Piston Slap

Got a question on a forum this morning, and I thought I'd share it, and my answer, here.

"I'm thinking about buying a piston AR, specifically the Ruger 556. Anyone know anything about them?"

Well, I haven't shot one, but I got a good chance to handle it; plus I got about a 20 minute interview with the chief designer, and the head of the production line on the project; at the NRA convention earlier this year (unfortunately my recorder had a mic malf, and I could barely hear them over the crowd noise on the recording, so I couldn't run a transcript).

My take, is that it's pretty much like every other piston AR, but less expensive. They're sourcing all their standard parts, from the standard manufacturers; they took the time to get the non-standard engineering right; and it looks well made, to a higher standard of fit and finish than most other Rugers.

I also got to talk with Michael Bane a while about the gun. He had taken it out and tested it a couple days earlier; and they put 1500 rounds through it without a malf. It shot well, but like all piston AR's the recoil felt different, and it wasn't QUITE as accurate as a conventional AR would be (a couple percentage points difference).

If you want a piston AR, and don't feel like paying Leitner-Weise (or later this year HK) their rather significant premium, then it should be a good choice; but as was said, wait a couple months and see how they shakeout in the field. Ruger has had some issues with early production run guns lately and it would be wise to let other people experience those problems before you jump in.

Two years ago I would have also thrown POF into the mix, but reports are that they are having some production issues right now, and may be having some cracking and failures in action. Until those settle out, I'd stay away.

POF is actually local to me, and I know a couple of the POF guys read my blog on occaison, so if y'all feel like commenting, go for it. I'd love to hear that you're sorted out.

Of course there's a larger question you have to ask: Are you sure you want to pay the premium at all for a piston AR?

No evidence has shown that a piston AR is any more reliable than a conventional AR of equivalent quality, fit, and finish. The only real improvement is that they are easier to detail clean, and you don't necessarily have to do it as often.

You all know how I feel about cleaning a service rifle. You shoot, you clean. You move, you clean. You breath funny, you clean. So increased cleaning intervals don't mean much to me; but there is a slight advantage there in being easier to clean.

Lord knows I would be happy to have a rifle where I can get a pipe cleaner through the gas port without risking getting something jammed in the gas tube an buggering the whole thing up; and if I never have to clean carbon out of a gas key or bolt recess again, that would be great.

On the minus side, they are much more expensive, considerably more mechanically complex (which is a REDUCTION in reliability. More moving parts to fail), and somewhat less inherently accurate (more moving parts means more reciprocating mass, more vibrations, more disturbances etc...)...

Oh and they're all a bit heavier than an equivalent conventional AR, and most of them get a LOT hotter under the handguards a lot faster (and don't dissipate that heat as fast) in rapid fire than conventional ARs do (hot enough to induce failures in some cases).

'Course I've had a gas tube disintegrate on me before as well, so it's not like conventional AR's are without fault in that department.

Actually, there is one other point in favor of the piston systems: If they have an adjustable gas regulator, you can adjust the timing better for your conditions and configurations (direct impingement systems can sue adjustable gas regulators as well, but to lesser effect).

Because of that, they'll tend to function better in extremely dusty environments, or with extremely dirty or inconsistent ammo; and you can adjust to compensate for barrel length, your load (high pressure 77gr vs subsonic loads for suppressors for example), or if you're going to use a suppressor (suppressors foul gas systems very easily, and often do not cycle gas actions reliably).

That point right there could make them worth it all by themselves.

Unfortunately, not all piston ARs HAVE an adjustable gas system, and some of those that do (including the SR-556) have it as "open, 50%, closed"; which is still an advantage, but less of one than a fully adjustable system would be.

Of course, in a field rifle, you don't want something fiddly, or prone to backing out, or difficult to adjust in the dark, with gloves on... so it's a tradeoff. On balance, it's still useful to have.

Overall, I'd call the SR-556 a good rifle buy, once it's been in the market for a while, and the kinks have been worked out. Oh and I'd like to see more options and more configurations like other AR makers offer. This being Ruger though, I think they may be going for simplicity of production more than tactical Barbie.

At the $1500 to $1700 price point the SR-556 is at (or will be at once full production capacity is reached, initial demand lessens, and the Obama hoarding is completely over), I think it's probably worth buying over a conventional AR of similar configuration. Realistically, you're only paying, at most, a $400 premium (and generally, much less than that) over a similarly configured conventional AR, when you count the rail system, sights etc...

As far as the other piston rifles go, I just think they're too expensive for what you're getting. LWRC, POF, and HK all make very good rifles (yes, really, even with the current problems the POF's have in general been very good); but to me, not good enough to justify their premium pricing (all $2000 or more, fully equipped), now that a lower cost alternative is available.

Honestly, if I'm going to spend LWRC kind of money, I would rather spend it on a Wilson or a Noveske, or something similar; and get a much better conventional AR.

Brownells has AR mags back in stock

Our friends at Brownells have let me know they've got about 8000 of their 30 rounders back in stock... Which should last for at least a day or so anyway at current ordering rates.

The Unintentional Straight Pull Bolt Action Rifle

So it seems like Ambulance Driver is having a little trouble with his AR. It'll run for 30-100 rounds, then it becomes a straight pull bolt action.

Well, we've all been there at one time or another. Hell, I had it happen to me at a rifle event once (bad ammo).

Thank god it never happened when I actually NEEDED the rifle for serious social purposes (which is why I always have known good ammo and magazines, and clean and lubricate properly).

Since the rifle in question is a decent quality piece (a Bushmaster), the problem gets progressively worse the more he shoots, and he doesn't mention having problems with his magazines (the usual culprit when ANY semi-auto isn't cycling properly); I'm guessing it's one of two problems:

1. Cheap nasty steel cased ammo
   
   
2. Overlubrication

Seriously folks, I don't care how cheap you are, or how expensive ammo is, AR's are not designed to function with anything other than brass cased ammo.

Brass and steel cases expand to seal the chamber (called obturation) differently, and retract from that seal differently. This alters the timing of the weapon and causes unreliable extraction. This is especially true of M4's with their shorter, higher pressure gas system; which is much more sensitive to proper timing.

Also, steel rims, combined with that different timing, work the extractor of an AR MUCH harder than designed; and can detension an extractor spring in as little as 500 rounds instead of the 5000 or so (or 20,000 if you have the machine gun spring buffer, and an o or d ring in) you'll get with brass.

Also, the powders they tend to use in steel cased ammo are nastydirty; and will gum up the gas system and bolt, and blowback more residue into the receiver, coating everything with FAR more carbon than in higher quality ammmo.

Additionally, that difference in obturation causes firing residue to blow back into the chamber, progressively coating it with more hot sticky stuff; until extraction and even feeding become difficult. If the extraction get's sticky enough, it can actually chip the extractor, or tear the head off a cartridge leaving you with a not every effective club.

Again, these issues are exacerbated in shorter length carbines.

It doesn't matter whether it's polymer or Lacquer coated; steel is just generally not great for ARs. It will have problems with extraction over time, I guarantee it to you.

Seriously, that's just more to clean, and less reliability; don't use it.

