The universally respected M1 Garand service rifle was designed and developed at the U.S. Springfield Armory. During World War II, the rifle was manufactured by both the Armory and Winchester. During the 1950–1953 Korean War, the M1 was placed back into production, this time by the Springfield Armory, Harrington & Richardson and International Harvester. Along with M1 rifles, World War II M1 and M2 carbines were issued to U.S. soldiers and Marines.

During the last year of World War II, the U.S. Ordnance Department set out to develop a select-fire version of the M1 rifle. The effort resulted in a long line of T-prefix (Test) rifles that ran from the T20 in 1945 to the final T44E4 rifle in 1957. During the Cold War period, the U.S. and NATO Allies anticipated that the next conflict would take place in Eastern Europe. After a long and very expensive development period, it came down to two rifles: the Belgian-designed T48 (FN FAL) and the T44E4 designed and developed at the Springfield Armory. Both weapons were chambered for the 7.62 NATO cartridge. The U.S.-designed T44E4 was chosen and adopted as the U.S. M14 rifle in May 1957; although no M14s were issued until 1959. Most of the NATO Allies chose the Belgian-designed FN FAL in various guises.

The Vietnam War

Although U.S. military advisors and Special Forces personnel were in Vietnam since the early 1960s, the first U.S. combat troops didn’t arrive in Vietnam until 1965; they were armed with M14 rifles. Early in the conflict, the enemy, primarily the Viet Cong guerillas, were armed with an assortment of World War II weapons, along with weapons abandoned by the French forces when they withdrew from Vietnam in 1954. As the war progressed, communist allies of North Vietnam, primarily China, began to equip the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong with modern weapons, which included Chinese-made SKS semiautomatic rifles and select-fire, Type 56 (aka AK-47) rifles.

Soon U.S. troops discovered that the M14 was not well-suited for jungle warfare, particularly when pitted against enemy troops armed with AK rifles. Due to its powerful 7.62mm cartridge, the M14 was difficult to control during full-automatic operation; as a result, most M14s were issued with selector locks, limiting their operation to semi-automatic only. Another disadvantage of the M14 rifle was the size and weight of the 7.62x51mm round, limiting the ammunition load that could be carried. The enemy’s AK rifles had full-automatic capability, a 30-round magazine, and due to its smaller mid-range 7.62x39mm cartridge, a larger ammunition load could be carried. The enemy’s AK put the U.S. troops armed with M14 rifles at a lethal disadvantage in firefights.

As the M14 was entering into series production, ArmaLite®, a division of Fairchild Aircraft located in Southern California, was busy developing a small-caliber, select-fire rifle designated as the AR-15. ArmaLite had previously developed the AR-10 rifle chambered for the 7.62 NATO cartridge. The AR-10 was tested and rejected by the Ordnance Corps. ArmaLite had invested a lot of money and effort to market its AR-10 and AR-15 rifles but became discouraged after the U.S. adoption of the M14; the company was ready to cut its losses. On February 19, 1959, Colt® purchased the rights to the AR-10 and the AR-15 rifles; a few months later in August 1959, the first M14 rifles were delivered to the Army at Fort Benning.

The M16 had a lot of human engineering that made it user friendly. In addition to its lightweight, the fire control lever could be manipulated from safe to semi or auto with the shooter’s right thumb while keeping his hand on the pistol grip. The mag release button could be depressed by the trigger finger and the mag dropped out; a fresh magazine could be inserted straight into the magazine well without rocking, resulting in a fast magazine change. Upon emptying the magazine, the bolt catch held the bolt carrier to the rear. After inserting a new magazine, the shooter simply hit the top of the catch with his palm to release the bolt and chamber a live round. The weapon’s stock in line with the barrel reduced muzzle climb.

During 1961–1962, outside normal channels, a small number of AR-15 rifles were shipped to Vietnam for issue to Special Forces advisors and the South Vietnamese allies. Initial reports from the field were very favorable. Emphasis was placed on the lightweight of the weapon, controllability during full-automatic fire and its lethality. The early AR-15s shipped to Vietnam were fitted with 1:14-inch twist barrels. The 55-grain bullets were barely stabilized as they traveled to the target effecting accuracy, but upon striking the enemy, the bullets would yaw, tumble and fragment resulting in some devastating wounds.

The U.S. Air Force’s primary shoulder-fired weapons were the M1 and M2 carbines, dating back to World War II. However, the Air Force was not interested in adopting the M14 rifle. Air Force General Curtis LeMay had been introduced to the AR-15 by representatives from the Colt factory. The General felt that the lightweight AR-15 would be a suitable replacement for the old carbines. Initial Air Force requests to adopt the AR-15 were rejected, but LeMay was persistent, and finally, in May 1962 the purchase of 8,500 AR-15 rifles was approved; the price without the forward assist feature that the Air Force deemed unnecessary was $112.00 each. In addition to the Air Force, 20,000 AR-15s were procured for the Navy SEAL teams, U.S. military advisors assigned to Vietnam and the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) soldiers.

During 1963, the U.S. ended procurement of the M14 rifle and purchased 85,000 Colt XM16E1 rifles. By 1966, an additional 400,000 XM16E1 rifles were ordered, making it the most prolific rifle issued to U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam during that period.

Trouble in the Jungle

As early as 1965, there were reports coming in from the field of major problems with the M16 rifle; there were several contributing factors to create a perfect storm. Many troops were trained on the M14 and had not seen an M16 until they were issued one on arrival in-country and reportedly received little or no training. Troops were basically told that the M16 rifle did not require any maintenance, and as a result, no cleaning equipment was issued. A major contributing factor was the design of the rifle and the humid climate of Vietnam. One of the most common problems was failure to extract a spent cartridge case. The cause was found out to be a combination of problems: corrosion in the barrel and chamber, lack of preventative maintenance and a change in the gun powder used to load the M193 5.56mm cartridges, which increased the cyclic rate to a dangerous level.

The problems were discovered and solved by a new buffer, chromium plating the chambers and later the bores and chambers, a stainless-steel gas tube, issue of cleaning kits and training. After the fixes were in place, the M16 became a reliable weapon. During February 1967, Colt’s XM16E1 became the “U.S. Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1,” officially replacing the M14 as the “Standard A” infantry rifle.

Colt manufactured AR-15-M16 rifles in a large number of different configurations, far beyond the scope of this article. Most of the models presented are those used–issued to U.S. military personnel. Many of the rifles described were transitional models, and many had a mixture of updated and older features.

Model 601, 1959–1963

The  Model 01 rifles were the first issued by the U.S. military in limited numbers with 8,500 going to the Air Force and 1,000 for evaluation in project AGILE, a study to how best support South Vietnam. The weapons had no forward assist feature but had the triangle-type charging handle, “slab side” receiver, a chromed bolt carrier and bolt, a 1:14 twist barrel, a three-prong “duckbill” flash hider, green triangle forearms and a fixed buttstock, rubber buttplate without a trapdoor. The 20-round magazines were the early steel “waffle” pattern. The receivers were marked with both the ArmaLite and Colt names. The caliber was marked .223. Some of the early models were sold overseas; two of the first customers were Malaysia and India.

Model 602, 1963–1964

The Model 02 rifle incorporated the first changes that included the second design, three-prong open flash hider and improved charging handle. Receivers were roll marked “AR-15,” some with “Property of U.S. Govt.” markings—no forward assist feature, chrome bolt carrier and bolt. The receiver had a longitudinal rib (often referred to as a partial fence) primarily used to house a spring and plunger to retain the new captive front take-down pin and a redesigned ejection port door. The barrel was updated with a 1:12 twist to increase accuracy. It had a black fixed stock with rubber buttplate, no trapdoor and triangle forearm. Approximately 19,000 of these models were procured by the U.S. military.

Model 603, 1964 / 1967 / 1983

The Model 603 rifle was the commonly issued XM16E1 of 1964, with many transitional features evolving into the final M16A1 model during 1967 that solved most of the issues with the M14. The first production model was fitted with the forward assist feature and originally configured with the second design, prong-type flash hider, and later adopted the closed-end “bird cage” type. The rubber buttplate was later replaced by a buttstock and trap door to house a cleaning kit, the rear sling swivel was now fixed in place. A new buffer was designed and implemented. Early rifles had the partial “fence” on the right side of the magazine housing; newer models had the full “fence” to prevent accidental ejection of the magazine. Barrel chambers were chromium-plated to resist corrosion; later both the chambers and bores were chromium-plated. The internal surfaces of the bolt carrier and carrier key were also chromium-plated; outside surfaces of bolt and bolt carrier were parkerized. The firing pin was redesigned to prevent slam-fires. Magazine housings were “AR-15 / M16 Property of U.S. Govt.” marked. A 30-round magazine was introduced during 1969. To keep up with the demand for M16A1 rifles, in 1968 the initial second and third source contracts were awarded to the Hydramatic Division of General Motors and Harrington and Richardson Arms Inc. The M16A1 remained in service with the U.S. until gradually being phased out by the M16A2 rifle, adopted by the U.S. Marines in 1983 and the Army during 1986.

U.S. Air Force Colt Model 604 “Property of U.S. Govt. AR-15/M16” marked. The Air Force model did not have the forward assist feature.

The XM16E1 was first procured in 1964; there were a number of changes implemented in the design to improve its reliability before evolving into the final M16A1 rifle in 1967.

Model 604

This rifle was the primary model adopted by the U.S. Air Force without the forward assist feature. Early models had chrome-plated bolt carriers and bolts without the serrations used for forward-assist-equipped rifles. To simplify the supply system later, Air Force rifles had bolt carriers with the serrations and three-prong flash hiders; later models had the “bird cage” type. “AR-15 / M16 Property of U.S. Govt.” marked.

Model 609

Model 609 was the short-barrel version of the M16 rifle designated as the XM177 with a 10-inch barrel and a moderator approximately 4 inches in length to reduce noise and muzzle flash from the short barrel—no bayonet lug, no forward assist, aluminum telescoping two-position buttstock. The XM177E1 was similar with the forward assist feature. The XM177E2 was the same as the E1 model but had a longer 11.5-inch barrel.

Model 613

The Model 613 was the commercial export and police model of the M16A1 with the forward assist feature. Receivers were marked “M16A1.”

Model 614

Model 614 was the commercial export and police model of the M16A1 without the forward assist feature. Receivers were marked “AR-15.”

Model 619

Commercial export and police model of the XM177E1 Commando with a 10-inch barrel with a moderator, telescoping buttstock and forward assist.

Model 639

Commercial export and police model of the XM177E2 Commando with an 11.5-inch barrel, moderator, telescoping buttstock and forward assist.

The adoption of the AR-15 rifle and its small caliber cartridge met with strong opposition from the United States’ entrenched Ordnance organization, which did not want to accept a weapon designed by private industry. Other objections by military traditionalists were raised because of the AR-15’s unconventional appearance and construction of aluminum and plastic, which in their opinion did not look like a military weapon. Last was the .223/5.56mm cartridge, considered a step down from the tried and true .30-caliber standard.

After an uncertain start, the AR-15/M16 has had the longest service life of any other U.S. infantry rifle. It is still the same basic weapon issued today as the U.S. M4 carbine. The war in Vietnam saved the AR-15/M16 rifle, and possibly Colt, from extinction. If the United States had not gotten involved in the Vietnam War, the U.S. M14 rifle would have probably remained in production and the Standard “A” infantry rifle for many years; the AR-15 rifle would been forgotten and become simply a footnote in ordnance history. Today, the basic AR-15 design not only continues in service with the military of the U.S. and many foreign nations, it has arguably become the most popular civilian rifle, albeit in semi-automatic-only form, in the U.S. The AR-15-type rifles are now available from a very large number of manufacturers in a seemingly endless number of configurations and calibers, many hardly recognizable from the original rifle first introduced over 60 years ago.

[Link to Part II]

Recommended Reading

The Black Rifle, Volume I by Christopher R. Bartocci, R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell

The U.S. M14 Rifle: The Last Steel Warrior, Second Edition by Frank Iannamico

Manufacturer: J & T Distributing
Product name: M16 Buttstock Cleaning Kit, PN CJ101
Website: www.jtdistributing.com
Product description: M16 Buttstock Cleaning Kit
MSRP: $ 19.99

Manufacturer: J & T Distributing
Product name: M16 Castle Nut Wrench, PN AR753N
Website: www.jtdistributing.com
Product description: The M16 Castle Nut Wrench is designed to grab the nut at three different points helping to make sure it doesn’t slip off when installing or removing the buttstock castle nut.
MSRP: $ 12.99

Manufacturer: J & T Distributing
Product name: M16 Car Stock Wrench, PN AR753
Website: www.jtdistributing.com
Product Description: The M16 Carbine Stock Wrench gives quicker and easier removal, or installation of collapsible stocks. Firmly grasps the receiver extension nut without damage; no need to use a separate breaker bar. Convenient size for carrying in range bag or tool box.
MSRP: $ 9.99

Manufacturer: J & T Distributing
Product name: M60 E3 Combo Wrench, PN M60101
Website: www.jtdistributing.com
Product Description: M60 E3 Combo Wrench
MSRP: $ 24.99

Manufacturer: J & T Distributing
Product name: M16 Chamber Brush, PN CJ113
Website: www.jtdistributing.com
Product description: M16 Chamber Brush
MSRP: $ 2.99

Manufacturer: J & T Distributing
Product name: M60 Combo Wrench, PN M60100
Website: www.jtdistributing.com
Product description: M60 Combo Wrench
MSRP: $ 13.99

By Seth Nadel

The threads that weave the modern world sometimes make interesting connections. Here is one unlikely set of connections in our history that touches on fascinating, but unlikely spots.

First, the bazooka – it’s official name was the M6 rocket launcher, but a popular comedian of the 1940’s had a homemade ‘musical instrument’ he called a “bazooka”, that looked vaguely like the rocket launcher, so the name stuck.

