[TXPI]

Colt never made the claim that the AR-15 was "self-cleaning," nobody did. Amazing how people take what they have heard at face value without questioning it . . . .

Really? Look at the attached picture, that’s the original Colt hang tag. Scroll down to the 10th star. What does it say? SELF CLEANING GAS SYSTEM. And yes, the US military originally said the rifle was self cleaning, hence the reason they did not issue cleaning gear with it when it first came out. Before you pop off, you might want to know what you’re talking about.

 

[M14SAGuy]

I believe that's a myth; I haven't noticed that with my A1. The A2 barrel is NOT heavier per se, it is also a pencil barrel; it's only beefed up forward of the front sight base; as I said earlier the flex in the barrel that affects accuracy generally happens about 3" forward of the chamber. The thicker front end govt. profile is not somehow magically more accurate due to a little more thickness the last 4 or 5" of the barrel............the A1 barrels did not bend in bayonet training, that is flat out wrong. The US military stupidly went to the govt. profile because military armorers could not get barrel straightness gauges to go all the way thru. This was due to excess metal that was still present that had not been smoothed out after drilling the gas port hole. Behind the front sight base, the A1 and A2 barrels are identical profile.

True. That's why I said fore end. The rest of the barrel is the same.

 

[Random Guy]

Actually, that is a thesis for a Masters Degree, not an official report. It carries no official weight.

Yes, but the conclusions were quite obvious to the US Army when that thesis was published. The point I was trying to make about that 2009 thesis is that during the the mid to late 200Xs, Operational Needs Statements (ONS) had been submitted by U.S. Army combat commanders that comport with precisely what is in that thesis/report - the effective range of the 5.56mm M4 was insufficient for combat in Afghanistan. The consensus was something with longer range was needed. That is why thousands of M14s in 7.62 NATO were being pulled out of storage beginning with the war in Afghanistan and then Iraq as well. As Doug Carlstrom stated here:

How the U.S. Army Builds the M14 EBR-RI - Guns and Ammo

The M14 EBR-RI has become a legend in the military community, and this was the only time a writer was allowed inside TACOM to document the building of these chassis-based M14s.

www.gunsandammo.com

"I was deployed to Iraq in 2004 and to Afghanistan in 2006 to open a small arms support center," Carlstrom says. "I opened Camp Anaconda in Balad, Iraq, and started learning how soldiers were using their rifles. At that time, units were pulling M14s out of storage and issuing them to marksmen within a squad for more accuracy, range and effectiveness."

The first M14 rifles were fielded to units as they came out of Anniston Army Depot. Those M14s were still wearing wooden or nylon stocks and a brown nylon handguard. They were equipped with only one magazine and had no provisions for optics. Carlstrom observed soldiers trying to attach commercial mounts, rings and optics to these M14s with little consistency or repeatable accuracy. After seeing soldiers trying to adapt the M14 to a modern battlefield, Carlstrom concluded that this situation was unacceptable. When he returned to CONUS, he set out to resolve this problem.

All of the joint services were using some configuration of the M14 EBR (my note: Navy/SOCOM Mk 14 Mod 0/1, USMC M39, Air Force Mk 14 Mods). The (US Army) M14 EBR-RI was built and tested at Rock Island Arsenal by the team that developed it. It was a response to the large number of Operational Need Statements (ONS) submitted for M14 rifles to support the role of a Squad Designated Marksman (SDM). The M14 EBR-RI was designed to standardize the optic among soldiers, offers sustainability in the field and featured a chassis constructed from lightweight aircraft aluminum capable of supporting the use of a night vision device in front of the day optic.
***

Between 2009 and 2012 Doug Carlstrom and Mike Petersen (who is an occasionally forum member here) built 6200 M14 EBR-RI in support of those Operational Needs Statements submitted by U. S. Army combat unit commanders overseas. The training program with the EBR-RI consisted of training the soldiers to shoot with precision out to 600 meters with the 7.62mm NATO EBR-RIs. Thus, the US Army soldier's 2009 Master’s thesis comports precisely with what all those circa 200X Operational Needs Statement were about, and the EBR-RI was subsequently issued beginning in 2009 to US Army Squads deployed in Afghanistan - all in a focused effort to "take back the half kilometer" from our enemy. Numerous ONS or that thesis from 2009 - they were all saying the same thing about the need for something more effective than an M4 - which is the point I was trying to make about evolving policy. (Resulting a few years later in an RFP and the M110A1 SDMR program)

