Sign Of The Times

[Wayne SW/MO]

I think that is easy to answer F&F. The press uses the word assault and the most horrendous crimes have been carroed out by assault rifles. The real culprit is of course untehered mental illness suppprted by apathy. A shotgun would do as much damage, maybe more, but they don't fit the assault category well because they come in so many configurations.

I don't know how many already know the story behind the AR, but I was in the service when the AR was accepted and what many don't know is that it was turned down by the Army and the Marines. It was cold war time and the Garand had served well against the Mausers and the Ariskas. NATO had adopted the .308 and the Garand had been chopped and remolded making it ready for open warfare in areas like Europe or Korea. The Air force on the other hand was anxious to upgrade from the carbine. It had had to defend munition dumps and airfields in Korea and the carbine wasn't a good weapon for the job. The Air Force like the AR and bought it and that started production. Of course later the Army found iyself facing the AK in Nam and found the M1A1 was a club. The AR was in production on a large scale, thanks to the Air Force and its need so ramping up the output of the AR wasn't impossible.

[tho1mas]

Do not forget the M-14. It wasn't around very long. I used it in 1966 at Ft. Sill.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Yeah I couldn't remember exactly what is was, I was thinking M1A1 for some reason.

[Feathers and Fins]

I wonder what the Native Americans called the Colt Peacemaker or the Winchester 73? And for mental illness none of the Killings has struck that note clearer than the notes by Charles Whitman.

[Kelroy]

The Army Ordnance Board absolutely hated the AR15 because it was designed by a private outside entity, the ArmaLite division of Fairchild. The AOB's idea for a lightweight, select-fire weapon was to rechamber the M2 carbine by necking it down to .22 caliber (5.7 Johnson etc) The fledgling NATO alliance was looking to standardize a service weapon/caliber and most were in favor of the British EM2 bullpup and its intermediate .280 cartridge. The AOB managed to ram the .308 down NATO's throat, so the M14's position was secured for awhile, but the upstart AR was seen as a direct threat to the AOB's entire business model. The resulting field trials were deliberately stacked in the M14's favor, by order of the AOB. Many of the test ARs were sabotaged, being completely stripped and reassembled using nonstandard parts (such as coathanger wire to pin the front sight base) After it was adopted into service, it was tragically shipped to troops in the field (who had trained on the M14) without any training manuals, instructions, or even cleaning supplies. A rumor was circulated that the rifle was 'self-cleaning' and some troops were even told to oil the cartridges to prevent jamming. To further it's woes, the AR was designed to function with the military's new Improved Military Rifle powder, but the issue ammo was rushed to production loaded with leftover Ball C2, causing excessive cyclic rates, chamber pressure, heat, and carbon buildup. Many saw all these problems as a continuation of the AOB's campaign to discredit the AR, and they were accused of criminal negligence (Ichord comission).

The Air Force's adoption was a backdoor maneuver to get the weapon into service. Eugene Stoner managed to stage a demonstration of the weapon (at a cookout for various military brass, where participants were allowed to shoot watermelons) and one of the weapon's new advocates was Curtis LeMay, hence the Air Force being the first to officially adopt.

[Wayne SW/MO]

They film we got telling us it was coming showed it taering through a concrete block wall. This was the early ones that were full auto. I don't know when exactly it reached the AF, but we were asked for an inventory of our M1 carbines and grease guns in '62. We didn't have any M2's.

Hodgon made a fortune with surplus ball C for the parent to the 223.

[Kelroy]

1962 sounds right, followed by the army around 64. The USAF version was the original ArmaLite AR-15, designated M-16 by Colt. It lacked the chrome-lined chamber and forward assist mechanism of the army's M-16A1. It also retained the original three-prong flash supressor which was replaced by the A1-s birdcage.

