I should clarify further regarding the designation 'M16' (no E1 or A1). When I said the M16A1 (and later XM16E1) was the 'fixed version of the M16' I was thinking of the US Army rifles and using 'M16' as the generic base designator. However, as I then noted, 'M16' specifically refers to the USAF's equivalent of the XM16E1/M16A1, so we should avoid using 'M16' generically. We already have a generic term for the type - AR-15 ;) To be extra clear: AR-15 - generic type M16 - USAF designation for the Colt AR-15 Model 602 and 604 XM16E1/M16A1 - US Army designation for the Colt AR-15 Model 603
In my entire time in the USAF, which includes the upgrade of the 604s to M16A2 standard & adoption of the M4, I NEVER saw an A1 upper receiver on our guns. Not even on the GAU-5s I carried. By the mid 90s, A1 bolt carriers were in about 50% of our rifles. There were still plenty of 3 prong flash hiders, rubber butt pads, and chrome plated carriers still in use when the 604s were upgraded.
Didn't you get them backward? According to Wikipedia, the XM16E1 (as the XM suggests) was an experimental model that, indeed, only added the forward assist. However, the A1 had many more changes, such as chrome-lined barrels, improved flash hiders, updated buffer assemblies, narrower gas ports, etc.
Isn't it basically the same as the HK416, and then the Bundeswehr adopts them as G95 or G38? The AR-15 is just the Model designation, the M16 is the Military designation?!
It must be difficult to argue with someone on Twitter, what with the character limit and the fact that you're legally required to start each reply with "Hi, I'm Jonathan Ferguson, Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries museum in the UK"
@@peterclarke7240from throughout *history*, pretty sure Mr Ferguson who houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout the ages is his father’s name.
@@clumsygarage1578 You're quite right, I stand corrected. I hear their family require a custom-built letterbox in order to accommodate all the extra-large envelopes they get sent.
@@clumsygarage1578 That is the popular misconception but it's one of those British double names. "Which houses a collection" is from his mothers side and "thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history." is from his father's side.
What a flex in an online/Twitter war. Okay I'll prove the point by making a video, in the museum where I'm the "Keeper of Firearms" in-front of racks of the weapons that will prove my point. Well done sir! I salute you. 😆"Talk softly & carry a big rack of period weapons"
OK, you’re right, but you have to remember that all the people making the opposing argument are referring to the civilian variant of the AR-15 that is legally available in the United States of America. There is a big disconnect between the average American and a historian. They are kinda right bc select fire AR-15 rifles haven’t been available to the American public since 1986
@@jonathanbardunias1889to be fair that is a distinction without a difference in the usual context the argument comes up in, which is usually an attempt to distinguish the civilian weapon as a non-combat weapon.
@jonathanbardunias1889 they're only kind of right if they specify select fire. The civilian variants sold today are still AR15s. If they say AR15s aren't available, they're not kind of right, they're kind of wrong. Which in most contexts wouldn't be a big deal since it's just semantics. But is a bit self defeating when the usual backdrop to these arguments are complaints that someone else is getting the terminology wrong.
@@jonathanbardunias1889 i mean they arent "kind of right", that's like claiming the M14M isnt an M14 because it is not select fire(and was made for the civilian market), it would just still be wrong. and if the point of the argument is to say they aren't military weapons, its still just wrong because both semi-only AR-15s(specifically CAR-15 by colt), and the M14M were adopted into active service.
This is *normally* my MO but I thought this one worth having a brief skirmish over and then providing some info for those who don't know or just assumed it was the case without looking into it. It's never about convincing the entrenched, it's for the benefit of the onlookers.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries While conducting an inspection visit to the USAF Gunsmith Shop at Lackland AFB (Medina Annex) in the 1980s I examined several early model M-16s (the USAF received the first major batch around 1963). The rifles had recently been refurbished by the shop and looked new, but what caught my eye was the marking on one of the receivers. I regret I did not have a camera with me so I could maintain a permanent record and proof of what was handed to me. Unfortunately, the years have clouded my memory a bit, but I am certain it was marked either XM-16 or AR-15, and yes, it was select fire.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries Since it resulted in this video and it cleared up this point of confusion for me, I think you may say that your gambit has succeeded :)
Jonathan is the type of bloke that goes to the back of the warehouse of the Royal Armouries to get a rifle to prove a point, i respect that since i would do the same
And gets rifles which are both supporting and opposing his argument. He is not biased, but acts with integrity, and doesn’t actually ridicule the opposing party, because there is usually some possible kernel of truth in their argument.
@brucecook502 it's strange the idea that someone from this guys same country is watching this video, entertained, educated. Will probably never even shoot one
@@hitchhikersguidetotheusael967 yeah I really feel bad that I have the luck of living where I live where I have the option to do these things easily, but people from different Geographics can't even go somewhere that is even highly controlled to try out these things safely. I actually live in the United States in the state of Georgia, and I have a membership at an indoor gun range that's only 5 minutes from my house that has fully automatic machine guns for rent to the public, but they are included with my membership to shoot for free as long as I pay for ammunition. I really wish other people who were interested could be able to do the same. I just like seeing people happy but it makes me feel bad when I see other people sad or disappointed. I wish others over is in Europe and other countries could experience what I can easily experience.
Fully agree! Oh man, that thing must've looked like something straight out of a sci-fi movie in the late 50's! Christ, compare the design of that rifle with for example a '59 Cadillac... The AR15 was literally several decades ahead of its time. (in design, materials and functionality)
I know, my eyes bugged out. Paused the video for a better look. Wow. Pristine. There it is, the Holy Grail of AR-15's. he should have edited in some angelic music when he grabbed it.
Fuckin finally dude. The irony of a brit having to make a dedicated video to explain this is not lost on me either. Nobody online seems to understand that theyre all variants of the AR-15 platform. Every M16, M4, mk12, mk18, car15 IS an AR-15 but not every AR-15 is an M16, M4, mk12, mk18, car15.
Most gun guys get this. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. The people who engage in these arguments do not own guns anyway. The person was probably making a political argument that the AR15 isn't used by the military blah blah blah.
I had a dude arguing with me years ago that the 'AR-15' was semi-auto only civilian 'modern sporting rifle' so I showed him a picture of a M16A1 rollmarked "Colt AR-15 Property of U.S. Government M16A1" to make your point and he just ignored it. 😄 To one side the AR-15 is a 'assault weapon', to the other it's a semi auto 'MSR'...both will ignore the facts. Oh well
Didn't hear it called out, but also note that the AR in AR-15 does NOT stand for "Armalite Rifle", it just stands for Armalite. There were many other AR-## firearms, some of which are shotguns, some of which are pistols.
@@688attacksub8 do your research for you, got it. ArmaLite (thats how ArmaLite writes it in their own material. Kinda strange to turn ArmaLite into ARmaLite....) themselves state in their "about": "As a pioneering force in the firearms industry, ArmaLite is best known for the development of the “AR” or “ArmaLite Rifle” platform, and the original AR-10® and AR-15 models that not only redefined modern firearms, but set a standard for ArmaLite’s commitment to producing innovative, reliable, and versatile firearms for home defense, military, special forces, law enforcement, and enthusiasts alike."
@@688attacksub8 Some folk are just ignorant, some are just stupid. If you come into this argument, which probably pre-dates porn on the Web ffs, you are a prat at the least.
I carried an Colt 604 in Afghanistan 2011-12 it’s roll mark was Colt AR-15 from the 64-65 timeframe and in small lettering by the serial it said M 16. It had Safe-Semi-Auto but at some point it was upgraded to an M16A2 with a Capco upper and glossy black furniture and the trigger was swapped to a Burst group and the armorer crudely has placed an “A2” next to the M 16 and written “Burst” under Auto. I loved the uniqueness of the XM Grey lower coupled with the darker upper and jet black furniture.
@@atomicsmith To be clear to people about to argue with this guy, he is referring to the US Army's M designation system. From a purely technical perspective, the M4, M16, MK18 CQB, MK 12 SPR, the SDMR, the Recce, they're all AR-15s.
@@iskenuz All those models are AR15's, but not all AR-15's are those models. Note: I am agreeing. Remember people, the M designation is just what the US military uses to define a military spec of a weapon. Both the M4 and M16 and all their A's are all AR-15's. A good example of this is what the US military call the M1014, which is actually a Benelli M4 shotgun. Both are the same platform. But all M1014's are the same spec, while not all Benelli M4's are the same spec.(In the case of Benelli, they also use an M naming nomenclature, but it is entirely seperate from the US system. Another example here is the M14, which came before the M16. Both are drastically different platforms, but the nomenclature is the same because that's what the US military uses. You can absolutely acquire a Springfield Armory M1A and even an M14, but rest assured that they are the same platform. An M1A can be made to fire automatic, but that doesn't make it an M14.
Whilst current weapons (and other equipment) does have a QR code on them, it is mainly used for accounting and tracking purposes. In the armoury, you will still see a butt (rack) number on them for quick and easy identification. Thanks for the video.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries With British military kit, every single accountable item that is held in an armoury such as weapons, night vision devices and sight units have small unique QR codes on them for accountability and tracking and most also have butt numbers on them for quicker identification, though this is down to the individual armoury to decide. I've seen many different methods of numbering rifles, some better than others.
M16 is just the military designation for the contract for a service rifle, which in this case was won by Colt for the AR15 (in a special configuration). Similarly, M17 is just the military designation for the contract for a service pistol that was won by Sig for the P320 (in a special configuration).
it's exactly the same reason why people get confused at tomatoes being fruits and vegetables. "vegetable" is an arbitrary category, it exists only to categorize things we eat, a pear could be a vegetable too if you cook it with bacon . while "fruit" is a specifically designated by science part of a plant, growing from the flowers. A tomato is a vegetable because we designate it this way in the kitchen, but it doesn't make it any less of a fruit. Similarly, a beretta 92fs is a beretta 92fs, even if the us army call the ones that got made for them "m9" So, "m16" is just a designation, that's how the us army call their ar-15s. since they have a specific pattern that differentiate them from other ar-15s, it makes sense to call them m16s when encountered in the wild, but they are still also ar-15s
Vegetable are actually a conjunction of two words. Veget and Able Veget is the Latin word Vegetus, meaning to "enliven", "animate", "vigorous", "spritely". Basically anything that is living or growing. Able is just that. It's able to Vegetus. It's able to vegetate. It can grow. It is able to be alive. Vegetables are therefore anything living and growing. All humans are by that definition vegetables. The fact we've narrowed our definition down simply has to do with where we most commonly used the word. If you are planting vegetables, you are putting stuff in the ground that is able to grow in said ground. Along came stuff that wasn't in the ground. Like fruits. And all of a sudden, any fruit is now not a vegetable.... That's why the use case broke down completely. Because vegetable was never about a single type of growth. It was all growth.