I suspect the biggest problem he's having though, is that he's overlubing the weapon.

Almost everyone does.

Even better, most folks don't recognize overlubricating for what it is, think they're UNDER lubricating the weapon, and make the problem worse by squirting even more goop in there.

Then when that fails, they make it yet worse by switching to another product incompatible with the first that has suspended nano super slip lube in it or somesuch crap; and they might as well squirt superglue into their action.

Overlubing will gum up your rifle in a magazine or three pretty easily; even if you're using clean ammo, and you're not in a dusty environment. Add in dirty ammo or dust, and again, you might as well be using superglue for lube.

So, what is the proper lubrication for an AR (this applies to an M16 as well; you just need an additional drop or two for the auto sear mechanism)

Alright first things first, you need to undo the damage.... actually you should do this when you first get your AR, and every 1500 to 5000 rounds (depending on conditions and ammunition) or every six months anyway.

For this you will need your normal cleaning supplies, CLP (or something similar), original Militec (or something similar), and a non-chlorinated degreaser/cleaner that doesn't attack ABS plastic (I use M-Pro 7, Slip, or Hoppes elite; all essentially the same thing); and you may need a carbon solvent (I use Hoppes elite).

1. Detail strip and clean the rifle, paying special attention to your bolt and carrier, trigger mechanism, and your chamber and chamber extension. Clean them to bare metal, with a degreaser, and if necessary a carbon solvent (especially the internal passages of the bolt and carrier). Use a chamber brush and barrel extension brush to make sure they are really properly clean.
   
   
2. Spray your trigger mechanism, the internal surfaces of your receiver, your barrel extension, and your receiver pin bosses, LIGHTLY with CLP. Then cycle the trigger a few times to distribute, and let sit to dry.
   
   
3. After a few minutes, wipe every surface you can reach clean and dry. If you happen to have some compressed air, you can let it sit a few minutes then blow it off; but lightly means lightly, so that shouldn't be necessary.
   
   
4. If you reassembled them after cleaning, disassemble your bolt and carrier mechanism; then coat your bolt and carrier mechanism and all components thereof (including the internal passages, using a q-tip if necessary) liberally with CLP.
   
   
5. Let sit for a few minutes, and wipe all the parts down til completely dry. Remember to pass a Q tip through the firing pin passage in the bolt and carrier to wipe them dry.
   
   
6. Then let it sit for a few more minutes, and wipe them all down again.
   
   
7. Put a single drop of militec or something similar on each trigger pin.
   
   
8. Put single drop of militec into the trigger and sear, and smear a bit into the hammer hooks and disconnector, then cycle the trigger a few times to distribute. If this is an M16/M4, also put a single drop on the auto hooks, and a single drop on the auto sear pin.
   
   
9. Put a single drop of militec on the safety or selector, and smear it around with a q-tip; then cycle the safety a few times to distribute.
   
   
10. Wipe everything you can reach with your fingers or a qtip, to distribute the lube. Nothing should look "wet" or greasy.
    

That may seem like it's a bit fussy, or a lot of work; but remember this isn't your general clean and lube procedure. You only need to do this every few thousand rounds.

Also, it sounds a lot more fussy than it really is. It took me longer to write it up than it does to actually do it.

What you're doing there is cleaning off all the pre-existing or built up residue and lubricant; then establishing a coat of protectant and baseline lubrication level on all surfaces.

Now, when you reassemble from your detail strip, and again every time you clean the rifle:

1. Put a single drop of militec on both of the bolt rails, then spread up and down the rails.
   
   
2. Put a single drop smeared evenly around the body of the bolt and a little into the cam slot and onto the cam. DO NOT put any lubricant into the gas rings, the firing pin passage, or under the extractor; enough will be there from the CLP earlier, or will migrate there during use.
   
   
3. Fit the bolt and cam back into the bolt carrier, then work them back and forth a bit to distribute the lube, and disassemble again.
   
   
4. Put single drop on a q tip wiped around the entirety of the bolt ears; then wipe it off with your finger tip to spread it out a bit, and a dry q-tip to make sure no lube builds up in the corners. DO NOT LUBRICATE THE BOLT FACE, EJECTOR, OR EXTRACTOR; they will get enough lubrication from the initial CLP coat, and through surface migration.
   
   
5. Wipe all the bolt and carrier parts down with your fingers to spread the lube evenly; and so none of the parts or surfaces are actually "wet".
   
   
6. You generally don't want to re-lube the trigger mechanism with every cleaning; because you don't detail clean the trigger every cleaning, and it can cause lubricant and residue to build up. If however you're feeling any drag or grit in the trigger or selector mechanism and don't have time for a detail cleaning, re-lube the trigger and selector as above.
   
   
7. Reassemble taking care to ensure the gas ring gaps are not aligned; then cycle the weapon and dry fire a few times to distribute the lubricant.
   
   
8. Finally, wipe down every visible surface you can get to with a clean dry cloth.
   

When you're done, no surface on the rifle should look "wet", and if you wipe any part with a clean white cloth you should come back with a slight oily residue, but no heavy smear of oil and no carbon.

Again, this sounds a lot more fussy than it really is. It takes less than five minutes, and no tools; and even the q-tips are optional (you can spread lube into small spaces with the firing pin and your fingers; it's just not as easy or convenient as a q-tip).

That's it. Everything else is overlubing and will attract residue, dirt, and grit like a magnet.

UPDATE: Reposting with some edits on a Monday, because there's a lot of AR owners who really need to read this; and nobody ever reads anything posted on a Saturday.

Also, I have heard several supposedly knowledgeable "authorities" stat that it is "impossible to overlubricate an AR". Those people are on crack.

Actually, I'd guess they are overgeneralizing from their own personal experience; which is limited to environments where overlubrication isn't a problem. They are most likely people who never shoot anywhere but on a clean range with clean commercial ammo; or they are garrison or fleet marines who never served in a desert environment.

Seriously, I think sailors and fleet marines believe lubricant is best applied with a firehose. Also someone should teach them yes, it is actually possible to clean your weapon too much. When you're wearing off the hard anodizing, that's a sign you've gone too far.

Most airmen on the other hand (outside of those who have served in combat support of course), if they even remember what an M16 looks like, think lubricant is something purchased with their other Class VI "critical supplies".

All the worlds gear queers spontaneously orgasm...

Behold, the high cap mag for your high cap mags:

MUCH more on this at Mil-Spec Monkey.

Honestly, I don't think I'd trust my life to the thing in a firefight; I certainly have reliability concerns; but I bet threegunners everywhere are drooling right now.

Also, it's clearly significantly bulkier than the three mags it holds... in fact I'd guess its total bulk is around that of six mags (though not the weight).

Yes, there is at least some speed advantage there, and it's nice to be able to always index your hand back to the same place; but I'd bet that rangerplates or magpuls cut that speed advantage way down; and they add very little to the bulk of your kit.

The reloading motion from that indexed position is probably better in cramped quarters, but it's probably worse prone, so it kinda cancels out.

Oh and can you say battle rattle?

I bet it'd be spectacular vehicle mounted in a firing position on a bird, or light armor etc...