(Fwiw, I also know of at least one case where a PhD thesis from a civilian engineer working at the DoE was peer reviewed by academics including some military personnel - and subsequently the thesis was redacted with entire sections deemed classified by the NSA - as it subsequently impacted DoD policy in the technical area evaluated by that thesis... So, even a PhD thesis (aka "unofficial report") on a relevant area - can sometimes carry official weight - esp if it touches on, or illuminates, a relevant topic to the gov't that impacts the decision(s) of policy makers. For the record, it was not my thesis, but that of a very smart guy that I have met).

 

[lysander]

Really? Look at the attached picture, that’s the original Colt hang tag. Scroll down to the 10th star. What does it say? SELF CLEANING GAS SYSTEM. And yes, the US military originally said the rifle was self cleaning, hence the reason they did not issue cleaning gear with it when it first came out. Before you pop off, you might want to know what you’re talking about. View attachment 525629

That hang tag does not date to 1963, when the Army first bought and fielded the M16, therefore has no bearing on decisions made at that time.

And yes, the Army did intend to issue cleaning equipment with the M16, check out the Air Force 1962 user's manual, and all of the POMMs published at the time. To quote "Evaluation of Small Caliber High Velocity Projectile Rifles (AR-15)", dated 05-27-1958, has this to say:

"b. A combination tool, chamber brush, and cleaning rod will be required for proper maintenance of the [AR-15] . . . rifles."

However, the cleaning equipment and associated maintenance instructions were not available in sufficient quantities due to the fact that normal fielding procedures were not followed.

 

[Rifleman-7.62]

Great, so now we’re going to adopt a rifle with two different cartridges based solely on pressure, and keep another platform and caliber in the system as well, being the M16/5.56. This is beyond stupid. Brilliant idea. There should only be one rifle cartridge, and you should train how you shoot.

Maybe they will realize this in the future. The M-7 using a sixteen to twenty inch barrel with the 6.8 x 51 will be effective to over 700 yards just using lower pressure ammo. I would just have military use the high pressure 6.8 x 51 with the machine guns. I really hope they realize a thirteen inch barrel with the M-7 is a bad idea.

 

[TXPI]

That hang tag does not date to 1963, when the Army first bought and fielded the M16, therefore has no bearing on decisions made at that time.

And yes, the Army did intend to issue cleaning equipment with the M16, check out the Air Force 1962 user's manual, and all of the POMMs published at the time. To quote "Evaluation of Small Caliber High Velocity Projectile Rifles (AR-15)", dated 05-27-1958, has this to say:

"b. A combination tool, chamber brush, and cleaning rod will be required for proper maintenance of the [AR-15] . . . rifles."

However, the cleaning equipment and associated maintenance instructions were not available in sufficient quantities due to the fact that normal fielding procedures were not followed.

Really, when does the hang tag date to then? So M1sniper is lying? Actually, it does date to then as I have seen that hang tag elsewhere before. So nobody including Colt or the US Military ever said the rifle was self-cleaning? So since you proclaim that the tag was from, whenever, it has no bearing on anything. Wrong.........

ArmaLite (the division of Fairchild Aircraft, not the current holder of the name) marketed the rifle as having a self-cleaning gas system. That part is actually true--the propellant gases traveling down the gas tube above the barrel do so at very high pressure, temperature, and speed. Any residue left from firing tends to get blown out by the wave from the following shot. The catch is that some of the residue will tend to hang around inside the bolt carrier group.

