The Eugene Stoner Tapes - Part 2: Problems with the M16 in Vietnam and the M16A2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- This video is one of many in a series created from an interview conducted by Edward C. Ezell with Eugene Stoner in 1988 at ARES Inc. in Port Clinton, Ohio. All the footage is courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution Archives. All I have done is cut some of the waiting time between tapes out and tried to fix the audio. Otherwise, what you are seeing is entirely unadulterated.
Feel free to ask any questions about the various topics of the video in the comments. I will do my best to answer them.
TIMESTAMPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0:00 - Project AGILE, McNamara, and early military use of the AR-15 in Vietnam
4:50 - Bobby MacDonald and why Colt didn't produce AR-10s
6:32 - How the AR-15 stopped M14 production
8:37 - The Army and Airforce's one time buy of M16s, and Colts offer of a free license
10:54 - Comments on how the Army "firmly" wanted the M16 to fail
12:50 - Comments on how the Army's failure to create a proper tech data package for the ammunition
14:08 - Stoner addresses the effects of the Army's switch from IMR powder to ball powder
18:31 - The Ichord subcommittee investigation into the "criminal things done" in the M16 program
20:27 - Stoner discusses the forward assist on the M16A1/XM16E1
22:12 - A humorous story about the M16 project director and the forward assist
23:58 - Other changes made with the M16A1
26:58 - Stoner on the redemption of the M16
30:22 - Criticism of the many "so-called improvements" of the M16A2
37:04 - Stoner's approval of the new handguard design
37:25 - A story about being shown the M16A2 for the first time by the Marine Corps
38:50 - Criticism of the three-round burst mechanism
The Eugene Stoner Tapes playlist: • The Eugene Stoner Tapes
All footage is used with permission from the Smithsonian Institution Archives. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![เจอประจำ ตอน เปิดเทอมวันแรก [EP.29]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eFK-B836i60/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm a licensed engineer and have been so for 35 years. Mr. Stoner is the classical engineer of the 50's, 60's and 70's with the suit, tie, and pocket protector/pen set in addition to the technical/methodical way he speaks about the rifle. Reminds me so much of my own career and utmost respect for Mr. Stoner.
So many myths debunked here! Eugene Stoner was a brilliant inventor. And so is Jim Sullivan. And just to be clear, I have no emotional investment in the AR-15 over the AK or whatever. I like all the platforms, really.
All weapon systems matter
@@HansBelphegor My God, this needs to be a t shirt!
@@gavocrazy good idea!
@@HansBelphegor AWSM🇺🇸
AK with ar 15 is kinda lada kalina vs Dodge Challenger ))
American bureaucrats never go to jail for anything.
Neither do communist leaders. Now use your internet that America created and provides.
I love the part that shows Mr Stoner's driven personality. The interviewer asks him to stop fiddling with the magazine.
As an historian, I'm so glad this video exists.
Have you seen the conversation between him and Mikhail Kalashnikov? Fantastic piece of history right there.
My younger brother (70) hates the rifle still, I am 72 and love them and have several in my safe, just for zombies you know. We are both Vietnam vets.
Your brother got the old ammo and crappy chromes bolt 😂
@@literallyshaking8019 Roger that brother. What they got was because of bureaucratic BS, not Eugene Stoner.
@kevin pierson Yup!!▄︻┻┳═一
That 2 year age gap made all the difference
@@1olddirtroad It seems to be that way, of course he was wounded, and came back with a little more baggage than I did.
The M855 was adopted too early as our opponents still didn't wear effective body armor and the M193 was quite sufficient for unprotected or opponents with only a helmet. The M193, in fact, would penetrate the Kevlar vest at 300 meters and the helmet at 250m. The problem was adopting the M855 and then going to a 14.5" barrel in the M4 in place of the M16A2/3 with the 20" barrel. The lower muzzle velocity translated into lower velocity down range which meant the M855 was no better than the M193 out of a 20" barrel. This may have been fine against hajis, but as the Chinese and Russians adopted (though evidently didn't field because of corruption) better body armor, this meant our troops were at a disadvantage in infantry combat at normal ranges. All this so that troops could dismount and remount from/to UAHs a little faster in Iraq The M16A2/3 will penetrate the current opponent's body armor at 500 meters, which is beyond 99% of all infantry engagement ranges. The NGWS is a "knee jerk" reaction to new body armor systems the Russians have yet to field to anyone but a small numbers of SpecOps troops. We have yet to see any of this advanced body armor on Russian troops in Ukraine, much less Chinese and Iranian. The 6.8mm is not an overmatch, it just leads to a rifle and LMG that are too heavy which produces maximum overmatch, when an AR10B with 7.62mm NATO advanced AP ammo will do the job for half the price. That doesn't include the $20K optic, which could be fitted on the AR10B just as well. Really, how the Army did a single source contract for the ammo, rifle and LMG without public trials and any oversight is simply astonishing.
insightful...