How to feed your PoodleShooter

So, I've talked a LOT about what types of ammunition to use in ARs, what bullets work best, what barrel twist works with what ammo... why the AR exist in the first place and uses the ammo that it does...

Somehow I never managed to get around to talking much about magazines; except to note they are the single biggest point of failure for the AR platform, and the first thing to consider when things go wrong.

Well they ARE. I harp on it for a reason.

Somehow though I never managed to talk about what magazines to buy, or not to buy, and how to pick'em.

Well, a friend of mine was heading to the gunshow this past weekend, and he asked for advice on mags; so I wrote this up for him, and I thought I'd share it with the rest of you.

Ok, let's break it down.

First things first, don't buy mags at the gun show (or at the gun shop for that matter), unless they're a spectacular bargain... or a reasonable price, but new in the plastic with the original manufacturers imprint on them, and/or in a sealed crate with a trademark you can read.

I don't trust mags bought at gunshows very much, and unfortunately most gunshops are only one step above that... after all most of the guys selling dodgy, mismarked, clearly fraudulent crap mags at gunshows, are gunshops.

Honestly, if they aren't 100% quality and cheaper than $20 don't bother, just order from Brownells. In fact I'd say cheaper than $15; and that's for brand new.

Second, what to buy and what to avoid.

Let's piss some people off shall we?

For aluminum commercial mags, Brownells mags are excellent; and are available straight from Brownells with an upgraded follower, spring and baseplate for $2-$6 extra. They are both the best value in commercial magazines, and the best quality. I recommend them over all other commercial magazines.

Bushmasters all metal mags are good, but avoid the ones with the plastic baseplates (they are reliable, but can't be rebuilt).

HK mags are also excellent, and actually worth a couple extra bucks, but not the $40+ that they charge for them (remember "HK, because you suck, and we hate you"). In that same vein, Colt commercial mags are good, but they try to charge a large premium for them just because of the name, and they aren't worth it.

C-products mags are generally very good, and they are the only manufacturer I know who sells new mag bodies only, in bulk, to the general public (convenient if you want to use your own spring, baseplate, and follower). They're also VERY reasonably priced.

Cammenga makes a new "speedloader" type magazine, that actually splits apart (the front of the mag slides down), to let you rapidly load them. Reports on them are good so far; but they're only a couple years old and havent seen much hard use yet. I'd be worried about fine dust and the like jamming them up... but for a range mag it seems like a great idea.

The Beta C-mag from Betaco is a heck of a beast. It's the only reliable drum magazine for the AR (and most other 5.56 rifles, and the M14 and others by the by) on the market, and it's great fun... but I don't know that I'd trust my life to one exclusively. Also, REALLY expensive.

That said, I do have one, and I love it. If you can afford one, it's the perfect companion for a heavy barreled AR on a bipod. You can just sit their and pick targets off all day long.

Aluminum USGI mags... a mixed bunch to be honest. First of all, frauds abound. Second, honestly, some of them just aren't that great, even though they are "mil spec".

Also it is VERY IMPORTANT to remember that a lot of the USGI magazines that end up on the commercial market are there because they were rejected by the Gov't (it's illegal to sell rejected USGI mags, but it happens all the time anyway). They may be generally good with a small flaw, or they may be unreliable POSes.

I have never seen Brownells USGI mags for sale commercially, but as I said, they are the best.

Sabre are excellent (their commercial and gov't contract mags are the same).

Bushmaster USGI mags are excellent (better than their commercial).

FN mags are generally good, but their springs are iffy on their USGI mags. I personally have seen failures in their springs, baseplates tabs, and feed lips to a higher extent than other manufacturers; but anecdote != data.

Colt mil-spec mags, if real, are excellent, as are Okay industries/OK, Universal Industries, Simmonds Precision, Knights armament, and original Armalite. They should be, they are all from the same manufacturer (OK). Again though, watch out because frauds are everywhere (usually made in Taiwan or Singapore).

LaBelle mags are excellent, in fact probably the best older USGI mags (Brownells and HK are the best commercial, and better than LaBelle by a small amount). DPMS labeled mags are from LaBelle, as are newer Armalite, Knights, Stoner, Smith and Wesson, General Stamping, Eagle Arms (not Eagle or American Eagle) and some others.

If your AR is from a reputable manufacturer other than Bushmaster, FN, Colt, or Sabre (who all make their own) and it came with an own brand stamped magazine; it's probably a LaBelle... or rather NOW a "General Stamping" as they bought LaBelle some years ago; though I believe they continue to use BOTH imprints.

Adventure Arms, Adventure Line, Center Industries and Parsons, are all also the same manufacturer, and pretty good.

Take this as you will, but as of today, there are only three certified providers of contract USGI AR magazines, Brownells, Center Industries, and OK industries.

Everybody elses aluminum mags , I'd stay away from.

Sanchez mags are not very good. Cooper mags are horrible.

Remember, all legitimate USGI mags, and U.S. commercial mags will have the manufacturer clearly stamped on the baseplate; however with used mags, it's entirely likely the baseplate won't reflect the original manufacturer of the other components, as things get mixed around with cleanign etc...

The Singapore and UK steel mags are excellent if you don't mind the weight, but the lips can gall and bind on steel ammo. Other then c-products, I haven't seen any good commercial steel mags.

For polymer mags, Magpuls pmags are excellent. Thermold and Orlite mags are also very good. In any polymer mag though (even new ones), be very careful about cracks and warping.

The REAL israeli milspec polymer (Orlite, but may not be labled as such) and milspec metal mags are very good, but fakes are everywhere. Same thing for the South African mags.

USA mags, Triple K mags, Promags, National, Eagle, American Eagle, (but not Eagle Arms) and American Magazine are all horrible.

Any magazine with a finish other than than phosphated (parkerized), teflon coated, or epoxy coated, should be avoided as well; as no matter what the markings are, they are either cheap foreign made crap, refinished by god knows who concealing god knows what problems, or a fake.

For ANY of the above magazine, commercial or USGI, I'd change the followers to magpul followers. They're about $2 a piece. You can also buy Brownells mags with them installed already, and of course all magpul mags have them. Oh and HK has a direct ripoff of the magpul follower that they refused to license (they do that sort of thing).

What about used, or mag kits?

You can pick up mags with perfectly good bodies but with the older black follower design very cheap, as people read "green follower" on the net, and all of a sudden black follower mags are anathema. Well, the green follower isn't very good either, and for $2 you can change the follower to magpul, and get a real bargain in the process.

All USGI mag springs prior to the late 80s are suspect. I change them out for Wolff and Brownells springs as a matter of course. I would also recommend replacing the springs and followers of any used magazines you by as a matter of course (you just don't know where they've been so to speak).

Magpul and Brownells both sell rebuild kits that include a new spring and follower for around $5. Baseplates are cheap. If you can get a deal on good USGI, or good qaulity commercial (you'll have to look for proofmarks) mag bodies, you might want to consider it.

What to look for (and hopefully not find).

When you're evaluating a mag, the first place to look is the feed lips. They should be free of ripples, dings, gouges, nicks or burrs, and they should be even and smooth.