At the start of World War II, the United States did not have any portable anti-tank device. Tanks were opposed by other tanks or anti-tank guns, first of 37mm and later of 57mm. These were large, cumbersome, required a vehicle to tow them, and a crew to employ them. The 57mm gun and carriage weighed 2,810 pounds, and the gun without carriage was 117 inches long. Obviously, something smaller and lighter, that troops could carry, was needed.

With the advent of the German “Panzerfaust” ( tank fist) using a hollow or shaped charge, the Germans led the way. We developed an anti-tank hand grenade, which was too large and heavy to throw any distance. The danger zone was greater than the distance the ordinary troop could throw the device – obviously a negative outcome. A young 2nd Lieutenant in the Ordnance Corps at Aberdeen Proving Grounds was assigned the task of developing a way to launch the grenade to a useful distance.

That Lieutenant, Edward Uhl, is said to have found a piece of pipe in a scrap pile that fit the 2.36” diameter of the grenade. Uhl ’acquired’ a simple solid fuel rocket motor, which he attached to the grenade, along with some tail fins. Bent wires welded to the pipe served as sights, and he was ready to test his invention.

The legend is that Uhl was headed toward the ranges, and found a range where testing of other anti-tank devices was about to begin. The stands were filled with high ranking officers, all with high expectations that the Ordnance folks had something to show them. Uhl and his assistant joined the end of the line of test units with his pipe. One by one the other devices were tried – and they all failed either to hit the target, or to penetrate it. Finally, Uhl took his position, fired his first rocket, and hit the target – with complete penetration! He then fired his second (and last) rocket, with the same result! As the other test teams sulked off the range, Uhl was surrounded by the Brass, and the 2.36 inch rocket launcher was adopted with little delay.

Proof that a single, inventive mind could skip all the protocol and still be a hero.

The Bazooka stopped many German tanks, and blew up countless German, Japanese, and Italian bunkers. It was produced in a ‘takedown’ two part version for paratroops, and in Korea was scaled up to 3.5”, a size that would stop the Communist T-34 tanks. Incalculable numbers of American troops survived because of Uhl’s invention.

After World War II, Uhl left the military, and joined Fairchild Aircraft. He rose to be the President of Fairchild, which created a small division to apply “space age” technology to the manufacture of firearms. Their special interest was very light weight weapons, utilizing aluminum and plastics rather than steel and wood for low or no stress components. At a time when a standard infantry rifle weighed 9 to 12 pounds, they eventually dropped the weight to 6 to 7 pounds – a big difference when you have to carry the rifle long distances day after day.

The branch was called ArmaLite, and the principal designer was, of course, Eugene Stoner. They developed the AR-7 .22 survival rifle, the AR-10 (7.62 NATO), AR-15 (5.56) and AR-18 (5.56) rifles which reached mass production. The AR-7 has waxed and waned through several manufacturers; the AR-10 is in limited production, the AR-18/180 has faded from the scene but reappeared as the British SA80 series; but the AR-15 lives on as the M16 series, which has morphed into the M-4 and its clones. Today it seems everyone is making a semi-auto AR rifle, and it has been our service rifle, in various configurations, for 50 years!

So what does this have to do with the Man on the Moon? As President of Fairchild, Uhl lead the company into space related products, including design and manufacture of early satellites. In the process he became friends with a scientist, a naturalized American of German descent, a former Nazi (when you are “invited” to join the party by the head of the SS, you better sign up!). They went hunting in exotic locals together, and became close. When the scientist decided to leave Government service with NASA, Uhl convinced him to go to work for Fairchild.

The scientist was, of course, Wernher von Braun, the face of the American space program, and part of the team that put America on the moon!

So Edward Uhl became the link between the Bazooka, the M-16, and the man on the moon!      

Original MAC box for their .22 M16/AR15 with conversion kit and magazine. (Courtesy of Wayne Daniel)

By Frank Iannamico

When first adopted 1964, the early M16 rifle was not an especially popular weapon. Its small cartridge, unusual appearance and unconventional construction made it difficult for military purists to accept. The M16 also encountered a number of reliability problems early in its service life, but by 1967 most of the issues encountered with the weapon were addressed with the introduction of the M16A1 model. In reality, the M16 proved to be accurate, controllable in automatic fire, and had less component failures than previous service weapons. In 1982, the M16A1 was replaced by the product improved M16A2. The U.S. Army adopted the M4 carbine in 1994, while the current Marine Corps general issue is the M16A4 rifle.

With the latest M4 and M4A1 carbines, the U.S. Army seems to finally have the weapon it had sought since 1939. A compact, powerful, accurate and lightweight rifle that is controllable in the full-automatic or burst mode of fire. The M4 features a 14.5-inch 1:7 twist hard-chrome lined barrel that can mount the M203A1 grenade launcher. The U.S. M4 has an adjustable telescoping buttstock to accommodate the size and physical characteristics of just about any soldier. The overall length of the M4 is 33.88 inches with the buttstock fully extended and 30.69 inches in the retracted position. Weight with a loaded thirty-round magazine is only 6.9 pounds. Firing the standard NATO Ball M855 cartridge, the M4 has a muzzle velocity of 2,900 feet per second. The M4 carbine achieves over an 80 percent parts commonality with the M16A2 rifle. The M4A1 features a modular upper receiver, with detachable carrying handle, fitted with the A2 style sights, and STANAG accessory rail on top of the receiver. The rail can mount a variety of hi-tech infrared and night vision optical devices and mounts. The rifle is expected to serve as the main infantry weapon of the U.S. military for the foreseeable future. The M16/M4 series of service rifles are well on their way to surpassing the U.S. service longevity record of the M1903 rifle.

During 1963, Colt decided to offer a semiautomatic version of the M16 rifle called the AR-15, the original name of the weapon before its adoption by the U.S. military. The rifle became popular during the 1980s “assault rifle” boom, especially with military veterans who were issued the M16. However, it would be during the new millennium when the AR-15 would become, arguably, as popular as the legendary 1911 pistol. When the rights for the AR-15 rifle expired, many companies began to make their own copies of the AR-15. Currently, there are approximately 50 companies manufacturing AR-15 type rifles and receivers, and the list is growing. Although the rifle is commonly known as the AR-15, the name AR-15 remains the registered trademark of Colt. In addition to rifles, the accessory aftermarket has boomed. Available are an endless number of upper receivers, handguards, stocks, foregrips, optics, sights and caliber conversions.

One feature of the original design is the rifle’s .223/5.56mm caliber, which lends itself to a relatively easy conversion to the economical .22 rimfire cartridge, while retaining the original barrel. The diameter of the .22LR rimfire bullet is .222-inches, while the M16 5.56 NATO cartridge bullet has a .224-inch diameter. The ability of firing .22 rimfire allows inexpensive target shooting, training and familiarization for young or inexperienced shooters, before transitioning to the standard .223/5.56mm rounds.

In the 1970s, the U.S. Army recognized the value of a .22 caliber conversion. An M16 converted to .22 caliber rimfire would be useful for training, particularly for army reserve units that did not have access to a range capable for live firing of 5.56mm rounds. Several kits available at the time were tested and evaluated; the conversions were designed for semi-automatic operation only.

Early M16/AR-15 .22 Conversions

The Military Armament Corporation

In addition to their MAC-10 and MAC-11 submachine guns, a popular product for the Military Armament Corporation was their kit to convert the U.S. M16 Rifle to fire .22 rimfire cartridges. The conversion kit was originally designed by Maxwell G. Atchisson in 1970. Needing a firm to manufacture his new M16 conversion kit, Atchisson contacted the Military Armament Corporation. He was hired by MAC as an engineer in 1971, and negotiated a deal, licensing MAC to produce and market the MAC/Atchisson AR-15, M16 .22 caliber conversion kits. The .22 caliber magazines were fabricated from Colt 20-round M16 magazines. For the next two years, the kits were manufactured and marketed worldwide by MAC.

The British and U.S. Army tested the kits with satisfactory results. MAC advertisements boasted that use of the .22 conversion kit was ideal for training new recruits and offered substantial savings in ammunition costs. The original Atchisson kits were not designed to function in the full-automatic mode of fire. The price of one kit in 1972 was $69.95 with discounts for large orders. The .22 conversion kits were sold to many foreign governments who were issuing the M16 rifles.

An MAC/Atchisson .22 conversion kit was shipped to the Marksmanship Committee at Fort Belvoir, Virginia for testing and evaluation during May 1972. Reportedly, the unit fired 16,000 rounds of .22 caliber ammunition during a twelve-week period without any major functioning or accuracy problems. The conversion unit was evaluated and passed the Military Potential Test at Fort Benning, Georgia. MAC literature printed during 1972, boasted that the M16/.22 conversion kit successfully passed U.S. Military Testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground; however, the only purpose of the test was to determine if the unit was deemed safe enough for further testing.

Atchisson left the Military Armament Corporation in February 1973. After leaving MAC, Atchisson renamed his conversion unit the Atchisson MK I, and began work on an improved version, which became the Atchisson MKII Conversion Device. A final improvement to the device was the addition of a firing pin from the Ruger 10/22 rifle, this variant was designated as the MKIII and was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic operation. Atchisson signed an agreement with the Walker Aldridge and Kelly (W.A.K.) Company of Fairborn, Ohio, giving them the rights to manufacture and market his MKII design. Later, a firm called Brocal Inc. acquired the rights to Atchisson’s conversion device. During 1993, Jonathan Arthur Ciener of Titusville, Florida acquired the rights to the MKII and later the MKIII .22 conversion device. Mr. Ciener still manufactures and markets the MKIII device today.

John Foote, another former employee of the Military Armament Corporation, had also designed and built a .22 caliber conversion kit for the AR-15 and M16 rifle. His design competed with Atchisson’s for adoption by the U.S. Army. After the usual extensive testing and government red tape, Mr. Foote’s conversion unit won the competition and was adopted by the Army as the .22 Caliber Adapter, M261. The M261conversion was blow-back operated, with a 10-round magazine designed to fit inside a standard 20-round M16 magazine. The first production run was subcontracted out to Okay Industries, of New Britain, Connecticut. A second contract was awarded to Maremont of Saco, Maine. Mr. Foote later formed his own company, the U.S. Armament Corporation. Mr. Foote eventually sold the company and the rights to the M261 .22 caliber conversion kit.

After Atchisson’s original .22 M16/AR-15 conversion proved successful, other designers, seeing the market potential of conversions, began to design their own similar device. A .22 conversion device developed at the Rock Island Arsenal was the work of Ronald Elbe. Colt, the manufacturer of the AR-15 and M16 rifles, offered their .22 conversion kit designed by Henry Into. There was also a .22 rimfire conversion designed by U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant Julius V. Jurek. The “Air Force” conversion had a rifled chamber insert, and was gas-operated. The 10-round magazines were made of white nylon. It was the only kit that locked the bolt open on the last shot. All of the kits were individually serial numbered.

Modern .22 Conversion Kits

With the current popularity of the AR-15/M16 rifles, there has been a renewed interest for a reliable .22 caliber conversion. Today, there are a substantial number of companies offering drop-in conversion bolts and dedicated barreled upper receivers. Many of the kits available today are based on the original Atchisson design.

All of the early conversion kits consisted of a drop-in bolt assembly and a .22 magazine adapter. The kits used the original barrel.

One of the problems that may be encountered when firing a lot of .22 rimfire cartridges through a M16 or AR-15 in their standard configuration, is the eventual fouling and leading of the weapon’s relatively small gas port and gas tube. Although it will usually have no effect when firing .22 rimfire cartridges in the rifle, the weapon may begin to malfunction when switching back to firing .223/5.56mm rounds. The solution to the problem is using a barreled upper receiver dedicated to .22 rimfire, which does not have a gas port in the barrel. The dedicated .22 uppers are available from a number of manufacturers.

CMMG

The .22 caliber barreled upper receiver evaluated for this article was from CMMG, a well-known source for a growing number of M16/AR-15 rifles, components and accessories. The CMMG upper was designed for the far more prolific semiautomatic AR-15-type platforms. However, for the fortunate owners of select-fire M16/AR-15 rifles, CMMG offers a kit that includes an anti-bounce device and a sear trip for allowing their semiautomatic barreled upper receivers and bolt kits to have full-auto capability. The .22 uppers feature a 16.1-inch premium 4140 Chrome Moly steel barrel with a nitride finish. The upper receiver is a forged 7075-T6 aluminum M4 flat top type with optics rail. Although the CMMG .22 caliber barreled upper has a forward assist, it is pinned in place and non-functional. One of the features is a charging handle designed to prevent the small .22 casings from jamming between the charging handle and the bolt. Although there have been a few reports of some adjusting required to get many AR-15/M16 .22 conversion kits to function, the CMMG unit functioned right out of the box. The upper was tested on a Colt factory M16A1 and an M16/ 9mm Colt SMG (with the factory 9mm magazine adapter blocks removed). The performance of the CMMG conversion barreled upper was 98%, which with any .22 conversion can considered very reliable. CMMG states that their .22 conversions, with the optional sear trip kit, will function with most drop-in auto sears, but will not work with lighting links.

The muzzles of the CMMG .22 caliber barrels are threaded ½-28, a common thread for AR-15 flash hiders and for most .22 caliber suppressors, With a suppressor attached, the 16.1-inch barrel of the test rifle seemed much too long. Since the barreled upper was going to be exclusively used on select-fire M16 rifles, it was decided to shorten it. Prior to shortening the barrel, a call was made to the CMMG tech department to see if the shorter barrel might cause any functioning problems, the answer was no, so the barrel on the test unit was shortened to 10.5-inches and the muzzle re-threaded by Veronesi GunWorks.