Well no, not exactly. Yes, 'vegetable' is indeed a purely culinary term. However, you have two different definitions for 'fruit' here: you have the _culinary_ term, which is a counterpart to 'vegetable'; then you have the _botanical_ term, which is used in reference to the 'fruiting bodies' of plants. The confusion arises from the fact that many fruiting bodies of plants are arbitrarily classified as culinary vegetables. Also, this is not a very good comparison to the "AR-15/M16" nomenclature issue because the relationship isn't quite the same.
The 92FS/M9 example is great. The US military calls their 92FS pistols "M9". Once again it's the "all M9s are Beretta 92s, not all Beretta 92s are M9s" thing. Part of the problem here is many people are used to using US military "M" designations as the "baseline" name for certain things (like "M16"), when they (usually) aren't. The Minimi/M249, M4/M1014 (the Benelli M4), or MAG/M240 are other examples.
THANK YOU. Ive been having this discussion with people for almost 8 years. Despite being a combat veteran, despite owning AR-15s, despite being a firearms rights absolutist... bringing this up genuinely has people shouting that Im a gun grabber. No. I just care about firearms history. And the fact of the matter is... the m16 is an ar-15.
I bought my first AR15 in 1978 two years after discharge from the Marines. A Colt modeled after the A1 with birdcage flashhider, trapdoor buttstock but no forward assist. I regretfully sold it in 1984 to help pay college tuition but fired over 2000 rounds with never a malfunction.
Exactly. And they cannot be marketed as an "AR-15" unless you pay Colt a royalty, as Colt has trademarked the name "AR-15." That is why other companies selling AR pattern rifles market it under a different designation.
Oh I forgot To mention that I have an Armalite M15a2 ex Leo firearm. It seems to be built as well as the Colt M16a1. I just realized it probably was made by colt since Armalite is not a mfg.
For a few years a long time ago, when I was in the Australian Army. I was variously issued a number of M16A1 rifles, including a couple with the M203 Grenade launcher. And as best as I can recall they all had AR-15 stamped on the left side of the lower receiver. Also, for what it's worth, I preferred them over the F88 and F88AS1's that I was later issued with.
The ADF should've just issued the M16/M203 instead of plugging away for a decade or more of making diggers carry the F88 and a M79 grenade launcher. I'd even go one better and say the M16/M203 was a better option than the F88/GLA. That thing just ruined a perfectly good F88.
i own a full auto civillian transferrable ar-15. it was form 1'd in 1983 into a machine gun and had the 3rd hole drilled and the full auto sear installed. completely legal to do at the time.
@@TheSundayShooter It was an AR-15. Now it's a modified AR-15. You could have a modified AR-15 that shoots rockets if you wanted to. It says absolutely nothing about the unmodified gun.
The BATFE registers the full auto sear serial # which required the $200 Tax and background check. As an American citizen you could legally own a factory select fire AR-15 (as shown in this video) with the same BATFE application. The 1986 NFA law prohibited the new manufacturing of full auto firearms for civilian transfer. This created a rush for American arms manufacturers to register serial numbers of full auto receivers and sears for civilians before the law took effect.
I really love this channel & this series! I enjoy the examinations and deep dives on these weapons, even though I'm not terribly into firearms. It's great to hear Jonathan's expertise and knowledge, and that's plenty for me to be interested in. Also, love the higher quality footage the last couple months. As my wife says: wow, the video is so crispy.
Who seriously tries to argue nomenclature of such a ubiquitous weapon with a knowledgeable keeper at the Royal Armouries who literally can walk into the racks to check on stuff like that....
I mean it’s not a “military weapon.” The civilian AR lacks the internal components & mechanical weight to sustain combat burst fire. It’s not an “assault weapon.” If you ever worked with power tool lines you can have the same parent companies and tool lines but the variants of power tool do in fact make them individual tools
@@jonathanwhite7966 You can get it however you want but the only real difference is the fire control group. Militaries have issued semi auto ar15’s, and often they get used in semi auto despite being capable of full auto. For almost all practical purposes it IS a military weapon. What else would it be? An ice cream maker? If I take the bed/box off of a truck, it’s still a truck.
I just had the same argument on Quora. It's amazing how pervasive misconceptions about the AR-15 are from both pro- and anti-gun rights people. The most common one I've come across is the idea that the AR-15 was originally meant for the civilian market. I suspect this idea is popular among those trying to push back against the idea that the AR-15 is an especially deadly "weapon of war."
There are perhaps two sources of that misconception: 1. Stoner originally loaded .222 Remington (a common sporting cartridge at the time) before chamber pressure concerns lead to the introduction .223 Remington (adopted by the military as Ball M193) 2. The AR-15 was first publicized in the May-June, 1959 edition of Guns & Ammo (popular with hobbyists) years prior to the Colt Sporter becoming available at retail
I got to read a once classified document detailing the procurement of the AR-15 and the subsequent changes needed after it entered service in Vietnam. It stated that the army had been looking for a new firearm for the army after Korea and has sent the specifications to all the arms manufacturers for their next firearm. The AR-15 was built from ground up to conform to those standards, winning the contract and receiving the M-16 moniker from the US military.
The M-16 I was issued when I arrived at the 101st Airborne Division in April '68 had the three-prong flash hider and forwars assist. That was at Ft. Campbell, KY, USA. The M-16 I was issued in March '67 when I arrived in Viet Nam, assigned to the 1st BDE 101st ABN, also had the three-prong and forward assist. I don't recall seeing an M-16 with a different flash hider while in Viet Nam, except on the then very new CAR-15. I had been trained in Basic Training and then Light Weapons Infantry training with the M-14 in 1965, and did not see an M-16 until I was assigned to the 101st. At that time, they were just M-16's. I loved the range and accuracy of the M-14, but the M-16 was so much lighter and we could carry a -lot- more ammo - seemed to be the right tool for the job in that place.
The US politics makes it very frustrating, as one side is trying to ban semi-auto AR-15s while claiming they are the same as full-auto M-16/M-4/AR-15s. That is why many Americans insist on differentiating "AR-15" (semi-auto and currently legal in most states) and "M-16" (full auto, and banned for new civilian sales since the 1980s).
seeing how hard it is to get national 'bump-stock' bans in place, they may as well be the same as the full-auto version. So it's really a valid position right now.
@@thekaxmax Well the fact that it is still semi auto just using a sliding action to quickly hit the trigger means that it's a lot more awkward to use and also still semi auto the wrong amount of pressure will make it stop shooting. Not saying they should be legal or anything but they are still semi auto even with a slide stock.
Also, if I understand it correctly the Australian army would often issue its soldiers with a mixture of SLRs and M16s for use in the Vietnam jungle, with some soldiers in a company carrying M16s and the others carrying SLRs. The Australian PTSD song "I Was Only 19" references both rifles.
I was wondering if anyone else did a song about service members in Vietnam like Paul Hardcastle's _"19"_ . Thanks for the info. (Useless) "Fun Fact" - The move to draft soldiers of a younger age was a purposeful move by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Nixon to get young protesters off the streets, and to also draft "low I.Q." soldiers into the system.
I feel almost worthless as every time I start trying to respond to the problems given, you beat me to the punch, and I end up deleting my answer that you give. Thank you for making my points. I enjoy these shows. Keep it up! Have a good day!
As a Swede I own an AR15 for hunting, mine is a Stag Arms retro with 20 inch barrel. Looks like an A2 from a little distance but has the removable carry handle of later models. I removed the carry handle and put an illuminated 1-6x20 on it. Used it to take a six point roe buck so far. Fun rifle
The very very first semi-auto only model of the AR-15 was the GX-4968 from 1963 a test example for the ATF very shortly before the XM16E1 was adapted by the army.
@@ES90344The ATF was originally formed as a division of the IRS in 1952 as the IRS ATFD (Internal Revenue Service: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division) and existed that way until 1972 when it was split away from the IRS and reorganized into its own federal agency now known as the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). So yes, the ATF did exist in 1963, it was just still a part of the IRS at the time.
One huge advantage of the AR/M16 family compared to the SLR is that the zeroing was not affected if you broke down the weapon for cleaning as the rear and front sights are on the same barrel/upper receiver assembly.
re: the SLR vs M16, I've read the (probably wholly apocryphal but maybe someone knows better) story that some considered a smaller round desirable because if you hit someone and wounded but didn't kill them you could tie up enemy personnel trying to give them medical attention etc. effectively taking more than one person out of the fight with a single round whereas 7.62 was more likely to take someone completely out with one round.
@@DavidChongit’s true. It was a bleeding edge theory at the time that velocity increases would make up for the smaller round, and ensure the round fragmented once it hit its target.
@@DavidChongIt may be a minor advantage in some cases, but I doubt it was very deliberate. It certainly isn't why 5.56 (and other intermediate cartridges) were adopted. They were adopted for three main reasons (well, maybe 2.5 as two are closely related). First is simply the ability to carry more ammunition. A single 7.62mm NATO cartridge weighs about two and a half times as much as a 5.56mm NATO cartridge. They are also physically much smaller making 30 round 5.56 magazine is only a bit longer than a 20 round 7.62mm magazine. This is a big advantage over a round like 8mm Kurz or 7.62x39). A corollary to this is it allowed for smaller guns when getting in and out of vehicles. Second, follow up shots are much more rapid and accurate. This is the fundamental benefit of intermediate cartridges. All else being equal, the first shot isn't going to be much better, but the second shot can be much faster, more accurate, or both. Third (which could just be considered an extension of the second), controllability in automatic fire. While everyone looked to adopt a select-fire FAL, M-14, G3, etc enabling the regular soldier to provide automatic fire in a pinch, it was always determined that they were not controllable enough to be used that way and most has their automatic setting removed or blocked.
All M16s are an AR15, not all AR15s are M16s AR15 is the model of rifle, M16 is the government specified set up of the rifle via contract. Theres more to it, but this is the simplistic way to understand
@@BHuang92 the asterisks (stars) designated which features were removed to reduce cost during manufacture. Couple of examples. The no1 mk III * has the magazine cutoff windage adjustment on the rear sight and volley sights removed along with a few design simplifications to the cocking piece. The MLE mk I* has the mount for the cleaning rod removed.
Thank you, Johnathan. The way I explain it is that "AR15" is Colt's internal nomenclature for a specific design family. "M16" is the military's nomenclature for a specific family of weapons platform. All M16s are gentically AR15s, but not all AR15s become M16s. Also, landing in Belize in the late 80s and seeing SAS sunning themselves next to a Hawk missile battery was quite comforting. 🍺
reminds me of aviation and vehicle designs. The manufacturer has its internal designation, and then the various countries militaries will designate them their way.
In short, the source of the M16's early reputation for being unreliable came down to two main factors, the first being the change in the type of gunpowder used in the M16's M193 5.56mm ammo and the second being the lack of cleaning kits being issued thanks to the gun being advertised as 'self-cleaning'. Originally the ammo was going to use a more relatively modern powder but due to budgetary reasons they decided to use up the remaining stock of WWII powder which had a higher pressure, greatly increasing the gun's firerate beyond what it was originally designed for and massively increasing fouling in the chamber.
Most reliability issues went away after the swap from the edgewater buffer. The powder wasn't an issue clearly, since we still use that powder today for M855.