Well here's some related news, perhaps you've heard the US Army at this very moment (January 2024) is in process of adopting an all new small arms round of 6.8 mm to replace the 5.56, and are busily testing the rifle intended to fire it.
I agree with most you said but the new rifle seems to be more than just bigger round. The 6.8's improved ballistics with new-generation optics push the rifleman's maximum range of engagement to 600m+ from current 300-400m. Just this one aspect is a breakthrough because it means an edge over any other enemy infantry squad, it's like entire US combat infantry squad become designated marksmen. As before such ranges were only available to reach for marksmen and machine gunners.
The British Army purchased, deployed and used Mr Stoners small caliber rifle during the Confrontation with Indonesia, using the original cartridge filling.
Being the Brit army the weapons where cleaned on a daily basis and prove a reliable weapon.
This was the before the US military deployed the rifle in Vietnam.
John
The US Ordinance bureaucrats fiddled with it until they broke it. All too typical. 😂
@@lostinpa-dadenduro7555Jim Sullivan believed the Ordnance board should have been courtmartialed for dereliction of duty and negligence for all the soldier deaths caused by their purposely botched deployment of the M16.
@@Ideo7Z Sounds a lot like the navy's BuOrd debacle during WW2 over the mk14 torpedo.
@@Ideo7Z Sullivan was right.
Still junk to me. Cheap made, aluminum, plastic. Gas system is wrong.
My Dad said when he was there in 1970-71 most of the bugs were worked out of the M-16s ,but heard the horror stories of the earlier runs with the less reliable gun powder used.
He said it was a good gun ,light and accurate, but still needed to be clean constantly due to humidity and other elements there.
I remember when I bought a Romanian wasr AK-47 at a gun show he looked it over when I showed it to him and said "this was what we really needed in Vietnam these are crude simple weapons son ,but they were extremely reliable" I was taken back by that comment
Did this interviewer actually just tell Mr. Stoner just stop fidgeting with his AR 15 magazine ??? “c’mon man” the guys at Tinkerer, he’s been Rubbing that thing down since the interview started... it’s his baby
Got many GIs killed by his--"Baby"
@@charleswest6372 no you are absolutely wrong.
The US government got GIs killed with cheaper ammo that gunked up the action, not stoner's, "baby."
@charleswest6372 no he didn't. That is solely at the feet of the Ordnance Dept.
Gene's comments on ROF and buffer mass are extremely informative. Speaks to the TDP and most common gas port sizes being too large. In the name of reliability. When, in reality, better quality surface finishing in the chamber and on the BCG gave the originals all the reliability they needed when used with the correct powder.
It’s amazing they didn’t just make him disappear . Pretty calm guy for going through all that cluster.
Why would they want to make him disappear? 😂
This is a nonsensical comment. Russians make people disappear, Americans just lose the contract. Comrade.
These are like sit-down interviews with Moses, breaking down the specific wording and intent of Ten Commandments in great detail, including how they were initially received by the Israelites.
Amen
It's like having a conversation with the man who invented the cannon or catapult.
BLOODY HERETIC! Moses never even fired an open-bolt weapon!
Except this is true
@@brentmiller3951 wow, you really stunk the air up in here my guy.
Great video. Stoner was such an intelligent and humble man.
Knew nothing of weapons.
@@charleswest6372 Are you claiming to know more? If so, please divulge what you know.
Even since his death, the AR platform has gone parabolic with all the accessories and multi calibers. So easy to get parts and customize it to your personal preference.
Thousands of rounds fired and I’ve mostly found the FA good for jamming up the round making it even harder to extract. Listen to what Stoner said, if there’s something wrong figure it out before jamming the round in the chamber and having something catastrophic happen.
I remember clips of this on the history channel and always wanted to watch the whole thing. This is awesome. Thank you so much!
A real caring inventor,wants to save soldier in field ,roadblock industrial complex...screw the soldier.
The propellent issue, was criminal. If you listen to James Sullivan talk about it, he believes it was intentional.
I believe it was also
For all of the intentional sabotage that the AR10 suffered at the hands of the Army, it's nearly impossible to believe it wasn't INTENTIONAL.
@@DBravo29er I don't think it was intentional. I think they change it to cut costs and it ended up costing lives instead.
@@toynazi I think they did it to control costs because the Army planned poorly. It had a net negative impact on costs as it would have been cheaper to utilize COTS ammo sources until the Army's Arsenal could catch up with their SCAMP production. Instead, they cost human lives AND more money.
However, the way the Army continually sabotaged the AR10, I do not give them any benefit of the doubt in this regard.
It's certainly possible.
