Posted on 04/22/2017 7:47:35 AM PDT by rktman
That’s my favorite rifle right there.That and the HK91.
bump
I don’t own any firearms but I’m curious what that is.
It’s an M-14
M14 (or possibly an M1A) 7.62 NATO.
I think.
” ... if you weigh more than 105 pounds.”
And on auto-fire, if you have the strength of a lowland gorilla.
If not, after a round or two you’re shooting at airplanes.
It was my understanding that A-hole McNamara saved a dollar per rifle by eliminating the chroming of the chamber. Either way pissing on McNamara’s grave is on my bucket list.
50% of all war vets surveyed said in an urban environment, they would prefer a Mini-14 to an M-16/AR-15........the Mini-14 is as reliable and rugged as the old M-1 and M-1 Carbine.......
But the Mini-Thirty is even better for urban environment......EXCEPT I read a long article by a military doc who had treated thousands of actual battlefield wounds from both the M-16 and AK-47 - and he showed statistically that the wounds from the 5.56/.223 were far more serious and lethal.....
I wonder if his conclusions were based on only those needing medical assistance. Perhaps they might skew differently if one included the casualties that went straight to the morgue.
This is exactly what I have read in previous articles. The weapon, as designed, was supposed to use nitrocellulose as propellant. Instead, Army procurement said "Let's use these tons and tons of leftover powder from World War II, else it will go to waste.
I've read that the CIA operatives in Vietnam all used the designed ammo, and never had a jamming problem, while the soldiers ended up with cartridges filled with leftover powder from World War II.
The Nitrocellulose propellant left virtually no residue, while the WWII powder left quite a lot, and it was this propellant residue that was jamming the tight clearances on the weapon.
Hats off to the Vietnam vets....you guys made my service easier. Unbelievable to come home to an ungrateful public!
Three burglars dead in Tulsa can vouch for the .223 as a DOA cartridge.
This piece contains many factual errors.
“... Perhaps they might skew differently if one included the casualties that went straight to the morgue.”
There is no threshold below which a sub-lethal wound is caused, and above which lethality is assured. Not of any measurable attribute of a projectile: not velocity, not kinetic energy, not bullet mass, not bullet diameter. Humans simply vary too much to respond predictably, if shot. Statistical correlation and probability of causing a particular wounding result are very weak.
“Stopping power” is widely believed by the civilian gun enthusiast community to have meaning, but it is not quantifiable and has never been used in official statements of need (formally drafted, coordinated, and approved documents that define requirements for military systems and drive specifications of performance).
The M16 and its 5.56x45mm cartridge were developed in response to two programs pursued by the Dept of the Army in the 1950s: one (Project Salvo? Memory is fuzzy) concluded that firepower equaled shots per minute, and the other (Small Caliber High Velocity) based on the theory that smaller, lighter bullets at higher velocities would be as effective as earlier (30 cal) bullets at lower velocities.
SCHV was not smoke and mirrors: early use of 5.56mm weapons in Southeast Asia brought in reports of effectiveness that were very optimistic - far better than anticipated.
Weapons engineers in USSR recognized this early on and began working on their own small-caliber ammunition in the late 1950s: it led, ultimately, to the 5.45x39mm cartridge, adopted in 1974 along with a new variant of the Kalashnikov assault rifle - the AK-74.
As long as it was fairly clean and oiled it was very dependable. Qualified expert with it and carried it in many combat patrols 67/68. Nightly bivouac you would see nothing but guys breaking down/cleaning them. When your life depended on it, cleaning it became a religion.
With that said, I definitely preferred my stateside M14 over the M16, but had no choice in what I carried in country.
“... was supposed to use nitrocellulose as propellant. Instead, Army procurement said “Let’s use these tons and tons of leftover powder from World War II, else it will go to waste.
I’ve read that the CIA operatives in Vietnam all used the designed ammo, and never had a jamming problem, while the soldiers ended up with cartridges filled with leftover powder from World War II. ...”
Factually inaccurate in a number of ways.
“Smokeless powder” is mostly nitrocellulose, since the French introduced their Poudre B in the 8x50R cartridge fired in their Fusil Modele 1886, aka “Lebel Rifle.”
