I responded to this before it was sent to this forum (and my response seems to have been lost), but my response was simply this, that the problem with Jessica Lynch and her M16 jamming is a product of a decision to replace bolt action rifles with automatic rifles (and for this paper I am including Semi-automatic rifles under the term Automatic rifles).
No automatic rifle is as reliable as a Bolt Action rifle. For this reason several countries equipped their rear elements with Bolt Action rifle, such troops may not have the time to clean their weapons as often as front line troops and as such will get into the situation like Jessica Lynch’s unit, traveling for hours in sand thrown up by the trucks in front of you, than after everything has a coat of sand on and in it the enemy hits you. In such situations Bolt action rifles work, but most automatics do not.
Starting in 1936 (for the US Army) and than in the 1950s (For most everybody else) a decision was made that the increase firepower provided by Automatic Rifles was more important than reliability. The problem than became how far was an Army willing to go as to reduction in reliability in exchange for increase fire power? AND what else will the Army give up for the increase firepower of Automatic Rifles?
In the US the problem of transport was also a factor, thus weight was another factor in considering any new weapon. In the former Soviet Union weight was less of a concern. Through I like to point out the American M1 weighed almost 2 pounds heavier than the M1903 Springfield it replaced. This increase is weight was followed by every country that switched from bolt action rifles to automatics. The Soviet Union was the worse at this by going for the heaviest design in any caliber (the AK47). This increase in weight is the main reason for the AK47's history of reliability (for a Automatic).
During WWII the United States was the only country that provided most of its troops automatic weapons (I know the M1 was semiautomatic only, but as I said at the beginning of this paper that I will be calling both Semi-automatic and fully Automatic rifles Automatic Rifles in this paper). The Soviet Union had fielded a automatic design but it failed so the FSU kept on using bolt actions rifle through out WWII.
After WWII the Soviet Union lead the charge to convert to the Modern Assault Rifles (Named after German Assault Rifles of WWII which while widely used never replaced the Bolt Action Mauser 1898 in the German Army till the German Army was reformed in the 1950s). The rest of the world followed.
The Soviet Union decided to go to an intermediate round (7.62x39) in a very heavy Weapon (the AK47) while the US and its Allies decided to adopt a new round (7.62x51 NATO) that had the effectiveness of the US 30'06 (7.62x62mm) round but in a shorter case. The round was still “full power” and troops complained of the weight. In an attempt to resolve the problem of the increase weight the US Army tried out a new design by Eugene Stoner, the AR10. This design promised to be as light as a bolt action unlike the M1 and M14 series of Weapons that weighed 2-3 pounds more than a bolt action rifle.
The first AR10 was an attempt to lose weight anywhere it could, it used aluminum housing (instead of Steel), Plastic stocks (instead of Wood) and even a Fiberglass Barrel (which failed and a Steel barrel used in its place in later tests). Unlike previous design of Automatics it actually was lighter than the 1903 Springfield. Its problems were it was not as reliable as the M14 already in use by the Army AND the fact the Army was already using the M14.
Than in the late 1950s the US decided to try out a new series of .22 caliber rounds (5.56x45) rounds that had a flatter trajectory than older rounds and the low recoil of the 7.62x39 series of round. At the same time the US Government decided to get out of the production of Rifles and instead have private manufacturers make rifles for the US (thus closing down the Springfield armory where the US had produced weapons since the 1790s, including the 1903 Springfield, the M1 and M14 rifles). A third factor was the increase use of SKSs and AKs by the Viet Cong in Vietnam. The increased firepower of such weapons was causing the South Vietnam Army to lose fire fights. The 5.56x45 round promised to give an edge to whoever used it in a firefight, more rounds could be accurately fired at the target and with its flatter trajectory the troops would be less likely to over or under shoot the target.