The bureaucrats were furious that "some other person" designed a better and more relevant rifle than they did, all while throwing a hissy fit that their pet project was a failure
The thinking was that US soldiers were taking more and more rounds on average to kill enemy combatants with each successive war. Being riflemen, the marines modified the A2 to increase “accuracy” and decrease rounds used. Not saying they were right but that’s what the thinking was. I worked at Colt in the early 80s and I talked to the head M16 product engineer. He said the Vietnam era malfunction issue was 100% solved by switching powder and chrome plating the carriers had no effect. I have shot 100s of thousands of rounds through M16s/AR15s and I have never touched the forward assist.
Here we go again 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Same. The forward assist is pretty much useless if you know how to properly operate the firearm
Sometimes when doing a brass check (Making sure a round is chambered) the bolt doesn't go fully into battery. Because you are only pulling the charging handle far enough to expose the chamber and letting go. So tapping on the forward assist fixes that.
They did the math after Vietnam. For every Vietcong combatant killed, we expended 13K rounds of ammunition
@@6string42 In the Civil War, it took 12K rounds of rifle and musket ammo to kill a Soldier. So what. Same numbers for WW1 and WW2. And in those wars, most of those rounds were shot out of MGs. And there were more NVA troops engaged than VC.
Riveting interview! I bet he would be amazed at the remarkable quality of civilian AR15’s and military M4’s being made today. Just the aftermarket variety and quality of parts alone borders on art-piece.
Stoner's a great American just for putting up with this rhinocerous of an interviewer
Credit where credits due, the interviewer was well immersed in the subject matter and history surrounding it, otherwise this could've been a complete wasted opportunity... ya know like many interviews conducted by "journalists" today 🤦♂️
In heavy rain if one suspects the bore of the barrel has accumulated water the user can point the barrel downwards, move the charging handle backwards slightly, which breaks the vacume or siphon effect which allows the water to drain from the barrel, then to quietly return the bolt to battery , ease the charging handle forward and push on the forward assist to ensure battery status.This saves on the possibility of firing the rifle with a barrel full of water causing excessive pressures, drains water quietly... (relayed from a class taught by Chuck Taylor)
But could Chuck Taylor (with am AR) outshoot Chuck Norris (with a origami flick football)?
.223 is wrong caliber; varmint cartridge not a people cartridge.
@@charleswest6372 Tell that to the Russian "advisors" that were on the wrong end of the M16. Why do you think they adopted the 5.45x39mm round? A bullet with a long length to diameter ratio and a center of gravity to the rear of the bullet traveling at supersonic speed will tumble on hitting "semifluid" mediums, dumping the bullet energy into the body instead just passing through as the .30 M2 and 7.62mm NATO does (unless they hit bone). The M193 would do that when shot from a 20" barrel with a 1:12 rifling. And still penetrate an M1 steel helmet with ballistic liner at 500 meters.
@michaelsnyder3871
Russians still use x39 as their main ammo. 5.45 is a little more rare. Buts it's lightweight and long ranged.
vacuum
20세기 최고의 총기 설계자 유진스토너님 멋있습니다 !! 일찍 가신것이 너무 안타까울뿐..
The M4/AR15 is even preferred by Isreali solders above their own Galil Ace 5.56 due to weight. The Galil will run more reliably, if neglected, but the Isrealis said the M4 wasn't an issue if cleaned properly, and that soldiers were cleaning weapons daily anyways.
I was in Israel for an exercise in 2020 and they had the new IDF IAF conscripts carrying M16A1s for guard duty. The M16/M4s are provided under US foreign aid and cost the Israelis nothing. The IDF had to pay for every Galil.
Thanks for this upload
I think the “Wheeler Wheel” aka the forward assist button was a good addition. It’s helpful to chamber a round quietly without a full pull and release of the charging handle. You can pull the charging handle and slowly allow it forward then use the forward assist to seat the bolt into battery quietly. It wasn’t a method I used in the Marine Corps often but it is a method I use often using the AR hog hunting where I step out of a truck and load quietly to put the sneak on a herd of hogs in a field.
As often as I needed to use my forward assist on my A2s before I finally got an M4 with the better feed ramps, every time people talk about how unnecessary they are I get legitimately pissed off. People died because of it and Stoner's dismissal of it makes me think less of him as both a designer and a person. Classic engineer hubris. People slavishly repeating that nonsense sucks. "The AF didn't need them" as the argument goes, but then the AF didn't need to actually fire the things, either.
@@MaggieKeizai"People died because of it" lol.
@@acoustic296 Dude, fuck you. Stories of people in Vietnam dying because their m16 shit the bed and wouldn't go into battery are a dime a dozen. I had to smack that goddamn button constantly, and that includes while in Iraq. Not having it meant not having a functioning weapon to thousands of troops. The most common failure mode of the platform is it not going into battery because it's got poor feed geometry made worse by carbon fouling. It takes a forward assist to deal with it. The end.
I never saw this before. Going to watch part 1 now. Part 2 showed up in my scroll and I had to watch. Thank you for sharing.