 

[lysander]

Yes, but the conclusions were quite obvious to the US Army when that thesis was published. The point I was trying to make about that 2009 thesis is that during the the mid to late 200Xs, Operational Needs Statements (ONS) were submitted by U.S. Army combat commanders that comport with precisely what is in that thesis/report - the effective range of the M4 was insufficient for combat in Afghanistan. The consensus was something with longer range was needed. That is why thousands of M14s in 7.62 NATO were being pulled out of storage beginning after the war in Afghanistan and then Iraq as well. As Doug Carlstrom stated here:

How the U.S. Army Builds the M14 EBR-RI - Guns and Ammo

The M14 EBR-RI has become a legend in the military community, and this was the only time a writer was allowed inside TACOM to document the building of these chassis-based M14s.

www.gunsandammo.com

"I was deployed to Iraq in 2004 and to Afghanistan in 2006 to open a small arms support center," Carlstrom says. "I opened Camp Anaconda in Balad, Iraq, and started learning how soldiers were using their rifles. At that time, units were pulling M14s out of storage and issuing them to marksmen within a squad for more accuracy, range and effectiveness."

The first M14 rifles were fielded to units as they came out of Anniston Army Depot. Those M14s were still wearing wooden or nylon stocks and a brown nylon handguard. They were equipped with only one magazine and had no provisions for optics. Carlstrom observed soldiers trying to attach commercial mounts, rings and optics to these M14s with little consistency or repeatable accuracy. After seeing soldiers trying to adapt the M14 to a modern battlefield, Carlstrom concluded that this situation was unacceptable. When he returned to CONUS, he set out to resolve this problem.

All of the joint services were using some configuration of the M14 EBR (my note: Navy/SOCOM Mk 14 Mod 0/1, USMC M39, Air Force Mk 14 Mods). The (US Army) M14 EBR-RI was built and tested at Rock Island Arsenal by the team that developed it. It was a response to the large number of Operational Need Statements (ONS) submitted for M14 rifles to support the role of a Squad Designated Marksman (SDM). The M14 EBR-RI was designed to standardize the optic among soldiers, offers sustainability in the field and featured a chassis constructed from lightweight aircraft aluminum capable of supporting the use of a night vision device in front of the day optic.
***

Between 2009 and 2012 Doug Carlstrom and Mike Petersen (who is an occasionally forum member here) built 6200 M14 EBR-RI in support of those Operational Needs Statements submitted by U. S. Army combat unit commanders overseas. The training program with the EBR-RI consisted of training the soldiers to shoot with precision out to 600 meters with the 7.62mm NATO EBR-RIs. Thus, the Army soldier's 2009 thesis comports with what those circa 200X Operational Needs Statement were about, and the EBR-RI was subsequently issued beginning in 2009 to US Army Squads deployed in Afghanistan - all in a focused effort to "take back the half kilometer" from our enemy. Numerous ONS or that thesis from 2009 - they were all saying the same thing about the need for something more effective than an M4 - which is the point I was trying to make.

(Fwiw, I also know of at least one case where a PhD thesis from a civilian engineer working at the DoE was peer reviewed by some military personnel and subsequently the thesis was redacted with entire sections deemed classified by the NSA - as it subsequently impacted DoD policy in the technical area evaluated by that thesis... So, even a PhD thesis (aka "unofficial report") on a relevant area - can sometimes carry official weight - esp if it touches on, or illuminates, a relevant topic to the gov't that impacts the decision(s) of policy makers. For the record, it was not my thesis, but that of a very smart guy that I have met).

I intended to edit that to add: ". . . but is echoed in other official studies."

Occasionally, papers from the Command and General Staff College do initiate further official investigation, but officially are just the opinion of the author. According to the CGSC template papers are supposed to have this immediately after the title page:

 

[TXPI]

Yes and no. The conclusions were quite obvious to the US Army when that thesis was published. The point I was trying to make about that 2009 thesis is that during the the mid to late 200Xs, Operational Needs Statements (ONS) had been submitted by U.S. Army combat commanders that comport with precisely what is in that thesis/report - the effective range of the 5.56mm M4 was insufficient for combat in Afghanistan. The consensus was something with longer range was needed. That is why thousands of M14s in 7.62 NATO were being pulled out of storage beginning with the war in Afghanistan and then Iraq as well. As Doug Carlstrom stated here:

How the U.S. Army Builds the M14 EBR-RI - Guns and Ammo

The M14 EBR-RI has become a legend in the military community, and this was the only time a writer was allowed inside TACOM to document the building of these chassis-based M14s.

www.gunsandammo.com

"I was deployed to Iraq in 2004 and to Afghanistan in 2006 to open a small arms support center," Carlstrom says. "I opened Camp Anaconda in Balad, Iraq, and started learning how soldiers were using their rifles. At that time, units were pulling M14s out of storage and issuing them to marksmen within a squad for more accuracy, range and effectiveness."