@@teabullsIt was a contributor because it has more fouling, and they weren't cleaning it. Either way it would have jammed, but using cheaper powder made it worse
@@teabulls The issue with the powder is that it changed the dwell time from what the rifle was designed around, the new buffer in the M16A1 fixes that problem. The chrome was also really critical, as it dramatically improved the ability to extract under all circumstances, in addition to its other benefits. One of the recognized problems with the pre-A1 M16 was that leaving a round chambered could make the case stick really badly (referred to as the cartridge "swelling" by some, though it had more to do with corrosion), therefore everyone started patrolling with a loaded mag and an empty chamber, where you'd rack the bolt when it was go-time. The M16A1 didn't have to do that anymore.
I've tried to tell people that there are selective fire rifles marked AR-15, but never convinced anybody, even fellow veterans. (But I've always been a bit of a gun nerd). Thanks for this!
The M16 is an AR15. One quibble - the A1 isn't really a "fixed" version of the M16 - the M16 got all the same improvements that the A1 did as the rifle was developed.
I thought I'd caught that by immediately explaining that 'M16' was actually the USAF model, but looking back I didn't stick the landing as people might think the USAF M16 was the problem child and the US Army XM16E1/M16A1 was the "fixed" version. Sigh. Hazards of recording without a script.
"Sir, we have a problem with the Rifle, should we slightly re-desing?" "No, let´s put a fix on it.. Slam it, here" "We have another Problem Sir.." "There´s room for another fix in the buttstock"
The forward assist didn’t really solve a “problem”. It addressed a fear of some of the military brass. Cleaning kits stowed on rifles are as old as rifles, so again not really a problem.
The recoil buffer was made heavier to correct dwell time, the chamber and bore was plated with chrome to dramatically improve lifespan and extraction, the birdcage flash hider wouldn't get stuck on vegetation and break as easily, the fencing around the magazine release prevents accidentally dropped mags. These are all key changes from the M16 to the M16A1. @@atomicsmith It does solve a problem, more than one. Besides the fact that there are countless ways where the travel of the bolt carrier can be slowed down enough to stop (ambient dust, magazine damage, extreme cold weather, etc), without there being any actual physical obstruction in the chamber or in the bolt carrier's path, the extractor on the the AR15 does not engage the groove on the cartridge until the action is about an inch away from being closed. Without using the forward assist to force the bolt carrier to go forward so the extractor can grab the groove on the cartridge case, there are some malfunctions which can not be readily addressed with any real ease. This can also be used for removing a partial spent case after having a case head separation, by jamming another empty case up into the remains of the first one so it 'grabs' onto it, letting you pull it out.
@@atomicsmiththe forward assist absolutely addresses problems with the bolt not making it fully into battery. Even if it were only ever used in blank fire training exercises, then it was worth the investment/addition. Kyle Rittenhouse wouldnt be alive, if not for the forward assist. Eugene Stoner was an engineer first and foremost, he wasnt a grunt and has no understanding of the rigors and dynamics of combat. The forward assist was one of the very few things the military brass were absolutely correct about. When used properly, it only solves problems. It isnt a jam enhancer as you stoner blowhards like to call it.
As an American from the 50's the M16 was military and the AR-15 was at my local gun dealer. I was hoping to see the select fire options off the various rifles shown here. thanks!
The source of the semantic confusion is the US *ATF* ☆. In about 1972, there was an *internal* ATF memo to start using the terms "AR-15" for semiautomatic rifles, and "M16" for selective fire rifles, just as shorthand. The very memo states the author realized it was inaccurate for the same reasons you state - all M16s are AR15s, and M16 is just a US DOD logistics nomenclature for the adopted selective fire rifles. From that point forward, ATF started comsistently using this false terminology to distinguish between semiautomatic only and selective fire AR15s. . ☆ ATF is the common name of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives - the weirdness is because they were started as a excise rax collection department within the Internal Revenue Service. When Prohibition was overturned in 1933, all the agents who previously had been chasing bootleggers were transferred to collecting alcohol taxes, with tobacco and (with the 1934 National Firearms Act to regulate machineguns and such) firearms tacked on to add enough work to employ most of the Booze Cops who were now mostly not needed (it taking a lot fewer revenue agents to collect taxes from publicly licensed alcohol manufactures than to chase moonshiners and bootleggers).
Thank you - that's really interesting! I'd love to track down the memo. I suspect Colt marketing/marking would have been enough for customers to start the confusion all on their own but I don't think we'd be getting this level of pushback/denial without this political underpinning.
I very much enjoy your work Jonathan! As an avid gun enthusiast many of your videos are very engaging, whether or not I learn something new! Keep it up! 😁
arguing the Ar15 is not a millitary weapon is arguing the wrong point, it shouldnt matter that the millitary allso uses it. legislation should concentrate on what the object actually is not who uses it, the SKS was a millitary weapon does that make it inherintly more dangerous to own? Laws trying to ban "military weapons" are inherintly stupid because all it leads to is new guns and calibers being created that emulate the millitary weapons just like in canada for example.
I mean if we're being technical here most weapons can be and were military weapons at some point, Axes, bows and arrows, hammers and shovels even, glass bottles and rice cookers can be made into fire bottles and IEDs
A gun being a military weapon would mean it was considered good for use on humans. (My unusual wording is because of the TH-cam algorithm being aggressive in deleting comments). Now there are plenty of other guns that aren't military but are equally capable in this regard, but any gun useless against humans will not have been adopted by a military. If you want an easy, enforceable way to restrict weapons that are good against people without restricting ones that aren't, well it's a crude instrument, but it's not the worst metric ever. Every gun you ban will be one you wanted to ban, you'll just have some you fail to ban. Underreach rather than overreach. Of course this logic only works if you don't consider self defense from humans a valid reason to own a firearm. If you consider that a valid reason well suddenly military equipment actually looks like something you'd want to encourage.
5:31 That is the first rifle I used and worked on in the military....ones marked AR-15 / M-16. And yes, it was select fire. HOWEVER, if you pull the bolt carrier out of the one you're holding and compare it to the carrier in the SP1 model, they're quite different (especially the bottom cut-out for the hammer and its slope).
Always good to see a video from Jonathan Ferguson, the Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armories Museum in the UK, which houses an iconic collection of thousands of weapons from throughout history.
I've always wondered why the A1 flash hider wasn't replaced with the A2 style earlier. It seems to be such an obvious idea, yet the same mistake had occured with different firearms multiple times.
@@SlavicCelery It definitely can be if you don't torque it down enough. And personally I'd prefer to have the slots even right to left even on an A1 flash hider. The main reason they went to the A2 I believe is because when prone the bird cage kicks up a lot of dust. The A2 also somewhat acts as a compensator.
I met a British officer in Balad, Iraq, who had served in Belize. Over several rounds of fine 21-year-old Lagavulin whiskey, he regaled us with a rather funny take on the situation in Belize. There was (is?) an ongoing border dispute with their neighbor, Honduras. Every once-in-a-while, the Hondurans would cross the border, set up a camp, and raise their flag. In response, a British patrol would be sent to the area, by which time the Hondurans had "declared victory", and retreated back over the border. All very well choreographed so that no one on either side would get hurt. However, there was an incident where an overzealous / nervous Honduran soldier fired at the Brits, when either the Brits arrived early, or the Hondurans retreated late. The Hondurans commander allegedly sent a communique to the British commander, apologizing for the young soldier's "breech of etiquette"! 😂
Minor detail: it’s a dispute between Belize and Guatemala. There are only land borders in Belize with Guatemala and Mexico. Honduras is across a small gulf. Guatemala claimed Belize as its own territory, and that it was promised a Caribbean port (in Belize, they said). Eventually Guatemala built their own, as they did have their own ~75 km seacoast on the Caribbean. Never clear why they didn’t do that earlier…
Thank you for showing us these examples Jonathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
I carried an M16A1 for many years. Mine was made by the Hydra Matic Div. of General Motors. Later I carried an M203 and an M60. If you had to carry it on patrol, you would definitely be in favor of a lighter weapon.
Much as I adore the M4 MWS/Sopmod and M16A-4, there's always gonna be mad love for the Vietnam era M16/M16A-1 with nary an over dressed rail mounting or fancy red dot optics.
We had these when I was in Singapore/ Malaysa. AR-15 with Colt markings. Single or full auto, no forward assist, twenty round magazines and three prong flash hider. Light and ideal for the Malay jungle. Got a few phtos in interested Jonathan. Talking of Belize independence, we were dug in near the Guatemalan/ Belize border as they had threatened to invade .
Very pleased with myself for immediately spotting the wrong pistol grip, immediately corrected that by thinking the forward assist is the wrong type (shouldn't it be the smaller round type?) Enjoyed the twitter exchanges, gave me a giggle when this topic show3ed up in my feed.
Talk about not knowing who you’re talking to, arguing with Jonathan Ferguson the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Museum about a firearm designation.
You said the AR-15 was issued to British troops in Malaya (Malaysia) and Borneo. That answers a question I have had in the back of my mind for a while. When I visited the Australian War Memorial Museum a few years ago I saw a picture of Aussie troops in Malay around 1965 and one was carrying an M-16. I wondered how he could have had an M-16 when the US Army was only just starting to issue them to their troops in Vietnam at the time.
I joined the Air Force in 1975. It's been a long time, and it's possible my memory is faulty, but I'm pretty sure that ours were marked AR-15. As noted, they also lacked the jam enhancer, an utterly useless feature which i despise and have never needed. 😆
The jam enhancer... good one. However, the forward assist is essential in "quiet" operations, where one needs to drop the bolt slowly, to avoid the noise of letting fly home. Since the charging handle does not reciprocate, like on the original AR-10, or M1 Garand or M14, a means was needed to ensure the bolt was in battery, in those instances.
@@rreedy788 Everyone says that, but I've never been unable to seat the bolt with my thumb. I've done it just out of curiosity, but in practice, if you didn't put one in the chamber as soon as you thought things might get tactical, you already messed up.
@@itsapittie Yeah. well... more than a few Vietnam Vets and Spec Ops will say different. Also... as I mentioned, the M1, M14 had a reciprocating handle... which I have had to use numerous times, as it is the same on the M1A1 and Mini 14s I own, not to mention the AR-15 pattern rifles I own... One can't always just let to bolt slam home... and you are a Mo Ron, with a small mind to think you can.
I have a Colt 614. It is a factory full-auto rifle marked AR-15, previously used by the West Virginia State Police before they sold it to buy much cheaper post 86 guns It doesn't say M16 anywhere on the rifle, and 614 is the Colt model number for what the US military called the M16A1
When I worked in the armory at Castle AFB in 1982 we had a bunch of M-16's that were marked AR-15 in the same way as the M-16/M-203 unit that you showed. Most had 3 prong flash suppressors.
For comparison to the M16A1 rifle which has an overall length of 38.81 inches, a barrel length of 20 inches and weight of 8.81 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine for 5.56×45mm cartridges, the M4A1 carbine instead has an overall length of 33 inches when its butt stock is fully extended, a barrel length of 14.5 inches and a weight of 7.75 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine for 5.56×45mm cartridges. Compared to the M16A1 rifle, the M4A1 carbine has a collapsed length of 29.75 inches when its butt stock is fully retracted.
