The ARRSEPedia is the British Army encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Talk:M16 Rifle Series

From ARRSEpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There is bucketloads wrong with this article, almost all of the following is wrong, for instance:

Its original concept was as a lightweight, throwaway self-defence weapon for downed US Air Force crews ...

Stoner redesigned a civilian hunting round to deliver maximum energy at around 300 metres Magic accelerating bullets?

Variants of the basic design included the M203, with underslung 40mm grenade launcher; Colt Commando and later M4 carbines with shortened barrel and telescopic butt. The final incarnation, the M16A2 - a lengthened and strengthened version of the original design - is today the standard US Army Infantryman's Personal Weapon.

Almost all of this is very very wrong

gas was tapped into an above-barrel gas tube, to impact directly on the carrier of the rotating bolt to achieve recoil and reloading

Almost but not quite

A disconcerting feature of this philosophy is the "bolt assist" - a plunger on the right side of the receiver, to be used if the bolt fails to seat after cocking

Not due to the operating system per se, but due to the non reciprocating cocking handle

I haven't got time to rewrite this now, maybe later. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't bother posting it, Slim/BashaBasher/Bling-bling/Braith-Wafer/Browno/Bonney Eberndu/Canashea/Grenadier Toebanger/Gutaway/Jabroni/ Rickshaw/Sniffle Snaffle/Sniffle-snaffle/Trambuan/Waithbraite!

Look, the M203 is the underslung grenade launcher, not the combination.

The forward assist is necessary because of the non reciprocating cocking handle, and nothing to do with the gas system -- the AR 10 neither has nor needs one

The design is not "inspired" by a take down .22rf bunny gun for air crews.

The M-16 A2 is neither the final version, nor "lengthened and strengthened", the length and receiver being little changed from the original AR 15, with the exception of the forward assist

The AR 15 was never designated an "airfield defence rifle", you made that up. In fact, you made most of it up.

Stoner did not do the AR 10-AR 15 redesign, Robert Fremont and L. James Sullivan did. IIRC, the South Vietnamese were not issued with the M14, but with the World War II/Korea weaponry. Not 100% sure, so that stays in for now.

Frankly, this article requires a 100% rewrite from the start.


Building An Article

Guys - (Slim & Stoat in particular)

I take everything you say on board. Stop gettin' so bloody aggro: give me constructive criticism, and I'll rewrite. Basically, my sources are what I've read, and my personal experience of firing the thing. So - put in your edits (rather than the slipper) and I'll rewrite the article around them. I don't claim to be the oracle around here. (It's been quite a little learning experience all to itself.) Keep the edits coming, but - no abuse, OK?

Cheers, Cliff.

The current version on issue to the US Army is the M16A2 - basically a lengthened and strengthened version of the original

The M16A2 is neither lengthened nor strengthened from the original -- why did you put this back in? okay, so the buttstock is 5/8" longer and the barrel is heavier for accuracy reasons, but this is hardly "lengthened and strengthened"...


"I don't claim to be the oracle around here."

Not a lot of point in you writing the article then is there ?

"The inspiration for the design was the Henry Repeating Armaments [sic] AR7 Survival Rifle."

- Who designed it ? Not Henry Repeating Arms that's for sure !

- How was a blowback rimfire with single stack magazine the "inspiration" for a rotary-locking, fullbore, selective-fire, staggered mag rifle?

Because they both have dissimilar sights and a synthetc stock maybe ?

"When the USAF employed South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) troops as Airfield Defence Guards in Vietnam in 1963, they equipped them with the lightweight AR15."

As opposed to the heavyweight AR15 ? Or did they issue them each a USAF M16 ?

"The non-reciprocal cocking system"

What...? Does it cock the hammer using the Webley-Fosbery system ?

If you need to look information up to write the article, two points:

1. Do NOT rely on the Wiki or any other info resource that Brian Pondlife can edit.

2. Ask yourself if you really believe you are the correct person to write it.

Remember until the article is factual, all you are doing is spreading disinformation.

"It delivered its maximum energy at about 300 metres range, at a muzzle velocity of around 3250 feet per second" What formula did you use to arrive at this ?

^^^ that nonsense was taken out, and the idiot put it back in again! WTF? I guess he must imagine that it has Magic accelerating rocket bullets.... this whole article needs to be rebuilt from the ground up removing all the stuff which is 100% wrong, i.e. most of it. Fiddling around the edges does not help, because the bulk of it is wrong. eg .223 armalite cartridge? Doesn't exist!.223 Remington, however, does... Stoat

There is a way to make sense of it: if it is maximum energy-at-300-metres rather than maximum-energy at 300 metres. A very light bullet or a very heavy bullet might well both deliver less energy at 300m than the one being used. Whether that is the explanation, I don't know. Tode 10:34, 14 May 2007 (BST)

Stoat - Can the hysteria.

Instead, put on some soothing classical music (not Wagner's Ride Of The Valkyries, please); go to your obviously-extensive library; select "GUNS and how they work" by Ian V. Hogg; settle into your favourite comfy armchair; and r-e-a-d pages 152-156. Soothing stuff, believe me. Page 177 will solve your "magic accelerating bullets" dilemma. Enjoy. Chill. Peace, bro.

Cheers, Cliff.

My Breakfast Today Is ... Humble Pie

I've just re-read the section pertaining to maximum energy delivery by the 5.56mm round. There is no arbitrary range given for this effect. Hogg says, "... the amount of spin given to the bullet is only just sufficient to keep it stable throughout its calculated effective range, say to 1,000m (3,300ft)." There's more (regarding stability), but it finishes with, "If the upsetting factor is a target, then the toppling bullet delivers all its energy to the target in one massive blow - and it is this which accounts for the effect of the 5.56mm bullet." If I can find a way to write this in without being too wordy, I'll give it a try. (Or perhaps you can do it, Stoat?) I'm afraid I was distracted by another debate re. 5.56mm weapons, in which the arbitrary "battlefield range" of 300m was used as the basis for some tactical studies.

Cheers, Cliff.

OK, one more thing to look at (one of many):

Stoner threw out the original 7.62mm blueprints when it became apparent that it would be heavier than existing US weapons.

Where you got this from is a bit of a mystery... armalite proudly advertised the fact that the version of the AR 10 they were pushing was so much lighter than the M1 Garand that it took 50 rounds of NATO ammunition to balance the scale. The blueprints were certainly not thrown out, 10.000+ AR 10 rifles were produced. the redesign to AR 15 was carried out by Robert Fremont and James Sullivan, NOT Stoner.

Reference Ian Hogg, he falls into many of the mythology traps, and is often plain wrong: the copy of Jane's guns which I have states, for instance, that the FN P90 is in 9x19 mm, and the L86 fires from an open bolt in full automatic fire. a better source, particularly for American arms, is Smith & Smith "small arms of the world". the definitive sources are the " collector grade" publications.


Seeking greater hitting power, he [Stoner] redesigned a civilian (.222" Remington) hunting round. Giving it a longer case (and therefore a heavier charge) he renamed it the .223" Remington.

Again, another mystery: Stoner did not do this. Somebody at Remington did

When the USAF employed South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) troops as Airfield Defence Guards in Vietnam in 1963, they equipped them with their new lightweight assault rifle, by then known as the AR15.

By then it was known as the M16

BTW, the Wikipedia article is correct. Read it.


Vale M16 rifle series article

Stoat - check latest rewrite of M16 article. A humbling experience, but I've tried to correct the more glaring myths I carried into it. If you've anything further to add - feel free to edit at your pleasure. Ciao.

Cheers, Cliff. (250707 0035 Darwin time)