US military rifle cartridges were loaded with nitrocellulose propellant starting in 1892, with the introduction of the 30 US rimmed cartridge, now commonly called the 30-40 Krag, fired in the M1892 Krag-Jorgensen magazine rifle. A small portion of smokeless gun propellant uses a mix of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin; powder of this sort is termed “dual base”, in contrast with the more-common nitrocellulose propellant, also known as “single base.”
The burning rate (and all attendant characteristics like port pressure) of smokeless powder is controlled by the size and shape of the granules, and by different coatings, not their chemical composition.
IMR 4475 and WC846 were thus chemically the same. IMR powders were manufactured in what is called the “chopped tube” configuration: resembling very short segments of spaghetti with a hole through the middle, or tiny donuts. Ball powders were a later development, undergoing a different manufacturing process which formed them into small spheres (hence the generic term).
Different chemicals are used to mix the propellant components, to achieve the proper consistency for final shaping, and to get ingredients to feed smoothly through the manufacturing machinery. After the proper granule size and shape are achieved, yet different chemicals are used to rinse off the earlier chemical baths (sometimes several substeps are involved), and to dry the powder granules. Different coatings are applied; the final step is to coat the powder granules with graphite, to minimize clumping and to reduce buildup of static electrical charges.
Each different cartridge requires a different propellant powder, varying in granule size and shape, to produce the correct velocity, and to function autoloading arms properly.
The 223 Remington did not use “WWII surplus powder” - there was no such surplus powder in the late 1950s, as all WWII-era small arms cartridges were still current military issue. Not that any such powders would have worked: the 223 was developed from the 222 Remington, a cartridge of totally new design introduced in 1950. It had to have its own particular propellant powder.
(”Leftover powder” from WWII did exist, but was mostly for artillery propelling charges. The smallest rounds salvaged were 50 cal machine gun, from which IMR 4831 was extracted and some sold as reloading components.)
Why any IMR powder was used to develop the 5.56mm military rounds remains unclear. Ball powder was simpler to make, safer to make, required less complex machinery, and used production chemicals that were safer for workers (and today, they are considered more environmentally friendly). From the invention of ball powder before WWII, the military establishment has made major moves in the direction of replacing earlier powder types with ball powder. It’s safer to load into cartridges, burns cooler and thus promotes longer barrel life (a big deal for machine guns, and for target shooters), and meters more precisely - less shot-to-shot variation in velocity. Precision in charge size means much more when the manufacture of cartridges like 5.56mm is considered: charge weighs about half what is used in 30-06.
After-firing residue from chopped-tube powder like IMR 4475 differs little from that left by ball powder like WC846.
Missing from the AAR article is any mention of the dessicant-residue issue. This was covered extensively in American Rifleman Magazine, in the late 1980s if memory serves. At one point calcium carbonate was used by Olin in the manufacture of WC846, to neutralize acid solvents and hasten product drying. No problems had arisen with calcium carbonate in propellants for other rounds, but it proved to increase clogging of the M16’s gas tube. (interestingly, some of the details are addressed in the final comment on the AAR article, by spamtrap19990601 dated APRIL 22, 2017 AT 5:04 PM. But the commenter gets much of the subsequent detail wrong).
The worst blunders in the M16 program were the failure of the Dept of the Army to perform sufficient operational testing, and the issue of rifles without cleaning gear or established procedures. Such odd behavior on the part of the Army Dept is not limited to small arms development.
The mini-14 is a maintenance intensive pain in the ass. If you gave me a choice between the mini-14 and a pump shotgun and pistol for urban combat I would choose the latter every time. It’s fine when it stays in tune. Which it doesn’t for long. I’m a factory certified armorer for them so I know what the hell I’m talking about. The law enforcement agency which I work for has many returning vets. A few of them are armorers and instructors like me. They hate them too. So I don’t know where you’re getting the “50% of war vets” stuff, but around here, 100% of war vets can’t stand them. Neither can I.
CC
Replying simply because of the topic :)
When I was assigned to the 5th ID in 1985 I had two assigned weapons; one was an M3 (go figure). The other was an M16 manufactured by FRIGIDAIRE!
No one ever believes me that I had an M16 made by Frigidaire. It was stamped right across the magazine well.
Did anyone else have such a weapon or at least know if Frigidaire made them?
I just looked on wikipedia and it does list General Motors as a subcontractor for M-16 production. Frigidaire was a GM company back then. So yes, I absolutely believe you are right.
CC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.