The first M14 rifles were fielded to units as they came out of Anniston Army Depot. Those M14s were still wearing wooden or nylon stocks and a brown nylon handguard. They were equipped with only one magazine and had no provisions for optics. Carlstrom observed soldiers trying to attach commercial mounts, rings and optics to these M14s with little consistency or repeatable accuracy. After seeing soldiers trying to adapt the M14 to a modern battlefield, Carlstrom concluded that this situation was unacceptable. When he returned to CONUS, he set out to resolve this problem.

All of the joint services were using some configuration of the M14 EBR (my note: Navy/SOCOM Mk 14 Mod 0/1, USMC M39, Air Force Mk 14 Mods). The (US Army) M14 EBR-RI was built and tested at Rock Island Arsenal by the team that developed it. It was a response to the large number of Operational Need Statements (ONS) submitted for M14 rifles to support the role of a Squad Designated Marksman (SDM). The M14 EBR-RI was designed to standardize the optic among soldiers, offers sustainability in the field and featured a chassis constructed from lightweight aircraft aluminum capable of supporting the use of a night vision device in front of the day optic.
***

Between 2009 and 2012 Doug Carlstrom and Mike Petersen (who is an occasionally forum member here) built 6200 M14 EBR-RI in support of those Operational Needs Statements submitted by U. S. Army combat unit commanders overseas. The training program with the EBR-RI consisted of training the soldiers to shoot with precision out to 600 meters with the 7.62mm NATO EBR-RIs. Thus, the Army soldier's 2009 thesis comports with what those circa 200X Operational Needs Statement were about, and the EBR-RI was subsequently issued beginning in 2009 to US Army Squads deployed in Afghanistan - all in a focused effort to "take back the half kilometer" from our enemy. Numerous ONS or that thesis from 2009 - they were all saying the same thing about the need for something more effective than an M4 - which is the point I was trying to make.

(Fwiw, I also know of at least one case where a PhD thesis from a civilian engineer working at the DoE was peer reviewed by some military personnel and subsequently the thesis was redacted with entire sections deemed classified by the NSA - as it subsequently impacted DoD policy in the technical area evaluated by that thesis... So, even a PhD thesis (aka "unofficial report") on a relevant area - can sometimes carry official weight - esp if it touches on, or illuminates, a relevant topic to the gov't that impacts the decision(s) of policy makers. For the record, it was not my thesis, but that of a very smart guy that I have met).

Amazing how the rifle was plenty accurate in the 60's, but not in the 2000's. What changed? Perhaps using a stock it was never designed for? My dad scored expert in the USMC in 1966 at Camp Pendleton with a rack grade M14 using M80 ball at 500 meters with no problem.

 

[lysander]

Really, when does the hang tag date to then? So M1sniper is lying? Actually, it does date to then as I have seen that hang tag elsewhere before. So nobody including Colt or the US Military ever said the rifle was self-cleaning? So since you proclaim that the tag was from, whenever, it has no bearing on anything. Wrong.........

Last time I checked, 1964 is after 1963, and well after 1958 when the Army went on record as stating that a cleaning kit was required . . .

(Oh, and, according to Colt, the "gas system" is just the gas tube . . . the "piston" parts are assigned to the bolt carrier assembly.)

EDIT: And one other thing - a "self cleaning gas tube" is different from a "self cleaning rifle" . . .