Fantastic video. Debunks so many myths about the M16.
Fascinating interview and very informative. Thank you.. 👍
thanks for posting
I love this guy. 🐐
So let me get this straight.
Making weapon corrosion resistant would cost 5-6$ more, per unit, and that is absolutely unacceptable.
But the addition of "forward assist", that is useless for men in the field, that cost 5-7$ is money well spent.
With such gross incompetence both Vietnam and Afghanistan are not accidents, but deliberate result of this philosophy. I respect the grunts, but the brass has been poisonous for so long that it is a wonder anyone is willing to join US armed forces now.
I remember I worked on LAVs and this was long after they were done being used in combat. The unit is basically awaiting deactivation. The vehicles broke down constantly and were woefully outdated compared to the near peer vehicles we studied.
One day we did a dog and pony show for the undersecretary of defense. My friend was designated to do all the talking but when she asked how reliable they were, and officer cut my friend off immediately and insisted they were extremely reliable. I was pissed. This guy lied directly to her face to ensure he could keep his position of power.
No one wants to join the military these days becuase its a woke shit fest. Leadershipis more concerned with pro nouns than preparing our men for combat...
@@shootem5568 There’s much bigger issues than the military appealing to minorities my guy
@@arcblooper2699 I think, what Shootem556 refer to is a result of what you have in mind. The poison can give different symptoms.
It WAS money well spent. Not making it corrosion resistant may have been a mistake, but guns generally keep pretty well as it is, and people were getting killed left and right because the gun fouls itself to cycle the action and had shitty feed geometry until the M4 finally fixed that problem. The forward assist was an absolute lifesaver, I needed to use the goddamn thing all the time. Those fucking things really don't work without them. Some people had good luck in that regard but most of us didn't, no matter how clean we kept 'em. I'd happily piss on Stoner's grave for opposing the Army's demand for a desperately needed addition to his extremely flawed design.
i'm late to this, great job on posting these vids! I was an SP (Air Police) in the late 80's and the one i carried was one without the forward assist . . . better than the M4 i carry today for duty
I am amazed to see that this only has about 30K views, and at the same time millions own AR rifles.
Thanks the most OP for posting this historical gem! Finally, from the man himself, who designed America's longest serving battle rifle - for better or worse, only Eugene Stoner RIP had the real story.
AR 15 not a battle rifle. M14 a battle rifle.
Qualified expert with an m16A2, 2003 MCRD San Diego. Cheers Mr. Stoner.
Informative ... I like that !
Forgotten Weapons has mentioned this guy countless times. Finally got a chance to put a face to the name, thank you
I wish he could have lived to see what an amazing engineering and public success his design became like a model T that morphed into a modern Cadillac
Funny to see back in the 80's there were no picatinny rail systems.
That man is a national treasure!
I will say this.
Forward assist or "wheeler button".
I use it in times ive needed to be quiet. When you cant just release the bolt and you have to ride it forward while chambering.
It will go so far in and the forward assist helps
Great programs.
The one big feature I love about the A2 over the M16-A1 is the brash deflector on the side of the ejection port. For left handed players like me it's great to not get hit in the face with hot brash.
I know I am going to start a shitstorm by saying this, but there were many things I honestly believe Stoner was completely wrong about, most notably the sights on the M16A2, the sights on the M16A2 are a major improvement over the A1, if soldiers are messing with zero causing problems that is not an issue with the gun, that is an issue with discipline, barrel weight is a more reasonable change to debate but in all honesty it didn't really affect much except maybe make M855 preform a bit better, chrome lining was more to allow the gun to last longer without corrosion becoming an issue after like 10 years or so in storage, the changes in furniture were just a complete improvement, and finally the forward assist, it has it's place in all honesty although I understand why he didn't like it, and the brass deflector was an improvement as well, I think the only real flaw with the A2 was the burst fire, even then soldiers rarely even fired the gun outside of semi auto, people who say Stoner was a genius are right in some regards, but I believe he was also wrong about many things especially the changes to his original design
Stoner seriously lacked circumspection about his creation. I prefer A1 sights myself, there's just less there to go wrong and I've had A2 sights fall apart on me.
Actually you appear uninformed about Stoner’s career. This video was before he started working with Reed Knight. KAC hired Stoner as a consultant. Many of the Socom improvements were from Knight/Stoner collaborations. The idea he was “wrong” is bizarre as all engineering involves iterative improvements. He continued to improve the design all the way up to his passing. BTW, unless the hostiles are coming over the berm, jamming the bolt into battery may get you one shot more but it will be a muzzle loader after that last shot. Stoner was a Marine. He knows this well.
They should have lined the barrel, chamber and bolt carrier group with chrome from the start. As well as added a forward assist from the start. Direct gas impingement also sends hot, dirty gases back into the chamber, that doesn't help. A piston would have increased weight and recoil a little and the different powder combined with the more humid climate of Vietnam.