The unit was tested with Black Dog standard and drum magazines and CMMG magazines, all fed and functioned equally well. A variety of .22 caliber ammunition was used for the test; the only difference was that high-velocity .22 ammunition noticeably increased the cyclic rate in full-auto, over the subsonic ammo. The shortened barrel and suppressor had no adverse effect on the performance. With the suppressor attached, CCI Standard Velocity, and Gemtech subsonic .22lr ammunition were used, reliability was excellent, and all the rounds remained subsonic when fired.

CMMG’s .22 conversion barreled upper receivers are available in a number of configurations. The uppers are available in the classic AR-15 configuration based on the M16A4, a heavy barrel model with free-float handguards, with an M4 style barrel and hand guards, and an optics-ready model. The barreled upper receivers are easily installed by simply pushing out the two retaining pins, removing the original .223/5.56mm unit, and installing the dedicated .22 upper.

Conversion Bolts

In addition to the barreled upper receivers CMMG offers .22 rimfire drop-in bolt assemblies that use the rifle’s original .223/5.56mm barrel. The bolts are made of stainless steel and are available in both right and left-hand models. The conversion bolts are easily installed by simply removing the original .223/5.56mm bolt carrier assembly and replacing it with the .22 bolt assembly.

Accessories

CMMG offers a number of upgrades and accessories: the auto-sear trip kit for select-fire rifles, a bolt collar assembly for using conversion bolts with CMMG dedicated .22 rimfire barrels, no-jam charging handles, a magazine loader and forward assist adapters for use with original upper receivers. CMMG has recently released their own .22 magazines made of polymer in 10 and 26-round capacities. The magazines will function with most .22lr conversions based on the Atchisson/Ciener system. During the SAR evaluation of the CMMG upper, the magazines were very reliable.

All CMMG products have a lifetime material and workmanship guarantee.

The McFadden Lightnin’ Grip a Revolutionary .22 Rimfire Magazine Loader

In the past, one of the problems with most .22 caliber conversions for both semiautomatic and full-auto guns, has been the tedious, and time-consuming, process of loading the small cartridges into the single-feed magazines. That problem has been solved by a new loader made by the McFadden Machine Company Inc. of Blairsville, Pennsylvania. The loader is called the Lightnin’ Grip.

To use the Lightnin’ Grip, loose .22 cartridges are dumped into a hopper on top on the device. Shaking the loader forces the rounds into a separate compartment and aligns them. After attaching a magazine each squeeze of the handle inserts a round in the magazine. Twenty-five rounds can be loaded in seconds. The loader worked flawlessly loading the AR-15/M16 Black Dog and CMMG .22 magazines and Black Dog’s 50-round drum magazine.

There are a number of adapters available for the Lightnin’ Grip so it can be used to load a number of popular .22 caliber pistol and rifle magazines. The company currently offers several inexpensive adapters for a growing list of popular magazines, including the Black Dog magazines for the Lage’s .22 caliber MAC conversions, SIG Mosquito, aftermarket magazines for the Ruger 10/22 and many others.

Sources

CMMG
M16 and AR-15 conversions
https://www.cmmginc.com/

McFadden Machine
Lightnin’ Grip Loader
http://www.mcfaden.com/

Black Dog Machine Magazines
http://blackdogmachinellc.net/

Gemtech Suppressors and Subsonic .22 rimfire ammunition
www.gem-tech.com/

Trijicon Optics
https://www.trijicon.com

Magpul Back-up Sights
https://www.magpul.com/

The M16 can be customized and modernized until it’s hardly recognizable. But real improvement happens inside the gun, to enhance accuracy, control, and reliability.

By David Lake

The M16 is an American icon. It was the first gun many of my generation could identify by make and model. When we were kids we saw it on TV in the hands of rough men like Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson. So now we’re adults, and we all still want one; lucky few of us may have one. Some of us have carried it into battle. For some, the M16 is a hobby; for others it’s a job. This rifle has spawned something akin to a religion; religion being defined as a collection of beliefs, culture, and views that relate humanity to an order of existence. A religion has narratives, symbols, and history. That all definitely applies to what the M16 and its progeny have become.

The M16 has been diffused into what is now the commercial empire of the AR-15. The legal restrictions and colossal expense of owning a legally registered and transferable fully-automatic M16 turns most individuals away from the idea or possibility. However, there are a large number of people in our nation that do own and use the M16 for legal recreational purposes. These rifles can cost between 10 and 30 thousand dollars; depending on the brand and what’s attached to it. A stripped, off-brand lower receiver comes relatively cheaply. A vintage unfired Colt demands top dollar. The AR-15 family enjoys access to a sea of accessories and upgrades. The M16 gets less attention to its specific needs, as the market is comparatively small, but many interchange. The ’15 and ’16 rifles are similar, but all internal parts are not interchangeable. There are a few parts unique to the M16 that include the fire control, bolt carrier, selector, and purpose-built buffers and rate reducers.

The importance of modern upgrades to the M16 cannot be overstated. Granted, full auto accuracy largely depends on the skill of the shooter. Even then, the term “accuracy” loosely applies; it is better described as “area of effect” or “beaten zone.” Machine guns are expected to deliver poor accuracy; this is what we’re taught anyway. But consider this; every full auto burst begins with a trigger pull, and the effect of that burst on target begins with a single bullet. During full-auto fire, the gun may become hard to control, but that first bullet can and should be depended on to hit its target. All that is required is a crisp, fast trigger instead of the heavy and creepy OEM military unit. The advantage to a premium trigger in the M16 is easy to demonstrate. One must shoot some short bursts at a target with military trigger and then with a premium trigger pack. The group size will be the same, but more often than not, you’ll notice better group placement with the premium trigger. The gun is not being jerked or otherwise affected as much with the improved trigger pull. The effect of the aftermarket upgraded trigger becomes even more defined as the cyclic rate of the M16 is reduced. A premium trigger will have reduced pull weight, take-up and travel. This means the trigger can be actuated faster. This also means that there is a greater possibility of pulling and releasing the trigger more quickly. In turn, it is easier for the shooter to fire shorter and more controlled bursts; less time in full-auto; which translates into smaller groups and better hits on target. When we fitted these triggers to a 9mm submachine gun, due to the added weight of the blowback system and reduced fire rate, we were able to send single rounds to target, reliably and repeatedly; while the selector was set to “auto.” It is advantageous to be able to fire single shots or bursts or continuous fire without having to actuate the selector lever. This takes time and a bit of attention from the operator. In the case of security, military, or law enforcement personnel, time and thought spent moving the selector can mean life or death. There exists a trigger design, known as a “progressive trigger” that allows for selective fire mode based on how far the trigger is pulled. It’s an old development; attributed to the Germans in the 1940s. If the operator pulls the trigger to a first stage, the gun fires in semi-auto. As the operator pulls the trigger through to a second stage, the gun will commence full-auto fire. Some examples today are the FN P90 and Steyr AUG. High stress situations demand simplicity. Fewer moving parts and less to think about are good things. Though the M16 cannot be redesigned to use a true progressive trigger mechanism, a quality aftermarket fire control can achieve nearly the same result. We compared the M16 triggers made by Geissele and POF and both performed perfectly. The POF operates like a digital on/off switch; the Geissele offers better feel and feedback. The POF is a single contained “trigger pack” while the Geissele is of a conventional 2-piece design. There is a foreseeable advantage to the unitized construction of the POF unit. As the trigger pins pass through the receiver to retain the trigger housing, both the trigger housing and receiver are mutually reinforced; reducing the possibility that the trigger pin holes in the receiver wear or stretch under hard use. Remember that the M16 receiver is quite valuable. They are not easily repaired or replaced. There are some M16 receivers suffering from worn trigger pin holes; this ailment can conceivably cause poor sear or disconnector engagement, and result in failure, stoppage, or even a “runaway” machine gun.

Once an M16 is firing in full-auto fashion, the recoil forces of each shot fired are cumulative. An inexperienced or misinformed shooter may not be able to maintain control of the weapon. Even with proper education on how to handle a machine gun, the M16 leaves room for improvement. The idea of a “rate reducer” is sound technology. Fewer shots fired per time interval equals less energy transfer per same time interval. These rate reducers usually take the form of and replace the existing buffer. They may operate by two principles; some are designed to collapse on themselves, some merely add more weight to the reciprocating mass. The collapsing variety utilizes hydraulics, pneumatics, or a simple metal spring to slow, retard or delay the sudden stop and reversal of motion of the reciprocating mass. The rate reducers that work by adding mass are better suited to blowback guns like M16s in pistol calibers. A heavier buffer has greater inertia, and effectively requires more energy to overcome that inertia. As the fired cartridge builds energy, it takes more time to build the energy required to overcome the increased inertia of the reciprocating mass. As the buffer comes to a stop and reverses direction at the end of the recoil stroke it is, for a moment, motionless. Once again, more time is required as the recoil spring applies force to set the mass in motion forward back into battery. Some of these rate reducing devices use a combination of these methods of function. Both methods effectively reduce the recoil impulse of the gun. The collapsing buffers spread the recoil impulse over time, or prolong the slowing and reversal of the recoiling mass. The heavy buffers essentially spend or convert recoil energy. As energy must either be conserved or transferred more energy is required to move a heavier buffer, so less energy remains to be perceived as recoil. Specifics aside, you’ll save ammunition with one of these fit to your M16. That’s enough reason to use one. (Editor’s note: It is also important to note that once you change something in a balanced system, it is no longer “balanced” and there may be side effects to weight increases on components. Symptoms of this may appear with short bolt stroke feed failures or failure to return to battery if the weapon is fired upward or downward).

The selector on a machine gun must not be neglected either. This control surface should be easy and instinctive to operate. The choice to change mode-of-fire should be the operators: the gun must only switch from semi to full or vice-versa at the operator’s command. And it should operate positively without hitch or hesitation. The only aftermarket upgraded selector for the M16 we found that was worth a mention was from Battle Arms Development (BAD). Their selector levers are available as a kit, offering 6 different modular lever controls to be affixed to the receiver. The operator can tailor his fire control to fit his hand and shooting style. The BAD selector offers low and high profile, long and short paddles, and are available in a variety of colors – some of the bright ones allow for visual confirmation of the weapon’s condition. Additionally, the BAD selectors can be configured as ambidextrous or single side operation. Quality of workmanship and flawless operation are hallmarks of every product from Battle Arms. Also worthy of mention is BAD’s upcoming SAFE/AUTO selector. It’s only a 2-position selector as it offers no semi-auto setting. It was designed specifically for defense and law-enforcement application to minimize an operator’s “time-to-fire” from a safe condition. It is also very relevant to residents of Connecticut, where a “select fire” gun is illegal; but laws do not overtly prohibit fully-automatic weapons (machine guns).

If you choose to apply these three technologies to your M16, it will cost you approximately $500. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to what your M16 cost you to purchase and even less in comparison to your ammunition bill. The fact is that these simple upgrades should be considered required equipment. Reduced fire rate, better trigger and shot control, and reliable and fast fire control are all desirable traits. If your M16 is still configured as it was at its birth, it’s time for some evolution to take place. The M16 deserves some twenty-first century treatments.

I sat quietly taking notes as the Purchase Description was being reviewed, making sure I would capture the important points. The development of a new rifle for the U.S. Military is not an everyday occurrence and I wanted to make sure I understood all of the requirements clearly. The Government speaker went quickly over the next point. He knew that this one rarely enlisted any questions: “The rifle shall be compatible with the multi-purpose Bayonet and attach securely at the bayonet mounting points.” No eyebrows were raised, no questions asked. And why should there be? It was a foregone conclusion that every service rifle would be configured to accept the standard bayonet.

What does this mean to a designer of weapons? For one thing, whatever had been envisioned or planned for the muzzle area of the weapon was now complicated by design constraints. Any muzzle device, no matter how effective in its current configuration, would now have a 0.86 diameter so that the bayonet ring could pass over and ride securely. The fit would have to be loose enough for a quick deployment yet tight enough so there was no rattle. At a prescribed position aft of the muzzle, the gas block or other appendage would need the special T-configuration for securing the bayonet. This would require chamfered corners for a smooth and rapid connection. The rifle would have to be rugged in the muzzle area as well. When the M14 was in development, testing showed that thrusts with the bayonet resulted in damage to the weapon prompting a redesign. There were but few words in the Purchase Description where the bayonet was mandated, yet in an instant, the freedom of design was greatly restricted.

Why in the world do we need a bayonet anyway, I asked myself? During the break I considered other devices that might be better suited to the end of the barrel. How about a stun gun or a Taser? Maybe a pyrotechnic wire cutter or a laser would be better; something, anything that was more “21st Century.” Surely there must exist some new technology that might carry us beyond these design constraints from which we seem to be forever encumbered? I needed to give this more thought and also made a mental note to check how we got to the point of a never-ending bayonet requirement.

Weeks later, while searching my files and other reference sources, I learned that the first bayonet use was recorded in the 17th century. Riflemen wielding a matchlock rifle were protected by a soldier carrying a pike, whose job it was to keep the enemy at bay long enough for the rifleman to reload. When they closed in on the enemy, the rifleman jammed a special “plug bayonet” in the end of the barrel so he could join the pikesmen in combat when there simply wasn’t time to reload.

In the years that followed, bayonet designs were never very innovative but there was one that is remembered for out of the box thinking. Early rifles needed a ramrod and later ones a cleaning rod, so one designer sold the U.S. on a ramrod bayonet combination design. In 1905 this bayonet received some high level attention when president Theodore Roosevelt wrote a letter to the Secretary of War telling him, “I must say that I think that ramrod bayonet is about as poor an invention as I ever saw. As you observed, it broke short off as soon as hit with even moderate violence. It would have no moral effect and mighty little physical effect.” He questioned the need for a bayonet and went on to ask that further studies be undertaken by officers seeing combat in the Philippines and from military attachés who were sent as observers to the Russo-Japanese war. Two American Colonels from the office of the Surgeon General were assigned to accompany the Russian Army in combat in order to study the wounds caused by weapons of modern warfare. Observations on the use of the bayonet would be part of their mission.