 

[lysander]

Amazing how the rifle was plenty accurate in the 60's, but not in the 2000's. What changed? Perhaps using a stock it was never designed for? My dad scored expert in the USMC in 1966 at Camp Pendleton with a rack grade M14 using M80 ball at 500 meters with no problem.

The required accuracy. 6 MOA versus 1.5 MOA

 

[TXPI]

You might consider it to be elitist but I tend to take seriously the statements made by those with extensive experience and education. I personally think it is elitist for individuals to believe that their opinions based on “research” of documentation trumps extensive first hand experience. It is prudent to keep an open mind and be willing to re-evaluate one’s opinion when new or different facts come to light.

milprileb never stated that adoption of the M16 was the best course of action. What he did state was that it was adequate in terms of performance In VN. I also fully agree with his position that the M16A2 was an improvement over the M16/M16A1. It still had deficiencies but it was definitely better. The 3 round burst was a huge step backwards but the sights were a huge improvement and the heavier barrel was able to handle heat from rapid fire better and it was more resistant to bending. Even the heavy barrel would experience a substantial zero shift from sling tension but not as much as the “pencil” barrels.

Wow. So let me get this straight- this guy on here that I don't know (and that you may or may not) put 30 years in the Army is the world's foremost authority on infantry operations and small arms that is not to be questioned because you deem him so? How does he have firsthand experience for small arms and ammunition that was used after he retired? And those are the sole required credentials; nothing else counts for anything? Got it. Even against Eugene Stoner, Jim Sullivan and Colt engineers? If your buddy is the world's foremost authority, I am not impressed with the amount of false statements he made in his past posts. You could get more correct info from The Black Rifle book. What I stated are NOT OPINIONS, it would behoove you to learn the difference between fact and opinion. His experience is limited to firing these weapons in combat; which carries weight, but not as an engineer building or having to modify/repair them. Most of what your buddy stated was patently false, as I have outlined. Adequate in terms of performance according to who? It had a grocery list of problems that the M-14 never did, nor did any other platform fielded by the US military. It got people killed; I hardly would qualify that as "adequate" and utilized a varmint cartridge that did not always get the job done. You "fully agree that the A2 was an improvement" That is an opinion. For the third and final time, the A2 barrel WAS NOT A HEAVY BARREL. It is absolutely identical to an A1 barrel behind the front sight base. IDENTICAL. 4-5 inches of thicker diameter forward of the FSB does not dissipate heat better to improve accuracy. It is also a pencil barrel behind the FSB. If that were the case, all M40/M24 barrels would not be a uniform thickness throughout; they would only be thicker at the muzzle end. The accuracy is most affected by barrel whip and max heat buildup about 3-4" forward of the chamber area. That's fact. I own an A1 clone, and qualified expert in the Army myself with an A2. From my firsthand experience, the accuracy is the same. You are under the misbelief because you have heard it so many times that A1 barrels were bent, and that is why they went to the govt. profile. You would be wrong, as is your buddy. Again, for the third time, it was due to excess metal left after drilling the gas port hole; it was not because the barrel was "bent in bayonet training". That is complete BS. That came from military armorers that could not get the barrel straightness gauges to drop straight down; they would get stuck. When Colt engineers brought this to the attention of the Army, they just let the govt. profile remain, even though it made the rifle unnecessarily front heavy. Do a little research. Barrels are not flexible rubber, and most soldiers firing under duress do not have sling tension on their rifle, nor do I believe that has any noticeable effect on accuracy. Your buddy did not bring any new facts to light, so there is nothing to keep an open mind about. Most of it was false statements; I'm sorry he is not supposed to be called out on it.

And by the way, it is well known that Springfield Armory was shut down due to the rigged tests of not only the M14 vs. the FAL, but especially about the M16. The higher ups had just gotten the M14 adopted and were not keen on adopting a foreign made rifle like the FAL, and especially not a plastic and aluminum toy like the M16. Not trying to start anything, but with all due respect, you have zero credibility when it comes to this subject based on your posts. Far be it for me to dare question a self appointed forum expert, but the recorded data and history are out there if you want the truth. It seems to me you have cognitive dissonance, or such an emotional attachment to your AR-15 that you cannot accept any actual data on it or flat out don't know what you're talking about. Numbers and recorded history don't lie.