I have never needed the FA. If a cartridge doesnt chamber fully, I have pushed the carrier forward with thumb pressure on the carrier serrations. In the very rare chance it wouldnt go forward, I eject the cartridge and chamber a new round. That has been very rare, and Ive never needed more than thumb pressure.The modern AR isnt the pre-A1 and the ammo we have isnt the dirty stuff the Army issued with them.
what the M16A2 should have been: A2 stock, A1 FCG, C7 style upper receiver, A1 barrel with A2 handguards, A2 flash hider.
Carbine stock
S-S-A FCG
723/C7 upper
605 15” barrel with MLGS, 1/7 twist
A2 comp
A2 handguards
The ideal AR is an m4 profile barrel to mount a grenade launcher you’ll never use, a giant quad rail, a giant stock with two spare batteries, flashlight, IR flashlight, IR aiming laser, magnified optic, red dot piggyback optic, flip up backup iron optics, third spare battery in the pistol grip.
The forward assist can also be used as a means to load a round using less noise when riding the bolt home slowly.
I happen to be an advocate of the forward assist for one main reason- if it's presence on the rifle does no harm, it's simply better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
It instills confidence in a new soldier who knows that if some completely freak malfunction were to somehow occur, that they could at least try to remediate the problem quickly without having to resort to field stripping the weapon in the stress of combat.
If there was a catastrophic malfunction that would be made worse by forcing the bolt into battery, it's unlikely the forward assist would be able to do so anyway.
Also press-checking the bolt to ensure there is a round in the chamber is a thing, and the FA makes it easier to firmly close the bolt afterwards without having to fully rack the charging handle.
Eugene Stoner is a legend.
Stoner was a genius who changed the way the free world armed itself for conflict. Anyone who owns an AR platform rifle definitely needs to know Stoner’s history and the evolution of his creation. 😎🤙🏾🙌🏾
A DISASTER
I'm curious what Stoner would've thought about what we Canucks did to his rifle when we adopted the C7 in 1984.
Original C7 = M16A2, but with A1 sights and full auto. Skinnier front sight post. Cold hammer forged, government profile barrel with extra thick chrome lining.
C7A1 = Same as previous, but with a flat top optics rail replacing the A1 carry handle sights.
C7A2 = same as previous, but with 4 position carbine stock and H2 buffer, fully ambidextrous controls (Norton ambi mag release, ambi safety with shorter right hand side safety lever, extended cocking handle latch to facilitate left handed use), Front sight base mounted triad rail for attachments, and green furniture instead of black.
Probably knew about it all, and I would imagine he favored those rifles.
I’ve seen the print for the C7 barrel and the chroming thickness is the same as the US M16’s
@@Schaz42 you got a link for that?
Canadians don't issue H2 buffers. They are HH buffers due to Canada's use of the metric system.
@@coldcase5844 HH is literally the same thing as H2.... I should know. I have experience with both genuine HH Diemaco buffers and aftermarket H2 buffers. They weigh the same.
I hated the burst trigger. Feeling every pull of the trigger change its feel as the burst ratchet moved sucked for accuracy. I pulled mine in Germany and put in an A1 mech i tuned up myself (i was a small arms repairer so had the parts)
GENE IS A TRUE ULTIMATE FUCKIN CHAD..what a legendary inventor, major groundbraking genius
The Stoner 63 is one of my favorite rifles.
You heard it from the horses mouth! The forward assist is a dumb idea! You don't beat the round into chamber, you get the round out of there and load another! But of course the army and it's infinite wisdom...
it works well what are you talking about
In continuous combat or harsh conditions it can prove a useful addition. This is even more so being direct impingement. It’s entirely possible to operate in the manner you describe so its addition is like having an ambi safety or charging handle. It’s a plus.
I agree, just another bell or whistle on it so they could charge more for it.
Stoner explained the reason why the government persuaded him to add it. Not his choice.
The forward assist is a lifesaver. Stoner is a fucking tool who couldn't see past his own design. I needed that thing A WHOLE LOT when I was in the shit in Iraq, and clowns like you who quote Stoner, who never had to stake his life on his own design, piss me off.
I never once saw anyone jam up their weapon by using the forward assist. On the other hand, your weapon's got a tiny bit of grit in it or a wee little bit of fouling, and has the old feed ramps, and doesn't want to go into battery, and there you are with bullets flying around you and you have no fucking choice but to pull the goddamn thing apart to try to knock out the microscopic amount of crud it takes to make an A1 or A2 bind up, that's a disaster and a show stopper and completely unsat. Failures to feed are nearly always a problem with too tight tolerances collecting a couple microns worth of fouling on the bolt and chamber from the stupid, shit-where-you-eat gas system and shitty feed geometry.
If Stoner had designed a gas piston gun with decent feed ramps and a tiny bit more forgiving tolerances, he'd have had a point. But that's not the gun he designed, so fuck him.