The argument here in the US is caused by political nonsense. Pro 2nd amendment people have been unfortunately led into a silly and unimportant side argument because the other side likes to control language and uses that to control the debate. The anti 2a crowd raves about 'weapons of war should not be allowed' so the pro 2a argue 'it is not a weapon of war'. This misses the fact that the 2nd is designed for the populace to have weapons of war for defense of self and community.
And the whole 2A argument misses the point reiterated in the 10th...The United States, aka the Federal Government, i.e. Congress was delegated no power to regulate, restrict, ban, or otherwise control arms in the first place: "In the final days of the Constitutional Convention, as delegates rushed to complete work on the final draft of the Constitution, George Mason of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed that the Constitution be “prefaced with a bill of rights.” On September 12, 1787, after little debate, the proposal was unanimously rejected by the delegates as unnecessary to protect individual rights" - www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/demand-for-a-bill-of-rights.html Or as Madison explained to the Virginia ratification convention, as to why they did this: “All Political Power is inherent in the People, therefore, a Constitution is necessary to specifically state what Powers the people are giving to their government. Thus, a Bill of Rights is not needed, as we have not given to this government the power to interfere with your rights.” James Madison
What's even sillier is that the "anti" people legitimately do not care about details, especially technical jargon. They see an AR-15 and they see weapon of war, you can only destroy your own credibility to tell them they have lying eyes. I agree it's a military weapon and we should just point to 2A for justifying ownership.
Yes, we need to "lean into" the anit 2a's argument that these are weapons of war, instead of arguing against. The same as knives, swords, bows and arrows, crossbows, clubs, sticks and stones. You know what they all have in common? They are tools. Nothing more, nothing less.
@@popuptarget7386 When the "anti" people see an AR they see a weapon of war, it does nothing for our credibility to tell them they have lying eyes. They literally don't care about the technical details or jargon either. I agree that 2A is the most effective argument, it's the law of the land.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's easy to navigate the semantics of AR-15 vs M16 as a distinction of design vs designation. AR-15 is the design or "model" (like car model) of rifle, whereas M16 or M4 or KS-1, etc, is the specific military designation of a particular specification of AR-15. For example, the M4 is a designation of AR-15 for the US Military that is typically select fire, carbine length, chambered in 5.56, has a particular barrel profile, etc. They can be manufactured by different companies, such as Colt or FN Herstal. The same convention exists with other military designations as well, such as the M9 vs the Beretta 92, or M24 / M40 vs the Remington 700. These are all designations / adoptions of a design. For a non-firearm example, think of police cars in the United States. Most police departments use some form of Police Interceptor, but we can think of the classic Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, which are still largely in use. This is a particular flavor and specification of the Ford model Crown Victoria created for use by police departments, but it is still a Crown Victoria car model in essence, just with some extra requirements. To put is simply, the requirements and the requirements source are the cause of the designation. An AR-15 created with very similar or even identical specifications to the M16 but without a contract or purpose of being used by the US Military as an M16 is not an M16. It would probably be called an M16 style AR15 or M16 clone. A hypothetical: The US Military wants a standard issue keyboard for its computers. It decides on the IBM Model M keyboard design, but wants a standardized and specific color, legend, layout, cable, etc. It receives a designation, let's call it M104 because it's a 104 key layout. Every M104 is an IBM Model M keyboard, but only keyboards created for use by the military with this specification and purpose are M104, likely with a marking to distinguish that. Other manufacturers or even IBM itself might create consumer versions of this keyboard that anyone can buy, but these would be M104 style keyboards, or M104 clones.
The M16 was the US military designation for the Colt model 601. To be an M16, it must meet the specifications of an M16. The Canadian C7 is also a variant of the AR-15, but cannot be called an M16 because it does not meet the specifications. The Canadian army put forth their own specs which were different.
The primary reason why many of us insist on the distinction, incorrectly or not, is that there is there is a decidedly important political difference. A selective fire AR-15 or M-16 is regulated by the National Firearms Act (1934) and if manufactured later than 1986, under the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986). The former, can still be legally purchased by individuals that go through the paperwork and pay the transfer tax. The latter are restricted to military and law enforcement purchases. A semi-automatic only AR-15 is just another rifle. Functionally, it is the same as a Remington Model 8 (1908) hunting rifle, albeit chambered for a cartridge that didn't exist in 1908. Firearms prohibitions call it a weapon of war, even though it is not an assault rifle like the M-16/M-4. The two variations have different trigger groups. It would take some metalwork on the lower receiver to exchange the trigger groups. Most users are not going to risk messing up their AR-15 and violate federal law to convert their semi-automatic AR-15 to (fully) automatic. The confusion over nomenclature makes it more difficult for us to preserve our remaining rights. I grant that the confusion for the AK pattern guys is even worse.
Let's not forget that the bolt carrier is a very different weight in the civil version. The civil market rifle has a much larger cutout in the bolt carrier making it lighter. If you were to do it right and hand the rifle to a certified master gunsmith for conversion to full automatic capability but kept the civil bolt carrier, the rifle would fire like a burp gun and probably sustain some internal damage. Coming out of the military with habits formed using M-16s, I can remember quite a few occasions, dropping the firing pin while reassembling the rifle because of the larger bolt carrier cutout in the civil version (always annoying because of all the dog fur around my floors, needed to clean the firing pin again). It's just another small distinction lost in the debate between fear and fact.
He's right, the original name for the select fire rifle invented by Eugene Stoner was AR-15 and the US army attached the name M16, because that's what they do with any weapon system that they procure. The name AR-15 was used before they ever made semi-automatic versions.
Break their minds by asking if they think g3 and mp5 are anything other than military adoption codes for the variants of hk51 and hk54 sold to the German military. I would say bad example but much like colt with m16, hk trademarked g3 and mp5 after the adoption.
@@VickyHong1879 hks cetme era based product codes. The first number is the firearms type, second is the calibre. Firearm type codes: 2 = machine gun 3 = rifle. 4 = sporterized/ civilian carbine 5 = smg. 7 = grenade launcher 9 = civilian rifle for American market. calibres codes 1 = 7.62×51. 2 is 7.62x39. 3 is 5.56x45 and 4 is 9x19 9 is 40mm grenade. So the hk33 is a 556 rifle. The hk53 is an smg in 5.56. then a k after that = kurtz (short) barrel version of the firearm type or zf or SG would be sharpshooter variant of the rifle. Then TGS designates grenade launcher equipped.
I should clarify further regarding the designation 'M16' (no E1 or A1). When I said the M16A1 (and later XM16E1) was the 'fixed version of the M16' I was thinking of the US Army rifles and using 'M16' as the generic base designator. However, as I then noted, 'M16' specifically refers to the USAF's equivalent of the XM16E1/M16A1, so we should avoid using 'M16' generically. We already have a generic term for the type - AR-15 ;)
To be extra clear:
AR-15 - generic type
M16 - USAF designation for the Colt AR-15 Model 602 and 604
XM16E1/M16A1 - US Army designation for the Colt AR-15 Model 603
In my entire time in the USAF, which includes the upgrade of the 604s to M16A2 standard & adoption of the M4, I NEVER saw an A1 upper receiver on our guns. Not even on the GAU-5s I carried. By the mid 90s, A1 bolt carriers were in about 50% of our rifles. There were still plenty of 3 prong flash hiders, rubber butt pads, and chrome plated carriers still in use when the 604s were upgraded.
Didn't you get them backward? According to Wikipedia, the XM16E1 (as the XM suggests) was an experimental model that, indeed, only added the forward assist. However, the A1 had many more changes, such as chrome-lined barrels, improved flash hiders, updated buffer assemblies, narrower gas ports, etc.
@@RVered Those were all updates to the XM16E1 (early Colt 603) before it was adopted as the M16A1 (late Colt 603)
I would listen to a 3 hour TED talk from jonathan about why the term assault rifle is increasingly useless and other firearm nomenclature discussions
Isn't it basically the same as the HK416, and then the Bundeswehr adopts them as G95 or G38?
The AR-15 is just the Model designation, the M16 is the Military designation?!
It must be difficult to argue with someone on Twitter, what with the character limit and the fact that you're legally required to start each reply with "Hi, I'm Jonathan Ferguson, Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries museum in the UK"
And that's just his forename. His surname is "Which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout the ages."
@@peterclarke7240from throughout *history*, pretty sure Mr Ferguson who houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout the ages is his father’s name.
@@clumsygarage1578 You're quite right, I stand corrected.
I hear their family require a custom-built letterbox in order to accommodate all the extra-large envelopes they get sent.
Plus they are convinced that their ignorance trumps Jonathan’s knowledge……
@@clumsygarage1578 That is the popular misconception but it's one of those British double names. "Which houses a collection" is from his mothers side and "thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history." is from his father's side.
The closeup on the stock when Jonathan says "but" is prime british humour
Insert minions laughing at Butt gif
timestamp?
@@SaturnianDragon 6:56
that got a good chuckle out of me
I was instantly reminded of UpIsNotJump by that joke, if anyone has also seen his content.
Okay whoever was responsible for that little but/butt visual gag, your work is appreciated!!
Editor here, it was actually Jonathan's idea... not that I didn't immediately approve ;)
What a flex in an online/Twitter war. Okay I'll prove the point by making a video, in the museum where I'm the "Keeper of Firearms" in-front of racks of the weapons that will prove my point. Well done sir! I salute you. 😆"Talk softly & carry a big rack of period weapons"
OK, you’re right, but you have to remember that all the people making the opposing argument are referring to the civilian variant of the AR-15 that is legally available in the United States of America. There is a big disconnect between the average American and a historian. They are kinda right bc select fire AR-15 rifles haven’t been available to the American public since 1986
@@jonathanbardunias1889to be fair that is a distinction without a difference in the usual context the argument comes up in, which is usually an attempt to distinguish the civilian weapon as a non-combat weapon.
@jonathanbardunias1889 they're only kind of right if they specify select fire. The civilian variants sold today are still AR15s. If they say AR15s aren't available, they're not kind of right, they're kind of wrong. Which in most contexts wouldn't be a big deal since it's just semantics. But is a bit self defeating when the usual backdrop to these arguments are complaints that someone else is getting the terminology wrong.
@@jonathanbardunias1889 i mean they arent "kind of right", that's like claiming the M14M isnt an M14 because it is not select fire(and was made for the civilian market), it would just still be wrong. and if the point of the argument is to say they aren't military weapons, its still just wrong because both semi-only AR-15s(specifically CAR-15 by colt), and the M14M were adopted into active service.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” - Mark Twain
This is *normally* my MO but I thought this one worth having a brief skirmish over and then providing some info for those who don't know or just assumed it was the case without looking into it. It's never about convincing the entrenched, it's for the benefit of the onlookers.
