose stock bands.
90% of the rifles had loose gas cylinders.
75% of the rifles had misaligned op rods and gas pistons.
50% of the rifles had loose op rod guides.
50% of the rifles had op rods that rubbed the stock.
Three rifles had barrels that exceed the maximum bore dimensions.
Only three rifles had an average bore diameter that fell below the accepted mean diameter.
One rifle was found to have a broken safety while another had a misassembled safety spring.
One rifle had a misassembled flash suppressor, which was actually contacting bullets during live fire tests.
A barrel from each manufacturer was sectioned for examination of the bore and chrome lining. The chrome lining was out of tolerance (uneven and on average too thin) in all three barrels. The H&R barrel also failed the surface-finish requirements. During accuracy testing, the M14 rifles produced greater group dispersion and variation in the center of impact than the control rifles (two T35 and two AR10). NATO testing was quoted indicating that the Canadian C1 (FN FAL) and German G3 were less sensitive to variations within and among ammo lots...
Except that, according to that article, the thousands of rifles that made it to the jungle unmolested and with mfr spec ammo performed flawlessly.jwoodmd said:
Regardless of testing and development, anyone thinking that the environment of Vietnam was the place to first deploy a new system was crazy.
They did, absolutely.texrover91 said:
That reads like a third-world product.
So what was the root issue with the M14? didn't All of those manufacturers produce thousands of Garands with a higher build quality?
Thanks for posting this ... I am reading through it now.EastTexasAg1994 said:
Here you go...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/
LoudestWHOOP! said:
Something that stuck out so far in the article
To those who used the M16/M4 in the military ... the forward assist (bolt closing device), how often did you need to use it?
BenderRodriguez said:
The reliability of the AK has been way, way, way overblown.
Add to it how flexible it is and it really makes it stand out. By flexible, I mean parts made in China, Egypt, Russia, would all work with one another and not have tolerance/compatability issues. It is also amazing how "dirty" one of the AK's can become and not have reliability issues.UTExan said:BenderRodriguez said:
The reliability of the AK has been way, way, way overblown.
I beg to differ. I served with the 163rd Military Intelligence battalion in the mid-1970s and my job was to help maintain captured Soviet weapons as one of our companies took on the training mission to morph into a Soviet motorized rifle company. As an Ordnance branch officer it was an unexpected treat to discover Soviet small arms and how reliable they were: rugged to the point of being primitive because they were designed for long periods of hard use without adequate maintenance. Their approach toward weapons system effectiveness derives from their WW2 experience in an austere maintenance environment. Nowhere near as elegant as western systems, for sure, but 70 years of use is a testament to their reliability.
Interesting info, but the AK was designed to have space between moving parts for reliability in sustained military field operations. You are certainly correct that the AR is a good weapons system. No argument there, and it is one reason I have one for social work should SHTF hit society. But I also stock cotter pins/firing pins,etc as a maintenance/repair kit. OTOH, I have a Valmet M76 (AK system) and broke the firing pin. I was able to Dremel a reasonable substitute out of a pin lying around my place until I could secure a permanent replacement, which turned out to be a firing pin for a Bulgarian AK. For me, the AK is just a better system for the long run, which is why I have two in the SHTF kit along with the Smith/Wesson AR. Secondly, I realize that arming a neighbor or friend will be a likely necessity because they see no need for preparing now. But I will need them as they need me in the event of a societal crisis and the AK requires very little training time. For the same reason I also have a Tokarev and Makarov pistols as measures to provide nearly idiot proof weapons systems. Edit to say that during the 2nd Gulf War, a Maintenance Bn operating in Iraq had several AR platform failures due to failure to keep the rifle clean. That was an instructive moment for many about the need to keep the AR bolt system clean.BenderRodriguez said:
Let me clarify.
AKs have this exaggerated reputation for reliability: that no matter what conditions they're in, what maintenance they do or don't receive, they just work.
Conversely, the M-16/AR design has a reputation as a finicky gun, that needs constant babying and maintenance to stay running.
Both of those reputations are undeserved.
There is a company called Battlefield Vegas that rents full auto guns to tourists. They shoot tens of thousands of rounds a year through all kinds of guns, including ARs and AKs. Here is a thread on the durability of each gun from the owner:
High round count ARs
High round count AKs
You'll notice both guns seem to run similarly well. The only real difference between the two is that the AKs tend to crack receivers at the 80,000-100,000 round range, and the ARs don't. Other than that, both break parts. Both require barrels, bolts, springs, etc on occasion. I'm not going to crap on the AKs for that, it's the nature of a heavy reciprocating piston/bolt mass and a stamped receiver that has to take that force, and 80,000 rounds is a lot. But the AR doesn't subject its receiver to the same stresses in the same way, so in at least one way from the outset, the AR is more reliable long term than an AK.
Here's another article about Pat Rogers (who I mentioned earlier in this thread) and one of his ARs: Filthy 14, which he finally cleaned after 26,000 rounds of shooting classes.
Filthy 14
And finally, here's a mud test from the guys over at InRangeTV. Spoiler alert: the AR does better than the AK.
AK mud test
AR mud test
I'm not saying that the AK isn't a reliable gun. But it isn't substantially more reliable than an M-16, contrary to both guns internet reputations. Both guns are reliable. Both are serviceable. I own both and like both, I just don't like the traditional gun shop counter lore about the myth of the "indestructible, uber reliable AK".
Yep. The early import firing pins were very weak, unlike the later iteration in the Israeli Galil, which corrected the problem. The Valmet was my duty carry rifle for three years and the pin did not break until 2006. It gave a lot of good service.Quote:
You broke a part on a Valmet? And those are like the Cadillac of the "indestructible AKs"......
AgBQ-00 said:
The century arms wasr ak47...is it a decent rifle?