It must have been so frustrating having to work with the stubborn minds of Army brass who looked at his rifle like it was just a toy and only wood and steel was worthy of being made into a rifle. Can you imagine how even more disastrous the Vietnam war would have been had the infantry been forced to lug around M14's the whole war???
I have used the forward assist on an AR10 just once and I never will again... Made it MUCH harder to clear the weapon of a round built with a cartridge case over spec length, where the case mouth was then jammed by use of FA even more firmly into start of rifling.
Something I’ve experienced in a cheap rifle that may also apply to a worn out rifle or one that’s improperly tuned is bolt bounce. I’ve had failures to fire because the bolt bounced just slightly out of battery and stuck that way. You’d have to recognize that before pulling the trigger again, otherwise you would need to rack the bolt and reset the hammer. Seems unlikely, but Kyle Rittenhouse had this happen and using the forward assist saved his life.
In the armed forces you may be in combat a while after a problem starts. Having a tool on the weapon to ensure at least partial function until maintenance can be performed I believe is essential. I do not, however, believe that a round that won’t chamber should be beat into place. If it’s out of spec or there’s something in the way, it could be catastrophic.
Bolt carrier bounce is a condition that only applies to full auto fire. If the hammer is released as the carrier bounces off the extension, and the hammer hits the firing pin without the bolt being in battery, you will have a FTFire malfunction with the hammer down and the cartridges where they should be. Rittenhouse had a FTFeed caused by the bolt not being in battery on a non-lubricated Vismod-15 imitation rifle with 16” CLGS.
Kyle Rittenhouse's gun was brand new, needed a proper break in. That's why it malfunctioned.
Bolt bounce is readily fixable by tuning the gas system and the buffer spring.
Such an absolutely brilliant individual. If only cancer hadn't taken him away in 97. I know that he died at 74 but still! I would've loved to see what he could've created in the 2000s. But whatever, at least we can still admire the things he did in life.
I cany believe somebody videod this
I am a vietnam veteran i was in vietnam when the first m16 arrived it doesnt surprise me that most of the problems with the early m16 were due to internal politics and basic disagreement about what was to come about caused the problems but it doesn't bring back all the men that died because of it. I went to vietnam with an m14 was later issued an m16 i just never got around to getting back to headquaters company and turning in my m14. I was really never pressured to do so my m14 had an x after the serial number which meant it was hand fitted.
I bet you could make your own post on the small arms issues the US military had during the Vietnam war - and actually I wish you would, I think it would be fascinating!
Great
When I was a navy corpsman I practiced trained with my pistol because my m16 was garbage. My 357 never jammed
Every person involved in the M16 claims they werent involved.
The ar15 a rifle ruined by the brass
At 37:50. He justified everything Ian and Karl have with the WWSD concept.
The M-16 was my issued rifle for 14 years in the USMC, I never had to use the forward assist, If you kept it clean, it kept working as advertised. I have owned an AR-15 since being introduced to the platform in the Corps. I have an AR-10 and an AR-15, The 10 is a lot of fun to shoot but the 15 is my go-to.
I suspect the Army's hostility may have led to emphasizing its emphasizing the AR's flaws early on, as well as hiding incompetence in training troops to maintain guns properly
19:28 American politics haven't changed a bit over the years it would seem
God I love modern ar15’s 🥵
Thank you from Manhattan ©2024
In Vietnam in the Australian army I acquired an M16 and thought it was a truly excellent weapon. Carried it in the field for 6 months and it never missed a beat. Some idiot started a rumour that they didn’t need to be cleaned……M16 that were not cleaned malfunctioned regularly….go figure. I cleaned mine religiously and never a problem
Great upload. It is kind of painful to sit through the raw tapes at times. The main interviewer seems ok but the other two “directors” come across as unprepared and disorganized. Mr. Stoner seems to tolerate them but just barely at times. Some great information here. My only question is, I was under the impression that the bolt carrier, chamber and bore were chrome plated in his original design but that was removed by the Army. He said in this interview that the chrome plating came after the problems in Vietnam. He didn’t indicate that that it was originally designed that way. I’ll go back and reread some stuff.
The army didn't think it was cost effective to hard chrome so until the issues in nam, they had some stuff soft chromed
The AR10 if I recall had hard chrome bolts, but they had issues with the chrome plating flaking then, and causing brittleness in the bolt itself, but I think later manufacturers resolved this issue, but that would have been after the M16, and not at Armalite, but with the Dutch company that was making the for the Portuguese.
@@MandoWookie the flaking iirc was due to it being the lower bidder for chroming
@Chiller in part 1 of these tapes, Mr Stoner talks about how he originally wanted to have the bolts fully chrome plated. He specified that it be done using a specific aerospace companies chroming process that left a thick, uniform chrome plating that could be applied directly to steels. However, Colt and this company (whose name escapes me) could not come to an acceptable agreement on price. So, Colt tried to come up with their own chroming process, with less than satisfactory results.