"Always confront stupid. To let it flourish further degenerates humanity." - Chris Garman
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries While conducting an inspection visit to the USAF Gunsmith Shop at Lackland AFB (Medina Annex) in the 1980s I examined several early model M-16s (the USAF received the first major batch around 1963). The rifles had recently been refurbished by the shop and looked new, but what caught my eye was the marking on one of the receivers. I regret I did not have a camera with me so I could maintain a permanent record and proof of what was handed to me. Unfortunately, the years have clouded my memory a bit, but I am certain it was marked either XM-16 or AR-15, and yes, it was select fire.
Wisdom has been chasing you for so very long, but you have always been faster
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries Since it resulted in this video and it cleared up this point of confusion for me, I think you may say that your gambit has succeeded :)
Jonathan is the type of bloke that goes to the back of the warehouse of the Royal Armouries to get a rifle to prove a point, i respect that since i would do the same
'A' rifle? He goes and gets about 14 variants of the rifle to prove a point. Which is so cool.
And gets rifles which are both supporting and opposing his argument. He is not biased, but acts with integrity, and doesn’t actually ridicule the opposing party, because there is usually some possible kernel of truth in their argument.
And here in the US we only have to go as far as our closets and gun cabinets to pull these weapons out to make a video LOL
@brucecook502 it's strange the idea that someone from this guys same country is watching this video, entertained, educated. Will probably never even shoot one
@@hitchhikersguidetotheusael967 yeah I really feel bad that I have the luck of living where I live where I have the option to do these things easily, but people from different Geographics can't even go somewhere that is even highly controlled to try out these things safely.
I actually live in the United States in the state of Georgia, and I have a membership at an indoor gun range that's only 5 minutes from my house that has fully automatic machine guns for rent to the public, but they are included with my membership to shoot for free as long as I pay for ammunition. I really wish other people who were interested could be able to do the same. I just like seeing people happy but it makes me feel bad when I see other people sad or disappointed. I wish others over is in Europe and other countries could experience what I can easily experience.
Oh my, that original 601 with the green painted furniture, and it's in _absolutely mint_ condition, it's breathtaking.
Agreed! I have only ever seen one other in person. That one the museum has is spotless!
Fully agree! Oh man, that thing must've looked like something straight out of a sci-fi movie in the late 50's! Christ, compare the design of that rifle with for example a '59 Cadillac... The AR15 was literally several decades ahead of its time. (in design, materials and functionality)
Did you SEE that serial #?!? 266!
I know, my eyes bugged out. Paused the video for a better look. Wow. Pristine. There it is, the Holy Grail of AR-15's. he should have edited in some angelic music when he grabbed it.
stunning, and so vastly ahead of its time nearly 70 years later and they still hold their own as a modern design
Now we’re talking, a Weekly Firearms History Class with one & only, Mr. Jonathan Ferguson, keep up the good work👍
Class is in session 👨🏫
Fuckin finally dude. The irony of a brit having to make a dedicated video to explain this is not lost on me either.
Nobody online seems to understand that theyre all variants of the AR-15 platform. Every M16, M4, mk12, mk18, car15 IS an AR-15 but not every AR-15 is an M16, M4, mk12, mk18, car15.
Most gun guys get this. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. The people who engage in these arguments do not own guns anyway. The person was probably making a political argument that the AR15 isn't used by the military blah blah blah.
Two Brits, in fact :D Bloke on the Range was doing sterling service before I got involved.
AR-18s are not AR-15s btw.
@@Chris_Garman never said they were. I said the mk18. Maybe read before you try to be snarky and make yourself look dumb in the process.
I had a dude arguing with me years ago that the 'AR-15' was semi-auto only civilian 'modern sporting rifle' so I showed him a picture of a M16A1 rollmarked "Colt AR-15 Property of U.S. Government M16A1" to make your point and he just ignored it. 😄
To one side the AR-15 is a 'assault weapon', to the other it's a semi auto 'MSR'...both will ignore the facts. Oh well
Long story short:
Every M16 is an AR15, but not every AR15 is an M16.
An M16 is just a very specific version of the AR15 platform.
Same for the M4.
Didn't hear it called out, but also note that the AR in AR-15 does NOT stand for "Armalite Rifle", it just stands for Armalite. There were many other AR-## firearms, some of which are shotguns, some of which are pistols.
According to the media is stands for “Assault Rifle” 💩
Yep, AR-9 & AR-17 were shotguns. Had an AR--24 which was a 9mm handgun
@@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballzprove it
@@688attacksub8 do your research for you, got it.
ArmaLite (thats how ArmaLite writes it in their own material. Kinda strange to turn ArmaLite into ARmaLite....) themselves state in their "about": "As a pioneering force in the firearms industry, ArmaLite is best known for the development of the “AR” or “ArmaLite Rifle” platform, and the original AR-10® and AR-15 models that not only redefined modern firearms, but set a standard for ArmaLite’s commitment to producing innovative, reliable, and versatile firearms for home defense, military, special forces, law enforcement, and enthusiasts alike."
@@688attacksub8 Some folk are just ignorant, some are just stupid. If you come into this argument, which probably pre-dates porn on the Web ffs, you are a prat at the least.
I carried an Colt 604 in Afghanistan 2011-12 it’s roll mark was Colt AR-15 from the 64-65 timeframe and in small lettering by the serial it said M 16. It had Safe-Semi-Auto but at some point it was upgraded to an M16A2 with a Capco upper and glossy black furniture and the trigger was swapped to a Burst group and the armorer crudely has placed an “A2” next to the M 16 and written “Burst” under Auto. I loved the uniqueness of the XM Grey lower coupled with the darker upper and jet black furniture.
AR-15 is the thing, M16 is the US military designation
It's a pretty basic lesson on supersets and subsets. AR-15 is the superset. M-16's, M4's, etcetera are subsets of AR-15.
AR-15 is the design, pattern or platform. M16 is the model.
@@atomicsmith To be clear to people about to argue with this guy, he is referring to the US Army's M designation system. From a purely technical perspective, the M4, M16, MK18 CQB, MK 12 SPR, the SDMR, the Recce, they're all AR-15s.
@@iskenuz In short. All M16s are AR-15s, but not all AR-15s are M16s. Like squares and rectangles.
@@iskenuz All those models are AR15's, but not all AR-15's are those models. Note: I am agreeing.
Remember people, the M designation is just what the US military uses to define a military spec of a weapon. Both the M4 and M16 and all their A's are all AR-15's. A good example of this is what the US military call the M1014, which is actually a Benelli M4 shotgun. Both are the same platform. But all M1014's are the same spec, while not all Benelli M4's are the same spec.(In the case of Benelli, they also use an M naming nomenclature, but it is entirely seperate from the US system.
Another example here is the M14, which came before the M16. Both are drastically different platforms, but the nomenclature is the same because that's what the US military uses. You can absolutely acquire a Springfield Armory M1A and even an M14, but rest assured that they are the same platform. An M1A can be made to fire automatic, but that doesn't make it an M14.
Whilst current weapons (and other equipment) does have a QR code on them, it is mainly used for accounting and tracking purposes. In the armoury, you will still see a butt (rack) number on them for quick and easy identification. Thanks for the video.
Ah, interesting. That's not done on British military firearms as far as I'm aware.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries With British military kit, every single accountable item that is held in an armoury such as weapons, night vision devices and sight units have small unique QR codes on them for accountability and tracking and most also have butt numbers on them for quicker identification, though this is down to the individual armoury to decide. I've seen many different methods of numbering rifles, some better than others.
Rampant Horse enjoyers will rejoice at this vid.
Neigh
6:57 well played editor, well played. Sir Mix-a-Lot would be proud
He’s poking the AR-15 are not M16 bear. Glad to see another with the “they are all AR-15s” stick
It's spelled schtick.
@@samuelgarrod8327you poke a bear with a stick, not a schtick.
They technically are minus an auto sear
All M16s are AR-15s. Not all AR-15s are M16s.
The bear poked me first.
This is how you win an online argument 🤣
Not really
M16 is just the military designation for the contract for a service rifle, which in this case was won by Colt for the AR15 (in a special configuration). Similarly, M17 is just the military designation for the contract for a service pistol that was won by Sig for the P320 (in a special configuration).
It’s fascinating to see how historical context and technical details shape these terms.
it's exactly the same reason why people get confused at tomatoes being fruits and vegetables. "vegetable" is an arbitrary category, it exists only to categorize things we eat, a pear could be a vegetable too if you cook it with bacon . while "fruit" is a specifically designated by science part of a plant, growing from the flowers.
A tomato is a vegetable because we designate it this way in the kitchen, but it doesn't make it any less of a fruit.
Similarly, a beretta 92fs is a beretta 92fs, even if the us army call the ones that got made for them "m9"
So, "m16" is just a designation, that's how the us army call their ar-15s. since they have a specific pattern that differentiate them from other ar-15s, it makes sense to call them m16s when encountered in the wild, but they are still also ar-15s
Vegetable are actually a conjunction of two words.
Veget
and
Able
Veget is the Latin word Vegetus, meaning to "enliven", "animate", "vigorous", "spritely".
Basically anything that is living or growing.
Able is just that. It's able to Vegetus. It's able to vegetate. It can grow. It is able to be alive.
Vegetables are therefore anything living and growing. All humans are by that definition vegetables.
The fact we've narrowed our definition down simply has to do with where we most commonly used the word.
If you are planting vegetables, you are putting stuff in the ground that is able to grow in said ground.
Along came stuff that wasn't in the ground. Like fruits.
And all of a sudden, any fruit is now not a vegetable.... That's why the use case broke down completely. Because vegetable was never about a single type of growth. It was all growth.
Well no, not exactly.
Yes, 'vegetable' is indeed a purely culinary term.
However, you have two different definitions for 'fruit' here: you have the _culinary_ term, which is a counterpart to 'vegetable'; then you have the _botanical_ term, which is used in reference to the 'fruiting bodies' of plants.
The confusion arises from the fact that many fruiting bodies of plants are arbitrarily classified as culinary vegetables.
Also, this is not a very good comparison to the "AR-15/M16" nomenclature issue because the relationship isn't quite the same.
The 92FS/M9 example is great. The US military calls their 92FS pistols "M9". Once again it's the "all M9s are Beretta 92s, not all Beretta 92s are M9s" thing. Part of the problem here is many people are used to using US military "M" designations as the "baseline" name for certain things (like "M16"), when they (usually) aren't. The Minimi/M249, M4/M1014 (the Benelli M4), or MAG/M240 are other examples.
Semantics can be confusing. Thank you for the clarification, Jonathan!! 👍
6:56 Round of applause for the editor. Keep up the excellent work.
THANK YOU.
Ive been having this discussion with people for almost 8 years. Despite being a combat veteran, despite owning AR-15s, despite being a firearms rights absolutist... bringing this up genuinely has people shouting that Im a gun grabber.
No. I just care about firearms history. And the fact of the matter is... the m16 is an ar-15.
yar, the right to bare forearms. suck it, dress codes!