 

[TXPI]

The required accuracy. 6 MOA versus 1.5 MOA

So the exact same rifles somehow underwent a metamorphosis and the accuracy decreased over the years sitting in mothballs? Please describe in detail how...........To say the rifle is an inaccurate POS because it won't achieve MOA "requirements" that changed usually only a bolt gun achieves, but was just fine 40-50 years earlier hardly to equates to a useless, obsolete, inaccurate rifle. If you can hit a man-size target at 500 meters with a rack grade rifle and ball ammo, what more do you want?

 

[TXPI]

Last time I checked, 1964 is after 1963, and well after 1958 when the Army went on record as stating that a cleaning kit was required . . .

(Oh, and, according to Colt, the "gas system" is just the gas tube . . . the "piston" parts are assigned to the bolt carrier assembly.)

EDIT: And one other thing - a "self cleaning gas tube" is different from a "self cleaning rifle" . . .

Well, the Marines did not get the M16 until April 1967, and the Army got them a year or two before that, but entered Vietnam with the M14. 1963-1964, what difference does it make? Colt touted the GAS SYSTEM as self-cleaning; part of the gas system is the carrier key as well, is it not? Without it, there's nowhere for the gas to stop and nothing to push back to cycle the action, correct? And, the AR15 has no "piston"; it's direct gas impingement, I would think you would know that. None of it was self-cleaning; that was absolute BS. More marketing that people blindly believe. So back to the hang tag, since you're a Colt AR15 expert, when does it date to, and how do you know? How did it get there? Why would they put that if it was not true? At what point does it have any bearing? Also, so the US military had plenty of 7.62 cleaning kits, but for some unknown secretive reason, forgot or could not procure 5.56 cleaning kits, and also forgot to instruct troops on how to properly clean the rifle? I think you might be living in an alternate universe.....We can argue this all day long; you can believe whatever you want based on myth, misinformation and conjecture. Have fun with all that. I addressed this very thing early in the first post.

 

[Grizzman]

Wow…..my ignore list just expanded.

 

[Joe Silvia]

So instead of one there were two no knowledge fools specing the issue Infantry rifle!

Joe
****

So, I guess the blame for canceling the M14 program lays not just with SecDef Robert McNamara, it’s also likely in part due to General Curtis LeMay and all those helpless watermelons that he easily shot up with an early AR15 in full auto mode at a 4th of July party…. Afterwards he became a big fan and pushed hard for adoption of the M16. Random factoid.
[/QUOTE]

 

[TXPI]

Wow…..my ignore list just expanded.

Yeah, mine too.

 

[TXPI]

Ok, you improved A2 bent barrel experts; this is for you. Please read.

The Story of the Government Profile Barrel

The government profile barrel for the AR-15 is often mystery. Why would anyone design it to be skinny in the rear and wide in the front. Let's explore.

www.everydaymarksman.co

 

[TXPI]

So instead of one there were two no knowledge fools specing the issue Infantry rifle!

Joe
****

So, I guess the blame for canceling the M14 program lays not just with SecDef Robert McNamara, it’s also likely in part due to General Curtis LeMay and all those helpless watermelons that he easily shot up with an early AR15 in full auto mode at a 4th of July party…. Afterwards he became a big fan and pushed hard for adoption of the M16. Random factoid.

[/QUOTE]
One Chair Force General and the other CEO of Ford Motor Co., neither gun guys that decide what the fighting man is going to use as a rifle. What could go wrong?