It was this two factors that lead to the adoption of the M16, Stoner re-designed his AR10 for the new 5.56x45 round, and in the subsequent competition it was the weapon selected for production (Armalite than sold the rights to the AR15/M16 to Colt who subsequently made most of the M16s for the US Army). Springfield Armory actually did produce a rifle for the new round, but could not advance it for Springfield was in the process of closing down. Winchester also introduced a design into the competition but the design needed more time and the US Army did not have the time given the increase needs for such a weapon in Vietnam. Thus the M16 was adopted (Despite its reliability problems which were made worse by the switch to the weaker 5.56x45 round from the AR10s 7.62x52 round).
The problems of the M16 was known even before it was adopted, an attempt to solve these problem was made by Stoner in his AR18 design but by the time it came out (1967) the US was committed to both the M16 AND the war in Vietnam so the AR18 was NOT adopted.
The speed in which the M16 was adopted in also lead to problems. All of the Post WWII products of the Springfield Armory had had Hard-Chrome Chambers so to prevent cases from sticking to chamber as the chamber
heats up do to the number of rounds fired through a weapon. The AR15 did NOT have chrome chambers (and this caused huge reliability problems till the Army had all of its M16 hard chromed but only starting in 1966 and even as late as 1968 Troops in the Field had non-chromed M16s). Most of the reports of M16 reliability was do to this lack of Chroming the Chambers of the early M16s.
The feel of the Original M16 was ”Neutral” i.e almost equally balanced between the front and back, a heavier barrel up front made the M16A2 front heavier and thus more ”natural” to point.
Since Vietnam, the reports of problems with the M16 almost disappeared, they only re-appeared with the movement in the sands of Iraq. The reason for this may be the speed of the attack did not permit the rear units time to properly clean their weapons, but the above history does not feel the troops with joy over these reports of failure of the M16 in Iraq.
For more information on the M16 and other weapons see the following:
For example the AR15 (Manufacturer designation for the M16) weights 7.1 pounds (Through the Armalite site cites 7.1 for a AR-15 Carbine and 6.0 pounds for its AR180 (The Ar180 is a modernized version of Eugene Stoner’s (Designer of the M16 series of weapons, including the original AR10, AR15 and AR18) AR18 design. The AR18 was a cross between the lower receiver of the AR15 and a Upper receiver with a AK type gas system (as opposed to the direct gas system of the AR10 and AR15).
For more details see the Armalite web site:
http://www.armalite.com/For some detail on the AR10 see:
http://www.armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar10t.htmThe AR10 weighs 9 pound as does the 1903 Springfield and M1898 Mauser. For more information on the 1903 see:
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl07-e.htmhttp://www.angelfire.com/ca6/ww2/1903.htmlhttp://www.snipercountry.com/article4.htmlhttp://www.miltecharms.com/rifles.htm#M1903For More information on the M1898 Mauser see:
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl02-e.htmhttp://www.miltecharms.com/rifles.htm#M1903Please note, Miltech sells M1903s and M1898 Mausers, I gives 8 lbs, 11 oz for the 1903 and 8 lbs, 4 oz for the 1898, other sites give the 9 pound for both. The reason for this difference is that weights of firearms are “nominal”, i.e. what is the design goal OR what weight tend to be, but weigh of each weapon will differ up to about a pound (less with more modern weapons for they use less wood and wood density is the main factor in weight differences between weapons).
As to the AK47 it weighs 4.3 KG or 9.5 pounds (in a 7.62x39 weapon). The AK74 weigh 3.3 Kg or 7.3 pounds (I suspect this number for the differences between the AK47 and AK74 is NOT as great as the differences between the AR10 and AR15. The AK74 and the AR15 represent the adoption of a less powerful round compared to the earlier AK47 and AR10, but the US had NOT adopted a round liked the 7.62x39 of the AK47, instead going straight to the 5.56x45 round when the US decided that the full-power round of 7.62X51 NATO was to powerful. The Former Soviet Union on the other hand went from its 7.62x54 Round, to the 7.62x39 round and than to its 5.45x39 round. The big drop in power (and the weight of the Weapon) was from the 7.62x54 to 7.62X39. Thus I suspect this 3.3 KG number for the AK74, I believe the weight is closer to 4.2 KG of the AK47 not the American M16. See for more information on the AK series of weapons:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htmhttp://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htmhttp://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka50.html 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