I bought my first AR15 in 1978 two years after discharge from the Marines. A Colt modeled after the A1 with birdcage flashhider, trapdoor buttstock but no forward assist. I regretfully sold it in 1984 to help pay college tuition but fired over 2000 rounds with never a malfunction.
to think, you could have nearly paid for college with one today...
Got your sa80 book for a project. Absolutely amazing mate well done
Dear editor, Thank you.
Every M16 is AR15 but not every AR15 is M16.
Exactly. And they cannot be marketed as an "AR-15" unless you pay Colt a royalty, as Colt has trademarked the name "AR-15." That is why other companies selling AR pattern rifles market it under a different designation.
Actually, this is not true, as there are M16 helmets, and other things that are "model 16" which have no relation to the AR15.
@@brucecamparmament3728 bruh...
If your talking rifles its true. There are M2 machine guns .50 cal
There's also an M2 tank and I thinke@brucecamparmament3728
Oh I forgot To mention that I have an Armalite M15a2 ex Leo firearm. It seems to be built as well as the Colt M16a1. I just realized it probably was made by colt since Armalite is not a mfg.
For a few years a long time ago, when I was in the Australian Army. I was variously issued a number of M16A1 rifles, including a couple with the M203 Grenade launcher. And as best as I can recall they all had AR-15 stamped on the left side of the lower receiver. Also, for what it's worth, I preferred them over the F88 and F88AS1's that I was later issued with.
The ADF should've just issued the M16/M203 instead of plugging away for a decade or more of making diggers carry the F88 and a M79 grenade launcher. I'd even go one better and say the M16/M203 was a better option than the F88/GLA. That thing just ruined a perfectly good F88.
i own a full auto civillian transferrable ar-15. it was form 1'd in 1983 into a machine gun and had the 3rd hole drilled and the full auto sear installed. completely legal to do at the time.
Not factory therefore a really bad example.
@@Chris_Garman It's still very much an AR-15
@@TheSundayShooter It was an AR-15. Now it's a modified AR-15. You could have a modified AR-15 that shoots rockets if you wanted to. It says absolutely nothing about the unmodified gun.
@alltat _Colt_ modified the AR-15 to disable select fire; this man's example has the modification reversed
The BATFE registers the full auto sear serial # which required the $200 Tax and background check. As an American citizen you could legally own a factory select fire AR-15 (as shown in this video) with the same BATFE application. The 1986 NFA law prohibited the new manufacturing of full auto firearms for civilian transfer. This created a rush for American arms manufacturers to register serial numbers
of full auto receivers and sears for civilians before the law took effect.
I really love this channel & this series! I enjoy the examinations and deep dives on these weapons, even though I'm not terribly into firearms. It's great to hear Jonathan's expertise and knowledge, and that's plenty for me to be interested in.
Also, love the higher quality footage the last couple months. As my wife says: wow, the video is so crispy.
Who seriously tries to argue nomenclature of such a ubiquitous weapon with a knowledgeable keeper at the Royal Armouries who literally can walk into the racks to check on stuff like that....
The narrative that the gun is completely separated from being a military weapon is more important to them than any facts.
I mean it’s not a “military weapon.” The civilian AR lacks the internal components & mechanical weight to sustain combat burst fire. It’s not an “assault weapon.” If you ever worked with power tool lines you can have the same parent companies and tool lines but the variants of power tool do in fact make them individual tools
@@jacehackworth6413 It doesn't matter, the US is trying to ban anything and everything they can, so facts don't matter to either side.
@@jonathanwhite7966 You can get it however you want but the only real difference is the fire control group. Militaries have issued semi auto ar15’s, and often they get used in semi auto despite being capable of full auto. For almost all practical purposes it IS a military weapon. What else would it be? An ice cream maker? If I take the bed/box off of a truck, it’s still a truck.
@@jacehackworth6413 and the internal coimponents, and the weight***
Excellent video, Jonathan, as always. Perfect balance between history and amusing facts. Perfect as always, don't change.
I just had the same argument on Quora. It's amazing how pervasive misconceptions about the AR-15 are from both pro- and anti-gun rights people. The most common one I've come across is the idea that the AR-15 was originally meant for the civilian market. I suspect this idea is popular among those trying to push back against the idea that the AR-15 is an especially deadly "weapon of war."
There are perhaps two sources of that misconception:
1. Stoner originally loaded .222 Remington (a common sporting cartridge at the time) before chamber pressure concerns lead to the introduction .223 Remington (adopted by the military as Ball M193)
2. The AR-15 was first publicized in the May-June, 1959 edition of Guns & Ammo (popular with hobbyists) years prior to the Colt Sporter becoming available at retail
I got to read a once classified document detailing the procurement of the AR-15 and the subsequent changes needed after it entered service in Vietnam. It stated that the army had been looking for a new firearm for the army after Korea and has sent the specifications to all the arms manufacturers for their next firearm. The AR-15 was built from ground up to conform to those standards, winning the contract and receiving the M-16 moniker from the US military.
The M-16 I was issued when I arrived at the 101st Airborne Division in April '68 had the three-prong flash hider and forwars assist. That was at Ft. Campbell, KY, USA. The M-16 I was issued in March '67 when I arrived in Viet Nam, assigned to the 1st BDE 101st ABN, also had the three-prong and forward assist. I don't recall seeing an M-16 with a different flash hider while in Viet Nam, except on the then very new CAR-15. I had been trained in Basic Training and then Light Weapons Infantry training with the M-14 in 1965, and did not see an M-16 until I was assigned to the 101st. At that time, they were just M-16's. I loved the range and accuracy of the M-14, but the M-16 was so much lighter and we could carry a -lot- more ammo - seemed to be the right tool for the job in that place.
The US politics makes it very frustrating, as one side is trying to ban semi-auto AR-15s while claiming they are the same as full-auto M-16/M-4/AR-15s. That is why many Americans insist on differentiating "AR-15" (semi-auto and currently legal in most states) and "M-16" (full auto, and banned for new civilian sales since the 1980s).
seeing how hard it is to get national 'bump-stock' bans in place, they may as well be the same as the full-auto version. So it's really a valid position right now.
@@thekaxmax Bump stock is not even close to as effective as full auto, but full auto is also bad compared to semi auto in most cases so I agree
@@redtra236 Not talking 'effective', I'm talking 'not semi-auto any more'.
@@thekaxmax Well the fact that it is still semi auto just using a sliding action to quickly hit the trigger means that it's a lot more awkward to use and also still semi auto the wrong amount of pressure will make it stop shooting. Not saying they should be legal or anything but they are still semi auto even with a slide stock.
Meanwhile I have a binary trigger on my AR-15.
You are a gem to the content provided on TH-cam, Jonathan. Please keep doing this.
Also, if I understand it correctly the Australian army would often issue its soldiers with a mixture of SLRs and M16s for use in the Vietnam jungle, with some soldiers in a company carrying M16s and the others carrying SLRs. The Australian PTSD song "I Was Only 19" references both rifles.
I was wondering if anyone else did a song about service members in Vietnam like Paul Hardcastle's _"19"_ . Thanks for the info.
(Useless) "Fun Fact" - The move to draft soldiers of a younger age was a purposeful move by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Nixon to get young protesters off the streets, and to also draft "low I.Q." soldiers into the system.
@@williestyle35 McNamara served 61-68 under JFK & LBJ, Not Nixon.
I feel almost worthless as every time I start trying to respond to the problems given, you beat me to the punch, and I end up deleting my answer that you give. Thank you for making my points. I enjoy these shows. Keep it up! Have a good day!
Nice Deadpool shirt!
As a Swede I own an AR15 for hunting, mine is a Stag Arms retro with 20 inch barrel. Looks like an A2 from a little distance but has the removable carry handle of later models. I removed the carry handle and put an illuminated 1-6x20 on it. Used it to take a six point roe buck so far. Fun rifle
The very very first semi-auto only model of the AR-15 was the GX-4968 from 1963 a test example for the ATF very shortly before the XM16E1 was adapted by the army.
I don't think the ATF existed in 1963?
@@ES90344The ATF was originally formed as a division of the IRS in 1952 as the IRS ATFD (Internal Revenue Service: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division) and existed that way until 1972 when it was split away from the IRS and reorganized into its own federal agency now known as the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives).
So yes, the ATF did exist in 1963, it was just still a part of the IRS at the time.
Fantastic, expert discussion. Thank you.
One huge advantage of the AR/M16 family compared to the SLR is that the zeroing was not affected if you broke down the weapon for cleaning as the rear and front sights are on the same barrel/upper receiver assembly.
NZ and Australia split the difference in Vietnam and had both, where the M16 replaced the SMG in squads. (commander, RTO, etc)
re: the SLR vs M16, I've read the (probably wholly apocryphal but maybe someone knows better) story that some considered a smaller round desirable because if you hit someone and wounded but didn't kill them you could tie up enemy personnel trying to give them medical attention etc. effectively taking more than one person out of the fight with a single round whereas 7.62 was more likely to take someone completely out with one round.
@@DavidChongit’s true. It was a bleeding edge theory at the time that velocity increases would make up for the smaller round, and ensure the round fragmented once it hit its target.
@@DavidChongIt may be a minor advantage in some cases, but I doubt it was very deliberate. It certainly isn't why 5.56 (and other intermediate cartridges) were adopted.
They were adopted for three main reasons (well, maybe 2.5 as two are closely related).
First is simply the ability to carry more ammunition. A single 7.62mm NATO cartridge weighs about two and a half times as much as a 5.56mm NATO cartridge. They are also physically much smaller making 30 round 5.56 magazine is only a bit longer than a 20 round 7.62mm magazine. This is a big advantage over a round like 8mm Kurz or 7.62x39).
A corollary to this is it allowed for smaller guns when getting in and out of vehicles.
Second, follow up shots are much more rapid and accurate. This is the fundamental benefit of intermediate cartridges. All else being equal, the first shot isn't going to be much better, but the second shot can be much faster, more accurate, or both.
Third (which could just be considered an extension of the second), controllability in automatic fire. While everyone looked to adopt a select-fire FAL, M-14, G3, etc enabling the regular soldier to provide automatic fire in a pinch, it was always determined that they were not controllable enough to be used that way and most has their automatic setting removed or blocked.
All M16s are an AR15, not all AR15s are M16s
AR15 is the model of rifle, M16 is the government specified set up of the rifle via contract. Theres more to it, but this is the simplistic way to understand
What about British gun nomenclature? Add another star?
M16A3? No, M16 Mk3*. 😂
@@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz
Rifle, 5.56mm, Black, Sneaky-Beaky-Types, for the use of, mk1.
@@BHuang92 the asterisks (stars) designated which features were removed to reduce cost during manufacture.
Couple of examples.
The no1 mk III * has the magazine cutoff windage adjustment on the rear sight and volley sights removed along with a few design simplifications to the cocking piece.
The MLE mk I* has the mount for the cleaning rod removed.
Always good information from you. Keep up the good work and thank you!
I see Jonathan Ferguson got a taste of the twitter war that BoTR has found himself stuck in for months now xD
Thanks Jonathan. The video is very informative and a delight to watch.