The Russian and Japanese armies faced off on three different fronts in battle lines that extended 10 miles, 60 miles, and 80 miles. Nocturnal engagements were frequent and much use of the bayonet was made on both sides, yet the actual number of casualties attributed to the bayonet was a mere 0.3%. In their report, the Colonels concluded: “The experience of the Boer War and that of the present Russo-Japanese war has shown that the bayonet is not yet an obsolete weapon and that we still must reckon with it.”

Reckon with it we did, from the First and Second World Wars and the Korean War right up until the 1950s when the M14 rifle was being developed to replace the M1 rifle, Browning Automatic Rifle, M2 Carbine and M3 Grease Gun. The bayonet used with the M1 rifle did not fit the M14, which got the Army thinking about the requirement for a bayonet. Mr. Amos Bonkemeyer, who was then head of the Light Weapons Section of the Army’s Infantry and Aircraft weapons section, stated the Army “… is considering not using a bayonet with the M14.” This came as a result of a recommendation from Fort Monroe where they reported, “The bayonet is rarely used in combat.” These observations led to seriously consider arming the soldier and Marine with a K-bar knife with no means of attachment to the rifle. This concept met resistance from the troops and eventually the bayonet was accommodated on the M14. The front end of the weapon was redesigned and the stock reinforced to a point where the M14 was tested and determined to be as good as the M1 for bayonet fighting. The M16 that followed met the same requirement.

Resigned to be forever burdened with a bayonet, the Army funded a project to make the bayonet more useful. The soldier needed a saw, a wire cutter, or an all purpose knife far more frequently than those combat situations that required him to affix a bayonet to the end of his rifle. In 1973 a project was funded to develop a multi-purpose Knife-Cutter Bayonet that would perform multiple tasks and also be effective as a fighting tool. A contract was awarded, designs were conceived, and a number of prototypes were built for field trials. Just as the multi-purpose M14 rifle that preceded it, the Knife-Cutter Bayonet proved once again that a product that makes design compromises in order to do multiple jobs ends up doing none of them very well. Their overweight designs were not able to cut double strand barbed wire and were too cumbersome for most practical uses. At the time these studies were undertaken, men had already been sent to the moon, yet these developers were overwhelmed by the challenge to develop a multi-functional bayonet, their final report stating: “Development was terminated when it was concluded that it was beyond the state of the art to develop a single item encompassing all the features stated as essential.”

Only one year after the first “new rifle for the military” meeting, I found myself in a carbon copy of the first meeting. It was another new requirement, this time for a carbine that would also require the accommodation of a bayonet at the muzzle. When they reached the point in the purchase description that would cover the bayonet I thought once again about Teddy Roosevelt, the Russo-Japanese War, Stun guns, Tasers, and Lasers. I turned to a combat veteran next to me and whispered, “Why are we doing this again? Do you guys really need a bayonet?” The answer was short and profound. “George, when the soldier’s weapon no longer works for whatever reason, the bayonet is his last remaining means of defense.” Gee, I never thought about it like that. I don’t feel so bad though. Teddy Roosevelt didn’t get it the first time either.

Every war is different. Every battleground has diverse characteristics. Each mission, whether a military role or civilian law enforcement detail varies greatly in its specific purposes. It seems almost impossible on the surface that a single weapon system could adapt and function in such a range of climates and missions, but the familiar M16 is still going strong. From a lightweight carbine to a heavy barreled LMG, the M16 weapon system has been fulfilling the role of America’s primary service weapon for more than 40 years and it doesn’t seem it will be replaced wholesale anytime soon.

The earliest history of the inception and design of the black rifle bas been chronicled numerous times and it is not the intent of this author to rehash this historical material other than a very brief and condensed historical summary. There are many credible sources for this information including The Complete AR-15/M16 Sourcebook by Duncan Long, The Black Rifle I by Blake Stevens, Black Rifle II by Christopher R. Bartocci and an extensive Colt M16 ID Guide in the Machine Gun Dealers Bible by Dan Shea. This article will focus on the versatility of the M16, the characteristics that have allowed the metamorphosis from the original designs to the current battle rifle of the 21st century and possibly beyond.

Although there are a countless number of model designations for these rifles from numerous manufacturers, for simplicity purposes in this article, the designation “M16” can be assumed to be a fully automatic rifle while the designation “AR-15” makes reference to the semiautomatic version.

A Very Brief History

While its initial roots are clearly in the Stoner designs of the early 1950s, like most designs, the multiple lug bolt head, lockup into a barrel extension, and gas system principle can be traced back farther. It was at ArmaLite where this all came together. The first heavy public exposure to the black rifle started in the wet and humid environment of the tropics with the earliest variations sent to US troops in Viet Nam. There were many positive responses at first, but after the ammunition/propellant change, the black rifles were plagued with an extremely lackluster initial impression and poor performance in the field. Problems were eventually minimized after several rounds of intense testing combined with numerous committee change recommendations. Many alterations in production were initiated including chamber dimensions, rifling twist ratios, firing-pin changes, redesigning the flash hider and charging handle, and (against the advice of many people) the addition of a forward assist assembly. Along with ammo and gunpowder refinement, proper maintenance, and problems addressed with early magazines, the early version of black rifle as we know it today was on its way to becoming the cornerstone of the modern American military arsenal.

As early as 1963, Colt started manufacturing this “new” rifle in semiautomatic only with the civilian population and the law enforcement community in mind. Sold as the AR-15 Sporter it was virtually identical to the M16 with the exception of the fire control group. With an early retail price of $189.50 it was marketed to the hunting and sporting community as a beacon of a new wave of manufacturing technology allowing it to be lightweight while remaining accurate and effective. Although several minor changes have been made to separate the function of the semiautomatic version of these rifles from their fully automatic relatives over the years, and to keep them from being easily converted to fully automatic, they remain wildly popular and an enormous civilian market thrives today. Numerous upgrades and model enhancements of the civilian line of semiautomatic variants have followed very closely to those designed for the fully automatic models keeping them on a fairly level playing field.

With the 1977 expiration of Gene Stoner’s patent on the M16 gas system, several companies sprang up and started manufacturing their own versions of this popular rifle. The trademark model name of “AR-15” was, and still is, owned by Colt, and they are still one of many businesses that manufacture this weapon system and its many configurations.

Modularity is King

At the heart of the black rifle is the versatile lower receiver. This portion of the firearm is the section considered by federal law to be “the firearm” by definition. The lower receiver is the portion of the firearm that contains the trigger group and the pistol grip as well as the magazine well. Also attached to the lower receiver is the buffer tube and stock. This is the part that requires purchase through a licensed federal firearms licensee (if ordered from an out-of-state dealer) and the paperwork that goes along with any other firearm purchase, depending upon the laws of the State of the buyer. Every other part of this firearm may be ordered directly by the end user and requires no federal licensing or paperwork. All other parts, including the upper receivers and the barrels are treated just like any other non-regulated parts.

The upper receiver plays an equally important role in the mechanism. The upper receiver is the point of attachment for the barrel and the housing for the bolt, bolt carrier and charging handle. It is attached to the lower receiver by two takedown pins that are operable without the aid of any tools. The upper and lower receivers may be separated and rejoined at any time without fear of losing any components under normal handling. This may be attractive for size considerations when breaking down for transportation or when changing the characteristics of the rifle for a specific task.

Several rifle configurations may be assembled on a single lower receiver simply by swapping out barreled upper receivers. Specific tasks may require features unique to that task but may not be desirable to others. This is where the real beauty of the black rifle comes in. Unlike most other firearms, the characteristics of the black rifle can be altered at any time, and reversed back again, just by changing upper receivers. It is indeed more than a weapon; it is truly a “weapon system” as it is often properly referred as.

For obvious reasons, an entry-type rifle may consist of a very short barrel and either iron sights or a zero-magnification dot-type sight. A varmint hunting rifle may be much more effective with a long barrel and high power telescopic sight. With a black rifle, both of these configurations are only a quick upper receiver swap away with no lack of performance in either field.

There are barrels ranging from the 7-inch* “Kitty Kat” barrel from DPMS (www.dpmsinc.com) to a 24-inch Varminter Extra Heavy Barrel from Bushmaster Firearms (www.bushmaster.com) and a multitude of lengths in between. (* Under Federal Law a rifle barrel has to be over 16 inches in length to be a legal Title I firearm. By purchasing or registering the rifle as a Short Barreled Rifle, the owner can use any barrel length at will. With registered machine guns, the barrel length is not a legal stipulation under Federal Law and any length barrel may be used). There are not many rifles that allow the flexibility of swapping out barrel lengths without the necessity of tools in less than 30 seconds like this system. Additionally, another major advantage is the sights are part of the upper receiver as well, so there is no need to re-zero after making this swap. If multiple barreled upper receivers are owned, they can all be sighted-in and swapped as desired with a complete return to zero with careful handling and the correct ammunition.

From Plinking to Protecting

If there is any one thing that can always be counted on in the firearms community, it is American Ingenuity and the desire to make something bigger and better. (Sometimes smaller and better, in this case.) Fortunately, this has proven to work well in transforming the once light .223 Rem. (5.56x45mm) rifle into something left only to one’s imagination and budget. With the ease of changing upper receivers, the transformation from the original caliber to a completely new round is almost as simple. Since the upper receiver holds the barrel, bolt and bolt carrier, this is the portion of the rifle where the caliber of the ammunition to be utilized is determined. Thanks to many able minded firearm enthusiasts, these rifles can be converted to almost any caliber ranging from .17 to .50 BMG with minimal (if any) temporary modifications to the lower receiver. From the luxury of plinking for recreation on a budget or additional training, to having the stopping power to assist our front line fighters in the War on Terror, the black rifle can be custom configured to suit every application.

One of the most popular subcaliber units among black rifle shooters is the “Atchisson” .22LR conversion manufactured by Jonathan Arthur Ciener, Inc. (www.22lrconversions.com). When utilized with the recommended ammunition, properly maintained and operated, they provide hours of plinking fun in semiautomatic AR-15s or full automatic fun when used in conjunction with a registered M16. On the opposite end of the ammunition spectrum is the .50BMG Upper Receiver from Watson’s Weapons Inc. (www.watsonsweapons.com). This upper receiver actually allows the use of the massive .50 BMG round when attached to your lower receiver. It functions as a single-shot rifle that must be partially taken down to be reloaded between shots.

One of the most popular pistol caliber conversions would include the 9x19mm (Luger) conversion. First introduced in 1985, Colt offered a 9mm blowback-operated submachine gun that worked quite well. Most of the characteristics were the same as the standard rifle, making operation simple for anyone who had utilized or trained on the 5.56x45mm rifle. A special magazine (both 20-round and 32-round) was developed for the much shorter 9x19mm round and a block was pinned inside the standard lower receiver’s magazine well to accommodate the smaller magazine while utilizing the same magazine release. A civilian version was soon to follow in semiautomatic only with a 16-inch barrel. Other than the upper receiver and bolt differences, only the buffer was changed to a heavier one, and a few of the trigger group parts were slightly modified. In the 1990s, the US Drug Enforcement Agency adopted a silenced version of this rifle. The Department of Energy also adopted a very short variation known as the Model 633, commonly called a “DoE Upper.” The 633 had a 7-inch barrel, collapsible stock and a front handguard to keep the operators hands from straying in front of the muzzle.

Several other companies started manufacturing these pistol caliber conversions with numerous types of feeding systems. While a few emulated the Colt style mag-well block and use the factory Colt 9mm magazines, others used highly modified magazines reworked to fit the interior portion of the factory magazine well. Although many of the modified magazines work very well, they are often expensive and the availability is less than desirable in most cases. Even though there are several manufacturers of aftermarket (any non-Colt) black rifles including several Caliber conversions, the pistol caliber most often encountered remains the 9x19mm.

Many different calibers in black rifle variations have been written about here in the pages of Small Arms Review over the last 10 years. While there are new caliber combinations coming out at an amazing rate, some of the latest ones we are familiar with include the Alexander Arms .50 Beowulf and 6.5 Grendel, (www.alexanderarms.com), .502 Thunder Sabre by Cloud Mountain Armory (www.bigborecanyon.net) and lastly the .45 Bushmaster (www.bushmaster.com). We will be testing the .45 Bushmaster for a future issue of Small Arms Review very soon. Some of the more common calibers include, but are not limited to: .308 NATO*, 7.62x39mm and 6.8SPC and can be found from multiple vendors. (*.308 NATO (7.62×51) requires a different lower receiver due to the longer interior dimension of the magazine well necessary to accommodate that particular round).

Feed Me, Seymour!

Like the hungry man-eating plant named Seymour in the 1960s cult classic film Little Shop of Horrors, a black rifle is always hungry and never seems to be fed enough. Firearms, especially those in a military role, are no exception. The earliest magazine design of the AR-15 was a 25-round magazine, which had problems due to being straight, and was immediately replaced with a 20-round magazine. The first ones were steel “waffle” pattern magazines, which were also immediately replaced with the standard aluminum 20-round magazine that eventually evolved into the 20-rounder so common today. In the mid 1960s, a 30-round magazine was manufactured with a slight curve and it seemed to work great in all new rifles but had a hard time feeding in some, including the earlier ones. This was corrected in part by keeping the top portion of the magazine straight like the 20-round version and starting the curvature at the bottom of the magazine well. These magazines still had a reputation for jamming if they were loaded to 30 rounds, and the SOP was load to 28 rounds. This was corrected later by stabilizing the follower with equal leg lengths.

In order to address this “need for feed,” Colt experimented with a belt-feed mechanism that operated with a modified upper and lower. With a 20-inch barrel this unit weighed in at almost 8 1/2 pounds without the bipod or ammo box. The belt fed M16 never made it to production.