The feed lips are the second most common failure point on the AR mags behind the springs. A bad spring is fixable though; if you have bad feedlips, you've got a bad mag.

Then look at the base plate and see if it's secure. Are the body tabs good, does the plate move without too much binding, but not so loosely that it will vibrate out? Does the base plate bend and stay bent (bad. The mag is either old and abused, or a forgery. The plate should spring back)? Is there any discoloration, cracks, or burrs in the tabs, and do the tabs bend easily under finger pressure (they shouldn't)?

Use something to depress the follower as far as it will go. Make sure you're pressing down in the center as you push, and check to make sure it doesn't bind excessively (a very little bit is normal), or tilt excessively (again a little bit is normal).

Check the entire body for dings or gouges. Even if the finish is worn off it could be a good mag, so long as the body is sound.

Check the welds. They should be clean, neat, and evenly spaced. There should be a minimum of 4 of them front and back, and as many as 7 (different manufacturers at different times, have used different numbers of welds). Some earlier (or cheaper made) USGI and commercial magazines only had 3 welds and should be avoided. Current Milspec is 6 welds, front and back.

Try to twist the top and base of the mag in different directions; you shouldn't be able to or at least not to any significant degree. If you can, the welds are bad, the aluminum sheet is too thin, the aluminum alloy used is wrong, or it hasn't been properly heat treated (or possibly not at all).

Remember, AR mags are essentially disposable.

Excepting HK (remember, HK because you suck and we hate you) and the Beta-C mag, they sell for $10 to $20, and a slight structural defect is not worth trying to fix or work around.

If you start thinking of them as something other than disposable, you'll be tempted to keep them when they malfunction.

The HK mags are a special case here, in that HK may charge more for them, but they really take the disposable aspect seriously. HK mags are designed to be absolutely reliable, for 100 reloads. After that, HK doesn't care; and they have done their metallurgy to reflect this. They are known to develop feeding problems with extended use because of spring wear, and mag lip deformation.

AR mags always have been designed to be disposable, and you should treat them as such. You can replace springs and followers, but once the feed lips or the baseplate tabs go wonky, they cannot be recovered. You MAY use them as a range mag, but I just crushem or use them as targets.

Most "unreliable" ARs (from reputable manufacturers anyway) are just fine; they're just using bad mags (and usually bad ammo too. Cheap out on one thing, they're probably cheaping out on another).

It's very cathartic packing a bad magazine full of reactive explosives and blowing it up. Just stay at least 50 yards away, those aluminum bits can fly pretty far.

Oh and just on a note of personal preference, may I suggest 20 round mags over 30 rounders. I personally think they work better in general, and they're a lot easier to deal with at the range,
prone, on the bench etc... I prefer the straight bodied ones myself.

For more, and more detailed info, check out Troys Mag FAQ.

Okay, so why DID we choose 5.56?

Countertop recently wrote a letter to the Talking Points Memo (no link for them thankyouverymuch), for writing somethign ridiculous about the NRA, and gun bloggers.

It's a very good letter, except for this one little paragraph, in which an enduring untruth is repeated:

First, The .223 round which an AR fires was developed not for the military but as a “varmint” round for hunters that was later adopted by the military because (a. it injures rather than kills, in the field of battle an injured solider actually takes out 3 of the enemy, the one injured plus to to care for him whereas a dead soldier only eliminates one; and b. it is small and therefore soldiers can carry more of them than traditional high powered cartridges).

The first part is true, the 5.56 nato began life as the .222 remington, a varmint and small game cartridge. The last part is true, the 5.56nato is very small and light, and a soldier can carry a lot of them...

The problem is that middle bit... which is actually also partly true, in that a severely wounded soldier takes three people out of the action instead of just one if he's dead (the wounded use a lot more resources than either the dead, or the healthy). Every good myth, has a lot of truth to it, and this one is no different; it's a very good myth, but it just isn't true. We didn't adopt the 5.56, because it was designed to wound; in fact the 5.56 nato chambering WAS NOT designed to "wound not kill".

I take no exception to the intent of the letter, and I support it; I just need to correct this myth wherever it pops up.

This is one of the widest spread, and widest believed myths in firearms. In fact, a lot of people who should really know better, like a lot of varminters, and a lot of soldiers (who deal with the round quite a lot doncha know).

Actually, for anyone who knows the history of the round, the myth is kind of funny, in a bittersweet ironic sort of way; because when the 5.56 was first created, it was touted as having incredible killing power; far out of proportion to its size. People were said to be shot in the calf and have their leg blown to shred up to the buttocks (this was an actual field report on the chambering from SF in the field in Viet Nam prior to the wide adoption of the M16 rifle).

So, I'm going to talk about how and why the 5.56 nato round was created, and adopted by the U.S. military; and why we forced the rest of the world to adopt it.

It all begins about 70 years ago...

In 1960, the typical deer rifle round was the .30-30 (which was already over 60 years old at the time), pushing a 150gr or so bullet, at about 1800fps. If you were hard core, you might use a .30-06 pushing a 150gr bullet at 3000fps, or maybe a .270 or .308 at about the same energy levels. It was only "crazies" like Roy Weatherby hunting with "high velocity" loadings, like his .257 weatherby; pushing a 75gr bullet at nearly 4000fps, or a 115gr bullet at 3400fps (and producing some truly impressive results by the by).

It was only from the mid 30s through mid '50s that "high velocity" and "hyper velocity" chamberings really started becoming popular, with chamberings such as the .220 swift (designed in 1935, firing 45gr at 4000fps).

Of course I say "only", about 30 year stretches of time here; but you have to understand how generally conservative the firearms world is. The most commonly shot chamberings in pistols in the US today are .45acp, 9mm, .38spl and .22lr; which were respectively designed in 1908, 1903, 1884 (in blackpowder form), and 1857 (in short form).

From the late 1600s, until the mid 19th century, battle rifles fired mostly fired bullets in the .50 to .65 caliber range, mostly moving along at under 1500fps. When the self contained cartridge came along, the bullets shrank a bit in diameter down to the .40 to .45 range, but they remained fairly stubby and conical but rounded.

It wasn't until the invention of smokeless powder, and new hardened but not brittle steels (both in the late 19th century) however, that we started seeing smaller diameter, longer, pointed, aerodynamic bullets fired at higher velocities (the Swiss-German "spitzer" or "spire" point, invented in about 1880-1884 in fact).

Eventually, right around the late 1890s and into about 1900, most countries settled on something in the .30 to .35 caliber range; and then started mass production. Every major combatant in WW1 (and ww2 for that matter) used a round of between 6.5mm and 9mm; mostly in the 7mm-8mm range (.284 to .315). Most of these rounds fired their bullets in the 2500-3000fps range; about twice as fast as the pre-civil war era rifles and muskets fired their large heavy ball ammo.

At the time of their adoption, these velocities were unheard of; and their wounding mechanism wasn't well understood. Everyone could see that a half ounce ball of lead 2/3 of an inch across would do a hell of a lot of damage; but no-one was quite sure about how exactly these little pointed cylinders, half the diameter and less than half the weight of their predecessors, but moving at two or three times the velocity; actually worked.