Thank you, Johnathan. The way I explain it is that "AR15" is Colt's internal nomenclature for a specific design family. "M16" is the military's nomenclature for a specific family of weapons platform.
All M16s are gentically AR15s, but not all AR15s become M16s.
Also, landing in Belize in the late 80s and seeing SAS sunning themselves next to a Hawk missile battery was quite comforting. 🍺
that is how I also seen it
reminds me of aviation and vehicle designs. The manufacturer has its internal designation, and then the various countries militaries will designate them their way.
In short, the source of the M16's early reputation for being unreliable came down to two main factors, the first being the change in the type of gunpowder used in the M16's M193 5.56mm ammo and the second being the lack of cleaning kits being issued thanks to the gun being advertised as 'self-cleaning'. Originally the ammo was going to use a more relatively modern powder but due to budgetary reasons they decided to use up the remaining stock of WWII powder which had a higher pressure, greatly increasing the gun's firerate beyond what it was originally designed for and massively increasing fouling in the chamber.
Non chromed chambers also caused corrosion and made spent cases harder to extract.
Most reliability issues went away after the swap from the edgewater buffer. The powder wasn't an issue clearly, since we still use that powder today for M855.
@@teabullsIt was a contributor because it has more fouling, and they weren't cleaning it. Either way it would have jammed, but using cheaper powder made it worse
@@teabulls The issue with the powder is that it changed the dwell time from what the rifle was designed around, the new buffer in the M16A1 fixes that problem.
The chrome was also really critical, as it dramatically improved the ability to extract under all circumstances, in addition to its other benefits. One of the recognized problems with the pre-A1 M16 was that leaving a round chambered could make the case stick really badly (referred to as the cartridge "swelling" by some, though it had more to do with corrosion), therefore everyone started patrolling with a loaded mag and an empty chamber, where you'd rack the bolt when it was go-time.
The M16A1 didn't have to do that anymore.
@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine the edgewater buffer was also stupidly fragile.
One other thing the barrel rate of twist on pre A-1 had a one in 14 inch rate of rifling where as the A-1 had one in 12 inch rate of twist
The M16 with it's M203 is a timeless look, still looks great.
I've tried to tell people that there are selective fire rifles marked AR-15, but never convinced anybody, even fellow veterans. (But I've always been a bit of a gun nerd).
Thanks for this!
The M16 is an AR15. One quibble - the A1 isn't really a "fixed" version of the M16 - the M16 got all the same improvements that the A1 did as the rifle was developed.
I thought I'd caught that by immediately explaining that 'M16' was actually the USAF model, but looking back I didn't stick the landing as people might think the USAF M16 was the problem child and the US Army XM16E1/M16A1 was the "fixed" version. Sigh. Hazards of recording without a script.
The Army thought the A1 was the "fixed" version as they thought the inability to force the action closed was a flaw.
thanks, John, for this opportunity to take the nomenclature thing like you did with an AK.
"Sir, we have a problem with the Rifle, should we slightly re-desing?"
"No, let´s put a fix on it.. Slam it, here"
"We have another Problem Sir.."
"There´s room for another fix in the buttstock"
The forward assist didn’t really solve a “problem”. It addressed a fear of some of the military brass.
Cleaning kits stowed on rifles are as old as rifles, so again not really a problem.
The recoil buffer was made heavier to correct dwell time, the chamber and bore was plated with chrome to dramatically improve lifespan and extraction, the birdcage flash hider wouldn't get stuck on vegetation and break as easily, the fencing around the magazine release prevents accidentally dropped mags. These are all key changes from the M16 to the M16A1.
@@atomicsmith
It does solve a problem, more than one. Besides the fact that there are countless ways where the travel of the bolt carrier can be slowed down enough to stop (ambient dust, magazine damage, extreme cold weather, etc), without there being any actual physical obstruction in the chamber or in the bolt carrier's path, the extractor on the the AR15 does not engage the groove on the cartridge until the action is about an inch away from being closed.
Without using the forward assist to force the bolt carrier to go forward so the extractor can grab the groove on the cartridge case, there are some malfunctions which can not be readily addressed with any real ease. This can also be used for removing a partial spent case after having a case head separation, by jamming another empty case up into the remains of the first one so it 'grabs' onto it, letting you pull it out.
@@atomicsmith you´re right.. then again i am from germany :D
@@atomicsmiththe forward assist absolutely addresses problems with the bolt not making it fully into battery. Even if it were only ever used in blank fire training exercises, then it was worth the investment/addition. Kyle Rittenhouse wouldnt be alive, if not for the forward assist. Eugene Stoner was an engineer first and foremost, he wasnt a grunt and has no understanding of the rigors and dynamics of combat. The forward assist was one of the very few things the military brass were absolutely correct about. When used properly, it only solves problems. It isnt a jam enhancer as you stoner blowhards like to call it.
As an American from the 50's the M16 was military and the AR-15 was at my local gun dealer. I was hoping to see the select fire options off the various rifles shown here. thanks!
The source of the semantic confusion is the US *ATF* ☆.
In about 1972, there was an *internal* ATF memo to start using the terms "AR-15" for semiautomatic rifles, and "M16" for selective fire rifles, just as shorthand. The very memo states the author realized it was inaccurate for the same reasons you state - all M16s are AR15s, and M16 is just a US DOD logistics nomenclature for the adopted selective fire rifles.
From that point forward, ATF started comsistently using this false terminology to distinguish between semiautomatic only and selective fire AR15s.
.
☆ ATF is the common name of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives - the weirdness is because they were started as a excise rax collection department within the Internal Revenue Service. When Prohibition was overturned in 1933, all the agents who previously had been chasing bootleggers were transferred to collecting alcohol taxes, with tobacco and (with the 1934 National Firearms Act to regulate machineguns and such) firearms tacked on to add enough work to employ most of the Booze Cops who were now mostly not needed (it taking a lot fewer revenue agents to collect taxes from publicly licensed alcohol manufactures than to chase moonshiners and bootleggers).
Thank you - that's really interesting! I'd love to track down the memo. I suspect Colt marketing/marking would have been enough for customers to start the confusion all on their own but I don't think we'd be getting this level of pushback/denial without this political underpinning.
Hey I asked you in that other video where tou mentioned this. Do you happen to recall any more details about that memo? I'd like to track it down.
I very much enjoy your work Jonathan!
As an avid gun enthusiast many of your videos are very engaging, whether or not I learn something new!
Keep it up! 😁
arguing the Ar15 is not a millitary weapon is arguing the wrong point, it shouldnt matter that the millitary allso uses it. legislation should concentrate on what the object actually is not who uses it, the SKS was a millitary weapon does that make it inherintly more dangerous to own?
Laws trying to ban "military weapons" are inherintly stupid because all it leads to is new guns and calibers being created that emulate the millitary weapons just like in canada for example.
And in the USA, it's irrelevant anyway since the 2A covers military weapons just the same as ones designed specifically for civilian purposes.
And if you think about it revolvers were even military haha
I mean if we're being technical here most weapons can be and were military weapons at some point, Axes, bows and arrows, hammers and shovels even, glass bottles and rice cookers can be made into fire bottles and IEDs
A gun being a military weapon would mean it was considered good for use on humans. (My unusual wording is because of the TH-cam algorithm being aggressive in deleting comments).
Now there are plenty of other guns that aren't military but are equally capable in this regard, but any gun useless against humans will not have been adopted by a military.
If you want an easy, enforceable way to restrict weapons that are good against people without restricting ones that aren't, well it's a crude instrument, but it's not the worst metric ever. Every gun you ban will be one you wanted to ban, you'll just have some you fail to ban. Underreach rather than overreach.
Of course this logic only works if you don't consider self defense from humans a valid reason to own a firearm. If you consider that a valid reason well suddenly military equipment actually looks like something you'd want to encourage.
This is what drives me crazy with folk arguing that all auto ARs are M16s - they're arguing the wrong thing and in bad faith.
5:31 That is the first rifle I used and worked on in the military....ones marked AR-15 / M-16. And yes, it was select fire.
HOWEVER, if you pull the bolt carrier out of the one you're holding and compare it to the carrier in the SP1 model, they're quite different (especially the bottom cut-out for the hammer and its slope).
Finally a video I can pester my friends and server with
Always good to see a video from Jonathan Ferguson, the Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armories Museum in the UK, which houses an iconic collection of thousands of weapons from throughout history.
I've always wondered why the A1 flash hider wasn't replaced with the A2 style earlier. It seems to be such an obvious idea, yet the same mistake had occured with different firearms multiple times.
Open tine has better flash reduction than closed tine.
@@ParanoidWarpig1 The M16A1 is closed as well but has slots all the way around unlike the M16A2
The fully open birdcage cannot be installed incorrectly. The partially occluded flashhider potentially can be.
@@SlavicCelery It definitely can be if you don't torque it down enough. And personally I'd prefer to have the slots even right to left even on an A1 flash hider. The main reason they went to the A2 I believe is because when prone the bird cage kicks up a lot of dust. The A2 also somewhat acts as a compensator.
Crazy making...Thanks for a brilliant effort.
I met a British officer in Balad, Iraq, who had served in Belize. Over several rounds of fine 21-year-old Lagavulin whiskey, he regaled us with a rather funny take on the situation in Belize. There was (is?) an ongoing border dispute with their neighbor, Honduras. Every once-in-a-while, the Hondurans would cross the border, set up a camp, and raise their flag. In response, a British patrol would be sent to the area, by which time the Hondurans had "declared victory", and retreated back over the border. All very well choreographed so that no one on either side would get hurt. However, there was an incident where an overzealous / nervous Honduran soldier fired at the Brits, when either the Brits arrived early, or the Hondurans retreated late. The Hondurans commander allegedly sent a communique to the British commander, apologizing for the young soldier's "breech of etiquette"! 😂
Minor detail: it’s a dispute between Belize and Guatemala. There are only land borders in Belize with Guatemala and Mexico. Honduras is across a small gulf.
Guatemala claimed Belize as its own territory, and that it was promised a Caribbean port (in Belize, they said). Eventually Guatemala built their own, as they did have their own ~75 km seacoast on the Caribbean. Never clear why they didn’t do that earlier…
A very polite war
Thank you for showing us these examples Jonathan Ferguson, the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history.
I carried an M16A1 for many years. Mine was made by the Hydra Matic Div. of General Motors. Later I carried an M203 and an M60. If you had to carry it on patrol, you would definitely be in favor of a lighter weapon.
Much as I adore the M4 MWS/Sopmod and M16A-4, there's always gonna be mad love for the Vietnam era M16/M16A-1 with nary an over dressed rail mounting or fancy red dot optics.
We had these when I was in Singapore/ Malaysa. AR-15 with Colt markings. Single or full auto, no forward assist, twenty round magazines and three prong flash hider. Light and ideal for the Malay jungle. Got a few phtos in interested Jonathan.
Talking of Belize independence, we were dug in near the Guatemalan/ Belize border as they had threatened to invade .