@@alexthompson8094 thanks for filling in the details for me, that's exactly what i was talking about.
The burst fire feature was horribly thought out.
Should have left it full-auto.
If you've ever read the SALVO studies. the real selection should have been burst, full auto and safe.
I’m honored to live in the same city which this rifle was designed …unfortunately So.Cal. Ironically
...a Colt AR10 would have been great...do remember after WW2 some wanted the MG42 but a'holes sabotaged the project and we got stuck with the M60...in 1972 at BCT a few of us country boys had our moms send us 22cal cleaning kits as there was maybe an incomplete cleaning kit per squad...we country boys took a nap as the city boys struggled to get their M16s cleaned (I never let my kit out of sight)...I wish the rifle would have been a 6mm caliber...I carried the 16A1 and M16A2 for 22 years...
You should have taught the city's boys how to keep shit clean like you.
The T24 project was not cancelled due to sabotage. The two prototypes were built with MG42 receivers, which had ejection ports for 7.92x57mm, while the .30 M2 round was 7.62x63mm. This resulted in failed ejections. This was the result of the contracted company not being a primary arms manufacturer, but they weren't the only ones to miss this. When the ejection ports were opened, the guns worked very well, but this was late 1944 and the US Army decided it could win the war with the small arms it had without reducing production. Remember that the US was re-equipping the French and Chinese (Nationalist) armies. Even in late 1944, the M1903A3 was still in production because there weren't enough M1s to go around. When the war ended, funding dropped through the floor and we fought Korea with WW2 small arms. And by 1958, we could have bought FN MAGs instead of M60s, but the truth is that the M60 when new was as effective as an MG42/59 or MAG58. The M60s I experienced from 1976 were worn out like the XM16E1 I was issued in BCT. And we had full cleaning kits at Fort Knox in December 1975. And the "city boys" were often better shots when we finished Marksmanship training because they had less to unlearn. As far as 6mm, I doubt there would have been very much improvement over the 5.56x45mm.
Lots of excuses for overselling a 'perfect' rifle, that turned out to be anything but, under field conditions.
my friend is a vietnam vet, and he fought tooth and nail to keep his M14 (and for his buddies to keep theirs). he told me a few stories of coming across dead marines with m16's in various states of complete disassembly. the marines had obviously died while trying to completely disassemble their rifles during combat to fix any number of failures the early models had. these weren't simple jams or simple field strips either, they were taking the BCG out and trying to clean out dirt so it would actually fire and cycle. from what i was told, it was as stripped as you could get a rifle without tools. it blows my mind how insanely bad the M16 performed in vietnam and all the politics and shady crap that went into forcing it through
Seems like you came here just to put this post and didnt actually listen to what is said here.
My M16 did not have a forward assist, it had a habit to not close the bolt, the rifle was clean, however it was a training rifle. If you put 20 rounds in the magazine it would jam. Nor more than 17 to be safe. It also had a tendancy to double feed placing one live round after another. I hated the sights. Who pulls the rifle in to adjust the front sight post. So in all I felt that rifle which was one of the first issued was a piece of crap. I was lucky my orders were changed and I spent my time in the medical corp. I hated that rifle and I felt sorry for anyone who had to use that design. So I guess I dont buy you dont need a forward assist or a 30 round magazine or adjustable sights. However some of my buddies used the newer versions and were quite happy with them. I think your view depends on when and where you have to use them and what version you had. I replied once when I was asked about it- It was a jamming son of a bitch!
I’ve had many instances of needing to use the forward assist on M16A4’s after a thousand or so rounds.
From my own experience and that of others I've known, "Doubtful"...
Best use of a forward assist is smashing it to cause a malfunction so you can requalify
I'd ride yer ass if I caught you doing that on my range! Looser tactic at best! Hopefully you were a POG.
@@scoutdogfsr congratulations, you proved my point.
Stoner himself said that the fa was only useful for seating mangled cartridges...
Also i have my expert medal in one of my many ammo boxes, and i have never used the fa.
@@HansBelphegor I was talking about you cheating. Wtf does that have to do with the efficacy of the forward assist?
@@scoutdogfsr i never said i did it.
I agree it’s pretty much useless but I don’t think it is really capable of causing a malfunction, especially in that context
39:52 I wonder if he knew how right he was with that statement he just made
The forward assist looks cool. I think S&W makes one without and it doesn't look as good.
“The forward assist Looks cool”
Eugene Stoner: monotone grumble about combat effectiveness
@@springa42 Stoner didn't know shit about combat effectiveness. I had to take those goddamn things into combat and if not for the forward assist, we'd all have been done for. The forward assist made the M16 fairly usable, if still unreliable. It's the only thing that let that gun get by.