They didn't understand how, but they obviously did work, and they worked very well, out to ranges previously thought impossible. For example, the primary official U.S. service rifle of WW1, the 1903 Springfield, is chambered in .30-06 (caliber .30 adopted in 1906) has an effective kill range (not accurate, but still lethal) of well over 1000m; and with a good rifle and a good rifleman behind it, you can hit a man sized target at 800 yards.

The .303 British, and .30-06 killed or wounded about 6 million men in WW1 (most of the rest on the losing side were hit by artillery); and by the end of the war, there was a lot of information about how the cartreidges, and rifles, had worked in combat. In the early 1920s, taking the experiences of and data from WW1, ballisticians and firearms designers in the U.S. and England started looking at the strengths and weaknesses of various small arms cartridges.

What they found out, was that the typical .30 caliber or so rifle rounds, with 2.5" long cases filled with powder, were "too powerful"; in the sense that the average infantryman didnt need to shoot at a man 800 yards away. These rounds required large, heavy rifles to be controllable; and they required a good sized, strong man to carry that rifle, and the ammunition load for it.

So, they started looking at smaller diameter bullets, fired from shorter cases; which were lighter, cheaper, easier to manufacture, and easier for soldiers to control.

The Brits and Americans both settled on experiments with cartridges in the .280 range, in fact both in the mid 20's coming independently to produce very similar 7mm (.284") cartridges, the .276 pederson, and what would eventually (30 years later in fact) become the .280 Enfield (also called the .280 British). Development of these cartidges was somewhat slow however, because both countries were hit hard by economic depressions, and had huge stocks of surplus arms and ammunition from the war.

Unfortunately, on March 16th 1935, Hitler announced that Germany was abrogating the treaty of Versailes; and re-arming. At that point, or soon after, anyone not blind and stupid figured out that there was a war heading this-a-way right quick, and maybe adopting new ammunition wasn't the smartest idea right then.

The British had over 2 billion (yes, thats billion with a b) rounds of .303 lying around; and the Americans had several (I've read 13 billion, but I can't verify that) billion rounds of .30-06 left over from ww1. We WERE going to make use of those surplus stocks, because there was no way to tool up for production of new weapons and new ammunition in a new, smaller chambering, fast enough or cheap enough to be ready for the war that was coming.

So folks, those of you who believe the M1 Garand is the ultimate battle implement (and if it isn't, it's not far off), just remember, it was designed to be, and originally built as, a .276 Pederson rifle rather than a .30-06

Well, "they" say that war is the best incubator of technology, and WW2 proved "them" right in an incredible and unprecedented way. The 10 years of war production (preparation for war started in the U.S. and Europe in 1935, and war production didn't end until 1946) advanced technology faster than any period before it in the history of mankind; a pace which has only been equalled in a limited way by information technology since 1976... and in fact that same information technology revolution was kicked off by the war effort to make computers for calculating artillery trajectories, and bomb characteristics.

Well, relevant to our story, in the middle of the war production years something really interesting happened.... actually two very similar somethings, in two different countries.

The first actually started in a prison in North Carolina in 1928, with a guy named David Williams; and the second in 1941 with a guy in Germany named Hugo Schmeisser.

WW2 saw the first use of the Paratrooper (or Falschirmjager, as the Germans would call them); as assault troops who would jump in behind enemy lines, and attack the enemy from the rear etc.. etc... Anyway, at about the same time some bright guy over in Germany, and some other bright guy in North Carolina, figured out that Paratroopers needed a light machine gun; but that even light machine guns were kinda heavy; and if you made them lighter, they were hard to control.

Well, both bright guys had a solution in the submachine gun, and the Germans LOVED the things (as did the Russians by the by), but they weren't really powerful enough to sustain an assault; and overall the American war department didn't care for them (though we made a fair few on our own as well, and our troops loved them)

So anyway, the American guy had a bright idea, let's make a light, handy rifle, that fires an easily controlled round, much more powerful than a standard pistol, but much less powerful than a full sized rifle.

The war department asked a bunch of manufacturers to submit designs for a light rifle, suitable for issue to paratroopers, and to tankers and support troops whous duties didn't include carrying a full sized rifle. They considered designs for three years, but didnt find anything satisfactory.

Eventually, Winchester sent in a design that was started by John Moses Brownings brother Ed, and finished by a convicted moonshiner and cop killer named David Williams; what became the M1 carbine.

No folks, this story couldn't have been any better if I made it up. That is seriously what happened, and gunnies still laugh in amazement at it today.

Now, the M1 carbine is a great little rifle; it's very light, very quick to the shoulder, and easy to fire. It's reasonably accurate, and it's basic round is far better than a sub-machine guns pistol round. Unfortunately that round is still not very powerful' it's really a 100yard gun; and the M1 wasn't fully automatic, so it couldn't replace either the light machine gun or the submachine gun.

Of course that didn't take away it's good qualities, and the ordnance department loved the things, ordering about 7 million of them by the end of the war (including about 600,000 in a fully automatic configuration, but it didn't work out too well).

The Germans had a little different idea. The German trooops REALLY loved their submachine guns, and they didn't want to give up that full auto capability, plus they really liked the caliber of their basic infantry round, the 8mm mauser (actually 7.92mm); it was just too powerful to be used in a light weight automatic gun.

So, Hugo Schmeisser (the guy who came up with some of the submachine guns the troops loved so much), figured they could cross a submachine gun, with a light machine gun; and make a fully automatic rifle, that was short, and light; and fired a less powerful round than a full sized rifle or machine gun, but more powerful than a pistol or submachine gun.

They took the 8mm mauser round, cut it down in length by almost half and called it the 7.92mm kurz (short). Then they crossed the operating system of two different SMGs, and a Semi-automatic rifle (the Gewehr 41); and made the design as cheap and quick to produce as possible.

The result was the Machinen Pistolen 1943, which the troops loved; but Hitler didn't like the idea of. He had previously ordered that all small arms production be directed towards making sub-machine guns. So, to get around Hitlers dictum, the clever folks behind the little rifle just called the thing a Machine Pistol (which is what the germans called their SMGs).

Well, eventually enough of these amazing rifles got out there, and the troops loved them enough; that Hitler heard about them. Hitler asked some of his commanders in the field if there was anything he could get them, and they asked him for as many of that new rifle as they could make. Well of course Hitler hadn't aproved any new rifles, so he was confused; until they told him it was the Mp43. At first he was pissed off, but after he saw a demonstration, and saw how effective troops equipped with the thing were, he was thrilled with it, and he insisted on naming it himself. On Hitlers orders, the MP43 then became the StG. '44, or Sturm Gewehr model of 1944.

Yaknow what Sturm Gewher means?

Assault Rifle.

Funny that.

Aaanyway, back to our story.

So, after the war, the ballisticians and weapons designers got back together again, and re-analyzed their data, along with the new data from WW2, coming to the same conclusion: Bullet in the 6.5mm to 7mm range, fired at medium velocities, from medium length cartridges; were just as effective at wounding and killing the enemy; but were cheaper to produce, easier to carry, and easier for soldiers to shoot.