Fast forward to the early 1980s and bring Jonathan Arthur Ciener back into the picture. A manufacturer primarily specializing in sound suppressors at the time, Jonathan took it upon himself to redesign and reintroduce the concept of a belt-fed AR-15 and M16 and made them available to the general public. When they were evaluated for the now defunct Machine Gun News in 1992, this writer had the pleasure of working on the article and spending some trigger time with these guns. We were provided with both a semiautomatic model and a fully automatic model. They were built on factory Colt AR-15 and M16 rifles, and like Colts early design the upper and lower receivers were both modified. The Ciener system had a few very interesting points. First, the belt-feed mechanism could be removed from the weapon and it would again accept factory magazines. Second, Ciener produced some of the belt boxes which locked into the magazine well, as in the original design.

We tested them under several conditions with many types of ammunition in semiautomatic and full automatic. We tested it in belt-feed and magazine feed. We tested it with and without the addition of a sound suppressor. In summary it performed excellently. The only drawback was that in the case of a jam it was a “4-handed” operation to clear it and have it up and running quickly, but with a little practice it could be done quite efficiently. It also used a proprietary, modified link that was quite expensive at the time compared to standard unmodified links. These were sold for a few years but were eventually discontinued due to the enormous amount of time necessary to manufacture them.

There are a few current belt-feed systems for the black rifle but nothing yet has reached a mass marketing level. In the March 2003 issue of Small Arms Review (Vol. 6, No. 6), the Shrike 5.56 from Ares Defense (www.aresdefense.com) was covered in great detail as it was due to be released en masse around the time of publication. To this date, it is still being manufactured, released and shipped in very small quantities due to several redesign upgrades and improvements. The great attraction to the Shrike 5.56 is the fact that it works in conjunction with a completely unmodified lower receiver. All attempts at a belt-fed black rifle in the past have required major lower receiver modifications. Like the Ciener, model it can be fired from belt or box magazine but in the case of the Shrike 5.56, when the belt is out, a box magazine is simply inserted, the rifle charged and firing is uninterrupted. There are no parts to take out or change over. We are anxiously awaiting mass shipments of the Shrike 5.56 and will certainly test the newest production model as soon as they are shipped.

Another interesting belt feed option for the black rifle is the XMG from BRP Guns (www.brpguns.com). The XMG34 is essentially an MG34 “upper receiver” designed for use on an M16 lower receiver. Currently in its 5th year of production this inexpensive alternative to an original MG34 has been receiving great reviews for years. Available in 8mm and in .308, they are popping up at ranges nationwide and are becoming more popular with every passing year. They will function in fully automatic when used in conjunction with a registered lower receiver and require only a small (nonpermanent) modification to function.

Seeing a need for a belt-fed black rifle that is inexpensive to feed, the master of the miniatures, Lakeside Machine of Tippmann Arms fame decided to design a .22LR belt fed upper receiver with a similar mechanism to the popular Tippmann 1/2 scale miniature machine guns. (www.lakesideguns.com). This upper receiver, available for both semiautomatic and fully automatic function, was tested in the April 2006 (Vol. 9, No. 7) issue of Small Arms Review. The only modifications required to the lower receiver in this assembly are the exchange of the factory buffer and the suggested replacement of the hammer spring.

Understanding the demand for more ammo capacity than the 30-round magazines were able to provide, the Beta Company, of Atlanta, Georgia (www.betaco.com) worked with Jim Sullivan of the old ArmaLite and the M16 design fame, the original inventor of the 100-round C-Mag. Sullivan worked as a consultant with Beta Company in the early developmental stages of the new Beta C-Mag and with the introduction and advances in plastic materials and its ability to keep tight tolerances the C-MAG as we know it today has developed into an extremely reliable system, all while keeping weight to a minimum.

Mounting Madness

We live in a market driven economy and combined with the simple truth that necessity is the mother of invention, some “solutions” have been presented to us for “problems” we may never have known existed otherwise. In the last several years there have been an enormous number of accessories manufactured for mounting on MIL-STD-1913 rails. Along with these accessories came a mad rush for mounting platforms, and the standard factory handguards on the AR-15 and M16 are quickly being antiquated and replaced with new and improved rail systems. There are several to choose from including the Knight Rail Interface System (RIS) and Rail Adapter System (RAS) (www.knightarmco.com), VLTOR VIS System (www.vltor.com), POF-USA Predator Rail System (www.pof-usa.com), LMT Monolithic Rail Platform (www.lewismachine.net) and many more. All of the aforementioned have been of excellent quality.

For those not needing the precision, or wishing to spend the amount of money those mentioned may cost, some simple handguard replacements have been introduced that incorporate rails into them and some rail adaptors have been manufactured that simply bolt on to the existing A2-type handguards. A few of those have been utilized for testing devices like vertical grips where a slight amount of movement was not detrimental to the system and they performed fine. Other applications like mounting optics or more “load bearing” accessories would probably not be recommended for the latter systems.

All the new configurations and types of intended deployments these systems are capable of bring the necessity of new support equipment. One area where a serious advancement has been made is in the sighting systems available. Electronic “dot type” sights are very popular for close-up work and there are many types and styles. A few extremely popular systems include the EOTech Holographic Sight (www.eotechinc.com), the Aimpoint CompM4 (www.aimpoint.com) and the Trijicon ACOG (www.trijicon.com). While each system has distinct advantages the author is very familiar with the EOTech model 552. It has several settings for use with a night vision monocular as well as the standard day settings. The Holographic Sight is placed in a forward position on the top rail and utilized as usual during normal daylight. During low light the monocular is mounted behind it so the operator can use it at night without having to re-zero the weapon.

Along with the popularity of low or zero magnification electronic sights, the demand for a well-made, high quality, Back Up Iron Sight (BUIS) has been high for use during a potential electronic failure. Several contenders on the market include the Troy Industries, Inc. Folding Battle Sight (www.troyind.com), the GG&G Flip-Up Sights (www.gggaz.com), and A.R.M.S. Inc., #40 Folding Sights (www.armsmounts.com). An interesting front sight is the POF-USA FTA2005 Front Sight. It is not a folding sight but a stationary sight that is hooded for an extremely fast target acquisition and has been found to be complementary to use in conjunction with “dot-type” sights or as a stand alone with the correct rear BUIS. Due to the great number of new sight requirements, many of the modern rifles are available with a removable carry handle. Once the familiar carry handle and rear sight is removed, a standard MIL-STD-1913 rail is exposed to be used alone or in conjunction with these new sights and rail systems.

Another interesting new front sight was recently introduced for the black rifle. It is made by KNS Precision (www.knsprecisioninc.com) and is actually a circular “peep” with a crosshair in it. Initial testing appears it is fast and accurate and we are anxious to spend more time with this new front sight as well as several more of their latest offerings.

As a Catch-22, these new mounting platforms that were spawned from new items in need of mounts have spun off their own items made to be mounted on this newly available space. There are several devices available for mounting on MIL-STD-1913 rails including visible lasers, IR lasers, and lights. optics, night vision, camera equipment and many more items. Some earlier available items that were designed to mount on standard handguards or directly on the barrel have even been redesigned to mount directly on a rail system due to the high proliferation on later models. A prime example is the new rail mount 40mm LMT M203 Grenade Launcher. This tried and true M16 accessory used to mount on the barrel of the standard black rifle and a special handguard replaced the factory A1 or A2 handguard issued with the rifle. With the new rail mounted version, no additional handguards are necessary and due to the nature of the mounting system there is no longer any stress on the barrel as it is allowed to free-float with many current rail systems.

AR Accessories

As mentioned previously, several companies exist today just to service this weapon system. A quick glance around the Internet or any large, stocking gun shop will uncover thousands of items geared toward users of the AR-15 and M16 weapon systems. A look at KNS Precision and their product line will unveil several components for the black rifle useful in simple preservation roles such as pins that are designed not to rotate and egg-hole the aluminum receivers at the thin section supporting the hammer and trigger pins. They carry a variety of sights for target, plinking, competition and tactical applications and even manufacture a set of Spade Grips so you can shoot the rifle in the same manor as a 1919A4 with butterfly grips or an M60D model. We tested these grips in the May 2007 (Vol. 10, No. 8) issue of Small Arms Review and we found them a blast to shoot, especially with a pintle mount and Beta C-MAG. They are well made and functioned flawlessly.

While you are in research mode, take a peek at some of the products in the Command Arms Accessories line (www.commandarms.com). Some of these accessories manufactured for the AR-15 and M16 weapon system look more like they came back from a fact finding mission from the 22nd Century than from Ivyland, Pennsylvania where they are located. With accessories and upgrades from buttstock to muzzle, the only part of the original weapon system that looks familiar is the distinct shape of the receiver section. Watch for a piece in an upcoming issue of Small Arms Review where we take a “Plain Jane” AR-15 and give it the complete CAA treatment while testing it every step of the way. We are looking for something that really enhances performance and not just cosmetics and we have been assured we will not be disappointed.

Back to the Future

There is one unique feature of the black rifle that is as controversial as all other designs combined. This would be the way the gas system of the firearm operates and whether changing it is considered an upgrade or downgrade by the user. The black rifle operates with a direct impingement gas system in the following manner. When the rifle is fired, the rotating bolt is in its locked position in the barrel extension. As the bullet passes a gas port located under the front sight, some gas is bled off into a gas port and directed through a gas tube to the rear. The hot gas pressurizes the gas tube and the rear end of the pressurized tube is the gas key located on top of the bolt carrier with the gas thus exerting rearward pressure on this movable part. This pressure starts the bolt carrier traveling rearward, unlocking the bolt via its cam pin in the cam path on the carrier, and initiating the extraction. The bolt carrier travels rearward, and the projectile exits the bore evacuating the pressurized gas from the gas tube, ending any rearward pressure from the gas system. That time under pressure is critical to reliability and is dictated by the amount of time the bullet is traveling in front of the gas port. As the bolt carrier passes into the buffer tube (concealed in the stock) the fired casing is ejected. Met with a forward amount of spring tension from the now compressed buffer spring, the bolt carrier is returned to the front, picking up a new round from the magazine, loading it in the chamber and rotating and locking the bolt to restart the sequence.

The problems with this particular system are multiple. It is dumping combustion byproduct – “dirt” – into the same place it feeds ammunition from. This leaves a lot of carbon buildup over time and can create function problems when not maintained regularly. The lower receiver and its trigger group are often heavily soiled from this gas system and it is compounded numerous times over when combined with the use of a sound suppressor. Due to the carbon, unburned powder and extra heat following the path of least resistance, the extra back pressure created with the use of a silencer leaves more debris than normal and blowback is often an unpleasant effect inflicted on the shooter. On top of the maintenance issue, which in the recreational shooting world should be a no-brainer, is an issue not often spoken about. As indicated before, the additional debris is carried back into the action of the gun and it is carried by very hot gas. It has been suggested by some people that the effect of these hot gasses under heavier than normal shooting conditions could cause metal temperament problems over time. A heavy influx of heating and cooling could create some structural problems with extremely heavy use.

There are several systems that now use a gas piston system in place of the direct impingement system and Small Arms Review has covered several of them in the past. In the last two years we have examined the HK416 System, the POF P-416 System and just recently, the Colt LE1020 Advanced Law Enforcement Carbine. Fairly recently, Ares Defense introduced their GSR-35 Black Lightning system, which is a drop-in piston kit that takes the place of the original gas tube and bolt carrier. Leitner-Wise Rifle Company (www.lwrifles.com) also specializes in a piston system however we have not had the opportunity to evaluate it yet. While the concept is certainly nothing new, (Colt experimented with a piston system in the 1960s, and there are many other examples pre-dating that) its time certainly seems to have come and it appears to be here to stay.

Other than a brief amount of time spent working with an early “Rhino System” in the early 1990s, of all the systems mentioned above, this writer only has an extensive amount of time on the POF P-416 system at this point. Other SAR contributors have extensive trigger time on the HK416, and will cover other systems in the future. On the POF system that I have tested, there are definite advantages that have been witnessed, primarily the number of rounds it is able to run with little or no maintenance with no malfunctions. The POF P-416 utilizes C.R.O.S. (Corrosion Resistant Operating System) where their major components are impregnated with silicon nickel creating an incredibly slick surface. After firing several thousand rounds, the surface easily wipes clean with only a dry cloth, and after almost 20,000 rounds in one particular test unit there is no visible wear on any of the coated parts.

During initial testing the system was fired in excess of 9,000 rounds with no maintenance or lubrication of any kind and when it was finally cleaned because we thought there was a single failure to feed, ending the endurance test, it was later found that it was a faulty magazine creating the feeding problem and not the gun itself. Another factor that assists the P-416 system in functioning so well under harsh treatment is the fact that there are no gas rings necessary since there is no actual gas pushed back into the bolt carrier. This seems to translate into a firearm that will operate in a harsher environment due to much lighter tolerances. Without the presence of gas rings creating a seal between the bolt and bolt carrier, everything moves much smoother and is less meticulous in its typically tight tolerances.

If there is an immediately noticeable advantage in this particular gas piston system it is durability. On top of the several thousand rounds fired with no maintenance except for the initial cleaning after the perceived stoppage, many of them have been in a succession so rapid that it would have been certain failure for a direct impingement system; melting the gas tube and ending the testing very early on. After years of testing black rifles, the author has a collection of failed gas tubes, many resembling spaghetti found lying on top of the barrel after reaching the point of failure. If there are any immediate disadvantages of this gas piston system over a direct impingement system, this author has not yet noticed them.

Now Left Can Be Right

A fantastic example of how the civilian market often takes its own direction and even has the potential to influence the military marketplace is a manufacturer from New Britain Connecticut named Stag Arms, LLC. (www.stagarms.com). Founded in May of 2003, Stag decided to cater to a percentage of the market who had been all but ignored for years. They completely redesigned the upper receiver, bolt and bolt carrier to eject from the left, specifically for left-handed shooters. Featured in the March 2006 (Vol. 9, No. 6) issue of Small Arms Review, southpaws will never again have to depend on a brass deflector keeping hot brass from hitting them or crossing their line of fire.