 

[rickgman]

Wow. So let me get this straight- this guy on here that I don't know (and that you may or may not) put 30 years in the Army is the world's foremost authority on infantry operations and small arms that is not to be questioned because you deem him so? How does he have firsthand experience for small arms and ammunition that was used after he retired? And those are the sole required credentials; nothing else counts for anything? Got it. Even against Eugene Stoner, Jim Sullivan and Colt engineers? If your buddy is the world's foremost authority, I am not impressed with the amount of false statements he made in his past posts. You could get more correct info from The Black Rifle book. What I stated are NOT OPINIONS, it would behoove you to learn the difference between fact and opinion. His experience is limited to firing these weapons in combat; which carries weight, but not as an engineer building or having to modify/repair them. Most of what your buddy stated was patently false, as I have outlined. Adequate in terms of performance according to who? It had a grocery list of problems that the M-14 never did, nor did any other platform fielded by the US military. It got people killed; I hardly would qualify that as "adequate" and utilized a varmint cartridge that did not always get the job done. You "fully agree that the A2 was an improvement" That is an opinion. For the third and final time, the A2 barrel WAS NOT A HEAVY BARREL. It is absolutely identical to an A1 barrel behind the front sight base. IDENTICAL. 4-5 inches of thicker diameter forward of the FSB does not dissipate heat better to improve accuracy. It is also a pencil barrel behind the FSB. If that were the case, all M40/M24 barrels would not be a uniform thickness throughout; they would only be thicker at the muzzle end. The accuracy is most affected by barrel whip and max heat buildup about 3-4" forward of the chamber area. That's fact. I own an A1 clone, and qualified expert in the Army myself with an A2. From my firsthand experience, the accuracy is the same. You are under the misbelief because you have heard it so many times that A1 barrels were bent, and that is why they went to the govt. profile. You would be wrong, as is your buddy. Again, for the third time, it was due to excess metal left after drilling the gas port hole; it was not because the barrel was "bent in bayonet training". That is complete BS. That came from military armorers that could not get the barrel straightness gauges to drop straight down; they would get stuck. When Colt engineers brought this to the attention of the Army, they just let the govt. profile remain, even though it made the rifle unnecessarily front heavy. Do a little research. Barrels are not flexible rubber, and most soldiers firing under duress do not have sling tension on their rifle, nor do I believe that has any noticeable effect on accuracy. Your buddy did not bring any new facts to light, so there is nothing to keep an open mind about. Most of it was false statements; I'm sorry he is not supposed to be called out on it.

And by the way, it is well known that Springfield Armory was shut down due to the rigged tests of not only the M14 vs. the FAL, but especially about the M16. The higher ups had just gotten the M14 adopted and were not keen on adopting a foreign made rifle like the FAL, and especially not a plastic and aluminum toy like the M16. Not trying to start anything, but with all due respect, you have zero credibility when it comes to this subject based on your posts. Far be it for me to dare question a self appointed forum expert, but the recorded data and history are out there if you want the truth. It seems to me you have cognitive dissonance, or such an emotional attachment to your AR-15 that you cannot accept any actual data on it or flat out don't know what you're talking about. Numbers and recorded history don't lie.

Anyone who believes I have an emotional attachment to AR type rifles is not just mistaken, they are horribly mistaken. If one were to correctly conclude that I have an emotional attachment to a small arm that I used in the military, it would be the M1911A1 pistol. It would certainly not be the M16 rifle.

Just for clarification, opinions and facts can be extremely hard to differentiate. Even actual test data can be misleading or faulty so determining what is factual can be far less precise than most people believe. There is a reason why most technical documents have a large number of footnotes and a bibliography - when one makes a statement, most knowledgable individuals want to have the ability to examine the basis for the statement. The fact of the matter is that there are few solid facts and a lot more presumptions based on data or testimony of some sort.

 

[Random Guy]

Fwiw, I’ve known Milprileb for several years. He’s a Range Officer at Quantico Shooting Club. He’s retired Army/1st SFG and only shoots his rifles at 1000 yards, as anything less is apparently not challenging enough. No joke. This includes his M1A in an E2 stock. To really challenge himself he shoots his M1903A4 at 1000 yards with an old Lyman 2.5x scope. He does very well at the 1000 yard line. I took this pic of him several years ago w/ that set-up. Like many old timers, he has (perhaps strong) opinions based on his lifetime experiences, including missions in exotic locations... He always gives me grief as I can only sneak down to the QSC vintage matches twice per year. I don’t question his wisdom or opinions, as I was never a career Army veteran or a member of the 1st Special Forces Group. Just an fyi…