I don't remember seeing this in Basic Training in 1983, but then again I don't remember what I had for lunch yesterday... but I do remember the PMS magazine pamphlet
Of all the assault rifles I have burned tens of thousands of rounds through, the AR15 family is one of the most reliable, and has the smoothest recoil impulse of all. The biggest factor that the user has control over in determining reliability is lubrication. The AR/M16 needs lots of lubrication, the thicker the better. Contrary to popular mantra, it does NOT need to be meticulously cleaned. Feed it M193 and M855, on a wet bolt carrier group, and it will run.
The earliest models of the m16 didn't have chromed barrels. Which caused gunk build up from the gun powder. Gun cleaning kits were not issued to soldiers because they believed the gun wouldn't jam. But through out Vietnam the gun was updated with chromed barrels and forward assist. They also started issuing cleaning kits for soldiers.
Looks very familiar. Firearm manufacturers should start building these in semi-automatic versions, with price ranges from $699 to $6999 for U.S. citizens. We will call it the American Rifle!!!!!
@rammsteinlover1337 Every soldier should know how to keep their rifle firing. M16 has been in service with the US army for more than 40 years and its proven its values throughout the world in various armed forces. Had it not been reliable and have gotten many soldiers killed, no one in their right mind would allow soldiers to have it. You have to think and ask yourself first, if it weren't reliable, wouldn't it be rationale to replace it soon after Vietnam?
Lot of people hating on the M16 on here. The rifle didnt have any problems when first sent to Viet Nam. The problem was human error. THey thought you never had to clean this gun, just keep putting oil on its parts. So they didnt issue cleaning kits with the early rifles. They quickly figured out their mistake and started issueing cleaning kits with every rifle.
It has only been in service for 40 years because of mistakes that were corrected during/after the vietnam war. The military (US) is still looking for a replacement (which might come in the Mk17/18 (SCAR) rifle), but insufficient funds and the lack of need to replace the M16/M4 series has slowed the replacement program ever since it was first conceived.
Hard to believe that was a radical new idea of the day. Air Cav used them early on with great success, I can't find the photo, but it is a kid with a 203 grenade launcher and two belts of M-60 ammo shouting and pointing to something off camera, 1969 An Luc 1/9 air cav maybe
It was not the ammo, it was the fact that the M16 was the first Direct Impingement rifle ever fielded by the US Military, instead of the Gas Piston designs that had been used in earlier semi- or full-auto rifles (ie, M1 and M14). The direct impingement routes gasses all the way back to the receiver, which causes quicker fouling than a piston, which separates the receiver and gasses by a length of metal. Once the maintenance guidelines were changed to reflect this, jamming was cut way down...
@tv321123 Only at the early stage because there were no proper training provided to these soldiers. It was quickly rectified and adapted by many arms forces around the world. My country fought against the communist insurgents using the M-16. Even now, countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines is still using it in the jungles much like the Vietnam Jungle. It's battle proven. Had it got many soldiers killed, the arms forces would never have thought of adopting it in the first place.
well not entirely. it was partly due to the wrong type of powder when combined with the tropical humidity that caused for the excessive and annoying carbon buildup
They also didn't supply a cleaning kit to the boys in nam cuz they used stick powder in the testing which is a little more expensive and doesn't dirty the gun as much but when it became a full US rifle they switch to ball powder which made it dirtier but costed less therefore caused it to need cleaning but no kit was assigned hence it jammed but you clean it i will take that over a AK any day
The M16 does a better job of keeping dirt out of the action than almost every assault rifle design out there. NONE of them work with dirt in critical parts of the action, especially the chamber. There is no 100% reliable mechanical device in harsh conditions, and I see more AK's failing on clean range conditions, let alone the field.
@ICETEEBAG the first m16 was very dirty and when u say borrow ur friend gun, so u mean that he have to use the pistol (i would rather shoot with the pistol cuz that is more reliable) and what do u mean with that last sentence
Tom Gol its designed in a way that when the charging handle goes back so does the bolt, but also so that if the bolt goes back, the charging handle doesn't necessarily have to.