The Future

It is the versatility of the AR-15/M16 that has allowed it to adapt and thrive in so many differing environments and it is the modularity of the system that is a direct contributor to its survival and evolution. There are a few companies that are addressing this in ways that could never have been originally conceived 40 years ago and will lead the way into a long future for the black rifle.

MGI (www.mgimilitary.com) has been in the black rifle business for decades. Their upgrades have been chronicled in the pages of Small Arms Review several times including their Rate Reducing Buffer – May 2004 (Vol. 7, No. 8), The QCB Upper Receiver – December 2004 (Vol. 8, No. 3) and most recently The Hydra Modular Weapon System – May 2007 (Vol. 10, No. 8). With such versatility as a quick-change barrel upper receiver that requires no tools and works with original factory barrels, changes in length, style and caliber have never been faster, easier or less expensive. The Marck-15 Lower Receiver with interchangeable magazine wells, again with no tools, allows the correct magazine to be used to coincide with the caliber being fired. For example, if you are utilizing a 7.62×37 barrel and bolt, you can use the AK mag-well and utilize standard AK47 magazines. This ensures the correct feed and presentation rather than redesigning a new magazine around an existing space and angle. Mags are inexpensive, available and reliable. Next in the works is a 9mm SMG mag-well that will utilize the factory Colt 9mm SMG magazines. Several new offerings are in the pipeline, some certain to be out even before this magazine hits the newsstand.

Cobb Manufacturing (www.cobb50.com) has a line of rifles called the MCR (Multi Caliber Rifle) and it is based on the design characteristics of the AR-15, just a little bigger. The MCR is a semiautomatic, gas operated system that can be chambered in a long list of calibers from 9mm to 338 Lapua, designed originally for the SCAR rifle program. They are far from newcomers to the industry and have been dealing with such innovative firearms as the .50 BMG FA50 and BA50 for several years. Teamed up with top-line suppressor manufacturers their systems are well made and versatile.

With the “feeding” frenzy a constant issue as discussed previously, we expect to see upgrades and alterations to this portion of the weapon system as long as it is in use. Just before finishing this article the author received what is perhaps the latest offering to the high-capacity quest to evaluate for a future article. It is the CL-Mag from Armatac Industries, Inc. (www.armatac.com). Resembling the Beta C-MAG in shape, the CL-Mag is manufactured from aircraft aluminum and holds 150 rounds of 5.56x45mm. Finished in a hard coat type III anodized finish, it is intended to work in all AR-15/M16 variants. We are anxious to proceed with testing this new feeding system in the near future.

Conclusion

Since there is really nothing to compare the popularity of this unique weapon system to, with its longevity in both military and civilian applications, it is the opinion of this writer that the sheer ability to act as a chameleon and adapt to almost every environment is the life force behind its ever growing popularity. It has to be noted that many of the upgrades and enhancements are civilian based ideas with no military spec sheet giving them direction. Some of these ideas and items can be looked at as simply “fun” and that is an important aspect of shooting that some of us who are a little too hung up on being “professionals” tend to overlook a little too often. Not everything that is discovered or tested has to have an adrenaline soaked special operations application in mind. Some of the best gear for our professional applications stands a chance of starting out as a light-hearted civilian product, just because it is looked at and designed with fresh, new, untainted eyes. Some of the greatest design innovations this writer has witnessed have come from challenges from people who specifically stated that in their professional opinion something couldn’t be done.

With an ever-changing requirement for the ultimate weapon system in this unpredictable War on Terror, if any weapon stands the test of time it is the AR-15/M16. With a virtual flood of new accessories, upgrades, calibers, finishes, furniture and design enhancements being introduced at breakneck speed, this writer has a hard time even thinking of the day where the black rifle or some form of it is not going to be the basis for our primary service weapon for at least 40 more years.

Author’s Note: While this article started out to be a short overview of the AR-15/M16 and its longevity, it soon became obvious that it could not be done in just a few words. The system is too complex and the changes, alterations and upgrades are far too numerous to simply skim over and condense. Unfortunately, due to space constraints, it had to end somewhere and we were not able to include every single company that offers firearms and accessories related to this weapon system. They are far too numerous, and even a quick glance through the pages of Small Arms Review will reveal several more businesses who specialize in parts and accessories for the black rifle. It is not our intention to promote anyone in particular while leaving anyone else out, nor should either be misconstrued as an endorsement or lack of such in the latter case. We would be happy to put together a condensed Black Rifle Buyers Guide listing every business related to this system in the future, but had no room to so in this article.

Imagine standing on the Tee area of your favorite Par 4 hole and wishing you could get to the green in 1. (Putting for Eagle is something that most of us never have the chance do). You reach into your bag and select your 20-inch Colt H-Bar. As you drop your Top-Flite XL-3000 ball into the Bloom muzzle device, you read the wind and aim a little to the left to compensate for it. With a hollow sounding thump your ball takes flight and bounces just short of the green, rolling up beside the pin. It looks like another day of shooting under par.

We don’t know how your local golf course will feel about using the Bloom Automatic Golf Ball Launcher but we have yet to encounter a shooting range that doesn’t allow it.

The Bloom Automatic Golf Ball Launcher is a muzzle attachment designed to be used with several firearms. Rather than having a dedicated thread that must be matched to a particular firearm, this device will function with any standard 22mm flash hider or grenade launcher. It simply slides over the factory flash hider or grenade launcher and is secured with dog-point set screws in the corresponding grooves. Unlike cup-point set screws, there should be no scratching or marring of the original finish.

The firearms the Bloom device can be used with include, but are not limited to, the following unmodified firearms; Yugo SKS, AR-15, M16, FAL, Galil, CETME, G-3 and MAS 49/56. It will also function on the 1903 Springfield, M1 Garand and M1A / M14 when used in conjunction with their grenade launching attachments. They also recently added the correct flash hiders for an AK47 to use with this system.

After securing the launcher to the firearm, all that is necessary is a bucket of golf balls and a corresponding number of blanks. For obvious reasons this device should NEVER be used with live ammunition. A golf ball is dropped into the launcher and the blank round is loaded into the chamber. To fire, hold the rifle on your shoulder in a slightly elevated position so the ball will not roll out.

The distance the ball will travel depends entirely upon the caliber and the barrel length of the firearm used. With a 20-inch barrel on an AR-15 the balls can fly as far as 350 yards. When used with an 11.5-inch barrel, the distance was reduced to somewhere in the area of 100 – 150 yards. With an SKS they will fly in excess of 500 yards; almost completely out of sight. We can only assume that when used with the M1A or M1 Garand they will travel further. Standard blanks are used in conjunction with the Bloom Automatic Golf Ball Launcher and the use of grenade launching blanks is not recommended.

Something that has to be considered when firing golf balls is that they react unpredictably when they strike a hard surface. It would not be recommended to fire at a hard surface where there is the potential for the ball to bounce back towards the shooter or any spectators.

During our testing we found it fun to place several 5-gallon pails in a large area and try to see if we could drop any balls in the pails. Other suggested “sporting” options would be to use 55-gallon drums or paint large circles in the field or range in a bulls-eye fashion and, in a 21st Century version of “Jarts,” hits could be scored by their proximity to the target. While there is no tactical factor being sold with this attachment, the fun factor is certainly high, and with a little imagination several competitive and recreational uses can be discovered.

In support of this neat accessory, Bloom Automatic is going to offer blank crimp dies for sale. This will assist the reloaders who wish to manufacture their own loads instead of purchasing factory blanks, which at times can be elusive and expensive. Some factory blanks can be corrosive and reloading will solve that concern.

There has been a lot of discussion about specific launching accessories and their rulings within the Technology Branch of the ATF. As of this writing, ATF has ruled that the Bloom Automatic Golf Ball Launcher does not constitute a firearm or a destructive device. This conclusion followed a 6-month discussion period with the ATF legal department and they have even issued a ruling letter to this effect. A copy of this ruling is available at the Bloom Automatic website:

There are several new platforms for the launcher to be used on and they now include the 1911 pistol and some of the MAC family of firearms. All of this new information is available on their website as well. The price for the standard launcher, as tested in Small Arms Review magazine is $40 with an additional $5 shipping fee.

Bloom Automatic, LLC Dept. SAR 402 2nd Street Monongahela, PA 15063 E-Mail: bloomautomatic@yahoo.com Website: www.bloomautomatic.com

line breaks between paragraphs. Single
are good for spec lines. This is bolded. This is italics. This is underline. This is all three…

New Combat Bipod from TangoDown/Buffer Technologies

Buffer Technologies, Inc. has announced the new ACB-4 Combat Bipod, from TangoDown LLC, designed for use with the entire AR-type family of weapons. Made of proprietary advanced injection-molded polymers and forged aircraft aluminum components, the TangoDown ACB-4 outperforms all others in design, operation and dependability. “This bipod has the ability to attach directly to any MIL-STD 1913 rail, eliminating the need for expensive adapters.” said Rob Parham, Director of Operations at Buffer Technologies. “The integrated design allows it to tuck up between the side and bottom rails of the weapon, allowing a proper handgrip when the bipod legs are stowed.” The ACB-4 Bipod also matches function to the design. It has the ability to cant and, more importantly, traverse. This allows accurate, rapid tracking of moving targets. It can also be reverse-mounted for depressed angle fire. The legs are adjustable in length, and the entire unit is silent in operation. There are no exposed springs or screws to catch foliage or webgear. Manufactured by TangoDown LLC and distributed by Buffer Technologies, Inc., the ACB-4 bipod offers the features needed in military and law enforcement field conditions. Buffer Technologies, Inc. is a Missouri-based manufacturer and distributor of tactical weapons accessories for military, law enforcement and shooting sports. Its signature products include patented recoil buffers for most automatic pistols and rifles, the MagCinch dual-magazine system, and TangoDown LLC components for contemporary military assault rifles. For more information, please contact Buffer Technologies, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 105047, Jefferson City, MO 65110. Phone: (573) 634-8529. Fax: (573) 634-8522. They can be found on the web at www.buffertech.com.

Weapon Solutions Introduces New AR-15/M16 Notch/Peep Sight

Weapon Solutions has now introduced a new co-witness notch/peep rear sight for the AR-15/M16 series of both rifles and pistols. This new sight is the most improved rear sight that can be found for use with today’s holographic and red dot sighting systems. Tactical training professionals developed the notch/peep rear sight to avoid the top of the peep from covering up the commonly used red dot type optics during co-witness sighting with the AR-15/M16 rifle. This quality CNC machined 6061 aluminum replacement notch and peep type sight allows the shooter to see the entire sight picture needed to co-witness on a target. This more “open” sighting system allows the shooter to see all of the sights needed during low light and CQB conditions. Several shooting instructors have now favored the use of the notch type sight without optics at all. Elevation does not change when switching from the notch to the peep sight. There is still a “medium” sized opening on the peep half of the sight which works well for both rifles as well as pistols. For more information on the new sight, please contact Weapon Solutions, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 934, Greencastle, IN 46135. Phone: (765) 720-2102. The sights can also be seen on the web at www.weaponsolutions.com.

New Modular Gas Block for AR-15/M16 Series Rifles

Brownells has introduced an easy-to-install modular gas block for those seeking to optimize their AR-15/M16 rifles for tactical duty. It is designed to offer additional capacity and placement options for tactical rail-mounted accessories. The Brownells modular gas block features one integrated Picatinny (1913-style) rail, and allows the attachment of up to three additional Picatinny rails, which let you attach lights, back-up sights and a variety of other tactical rail-mounted accessories. Rugged machined aluminum construction and a durable hard coat anodized finish provides superior strength without weighing down the firearm. Three hardened steel set screws quickly anchor the Brownells modular gas block to any standard .750-inch (19mm) AR-15 or M16 barrel. The modular gas block is available alone (stock #080-000-382), or as part of the Brownells modular gas block kit (stock #080-000-384), which in-addition to the modular gas block, also includes three add-on rails. The modular add-on rails are also available separately (stock #080-000-383). Like every item Brownells offers, the modular gas rail block features the company’s exclusive 100-percent satisfaction guarantee, which promises a prompt refund of the full purchase price for any product that does not satisfy customer expectations for any reason. For more information, please contact them at Brownells, Dept. SAR, 200 South Front Street, Montezuma, IA 50171. Phone: (641) 623-5401. Fax: (641) 623-3896. You can also visit their website at www.brownells.com.

Gun Kote Introduces New One Step Air Cure Firearms Finish

Amateur and professional gunsmiths, law enforcement armorers, or anyone with a workbench or kitchen table, will now be able to add a protective, corrosion-resistant finish to a firearm without any need for ovens or special equipment. KG Industries, manufacturer of the Original Gun Kote, is a leader in the development of innovative protective coatings, lubricants and cleaning solutions for the firearms, aerospace and automotive industries. KG’s new 1200 Series Stock-Kote is a single component, water based, polyurethane resin system. Stock-Kote is easy to apply with a simple airbrush and it air dries in just eighty minutes or less at normal room temperature. According to Joe Fazio, president of KG Industries, Stock-Kote is the most unique product on the market. “There are other air cure products on the market, but they’re two-part coating systems which are messy and difficult to apply. Stock-Kote was developed in response to the requests we had from our customers who were having trouble achieving nice, smooth finishes. We also know from our extensive testing that Stock-Kote is extremely tough and protects equally well against chemicals, scratching and chipping.”

In addition to clear coat, Stock-Kote is available in popular colors, which allows for solid color, multi-color or even custom camouflage color treatments. For more information on this new firearms coating, please contact KG Industries, Dept. SAR, 1670 South Highway 63, Building 63, Hayward, WI 54843. Phone: (800) 348-9558. Fax: (715) 934-3570. Visit them on the world wide web at www.kgcoatings.com.