Interesting influence the USAF had on M16 design. The original AR15 had a 1/14 rifling twist which stabilized the 55gr bullet in flight but allowed it to tumble upon impact. During testing, it was found that in sub-zero temperatures the poor ballistic coefficient of the 55gr bullet caused a serious degradation of accuracy, and the rifling twist had to be increased to 1/12 to compensate. At more normal temps, the 1/12 twist over-stabilized the bullet and reduced it's tendency to tumble, thus reducing it's lethality. (The sub-zero performance was important for the USAF's consideration, for deployment at some of it's colder air bases) Since the AOB already hated the M16, it wasn't about to tolerate the logistical hassles of having two different issue barrels for the same weapon, so all M16s were required to use the faster 1/12 twist. Thus, the weapons we sent to fight in the jungle were actually modified to fight in sub-zero temps. Typical government bureaucracy.

[MOPanfisher]

I'll be the first to admit that the historical significance of the M16/AR15 is lost on me. However anyone that believes the AR 15 is not a very adequate to even outstanding Home SD weapon is wrong. The comments of overpenetration would be valid if the user is shooting FMJ or AP rounds, however with more modern light fast HP ammo the penetration of the .223 is considerably less than that of most pistol rounds, and larger buckshot rounds. Personally I had no real interest in an AR 15 until a deputy talked me into shooting his, light, fast to the shoulder and quite accurate. Fast forward a few years and a co-worker/buddy loaned me his for an evening, my mistake was taking it home to let my wife shoot it. It took about 2 shots for her 14 years of Army Reserve service (including a deployment to Kosovo) to kick in and she was on board with getting one. Which one I ended up is immaterial, however its usefulness become more and more apparent as I use it. I would describe it as a Saws-all, not the best for very many jobs but more than capable of doing them, and you never realize how handy it is until you have one. I live out in the country and the rifle over the door is more useful for feral dogs, armadillos and the like than for zombies, or rampaging motorcycle gangs. Instead of open sites mine has a very low powered scope that at first my wife didn't like but now wouldn't trade it for open sites. Light fast hollow points in the mag while doing "over the door duty", a 10 round mag of either 60 grain Nosler partitions or 55 grain Barnes TSX's for deer hunting and it is more than capable of taking deer (the Noslers leave an amazing amount of damage inside). At short range it is fast and accurate, doesn't overpenetrate with the HP ammo, and is ridiculously easy to control. My wife is intimately familiar with its workings, and doesn't like the recoil of a shotgun, I am only so so with a handgun, and shotguns are for flying things, I am a rifle guy at heart and always will be. The reason it is so popular is because its simply a dang handy little rifle, and with all the "extras" its so easy to customize you can have it in any configuration you want, from very short and light, to a long heavy varmit barrel. I don't fear the zombie hordes, nor the Gov't coming to get me and my scary firearms, I have way more faith in the military than that, but that is a whole other topic. Personally I don't like smart phones, I think they are ruining peoples ability to communicate in writing and face to face, but they aren't going away, and I don't care if other people own them by the bushel basket or not. And finally according to the FBI Stats long guns (rifles specifically) are one of the least used items to commit murder or crimes.

[jdmidwest]

Wayne, were you thinking about the 30 caliber M1 or the 308 M14. Both were replaced by the M16.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Wayne, were you thinking about the 30 caliber M1 or the 308 M14. Both were replaced by the M16.

The Garand and the carbine were both M1's. I had M1A1 stuck in my mind, have no idea why, when i was thinking of the M14. The M14 was a glorified Garand. It was slimmed down and chambered for the 7.62X? NATO. As everyone knows now it was no match for the AK47 in the jungles of SE Asia. Special forces were leaning more and more toward shotguns, captured Ak's and anything they could find except the M14.

The Air Force combat plan was strictly one of defense and evacuation and the shoulder small arms were for that. The Carbine was the weapon of choice with a few grease guns thrown in. If anyone has had a lot of experince with the carbine, I have, you know it left a lot to be desired.

AF personel wern't given a lot of training in the mechanics of the carbine and it's tendency to jam made it a borderline weapon.