@ Tom Gol The charging handle has a loop - shaped end that hangs down and captures the front of the gas key (which is attatched to the top of the bolt carrier) so that it can draw the bolt & carrier to the rear but does not have to reciprocate with it. Google ‘animated AR15 cycle of fire’ or look up a mechanical drawing and it should become clear to you.
The M14 was also heavier and uncontrollable on full auto fire. It was also not nearly as accurate. Today, the AR15 is the most popular rifle in the US, and its variants abound. The M14 was kind of a developmental dead end. It did inspire the Ruger Mini14, but the Mini 14's one advantage was that it when it came out, it was a budget 5.56 rifle. Now that AR-15 costs have been brought lower, thanks to improved production technology and economy of scale, even that advantage is gone, and there is literally nothing the Mini 14 can do that the AR-15 can't do better. There is also literally nothing the M14 can do that the AR-10 can't do better.
The XM16E1 was basically just an M16 with a forward assist (no forward assist made the rifle inoperable in the event of a jam because it lacks a charging handle), with the finalized production model being the M16A1
+Fleece “B00ty Warrior” Johnson When South Korea bought M-16s, they demanded the gas tube be replaced with a piston. The designers of the M-16 were a bit obsessed with making the weapon light. Adding a piston adds weight, but makes it reliable.
I guess we should have stayed home and let North Vietnam eradicate the South///Then level the whole place. Good thinking.🤔 You gotta be smarter than that.
The "GUPPY GUN" A BAD design..."direct gas impingement" = dirty, gunky, wet, hot, HOT gas is pumped down a tiny little tube right into the bolt carrier...the bolt-to-bolt carrier area gets totally gummed-up...now, add sand or dirt...the "slinky-spring" recoil spring and buffer won't cut it, so, you need a "forward assist" to get the bolt to close into battery. LAME The M-16 ONLY works reliably in "RANGE CLEAN" condition. It remains unsuitable for austere combat contidions, in my opinion.
@ICETEEBAG yes i play CoD but the M16 was an realy unreliable and some today but better the unreliable m16 killed many US-soldiers and the dirt is from the gases that made the gun so unreliable the AK never had that problem cuz it had the gas-piston and room between the moving parts
It's called arms industry lobbying government. If the army really cared about it's soldiers then they wouldn't be sent to such stupid offensive war such as Vietnam. And it represented the growing warfare/welfare state of the US.
I don't remember seeing this in Basic Training in 1983, but then again I don't remember what I had for lunch yesterday... but I do remember the PMS magazine pamphlet
Of all the assault rifles I have burned tens of thousands of rounds through, the AR15 family is one of the most reliable, and has the smoothest recoil impulse of all. The biggest factor that the user has control over in determining reliability is lubrication. The AR/M16 needs lots of lubrication, the thicker the better. Contrary to popular mantra, it does NOT need to be meticulously cleaned. Feed it M193 and M855, on a wet bolt carrier group, and it will run.
Pou
The earliest models of the m16 didn't have chromed barrels. Which caused gunk build up from the gun powder. Gun cleaning kits were not issued to soldiers because they believed the gun wouldn't jam. But through out Vietnam the gun was updated with chromed barrels and forward assist. They also started issuing cleaning kits for soldiers.
Poui
Looks very familiar. Firearm manufacturers should start building these in semi-automatic versions, with price ranges from $699 to $6999 for U.S. citizens. We will call it the American Rifle!!!!!
@rammsteinlover1337 Every soldier should know how to keep their rifle firing. M16 has been in service with the US army for more than 40 years and its proven its values throughout the world in various armed forces. Had it not been reliable and have gotten many soldiers killed, no one in their right mind would allow soldiers to have it. You have to think and ask yourself first, if it weren't reliable, wouldn't it be rationale to replace it soon after Vietnam?
Lot of people hating on the M16 on here. The rifle didnt have any problems when first sent to Viet Nam. The problem was human error. THey thought you never had to clean this gun, just keep putting oil on its parts. So they didnt issue cleaning kits with the early rifles. They quickly figured out their mistake and started issueing cleaning kits with every rifle.
It has only been in service for 40 years because of mistakes that were corrected during/after the vietnam war. The military (US) is still looking for a replacement (which might come in the Mk17/18 (SCAR) rifle), but insufficient funds and the lack of need to replace the M16/M4 series has slowed the replacement program ever since it was first conceived.