Welll... the Army REALLY didn't like this idea. In fact, they hated it; but they were told by the defense department that they would have to adopt it for their next war rifle.

The Army disliked this idea so much, they decided to come up with a new round, that was indeed shorter than the old .30-06 (by almsot 3/4")... but it would be ballistically identical. By raising the pressure of the round and using better powders then becoming available, the Army could keep their 800yard accurate man killing riflemans round, AND pretend to be adopting the new "intermediate" cartridge philosophy.

This is the beginning of the assault rifle vs. battle rifle war that I've written about before.

The basic opposition to the assault rifle concept is simple:

Some people believe the proper way for infantry to fight, is as individual riflemen, taking aimed shots at long ranges, against other individual riflemen. The proper instrument for this is a round that is effective and accurate out to 600-800 yards; and a rifle suited to firing it accurately at those ranges. Automatic fire may be useful under some circumstances, but is mostly a waste of ammunition.

The basic proposition for the assault rifle is also simple:

Modern infantry combat involves small groups, engaging at ranges under 300 yards (in fact almsot all infantry combat now occurs at under 100 feet, never mind 800 yards). It is more useful to be able to lay out a volume of small arms fire from an entire combat element, accurate to 300 yards, with a chambering and rifle appropriate to that purpose. The ammunition should be light and easy to carry, and easy to control in automatic fire, because you are going to be using a lot of it.

These two positions have formed the central controversy in small arms since 1927, before the term "assault rifle" was even invented (yes, really, they've been fighting about this subject since 1927, and there is as of yet no resolution. I told you, gun people are extremely conservative, and equally stubborn).

Anyway, it was in '48 that the Army decided to implement the new "smaller"
round; unfortunately things weren't very settled yet on either the home or international front, and the resources couldn't be dedicated to bringing a new round to production. Also, the British had perfected their .280 enfield round, and were strongly supporting IT as the proper direction for future small arms (along with a radical new concept, the bullpup rifle, but that's another argument altogether).

Well, then we had another little war in Korea from '50 to '53, and there was no time to adopt a new cartridge, so the .30-06 saw service in it's third major war (actually more than that if you count Mexico, Shanghai, Nanking, Nicaraugua, and Honduras... but generally we don't, unless wyou're talking about the marines in which case they remember every one of them, but I digress); and the .30 carbine its second war.

Well, in Korea, once again the .30-06 was too much, and the .30 carbine was not enough. Stories actually went around that the .30 carbine round wouldn't penetrate the heavy winter clothing the Koreans and Chinese wore. They weren't true, but they were widely believed, because the round jsut didnt have a lot of guts, especially at longer ranges (the probable genesis of the stories were reporters watching troops take potshots at the north Koreans, and Chinese from several hundred yards away; far greater than the effective range of the chambering).

After Korea, the Army then decided to put it's "new" round into production; and had Winchester develop the concept into a full production ready chambering. They had been working on it since 1948 (actually Savage had been working on it since 1925 as the .300 savage. Winchester then modified the concept further), and released it commercially in 1952 as the .308 Winchester; which was adopted by the U.S., and NATO as the 7.62x51 NATO in 1954.

Along with the new round, the Army adopted a fully automatic re-design of the M1 garand rifle, the T44 (which they had been working on since 1944 as the John Garand designed T20, and had almost ready to go with a final re-design by Earle Harvey in '48-'50 before Korea broke out) which was re-classified the M14.

When the U.S. officially adopted the 7.62 round, they forced it on NATO at the same time. Of course the NATO allies were all looking at smaller, lighter, easier to control rounds like the .280 enfield, but the U.S. was calling the shots, and everyone had to toe the line, or not recieve U.S. small arms support and ground troops in the event of a Russian invasion.

Strong incentive there eh?

So, everyone scrapped all their true "intermediate" cartridge designs, and rushed wholesale to find, or design rifles chambered for the new round. About 3/4 of the world ended up adopting the Fabrique National Fusil Atomatique Legere (Light Automatic Rifle), or FN-FAL.

The FAL was originally designed by Dieudonne Suaive (the same guy who co-designed the Browning Hi-Power with John Moses Browning) in 1947, to fire the first assault rifle round, the StG. 44s 7.92 Kurz. Then in 1949, it was redisgned to fire the .280 enfield round, and submitted to the British as a possible service rifle. Finally, in 1951, they rechambered it for the new 7.62 round the U.S. was going to adopt (yes, it was out before the U.S. officially adopted the M14, or the 7.62 nato round was even officially announced); and when we made our announcement that everyone in NATO would have to switch to the new round, basically everyone bought the FAL.

No, I'm not kidding, almost everyone all around the world adopted the FAL. Basically every U.S. ally except Germany and Spain (who had their own rifle design already, the CETME/G3) used the FAL for at least a few years. It was the first automatic rifle sold on the world market chambering the new 7.62 nato round, and it was a very good rifle, so it pretty much took over the world. In Africa, it became known as the "right arm of freedom", because it was the weapon that equipped most of the armies of the newly independent colonies; and is in fact still by far the most common military rifle seen in non-communist countries other than the U.S. (the commie countries of course are dominated by the AK-47, as are most of their neighbors, friends, relatives, acquaintances... hell, the AK is like the plague; it spreads with the rats, and seems to reproduce itself as if by magic).

So, every country in the west is forced by the U.S. to adopt this new cartridge in 1954; and by 1959 at great expense they all managed to do so.

but...

There's still this little problem. See, all these rifles are fully automatic, and they're a bit lighter and shorter than the rifles of WW2; so they should be handier and easier to control and use that fully auto capability right?

Welll...

Thing is, they're all firing what is essentially the ballistic equivalent of that same WW2 battle riffle round.

Same bullet weight, almsot the same velocity... but with a lighter weapon... that means that they are even LESS controllable. In fact, unless you're on a bipod, or have arms like a gorilla; firing a 7.62 nato rifle in fully automatic mode is damn near useless.

Not everyone is a corn-fed Iowa farm boy, 6'2, 185lbs and with the upper body strength of a linebacker.. Actually though that may be the image the Army wants to project of the American soldier, not even our boys are like that for the most part. Certainly the troops over in Europe, South America, Africa, and Asia aren't.

The countries adopting these new rifles all figured this out pretty quickly; even the thus far boneheaded US. In fact, many of them disable the fully automatic capability of the rifles, and almsot all of them train their soldiers not to use it, except for suppressive fire.

In the mean time, ballisticians and weapons designers are still working on the intermediate rifle cartridge concept that the Germans had come up with in 1941. They've figured out that you can make a round MUCH lighter, much smaller, and much FASTER (which means both accuracy and power), without giving up killing power. The tradeoff is effective range, but they know from their studies that infantry combat doesn't happen at 800 yards anymnore, in fact it doesn't even happen at 300 yards anymore.

As early as 1948, research boards such as the U.S. Army Operations Research Office, were recommending moving to a fully automatic 5.5-6.5mm intermediate chambering; in a light weight rifle designed to be fired in fully automatic mode.

The ORO projects final recommendation, issued in 1952, was that a 5.9mm round firing at 4000fps be developed for the armed forces.

