Replies

I thought there were actually complaints about the M-16 round in Vietnam because it was not nearly as effective as the AK’s used by the NVA.

Probably the bigger issue was that when both weapons are exposed to dirt, mud, moisture and receive less than optimal maintenance the AK tends to be more reliable. AKs are built to less stringent tolerances and it has been found that the design can just take more abuse from people with less training. Even the berdan primed steel cased cartridges that come from surplus Eastern block “spam cans” are incredibly reliable no matter what you do to them.

It reminds me of the first time I went to a range with a surplus $59 Mosin-Nagant rifle. The ugly old rifle was actually reasonably accurate. Then one of the spent crappy enameled surplus steel cased 7.62x54 cartridges got stuck in it. I was fiddling with the thing; my friend who is a big muscular black Vietnam combat career veteran said he knew how to get it out. He took it from me and hit the bolt by slamming the rifle against the bench a couple times and the cartridge popped out. I was horrified, but the rifle was just as accurate after this abuse.

The initial run of M16 rifles for Vietnam had rifling at 1:14 or 1:12. Not fast enough to stabilize a 55 gr .223 bullet. Poor long range accuracy and a horrific tumbling terminal performance. Current rifles are 1:8 or 1:7 to stabilize 62 gr to 69 gr bullets. It was just a poor spec at the start. A .22LR 40 gr bullet is fine with 1:12 or 1:14 rifling twist. A 1:9 is satisfactory for 55 gr bullets.