Legend has it that they are still trying to replace the AR-15 (NGSW)
Hard to believe that was a radical new idea of the day. Air Cav used them early on with great success, I can't find the photo, but it is a kid with a 203 grenade launcher and two belts of M-60 ammo shouting and pointing to something off camera, 1969 An Luc 1/9 air cav maybe
It was not the ammo, it was the fact that the M16 was the first Direct Impingement rifle ever fielded by the US Military, instead of the Gas Piston designs that had been used in earlier semi- or full-auto rifles (ie, M1 and M14). The direct impingement routes gasses all the way back to the receiver, which causes quicker fouling than a piston, which separates the receiver and gasses by a length of metal. Once the maintenance guidelines were changed to reflect this, jamming was cut way down...
I believe he's referring to the kind (IE: the propellant used) of round.
No, it was not dirty its the type of powder/grain they used. The M16 does not use the 7.62 NATO round.
they didn't get cleaning kits originally with their m16's in nam
An old Vietnam Era saying...
"You can Tell It's From Mattel"
They only made the grip.
Mattel does make some killer toys though.
+WillBilly425 Mattel actually never made any M16 or XM16 parts.
@tv321123 Only at the early stage because there were no proper training provided to these soldiers. It was quickly rectified and adapted by many arms forces around the world. My country fought against the communist insurgents using the M-16. Even now, countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines is still using it in the jungles much like the Vietnam Jungle. It's battle proven. Had it got many soldiers killed, the arms forces would never have thought of adopting it in the first place.
well not entirely. it was partly due to the wrong type of powder when combined with the tropical humidity that caused for the excessive and annoying carbon buildup
I would be interested to know/see if the Soviets or any of their allies made a similar instructional film on the AKM/AK74 rifles.
Pou
mister please make a video about delft 3x25 sn858 scope and how to service the scope
I'm pretty sure you should clean every rifle after a battle
So, like every time I have a squabble with the wifey & I get out of the ER, I should clean my rifle? (BTW, I’m from the future)
In just realiezed this but if the M16 was less complicated like an AK-47, youldn't it might have some less jamming issuaes? (Kinda new to this)
Who is the narrator ? Sounds abit like Burt Lancaster
I LOVE MY AR-15!
just cant wait to see this new rifle in action !! :B
@abdulfattahahmad89 but it did get many soldiers killed because of its reliability in vietnam
They also didn't supply a cleaning kit to the boys in nam cuz they used stick powder in the testing which is a little more expensive and doesn't dirty the gun as much but when it became a full US rifle they switch to ball powder which made it dirtier but costed less therefore caused it to need cleaning but no kit was assigned hence it jammed but you clean it i will take that over a AK any day
I thought 223 and 556 were a slightly different to each other ?
I read the same about it. About qualitiless ammo.
What year was this video made?
Good!!Since you are such an expert please go advise the Infantry on how to do things right and not get shot and get killed.
so truly right my man.
i want to see this but with the burst cam in there
Ever carried a 7.62mm battle rifle in combat?Its friggin heavy.
So which Army did you serve in combat with?
what year this rifle was made ??
1964
The M16 does a better job of keeping dirt out of the action than almost every assault rifle design out there. NONE of them work with dirt in critical parts of the action, especially the chamber. There is no 100% reliable mechanical device in harsh conditions, and I see more AK's failing on clean range conditions, let alone the field.
i luv watching this kind of crap
This is not crap, it's gold
@ICETEEBAG the first m16 was very dirty and when u say borrow ur friend gun, so u mean that he have to use the pistol (i would rather shoot with the pistol cuz that is more reliable)
and what do u mean with that last sentence
why does not charging handle moves during fire?
Tom Gol it isn't connected to the bolt
Tom Gol its designed in a way that when the charging handle goes back so does the bolt, but also so that if the bolt goes back, the charging handle doesn't necessarily have to.