Tru-Spec Introduces New Tactical BDUs

Tru-Spec by Atlanco, one of the leading suppliers of BDUs and other apparel to the law enforcement and military sectors, has introduced a brand new style BDU focused specifically on the requirements of tactical team members. Tru-Spec’s innovative new TRU Tactical Response Uniform is based on the ACU recently adopted by the U.S. Army, which is currently available from Tru-Spec. With input from several tactical officers around the country, including members of the Department of Homeland Security’s ICE SRT team in San Diego, Tru-Spec has added several proprietary design improvements to its TRU aimed at improving functionality, durability and comfort in the field. Unlike the standard ACU, which is available only in a military digital pattern, Tru-Spec is offering the new TRU in six popular color choices (black, khaki, olive, navy, woodland camo and three-color desert camo) and with several coordinated accessory items including combat caps, matching t-shirts, shoulder conversion kits and name tape kits. All fabrics were developed and manufactured in U.S. government-approved factories and built to withstand battlefield conditions. Some of the exclusive features of the new BDUs include extra deep front trouser pockets, double reinforced front trouser pocket openings to protect the pocket from wear and tear caused by the clip on pocket knives, hidden 5 inch by 5 inch pockets in each side of the trouser cargo pockets, thicker than normal leg drawstrings to ensure they stay tied and 1-inch wide belt loops with 2 1/4 inch openings. For more information on these new BDUs please contact TRU-SPEC by Atlanco, Dept. SAR, 1125 Hayes Industrial Drive, Marietta, GA 30062. Phone: (770) 427-1334. Fax: (770) 427-9011. You can also find their products at www.truspec.com.

To supplement available supply stocks of modern US weapons in the Vietnam Theater of Operations, the four US Army Transportation Groups in the four Corps Zone areas each ran a USARV-authorized “Operation Self-Help,” which refurbished weapons from battlefield salvage for use as additional arms above US standard Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) levels. They rebuilt from battlefield salvage significant numbers of M16-series rifles, M60 machine guns, .50 caliber M2 HB heavy machine guns with custom mounts, and M79 40mm grenade launchers, as well as the occasional aircraft-model machine gun and even 7.62mm Minigun. These extra weapons were primarily for Transportation truck units’ guntrucks and ordinary truck crews. This was the only source available to these units of the “over TO&E” weapons used to adequately equip the truck convoys and their covering guntruck crews; and the same program also supplied useful numbers of extra small arms over their official TOE authorizations to USARV MPs and Aviation units.

This was a major and well-organized workshop operation of the sort normally found stateside at the depot level, largely taken from Transportation group assets with the further assignment of a very small number of small arms technicians from the supporting corps area Logistics Support Commands, organized as one small arms workshop in each Transportation Group supporting the US Field Force to which that Group was assigned. Additional personnel from the group HQ company and Transportation battalions assisted at various times, primarily as labor details and individual volunteers under supervision for cleaning, sorting and packing. Other than this specially authorized salvage rebuild operation, official DOD policy at the time was that salvaged weapons needing more than ordinary maintenance by unit armorers were to be “retrograded” back to the US for depot maintenance.

This “Self-Help” program was originally authorized during 1967 to generate extra weapons by the Transportation units’ own efforts as needed for intense convoy protection operations, and under “command interest” by General Westmoreland, and then General Abrams, was still continuing in 1970 despite objections from high levels at Department of Defense. The Transportation units, and 1st Log’s supply and arms maintenance people, correctly pointed out that the flow of replacement weapons in the US supply pipeline to USARV was just about sufficient to maintain US line combat units during the intense operations experienced during 1968 and 1969, but were not sufficient to also supply the truck units nor the MPs with the extra weapons above normal TO&E needed for convoy protection during this period. General Westmoreland and then General Abrams both endorsed this unit rebuild operation, and insisted that it be continued unless and until greater numbers of weapons could be supplied.

The bottleneck for the Transportation Group armorers was in replacement parts and rebuild kits for the M16-series rifles, as “the service units in Vietnam were not authorized this weapon.” (Officially, the authorized rifle for all service support units was the 7.62mm M14 Rifle, supported in these units by relatively small numbers of machine guns and of M79 grenade launchers.) It took repeated “command interest messages” during late 1969 and early 1970 by both the MGen commanding 1st Log Command, and by Gen. Abrams himself, to finally kick loose from stateside some additional maintenance parts and some small batches of the M16 rebuild kits for the continuing “Operation Self-Help.”

Sufficient numbers of both ordinary critical repair parts and the “official” upgrade rebuild parts kits for the worn-out early M16 rifles were never available in sufficient supply to the Transportation Groups. Thus, a certain amount of local experimentation was done by these Self-Help workshops in polishing out moderately pitted chambers, repairing or locally fabricating a small number of certain critical parts, and even cleaning and retempering springs. (This last did not work reliably: the retempered old springs tended to be more brittle, but new springs were never available in the numbers required.)

Lacking chromed barrels for rebuilding, Transportation Group Operation Self-Help armorers during 1969 experimented by selecting lightly to moderately corroded M16 barrels with “tight” chamber tolerances, and then brought them to maximum “loose” dimensional tolerance while smoothing the pitting by lapping and polishing the chamber. (One operation that I saw in II FF used a modified brake drum lathe fitted with a shop-turned chamber lap, in order to mechanize this procedure.) A few of these rebuilt M16 weapons that I saw in trucker hands obviously ended up with chambers lapped out over-tolerance; these produced some expanded-near-the-case-head funny-looking fired cases, but still operated. Other rebuilt M16s polished out in this way ejected near-perfect cases.

Another unit experiment by Transportation armorers, finally abandoned upon direct orders from stateside, had explored the rebuilding of original Edgewater Spring buffers by opening the unit, variously pouring lead into a drilled hole for added mass, or adding various combinations of weights and rubber or nylon washers in an attempt to approximate the improved Colt buffer. The armorer then reassembled the separated unit in various ways (brazing, and cutting and threading two original buffers to screw together as one modified buffer, were among several methods tried).

In addition to the rebuilding of standard machine guns and M16-series rifles, a number of custom M14 auto rifles and chopped M60s were turned out as “bailout” and high-fire capacity close combat weapons for truck and guntruck crews. Even a few cut down M16s were built up from otherwise damaged weapons. M16 barrels with damage near the muzzle were shortened despite the “slam-bam” more abrupt pressure curve of the shortened tube. For better reliability, the new improved buffer was fitted to these experimental do-it-yourself M16 carbines.

In Vietnam, Weapon Collection Points were designated for units to turn in weapons salvaged from the battlefield. Here, the weapons turned in were sorted into piles of US and enemy types, rifles separated from machine guns, and heavy weapons set aside in another pile. Acquisition teams from the Transportation Groups, along with other authorized teams from Special Forces and from ARVN units, then would cherry-pick weapons which seemed to be salvageable. Once selected by the Transportation Group teams from the weapon collection points, these battlefield salvage weapons were taken to Transportation Group workshops to be stripped down, cleaned and inspected, then repaired or rebuilt as necessary. Unrepairable pieces were parted out for useable spares.

ARVN units also operated their own weapons salvage and rebuild programs. With the assistance of their US advisors, during late 1968 through 1970, they largely equipped their divisional reconnaissance and commando assault units with salvaged modern US small arms, alongside significant numbers of captured AKs and RPDs.

Return Shipment of Damaged Weapons to the US:

Unit packing of damaged weapons being retrograded to US stateside depots could be very rough-and-ready with some of the returning weapons having been hurriedly packed up for shipment. A plaintive message of complaint from a depot in Hawaii was perhaps typical: It mentioned finding shipping containers full of weapons and other items returned by combat units with no manifest at all; some weapons which had been shipped chamber loaded, cocked and safety off, many of these with dried mud in the bore; captured SovBloc weapons mixed in without manifest along with the US weapons, including some unusual or new items of interest to Military Intelligence; weapons along with loose ammo including grenades and mortar rounds thrown willy-nilly into a CONEX container without packing, and yet other CONEX containers stuffed with loose weapons, and then filled up with expanding plastic foam (then required to be tediously chipped apart by the receiving depot).

Captured Weapons:

Captured AK-47s had earlier been carried by some US riflemen or grenadiers, especially during 1966-1967 when some US units had such troubles with their early model M16 rifles. By 1968, aside from MACV-SOG and the LRRP units (who used a few AKs and RPDs during semi-covert patrols of the border areas and into Laos), and the occasional AK-47 carried on a turret top or as a sturdy supplemental emergency weapon by a “Bloop” gunner or dissatisfied M16 rifleman, US forces in Vietnam officially discouraged the use of captured SovBloc automatic weapons in combat. One reason was the characteristic sound of the enemy weapons, and their usual green, white or pink tracers. Especially at night, this was discouraged by experienced troop commanders, as either signature would draw heavy US fire, even more especially when US fighter bombers, gunships or attack helicopters were operating in the area. A gunship or fighter pilot, seeing characteristic enemy tracers in a ground action below, was likely to follow the tracer line back to its source as a target.

In early 1970, a firm final order (No discussion is desired!) came down over General Abrams’ signature: All captured enemy 7.62x39mm weapons, and all SovBloc machine guns, now were prohibited from use by US troops (except for certain recon elements on “Road Runner” operations), and all captured/salvaged weapons along with mortars and RPGs were to be immediately turned in. Besides the considerable friendly fire hazard of misidentifying US troop use of a captured automatic weapon, the newly independent Lon Nol Cambodian government under US blandishment had now declared against the VC and North Vietnamese. Cambodia already largely used the Soviet arms family, acquired as a 10% “transfer tax” from shipments through the port of Sihanoukville intended for the VC in Vietnam’s Delta region. They now needed additional weapons in a hurry so that they could urgently expand their small national Army and other security forces in an attempt to guard against further occupation of the Cambodian border region by the VC and NVA. Any SovBloc weapons that we could supply to Cambodia from captures in Vietnam would help, and that was to be the directed destination of all further salvaged AKs, RPGs and Soviet-pattern machine guns.

By 1970 the great majority of captured communist-made small arms in Vietnam (my recollection is some 80% of captures during the last half of 1969) actually were Chinese or occasionally Korean in origin, whereas in 1963-1965 about half of the small arms to the VC were then supplied by the USSR from Soviet production, with small quantities from virtually all of the Warsaw Pact states, and the other half a mixture of the new 7.62x39mm generation from China along with older Chinese equipment.

Individual Maintenance of the M16 Series Rifles in Vietnam

By March, 1969 when I received M16 familiarization training prior to my deployment to Vietnam, US Army policy on the M16 rifle had changed 180 degrees from the early “no cleaning needed” approach. We were carefully instructed in basic field stripping and daily cleaning of the M16 rifle, and advised to keep a toothbrush on your person for this purpose. Specifics of dealing with caked heavy fouling was not addressed, but was at least mentioned as a problem. During a break, one of the committee sergeants did pass on his own experiences in using Dri-Slide as a palliative when the chrome plating on the bolt slide began to wear and to gall the mating surfaces. Use of the Bolt Forward Assist was explained, but with the observation that the only effective measure of dealing with a case stuck in the chamber was to punch the jammed case out using a .223 sized cleaning rod.

After the three days of M16 familiarization training, my knowledge of cleaning and maintenance of the M16 was adequate for what was expected in my job as a REMF, should I have been in a unit where the clerks carried M16s. I still would have had to learn the hard way how to keep the rifle going during extended combat operations out in the field.

M16 Rifle Reliability Problems in Vietnam

The standard US Army gun oil intended for the M14 and other 7.62mm weapons was not suitable for the M16, and certainly was not an effective cure for M16 rifles which had worn through their chrome bolt plating to scrub off the internal dry lubricant. Standard US Army gun oil caked badly when exposed to the gas residue of the 5.56mm’s ball powder, and even more so in the presence of high humidity. The standard Army bore cleaner also was not an effective solvent for removing this stubborn carbonate fouling. Some US soldiers in Vietnam personally ordered commercial gun cleaning solvents intended for heavy fouling, and Dri-Slide or other molybdenum dry lubricant, from family or from mail order suppliers.

Despite the problems experienced by Army and USMC units in Vietnam with worn or corroded M16 rifles during 1966-1967, the USAF in contrast had no appreciable difficulties that I am aware of in using the original AR-15/M16 rifle in Vietnam, despite the heavy ball powder fouling, and the fact that their AR-15s also had the early form of buffer. They had emphasized proper cleaning and maintenance of the AR-15 from the outset, buying appropriate commercial products while the Army still dithered on the question of officially authorized cleaning materials for the M16. The USAF rifles introduced the chromed chamber quite early in production, and quickly went to the improved buffers as maintenance replacement items for their earlier rifles as soon as these improvements were introduced in new USAF production. Admittedly, the Air Force’s AR-15/M16 rifles, even in the USAF Base Defense Squadrons, received less intense usage and more cleaning than did those of Army infantry units as USAF weapons served with fewer long-duration patrols, and less time without cleaning in a salt-marsh environment such as numbers of Army units encountered. And, it is interesting, that the USAF never found it desirable to introduce the Bolt Forward Assist to their version of the M16.

When I had the opportunity in Vietnam during 1969 to compare the original USAF smooth-side bolt carrier side-by-side with the original Army chromed smooth-side bolt carrier, I noticed a number of subtle differences in shape. Possibly, these differences may have represented merely different production generations. Judged merely by estimated heft, the USAF bolt seemed slightly more massive. If so, this would have tended to bring down the high cyclic rate a bit.