Of course as I said, the Army hated this conclusion, and they kept it buried, until 1958; when the realization around the world that the 7.62 nato cartridge wasn't working as planned had become apparent to almost everyone, except the Army Ordnance Board.

Now, let me take a moment here to talk about the M14, and 7.62 nato.

I personally believe, that there is no single greater choice of rifle and chambering, for an individual marksman firing against an individual enemy at medium to long ranges, than the M14 in 7.62x51 nato. It is an incredible weapon; accurate, reliable, and having great killing power.

What it isn't is an assault rifle; and our infantry as it is trained and organizaed today, requires an assault rifle.

Some may argue that we shouldn't be organized that way, they the marksman concept is better, and that we should be using it as our general infantry philosophy; but argue as much as they want, it's not what we do today, and so long as we use assault infantry tactics and training, the M14 and the 7.62 nato cartridge, will not be the appropriate issue weapon to the mass of our infantry (for designatd marksmen, definitely, but not for mark one mod zero grunt).

All that aside, we needed an assault rifle, which is by defnition, a short, handy, light weight automatic or select fire rifle, firing a cartridge of intermediate power.

At the time, ballisticians were absolutely fascinated by hypervelocity "shock", created by small, very fast bullets. In 1952, there was a project, headed by Gerald Gustafson, to create what they called an SCHV round (Small Caliber High Velocity).

This team started by looking at the .220 swift, and .22-250 cartridges; both of which were originally developed as varmint cartridges, but which had through the experimentation and advocacy of several very motivated individuals (notably Frank Chamberlain, and J.B. Smith), developed a reputation for producing highly destructive and disabling wounds in larger game, while still having low recoil and toher desirable characteristics.

These “hypervelocity” rounds were thought to do massive amounts of lethal damage, because of their “shock” capabilities. We now know that for most bullets (those that impact their targets at less than about 3500fps) this was an incorrect wounding model, but it’s one that many people still believe today.

The basic idea, is that at very high velocities, light weight bullets can transfer a large amount of energy into the tissue of their target on impact. This energy transfer creates a large temporary "stretch" cavity in the wound, and sends shock waves through the tissue surroudning the impact.

This much is true.

It is further believed, that these shock waves cause extensive tissue, organ, and systemic neural damage in the target; causing immediate shock and death.

Unfortunately, though this CAN be true in some cases, this is not consistently true; especially at impact velocities of under 3500 feet per second.

At the same time as Gustafsons team was working on the SCHV concept, the chief of the ballistics division for the ORO Norman Hitchman, was developing what he called the "burst fire" concept; believing that the most effective means of producing a rapidly disabling wound, was firing three high velocity rounds into the target in rapid succession.

From these two lines of research, the SALVO project was founded.

At first, the project came up with a lot of strange concepts; like three barreled weapons, shotguns firing flechettes etc... but in 1953 they came up with a .224 bullet in a shortened 7.62 nato case. They tested it and liked the reults, so they applied for funding to develop the concept further.

Well, their fundig was turned down, with the note that they werne't in the business of developing new cartridges... which gave Gustavson et all some ideas.

Basically, what they were doing was taking 55 to 68 grain bullets, and firing them at 3200-3600 feet per second right? Well, there were already commercial cartridges that could do that; why not invesitgate those as a possiblity.

Now, at this same time, fairchild Armalite was trying to sell its AR-10 rifle to the Army. I've recounted that saga elsewhere on this blog before, but suffice it to say, the results were not pretty.

Well, in 1956, the SCHV SALVO team approached the Fairchild AR-10 team, and asked them to chamber their rifle in a commercial chambering approximating the performance they were getting with their experiments.

The fairchild people settled on the .222 remington; which fired a 55gr bullet at 3000-3200fps. That wasn't quite fast enough, but remington also had a .222 remington magnum, which was basically the .222 with the shoulder blown out for more powder capacity. Unfortunately the magnums shoulder geometry didn't feed well in the automatic rifle design, so the SALVO team and Fairchild went to Remington with their design, asking them to slightly stretch the .222 to match the performance of the magnum version; which they promptly did, initially calling it the .222 special, or the .22 nato.

After two and a bit years of testing, various changes to requirements, bullet weights, pressures, velocities, people, rifle designs etc...the SALVO team releases their report, which made some rather wild claims of effectiveness, far beyond what the data justified; based on their wounding theory, of hypervelocity shock, and burst fire effectiveness.

In 1959, the .222 special offically became the .223 Remington, which the company began selling commercially as a vermint round (and it is probably the most commercially successful varmint round of all time).

In the mean time, the Army had continued building up a good head of hatred regarding these various small caliber projects. In fact, the army ordnance board offically declared the .223 unsuitable as a replacement for the 7.62 nato THREE TIMES.

Unfortunately, by 1960, as I have recounted in "Who's at fault for the m16", the AOBs credibility was shot with the defense department. Fomr 1960-1964, the AOD was ordered by the DOD to test various lightweight automatic rifle concepts in smaller calibers.

The AOB deliberately dragged their feet on tehse tests; and in many ways pout their thumbs on the scales. They eventually legitimately concluded, that the proper choice for a replacement for the 7.62 nato was a 6.5mm cartridge, firing a 100-120gr bullet at approximately 3,000fps; but by then, it was too late. They had wasted all their credibility and good will sabotaging the .223 and the AR15; and the defense department ordered them to adopt both, unchanged, immediately.

This was a disaster; because as regards what became the 5.56 nato, they were correct. The round wasn't a suitable replacement for the 7.2 nato. It had been denegrated as a varmint round, not even big enough to hunt deer with in msot states, and they were right.

So if the army was right, how did the SALVO peopl, the .220 swift people, and the .22-250 people get it wrong?

Well, the big assumption was the shock wounding theory. It turns out, that although sometimes a target will see shock effects, sometimes they wont. The crossover point for 55-68gr bullets seems to be at about the 3500fps mark. If the target is hit in the right location at or above 3500fps, and the bulelt doesnt disintegrate, then the shock effects will tend to produce disabling wounds. A three round burst multiplies this shock, as well as increasing the chances of a vital area hit.

The problem is, the .223 as finally reached production, isn't capable of hitting above 3500fps from an m16. In fact a 20" m16 will typically hit 3270-3390fps from standard NATO ammo, at the muzzle. At 250 yards, that same bullet is going to be just about 2500fps; and if you make the barrel shorter, you lose between 25 and 50 feet per second of velocity, for every inch of barrel, as well as about 25 yards of effective range.

So then why were there such great results with the initial testing of the round?

Well, at this point the 5.56 wounding mechanism is now well understood. At the time, the assumption was that hypervelocity wound shock was the primary wounding mechanism, but we now know the actual primary wounding mechanism is high velocity fragmentation.

At or above impact velocities of 2500fps in human flesh, the 55-68gr 5.56 bullet tends to penetrate 4-10″; then break up into several large high velocity fragments, similar to small shotgun pellets. This creates very bloody, very messy wounds, and may cause vital damage.

With a 20" barrel, the standard NATO loads stay above 2500fps well past 200 yards, and will fragment on penetrating a body; but below 2500fps, this doesnt happen, and the 5.56 has about the same wounding capability as a sharp pencil.