Very pleased with myself for immediately spotting the wrong pistol grip, immediately corrected that by thinking the forward assist is the wrong type (shouldn't it be the smaller round type?) Enjoyed the twitter exchanges, gave me a giggle when this topic show3ed up in my feed.
Talk about not knowing who you’re talking to, arguing with Jonathan Ferguson the keeper of firearms and artillery at the Royal Museum about a firearm designation.
You said the AR-15 was issued to British troops in Malaya (Malaysia) and Borneo. That answers a question I have had in the back of my mind for a while. When I visited the Australian War Memorial Museum a few years ago I saw a picture of Aussie troops in Malay around 1965 and one was carrying an M-16. I wondered how he could have had an M-16 when the US Army was only just starting to issue them to their troops in Vietnam at the time.
Australia bought a few hundred AR-15s from Colt in the early 1960s, a couple years before the XM16E1. I'm not sure about their procurement after that.
@@688attacksub8 Thanks that helps explain that picture at the Australian War Memorial
I joined the Air Force in 1975. It's been a long time, and it's possible my memory is faulty, but I'm pretty sure that ours were marked AR-15. As noted, they also lacked the jam enhancer, an utterly useless feature which i despise and have never needed. 😆
The jam enhancer... good one.
However, the forward assist is essential in "quiet" operations, where one needs to drop the bolt slowly, to avoid the noise of letting fly home.
Since the charging handle does not reciprocate, like on the original AR-10, or M1 Garand or M14, a means was needed to ensure the bolt was in battery, in those instances.
@@rreedy788 Everyone says that, but I've never been unable to seat the bolt with my thumb. I've done it just out of curiosity, but in practice, if you didn't put one in the chamber as soon as you thought things might get tactical, you already messed up.
@@itsapittie
Yeah. well... more than a few Vietnam Vets and Spec Ops will say different.
Also... as I mentioned, the M1, M14 had a reciprocating handle... which I have had to use numerous times, as it is the same on the M1A1 and Mini 14s I own, not to mention the AR-15 pattern rifles I own...
One can't always just let to bolt slam home... and you are a Mo Ron, with a small mind to think you can.
Great video from one Jonathan to another.
if the title says AR-15, I 'll watch
I have a Colt 614. It is a factory full-auto rifle marked AR-15, previously used by the West Virginia State Police before they sold it to buy much cheaper post 86 guns
It doesn't say M16 anywhere on the rifle, and 614 is the Colt model number for what the US military called the M16A1
stay safe!
When I worked in the armory at Castle AFB in 1982 we had a bunch of M-16's that were marked AR-15 in the same way as the M-16/M-203 unit that you showed. Most had 3 prong flash suppressors.
I do appreciate you keeping present-day political machinations out of the machine's history.
Until it gets used by Gun grabbers in congressional hearings (As expert testimony) to ban AR-15's
For comparison to the M16A1 rifle which has an overall length of 38.81 inches, a barrel length of 20 inches and weight of 8.81 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine for 5.56×45mm cartridges, the M4A1 carbine instead has an overall length of 33 inches when its butt stock is fully extended, a barrel length of 14.5 inches and a weight of 7.75 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine for 5.56×45mm cartridges. Compared to the M16A1 rifle, the M4A1 carbine has a collapsed length of 29.75 inches when its butt stock is fully retracted.
The M16A1 magazine was not intended for the NATO cartridge and the rifle is not intended to fire it, except in emergencies.
AR's and lager beer, yes please? Thank you, Sir.
My two favorite things in life.
I'm sad I missed this video. I was there in the trenches with you on Twitter. When I saw you got involved, I was tickled pink.
This might be contentious
Not really. It's going to be ignored by some, but it isn't wildly difficult to understand.
@@Stevarooni OK calm down dear.
I used to own a Colt SP1 made on my birth year, 1966. It had a 3 prong flash hider, slab sides and it was an excellent shooter.
Square:rectangle::M16:AR15
@8:00 - So, from what I have seen you show all of the M-16's were 5.56, but all of the AR-15's were in '.223' caliber. Is that the difference?
The argument here in the US is caused by political nonsense. Pro 2nd amendment people have been unfortunately led into a silly and unimportant side argument because the other side likes to control language and uses that to control the debate.
The anti 2a crowd raves about 'weapons of war should not be allowed' so the pro 2a argue 'it is not a weapon of war'. This misses the fact that the 2nd is designed for the populace to have weapons of war for defense of self and community.
And the whole 2A argument misses the point reiterated in the 10th...The United States, aka the Federal Government, i.e. Congress was delegated no power to regulate, restrict, ban, or otherwise control arms in the first place:
"In the final days of the Constitutional Convention, as delegates rushed to complete work on the final draft of the Constitution, George Mason of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed that the Constitution be “prefaced with a bill of rights.” On September 12, 1787, after little debate, the proposal was unanimously rejected by the delegates as unnecessary to protect individual rights" - www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/demand-for-a-bill-of-rights.html
Or as Madison explained to the Virginia ratification convention, as to why they did this:
“All Political Power is inherent in the People, therefore, a Constitution is necessary to specifically state what Powers the people are giving to their government. Thus, a Bill of Rights is not needed, as we have not given to this government the power to interfere with your rights.” James Madison
What's even sillier is that the "anti" people legitimately do not care about details, especially technical jargon. They see an AR-15 and they see weapon of war, you can only destroy your own credibility to tell them they have lying eyes. I agree it's a military weapon and we should just point to 2A for justifying ownership.
Yes, we need to "lean into" the anit 2a's argument that these are weapons of war, instead of arguing against. The same as knives, swords, bows and arrows, crossbows, clubs, sticks and stones. You know what they all have in common? They are tools. Nothing more, nothing less.
@@popuptarget7386 When the "anti" people see an AR they see a weapon of war, it does nothing for our credibility to tell them they have lying eyes. They literally don't care about the technical details or jargon either. I agree that 2A is the most effective argument, it's the law of the land.
Weapons of war...that's all but a lever action Winchester or a daranger...
Great video
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's easy to navigate the semantics of AR-15 vs M16 as a distinction of design vs designation. AR-15 is the design or "model" (like car model) of rifle, whereas M16 or M4 or KS-1, etc, is the specific military designation of a particular specification of AR-15. For example, the M4 is a designation of AR-15 for the US Military that is typically select fire, carbine length, chambered in 5.56, has a particular barrel profile, etc. They can be manufactured by different companies, such as Colt or FN Herstal. The same convention exists with other military designations as well, such as the M9 vs the Beretta 92, or M24 / M40 vs the Remington 700. These are all designations / adoptions of a design.
For a non-firearm example, think of police cars in the United States. Most police departments use some form of Police Interceptor, but we can think of the classic Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, which are still largely in use. This is a particular flavor and specification of the Ford model Crown Victoria created for use by police departments, but it is still a Crown Victoria car model in essence, just with some extra requirements.
To put is simply, the requirements and the requirements source are the cause of the designation. An AR-15 created with very similar or even identical specifications to the M16 but without a contract or purpose of being used by the US Military as an M16 is not an M16. It would probably be called an M16 style AR15 or M16 clone.
A hypothetical: The US Military wants a standard issue keyboard for its computers. It decides on the IBM Model M keyboard design, but wants a standardized and specific color, legend, layout, cable, etc. It receives a designation, let's call it M104 because it's a 104 key layout. Every M104 is an IBM Model M keyboard, but only keyboards created for use by the military with this specification and purpose are M104, likely with a marking to distinguish that. Other manufacturers or even IBM itself might create consumer versions of this keyboard that anyone can buy, but these would be M104 style keyboards, or M104 clones.
KS-1 is KAC's trademark, not a military designation. The UK gave the KS-1 the designation "L403A1-AIW".
@@688attacksub8 TIL, thanks!
The M16 was the US military designation for the Colt model 601. To be an M16, it must meet the specifications of an M16. The Canadian C7 is also a variant of the AR-15, but cannot be called an M16 because it does not meet the specifications. The Canadian army put forth their own specs which were different.
@@armynurseboy Thanks for the extra info!
Love the shirt bro!
The primary reason why many of us insist on the distinction, incorrectly or not, is that there is there is a decidedly important political difference. A selective fire AR-15 or M-16 is regulated by the National Firearms Act (1934) and if manufactured later than 1986, under the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986). The former, can still be legally purchased by individuals that go through the paperwork and pay the transfer tax. The latter are restricted to military and law enforcement purchases.
A semi-automatic only AR-15 is just another rifle. Functionally, it is the same as a Remington Model 8 (1908) hunting rifle, albeit chambered for a cartridge that didn't exist in 1908. Firearms prohibitions call it a weapon of war, even though it is not an assault rifle like the M-16/M-4. The two variations have different trigger groups. It would take some metalwork on the lower receiver to exchange the trigger groups. Most users are not going to risk messing up their AR-15 and violate federal law to convert their semi-automatic AR-15 to (fully) automatic.
The confusion over nomenclature makes it more difficult for us to preserve our remaining rights. I grant that the confusion for the AK pattern guys is even worse.
Let's not forget that the bolt carrier is a very different weight in the civil version. The civil market rifle has a much larger cutout in the bolt carrier making it lighter. If you were to do it right and hand the rifle to a certified master gunsmith for conversion to full automatic capability but kept the civil bolt carrier, the rifle would fire like a burp gun and probably sustain some internal damage. Coming out of the military with habits formed using M-16s, I can remember quite a few occasions, dropping the firing pin while reassembling the rifle because of the larger bolt carrier cutout in the civil version (always annoying because of all the dog fur around my floors, needed to clean the firing pin again). It's just another small distinction lost in the debate between fear and fact.
He's right, the original name for the select fire rifle invented by Eugene Stoner was AR-15 and the US army attached the name M16, because that's what they do with any weapon system that they procure. The name AR-15 was used before they ever made semi-automatic versions.
Im always wrong 😞
When I was in the US Army in the 80’s, the weapon issued to me said AR-15 and it was fully auto.
Ironically I am in the middle of a Facebook argument with some American "gun guys" about this very subject.
Break their minds by asking if they think g3 and mp5 are anything other than military adoption codes for the variants of hk51 and hk54 sold to the German military.
I would say bad example but much like colt with m16, hk trademarked g3 and mp5 after the adoption.
31? as 51 would be the short barrel version
@@VickyHong1879 hks cetme era based product codes. The first number is the firearms type, second is the calibre. Firearm type codes: 2 = machine gun 3 = rifle. 4 = sporterized/ civilian carbine 5 = smg. 7 = grenade launcher 9 = civilian rifle for American market. calibres codes 1 = 7.62×51. 2 is 7.62x39. 3 is 5.56x45 and 4 is 9x19 9 is 40mm grenade. So the hk33 is a 556 rifle. The hk53 is an smg in 5.56. then a k after that = kurtz (short) barrel version of the firearm type or zf or SG would be sharpshooter variant of the rifle. Then TGS designates grenade launcher equipped.
It is both! When I was in basic training I was issued a m16a1 rifle that was plainly marked on the receiver Colt AR 15!