@ Tom Gol
The charging handle has a loop - shaped end that hangs down and captures the front of the gas key (which is attatched to the top of the bolt carrier) so that it can draw the bolt & carrier to the rear but does not have to reciprocate with it. Google ‘animated AR15 cycle of fire’ or look up a mechanical drawing and it should become clear to you.
non-reciprocating charging handle
I know that, I mean the m14 ran fine with the same powder the m16 did not work good at all with.
The M14 was also heavier and uncontrollable on full auto fire. It was also not nearly as accurate. Today, the AR15 is the most popular rifle in the US, and its variants abound. The M14 was kind of a developmental dead end. It did inspire the Ruger Mini14, but the Mini 14's one advantage was that it when it came out, it was a budget 5.56 rifle. Now that AR-15 costs have been brought lower, thanks to improved production technology and economy of scale, even that advantage is gone, and there is literally nothing the Mini 14 can do that the AR-15 can't do better. There is also literally nothing the M14 can do that the AR-10 can't do better.
It was the ammo they used. Not the gun.
clever stuff
but in that time that mechanical operation was the common, isn't?
@ICETEEBAG so U mean u have to clean it in battle???
when u are under attack
хороший фильм
Đó nóng dài khỏi thốt ko hết thành bị kẹt đạn nóng ngắn là ngon
yes because the ammo was too dirty, the same kind of ammo the m14 had no issues with.....
Until they switched to chrome counterparts.....now it`s almost unstoppable.....
M16 or XM16E1????
The XM16E1 was basically just an M16 with a forward assist (no forward assist made the rifle inoperable in the event of a jam because it lacks a charging handle), with the finalized production model being the M16A1
The cycle of jamming.
We should have just kept the M14.
just clean the weapon once in a while
+EnoughAlready Almost. Remember the AK? Nearly impossible to jam unless you really try to jam it.
+Fleece “B00ty Warrior” Johnson
When South Korea bought M-16s, they demanded the gas tube be replaced with a piston.
The designers of the M-16 were a bit obsessed with making the weapon light. Adding a piston adds weight, but makes it reliable.
Or use the right gun powder
It was expensive to make
heavy
and the ammo itself was heavy.
Bắn nhanh dan ít tiếp dẫn bọn chúc vien
Mikhail Kalashnikov disliked this video
173 rd baby! :)
I guess trigger discipline wasn't invented yet.
Kết đạn đó định nước bù
chroming prevents corrosion it has nothing to do with gunk buildup. Corroded chamber leads to jams. Forward assist is an ugly kludge.
in vietnam war i chose the vietnam couse amarican is an intruder
Sumayyah Azhar exactly
Americans helped the legitimate South Vietnamese government.
I guess we should have stayed home and let North Vietnam eradicate the South///Then level the whole place. Good thinking.🤔 You gotta be smarter than that.
Yeah send them home. War is the ethics of the state!
Đó lộ xô đây tôi mạnh quá hỏi đây lại ko kịp thành đàn ket
AK ko kết đạn bắn ko xám mười sáu dân tô hơn dài hơn sao lạ đó đường rãnh của nóng súng
Bắn xa hơn AK chính sát hon
"Semi auto" fires in burst
The "GUPPY GUN"
A BAD design..."direct gas impingement" = dirty, gunky, wet, hot, HOT gas is pumped down a tiny little tube right into the bolt carrier...the bolt-to-bolt carrier area gets totally gummed-up...now, add sand or dirt...the "slinky-spring" recoil spring and buffer won't cut it, so, you need a "forward assist" to get the bolt to close into battery. LAME
The M-16 ONLY works reliably in "RANGE CLEAN" condition. It remains unsuitable for austere combat contidions, in my opinion.
@ICETEEBAG yes i play CoD
but the M16 was an realy unreliable and some today but better
the unreliable m16 killed many US-soldiers
and the dirt is from the gases that made the gun so unreliable
the AK never had that problem cuz it had the gas-piston and room between the moving parts
It's called arms industry lobbying government. If the army really cared about it's soldiers then they wouldn't be sent to such stupid offensive war such as Vietnam. And it represented the growing warfare/welfare state of the US.
It was a stupid war but not "offensive" per se. Americans defended the legitimate South Vietnamese government...
Be vewy vewy quiet, i'm hunting wabbits......with XM16E1. hahahahahaahahhargh