I have to admit I have a built in antiquated hatred for the AR simply because when first introduced to combat they were known to jam, where the M14 just kept on spitting bullets out the front end.
I often recall loading up on a Caribou sitting by a butter bar that had an M16, he noticed my M14 and wished he had one due to reliability issues.
My recollection is the AR was actually designed for the Air Force and worked quite well, when the Army got their hands on it they specified an ammo that was dirty, thus causing the jamming. Eventually the bugs were worked out and it is today a world renowned platform.
But I still prefer something SKS’ish or M14’ish.
I agree with both you and Sergeant Major Plumley on this one. And while everyone is trying to get 1/4” accuracy at a hundred yards, in reality the target is going to be a minimum of 1 foot by 2 feet. The SKS has no accuracy issues here at all.
As a former sailer, we used the M14 almost exclusively, i love that rifle and it’s power and reliability. I just do not care for the AR.
“...My recollection is the AR was actually designed for the Air Force ...But I still prefer something SKS’ish or M14’ish.” [redfreedom, post 11]
The real timeline was rather different.
The ArmaLite team - led by Eugene Stoner - designed the AR-10, chambered in 7.62 NATO (Stoner, a USMC veteran of WW2, was said to dislike the small calibers). They attempted to enter it in the US Army Ordnance trials seeking to replace the M1 Garand. It arrived to late to be a serious contender; Ordnance was emotionally committed to the T44 (M14 predecessor) anyway. The M14 was selected as the M1’s replacement in 1957.
Stoner left the employ of ArmaLite. His erstwhile colleagues found out about Ordnance’s Small Caliber High Velocity (SCHV) program, which was exploring the potential of 22 caliber cartridges and very light rifles, with strong support from some user communities inside the Army. ArmaLite redesigned the AR-10 into the original AR-15, chambering 22 cal developmental cartridges based on Remington’s 222. The miniaturized arm found favor; field tests by US Secops/advisor teams in Southeast Asia delivered great results and enthusiastic endorsement from operatives.
Army Ordnance proudly declared that the M14 would simplify logistics because it would replace six arms (Garand M1, BAR M1918A2, M1 and M2 Carbine, Submachine Guns M1 and M3/M3A1) in three chamberings (30 Carbine, 45 ACP, 30-06).
The US Air Force took a dim view of developments because it was being ordered to give up its M2 Carbines, which had been issued to Air Police and air base security units; no one was thrilled at the prospect of pulling guard duty while toting an M14 (11 pounds loaded).
The Air Force searched about for alternatives and discovered the AR-15. ArmaLite had no production facilities - it was principally an engineering/development firm - and licensed production rights to Colt’s along with trademark rights to the name “AR-15.” USAF did conclude a contract with Colt’s, but the Army Dept intervened and invalidated it, citing its authority as DoD executive agent for small arms development (a status conferred by War Dept reorganization back in 1903).
So the first deliveries of what became the M16 went to advisor/trainer detachments then in Vietnam. Deliveries to the Air Force were delayed some, and quantities were initially reduced.
The ArmaLite SCHV select-fire AR-15 was developed around IMR chopped-tube propellant, but ammo suppliers changed to a ball propellant for cost and charge variability reduction. This move wasn’t coordinated with Colt’s nor SCHV managers, and boosted the full-auto rate considerably, leading to accelerated wear and reliability issues. Early requirements users suggested chrome-lined barrels, but Army Ordnance held the line against chrome plating, citing accuracy and cost issues; combined with initial issue of M16s without cleaning kits or detailed user-maintenance procedures, this led to corrosion and failures in action. Propellant suppliers also upped the percentage of calcium carbonate used as a drying and pH-balancing agent in ball powder production; this clogged M16 gas tubes and led to additional failures. It took some time to investigate and track down the problems. Blame the rush to field new stuff, which left no room for operational testing.
I do think the miniature ArmaLite platform got a bad rep undeserved, which has since been corrected. But like you, I prefer a 7.62mm platform. Don’t feel inclined to give up my M1A (an early, rough-finished example with early-WW2 rear sight) for anything else. It’s a poor match, though, for modern squad-level tactics.