The US Marines also made sure to order effective cleaning supplies, and as with any Marine weapon, they meticulously maintained their M16s. The severe M16 jamming problems which some USMC battalions experienced after changing over to the M16 while in Vietnam, I think, is due at least partly to the fact that to supply the numbers of M16s in a hurry, the initially issued USMC stocks of this weapon were largely used ex-Army rifles, some from Army holdings already in Vietnam and others were weapons returned to Army depot inventory after extensive stateside field testing during the M16 trials and/or the 11th Air Cavalry extensive proof-of-concept field exercises (with much firing of blank rounds and little, if any, cleaning), or after heavy use in training establishments. Continuing operations in a salt marsh environment aggravated corrosion problems of these used rifles, and to a lesser extent of new M16 rifles issued to the Marines at the same time. The unchromed chambers of the early M16 production pitted very easily.

Non-Supply of Army “Official” M16 Cleaning Items

During 1969, and at least until I left Vietnam at the end of March 1970, HQ 1st Log, HQ USARV, and many Army individual combat and support units, were still in constant correspondence with stateside authorities trying to arrange for regular supply of proper cleaning supplies (caliber .223/5.56mm cleaning rods, patches, proper cleaning solvent and dry lubricant suitable to the M16). Despite an official 1967 start of large scale distribution to troops of M16-specific cleaning materials, these still during 1969-1970 were almost impossible to obtain through official sources for any units in Vietnam save Infantry (and in early 1970 were still in short supply even for these combat units). Return messages from stateside were almost uniformly unhelpful even in early 1970, variously stating for example that “testing of cleaning equipment, of lubricant and of solvent agents for the 5.56mm weapon were not yet complete,” that “quantities of authorized cleaning materials available for shipment were not yet in the supply pipeline” (and hence could not be shipped – in 1970!), that “untested commercial cleaning supply items for caliber .223 were NOT authorized for government issue, nor for purchase with official unit funds,” as well as a host of other reasons why requisitions for such cleaning supplies could not, as yet, be filled. This despite the existence of official item numbers in the stock guide: Oh, no, “Those were older interim types, no longer readily available.”

Judging by unofficial comments from troops in the field, as well as official correspondence which passed across my desk during this period, most US Army units in Vietnam as late as early 1970 still were cutting standard caliber 7.62mm cleaning patches into quarters for use in the smaller 5.56 mm bore, and were using personal funds as well as “unit recreation funding” to irregularly purchase commercial .223 cleaning rods and brushes intended for varmint rifles (one-piece rods as well as sectional rods), various proprietary commercial bore solvents, and molybdenum dry lubricants such as Dri-Slide. Individual troops also were asking family members to ship these commercial items to them via personal mail.

Parts for M16 Rifle Series Maintenance and Rebuilding:

A parallel problem was the continuing difficulty of obtaining adequate numbers of M16 and M16A1 maintenance parts by many US units in Vietnam, as well as the limited numbers of rebuild kits available for the earlier model M16. These requisitions went through the same stateside offices for approval as for the requested M16 cleaning supplies. The M16A1 had become the official standard light rifle for the Vietnam Theater of Operations in 1967 and had entered widespread distribution in 1968. However, although many original M16 rifles had been passed on to the ARVN, or returned to the US for training, most units already in Vietnam still had some of the original M16 version on hand in 1969. A significant percentage of the rebuilt battlefield salvage M16s used by the Transportation Groups in Vietnam were the earlier version.

Replacement barrels with chrome chambers were in extremely short supply in Vietnam, and there were some other critical shortage item maintenance parts for the M16-series rifles, especially the buffer, disconnector, and bolt latch. Official DOD policy was to ship weapons deadlined for corroded chambers back stateside for depot-level rebuilding. Although the M16A1’s chromed barrel could be interchanged into the earlier M16, this was specifically prohibited to units in Vietnam, as the improved barrels in early 1970 were still in short supply and reserved for repair of the -A1 version. Infantry unit armorers at battalion level in Vietnam did perform a fair number of barrel changes to the new chrome barrel on pitted M16A1 rifles, as well as rebuilding some older M16s to the new standard with original pattern of barrel, improved buffer, disconnector, new bolt latch and new bolt carrier. It was an unfortunate choice, made at DOD level, not to routinely replace the unchromed early barrels with the new chromed-chamber version, but rather to replace these only on an “as needed” basis, and to continue use of the stock of old unchromed barrels already in the supply line. Experience of the Marines, and of Army troops also operating in salt marsh or littoral areas in Vietnam, is that the unchromed chambers of even brand-new barrels would quickly pit through corrosion when carried daily in such conditions.

At the start of 1970, US Army Infantry units and recon units (LRRPs) in Vietnam had priority on the available M16-series maintenance parts. It was the MPs, Army Aviation, and the Transportation truck battalions who were left relatively unsupported on the question of M16 maintenance parts, as well as left without M16-specific cleaning parts. Officially, said one message from stateside, this shortage of repair parts and of cleaning items was due to necessary allocation of items in short supply, and also due to further ongoing testing of both improvements to the M16-series weapon, and of “cleaning supplies proper to its unique design and materials.”

M16 Magazine Flaws

Some M16 magazines were inherently unreliable: The aluminum body of magazines in the soldier’s web pouch could easily be dented when hitting pavement or rocky ground, some magazines more easily than others. The feed lips of the aluminum magazine sometimes were too soft to retain their shape, resulting in failures to feed. Others were too soft in the area of the notch for the magazine catch. With wear, extra play here allowed the magazine to drop down slightly and gave a bad feed. By 1969, the answer in most units was to simply replace the soft magazine with a better one, and to either smash or cut the bad magazine so that it could not be reissued. (Many unit armorers kept a large pair of bolt cutters on hand for this purpose). Unfortunately, in some units an attempt was made to reshape feed lips by hand, or the bad magazine was simply cleaned and put back into stock to repeat the problem in the future.

Defective 5.56mm Ammunition

One further problem was the question of defective ammunition lots. We in Vietnam had several 5.56mm ammunition lots identified by units or turned in as defective as late as 1968 and 1969. Some had soft rims and were prone to let the extractor tear through the rim (this was especially likely when fired in a corroded chamber). Other 5.56mm ammo lots appeared not to have been properly annealed; the case was fully shiny rather than showing the annealing discoloration common to all military ammunition. These sometimes would separate when extracted, leaving the neck, or neck and upper case body, stuck in the chamber. In badly corroded chambers of individual rifles, headspace tolerances also could have worsened such a problem. However, repeated unit testing by many units established that the soft rim and case separation problems were associated with particular ammunition lots. The problem did not appear in other batch lots made to standard Milspec in the same test weapons.

Growing frustrated with continuing refusals by stateside to authorize withdrawal of the affected ammunition lots from the Vietnam Theater of Operations, most of the suspect ammo was finally marked on USARV authority as “Training Only.” Unfortunately, some of this was then given to the ARVN forces. Other quantities of these suspect ammo lots were destroyed as “damaged ordnance” during 1968/69 after major fires at both the Saigon and Qui Nhon ammunition dumps. Additional to the munitions actually damaged in the blaze, these bad ammo lots were declared on paper as damaged, and then destroyed by EOD teams along with other defective, damaged and dangerous munitions during the after-fire cleanup.

ARVN and Allied Maintenance of the M16 Rifle

Regarding maintenance parts for the M16, the Government of Vietnam was in even worse shape than US Army support units: They had received small numbers of early M16 rifles in a demonstration program as early as 1965, with accelerating numbers transferred to them after Tet of 1968. Initially, these went largely to ARVN Airborne and some Ranger units, but by mid-1969 a number of ARVN divisional line infantry units had rearmed with at least some M16s. Meanwhile they also had picked up substantial numbers of repairable M16s, M14 rifles, and M60 machine guns as battlefield salvage, along with AKs and RPDs.

Unfortunately, only very limited supplies of maintenance parts were supplied to the Vietnamese Government by the US within the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. For various reasons, the official US policy was to provide to the Government of Vietnam under FMS credits only limited numbers of rebuild kits and maintenance parts for early M16 rifles, capped at the numbers of early weapons officially issued to the Government of Vietnam. The Vietnamese government bought some limited additional quantities of M16 repair parts directly from Colt for cash, but with very limited foreign exchange (actually, negative reserves), they were only able to purchase a few hundreds of critical repair items in this manner.

In contrast, Australian, Thai and Republic of Korea troops in Vietnam seemed to be well supplied with repair parts for their M16A1 rifles, and were fairly happy with the handy little weapon. The Australians used the M16A1 in relatively small proportions; more as a replacement for the 9mm submachine gun in infantry companies and reconnaissance elements, and for M113 APC crew, than for their 7.62mm L1A1 SLR rifles. They made direct commercial purchase of the M16A1 from Colt, and usually purchased their repair and maintenance items in the same way except for small emergency issues from the US Army Saigon Support Command depot. US official supplies of repair and rebuild parts for the M16-series rifles to Thai and Korean forces in Vietnam seemed more freely available than to US units. Certainly we filled their requisitions promptly and in full. This would not always be the case for US Army units.

Save for Thai-specific supplies such as rations, uniforms and some non-US equipment, the US had a commitment to Thailand to provide full logistic support to Thai troops in Vietnam. As a condition of deploying this division-sized Thai force to Vietnam, the Thai Expeditionary Force was fully equipped with the current range of standard US equipment (including both M16 and M16A1 rifles as their standard infantry weapon). We supplied them with repair parts and limited numbers of M16A1 rebuild kits under this agreement at least to the same standard or better as for US infantry units. However, the most common practice during 1969-70 in Vietnam with deadlined Thai M16-series rifles was for the US to exchange worn-out or damaged Thai M16s as direct exchange, turning in and exchanging periodic batches at US Saigon Support Command depots at Long Binh.

The ROK forces in Vietnam arrived in-country with US World War II vintage generation .30 caliber weapons, and continued to use these as their basic weapons family into 1968. After Tet of 1968, however, we supplied to the ROK increasing numbers of both M14 and M16A1 rifles, along with M60 machine guns and M79 grenade launchers. ROK forces from 1968 to early 1970 seemed to use their M16 rifles mainly among recon troops and M113 APC crews. Although they also used some M16 rifles among their line infantry companies, they preferred the M14 rifle instead (with its heavier 7.62mm punch) to gradually replace the older ex-US M1 rifles and BARs in ROK rifle units. As did the ARVN, the ROK forces also acquired substantial numbers of repairable modern US weapons from battlefield salvage. During their operations along Highway 1, they recovered a significant number of ex-US and ex-ARVN weapons from the VC and NVA, especially following the bitter fighting during and for the 18 months after Tet 1968. We did supply the ROK with proportionately fairly large amounts of M16-series repair parts and rebuild kits. As did our own Transportation units, the ROKs operated their own weapons rebuild program while in Vietnam, and salvaged significant numbers of weapons.

Along with the first two US Marine battalions to convert to the M16 in late 1965 while in Vietnam, the US Army’s 1st Air Cavalry Division and 196th Light Infantry Brigades had exceptional trouble with the early M16: this included heavy fouling, corroded chambers with resulting extraction problems, worn bolt plating, broken bolt latch, broken disconnectors, and corrosion of the receiver body especially around the magazine housing. It did not help that these units’ receipt of the weapon was before the beginnings of regular issue of proper cleaning supplies, during the period when some Army authorities still were recommending that “the M16 Rifle did not need regular cleaning.”

I was assigned as a special project to dig through back message files in order to trace what I could of weapon serial number blocks issued to these units, and then compare them with messages detailing major unreliability problems. I found that apparently the Air Cav and the 196th Light Infantry Brigade both ended up with fairly large numbers of early M16 rifles originally used in the intensive 11th Airmobile Division proof-of-concept trials back in the States, and in Vietnam the Air Cav found themselves saddled with significant numbers of early M16 rifles which “had been rode hard and put away wet.” Likewise, among the M16 rifles shipped to Vietnam to rearm the Marine battalions were numbers of early M16 rifles from the M16 unit field trials, pulled from Army depots and from training bases and shipped in a hurry to make up the numbers. Among defective weapons reported by serial number by these units were numerous weapons from the serial blocks used for the various intensive trials programs mentioned above.

The 1st Air Cav had some of these used M16s early in their Vietnam tour, the 173rd Airborne Brigade also got some when it converted from the M14 Rifle to the M16, and the 196th Light Infantry Brigade (which later became part of the Americal) received numbers of used M16s when they were initially stood up and trained for deployment to Vietnam. On the other hand, the specially formed 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment had much less trouble with the M16 during the same period, being largely armed with new, never before issued M16s. Their lower incidence of trouble, however, may partly have been because of better rifle maintenance in their unit culture than among the Air Cav and Light Infantry, and perhaps also because of the 11th ACR’s lesser exposure to a salt environment than the light infantry units.

XM177E1 Carbine: Perception of Reliability

Despite the short barrel with its sharp pressure curve and resulting abrupt firing cycle, and despite later testing showing a similar rate of operating failures to that of the early M16A1 and actually not as good as the improved chromed barrel M16A1 that was starting to come along into the supply pipeline in late 1969, the relatively new XM177E1 carbine during 1969 was perceived among US troops in Vietnam as being much more reliable than the standard issue M16 and unchromed M16A1. In part this was due to all of this carbine issue having been manufactured with the chromed chamber, new bolt latch, new disconnector, and improved buffer as standard.

Since most of these non-standard carbines were issued to either reconnaissance units such as LRRPs (who generally were fanatical about weapons maintenance) or to combat officers, I suspect that better-than-average daily cleaning also played a role. Another factor is that in either role, the little carbine was seldom subjected to the routine daily protective “Mad Minute” on the unit perimeter that the ordinary rifleman’s M16 experienced, with its long bursts of automatic fire. Instead, the XM177E1 users tended to fire it in controlled bursts or on semiautomatic. The exception, of course, was when a small unit such as a recon team needed to break contact. But, that sort of heavy auto firing still was not done daily, so the recon team’s XM177E1 when badly needed usually had not been as worn and fouled by routine firing as the infantry rifleman’s M16 rifle.