Sometimes M16s look massive, other times they look tiny (in Platoon they look _really_ weird?)
Dood's so relaxed and casual, like talking about breeding kittens
I like these interviews, but the guy asking the questions is just awful
@M McLaurin80
I think that’s Ed Ezell, a gun guy and not a pro media guy. FWIW he wrote a great book on AK.
No one gunna mention the giant gun in the thumbnail???
The foward assist in my opinion is problem fixing to happen we are talking about a combat rifle not a hunting rifle I'm 65 and was glad to get a M&P Sport 1 without a stupid dust cover are the foward assist.
Dust, grit, and sand happens. Sure, we keep our weapons clean. Then we make contact. You drop to the dusty sand, you crawl, you bound to the wall, grit flies. When you charge the rifle, the bolt does not go fully forward. You lock it back and attempt to blow out your chamber. You let it go and the bolt still does not fully seat. The enemy is coming. That’s why we have that forward assist and a dust cover.
Switching propellant would have had to have been a financial decision. I question who benefited, how many American lives it cost, and who was held accountable? Greed and war is a terrible, but inevitable mix.
I wonder why the mini 14 was not used in nam. Same caliber
Does anybody else wish that stoner could see the whole ecosystem today around his design? Like I have a spear lt, and I chose that rifle because the Bertie would take ar triggers.
No. I wish he'd have had to stake his life on his no forward assist design and learned how wrong he was about it the hard way.
/bitter combat vet
I knew people there . They hated that thing. They HATED it. It got many killed. They changed it, made it a little better but the die was cast. Ibheard so many first hand stories , I got a Garand and an AK. Mini 14 as well. Great weapons. My mini 14 really makes the AR guys at the range mad for some reason. Maybe because it never jams.
As much as I love my M14 the AR/M16 series is a superior rifle for combat. Not period, there's always exceptions and sometimes you need the greater range, power and penetration, but in most scenarios the M16 beats the M14 in every category. Stoner was a genius -- not perhaps on Browning's level but a genius nonetheless -- and is absolutely right on pretty much all he says. I have no experience with the M16A1, but I do have quite a bit with the A2 and it was crap. The rear sight IMO was better, but not by much in practical combat scenarios. The new round forearm furniture was uncomfortable compared to the old triangular one though, and the burst was _utter trash._ Not only because of its "memory" and because it made the trigger feel like shit, but because in 99% of scenarios its pointless -- while replacing a feature of straight f/a that actually was useful. First off if you can't figure out how to fire your own bursts with a little bit of trigger control you shouldn't be using a rifle period, and secondly because the actual scenarios in which f/a is useful or ever used at all (after Nam*) you'd want straight full auto eg; occaisional room clearing or the nightmare scenario of the enemy about to overrun you. Outside of those two scenarios there's really no use for f/a, and if you are faced with those then a shitty, poorly implemented 3-round burst isn't going to be much help vs straight f/a. Secondly the forward assist was indeed always a solution in search of a problem. Typical brass "wisdom".
I also have to say here, for all the flak the older iterations of the AR/M16 family get, I still prefer them to new ones whether civilian or otherwise. I have a c1969 Colt SP-1 "slab side" with 3-prong flashider and a period Colt 4x20 scope on the carry handle. It's feels like a toy, being weightless compared to either of my two modern tactical ARs and thus far handier. It also beats them both in accuracy too, and is even on par with my friend's modern "accurized" AR that cost three times as much. I could count on one hand the number of stoppages from any cause I've ever experienced with it. Nor have I ever wished the SP-1 had a forward assist in all the thousands of rounds I've put through it. If you have to hammer the bolt into battery, chances are that's the literal opposite of what you should be doing to remedy the stoppage. I have dropped the mag a couple times from hitting the button accidentally, so I'll agree adding the fence around it was a good change, and so was the birdcage flash hider vs the 3-prong which tends to get stuck on small branches and vines. But as for the rest of the changes and modernizing, no thanks.
*F/a was pretty much the norm in Vietnam, until they eventually realized the average soldier was expending ~200 rounds per kill. That was the rationale behind taking away f/a and replacing it with mechanical burst. Instead of just issuing orders against f/a except in limited circumstances as needed (examples mentioned above) and training the men, they instead made the rifle objectively worse. Same thing with the rear sight rationale that soldiers were so idiotic they'd play with sight knobs like a retarded toddler and lose zero in battle. Brass "wisdom"...
Well i hope at least they spent those saved 6 dollars by piece right.
Algorithm.
Great interview! Terrible interviewers!
All weapons are invented out of war necessity
th-cam.com/video/SAiuTq1N_BM/w-d-xo.html 1:18:39 - First Operation as a Shooter. Should put to rest why the forward assist is useless. Could have killed the guy.
Bad example, he extracted the round and the bullet was stuck in the throat. The FA did not cause this problem.
Stoner ftw