The thing is, even if fragmentation occurs, it isn't a reliable mechanism for producigng disabling wounds. If hit near the face, throat, heart, lungs, or liver it's very likely that the target will go down; but in other locations, even fi fragmentation occurs the reuslt will usually jsut be a loss of mobility. In burst fire modes, where there are multiple impacts, those impacts are usually spread around the body, resulting in far greater potential for a vital hit, and more overal shock from blood loss etc... but that is counting on multiple hits, which is only likely at short range, ro when time is taken to establish proper aim.

This is why the 5.56 rounds is a very good killer, but a poor stopper (the enemy dies, but they may be able to shoot back at you for several minutes before they do); and why our short barreled assault carbine, the M4, has a problem at long range. The bullet starts out with a lot less velocity to begin with (about 2700-2900fps), and loses it faster than the same bullet would fired from a longer barrel.

Thus, the problem with the 5.56 is one of consistency. If hit with three rounds above 2500fps, a target is going down quick. Just one or two rounds, or below 2500fps… maybe yes, maybe no.

So, what about the myth?

Actually, near as I can tell the myth originated as a slander against our troops in Viet Nam. It was made up by a reporter to portray the U.S. as cruel heartless baby killers. The Russians even filed protests, saying we were using ammunition that was designed to cause undue suffering.

But it wasn't at all true.

The reason the 5.56 was adopted wasn’t this inconsistent wounding mechanism, designed to wwound not kill; it was because the 5.56 is light weight, compact, cheap, and has very little recoil.

This means that a soldier can carry a lot more ammunition for less weight (more than twice as much as with 7.62 nato), and less money; and they can fire their weapon a lot faster, and more controlably (especially in full auto). Also, the weapon itself can be shorter, lighter, and cheaper; because it doesnt have to resist the forces of a larger, more powerful round.

Yes, we adopted the 5.56 with a flawed wounding model, but in fact McNamara and the DOD didn't care about the counding model at all. What they were concerned about was that the 5.56 was light, and cheap. A soldier could carry 2.55 times as much 5.56 as 7.62 nato, but they cost the same.

Combined with the incorrect wounding model thought to apply to the round at the time, and the defense department (though not the military itself, especially the Army Ordnance Board), thought it was a win-win situation.

Well, it turns out they were wrong; and they knew they were wrong pretty quickly.

The DOD forced the army to adopt 5.56 as the official service round in 1964; also forcing it on NATO that same year; jsut ten years after foring our allies to adopt the 7.62 round they didnt want.

Well, our allies in the main refused to change to the round (except for Japan and Taiwan, who had the most trouble with the 7.62 round and their smaller statured soldiers), until the early to mid 80s.

In fact, even then most of them didn't want to adopt the round, preferring to redevlop the intermediate chamberings they abandoned when they were forced to adopt the 7.62 in the first place; or to concetrate on developing even smaller, higher velocity loadings for use in personal defense weapons with very high rates of fire, that depend on large numbers of hits for their wounding mechanism.

By 1968, the U.S. had already gathered enough data to know that the 5.56 wasn't working as advertised. In fact, starting in 1974, we began looking for a replacement. We've been looking every few years ever since.

Recently, the Army has been testing the 6.8spc round; a development off the old .35 remington cartridge, by Remington, for special operations forces. They've found that their MK262 heavy 77gr high pressure loadings in 5.56 were quite effective, and wanted to follow that trend a bit farther to see where they could balance out the needs of an assault rifle for power, range, wounding capability, light weight, and ease of controlability.

By all reports the 6.8spc, and a similar round the 6.5 grendel, are nearly ideal for an asault rifle. Both have significantly lower recoil then the 7.62 nato, and are more controlable; but they have superior ballistic (both external and terminal) performance to the 5.56 in all areas (and in fact sometimes superior performance to the 7.62).

Oh and remember that report the Army came up with, about a 6.5mm bullet at 300 or so fps being near ideal? The one that got crushed by McNamara and the DOD? Yeah, I'm guessing Remington and Alexander arms might have taken note of that conclusion at some point.

The only problem is the sunk cost. As with the .30-06 in ww1, ww2, and Korea; we have billions of 5.56 in the pipeline, as well as billion of dollars worth of parts and accessories to support the 5.56. At this point, changing to a different chambering is nearly impossible. It would require an outlay of hundreds of billions of dollars, while we're trying to fight a war, and that jsut isn't going to happen.

In the mean time, our guys are out there fighting with what can be a very effective chambering, but just isn't consistently so. I find that worrisome myself (and I did when I carried one for that matter, knowing it as a great varmint cartridge that was too light for deer, never mind people).

Now, I've written before here many times about what I think we should do; but it just isn't going to happen, until there is a high enough penalty for the failure of the 5.56 to get the politicians to spend the billions.

Maybe we'd be better off, if the myth were true...

NOTE: yikes, 6,400 words, and the last third needs to be re-written; probably longer by ANOTHER 1000 words.

Please note guys, I am leaving out a HELL of a lot of detail, and summarizing or glossing over a lot more; or this thing would be 20,000 plus words. There are entire collections of books written on this subject.

In the last third, I started rushing a bit because it was 4:14 in the morning by the time I finished this, and I want to go to bed. I wrote 10 words at 7:30pm, saved it as a placeholder, and then started really writing at 11:07 and publsihed at 4:14)

Who's at fault for the M16?

There are a hell of a lot of people who REALLY hate the AR family of weapons, the 5.56 nato round, and the M16 in particular.

I've addressed this hatred before; and there are some valid issues, some not so valid issues, and some issues that were once valid, but aren't anymore.

One of the groups that hates the M16 with the greatest passion, is veterans of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, who served in Viet Nam between 1964 and 1968.

They've got a very good reason; the M16, as issued, got hundreds, if not thousands of good soldiers and marines killed.

See, the M16 as issued at the time, was just as bad as everyone who hates it says it was.

But, why?

Clearly the M16 of today is a very different beast (though of course the 5.56 round is still not an optimal anti-personnel choice, and the gas system has its issues); and there's no way the weapon would have been adopted as widely as it was, if it was so bad by design...

The post I wrote yesterday about tumbling bullets , and the earlier post about stabilization myths, brought this subject to the fore of a number of folks mind. Some have commented that they won't buy a Colt product, and still blame McNamara; for cheaping out on the M16 to make more profit, because they didn't care if the troops got a shoddy weapon, or even for bribes and kickbacks (a suggestion which I find ridiculous by the way).

Well, there are a hell of a lot of things to blame McNamara for (in fact, I hold him responsible for much of the way the Viet Nam war was conducted); and certainly he and his "whiz kids" share some of the blame; but really, the majority of the responsibility and recriminations should not fall on his shoulders.

You shouldn't really blame Colt either. They were following the specifications and recommendations of the people who are truly responsible for the deaths of all those men.

No, the people responsible for the early M16 and its faults, were the Army Ordnance Board. They are the ones who changed the twist rate, changed the powder, and told colt not to chrome the bores.

They did it, because they were trying to sabotage the M16. They saw this black plastic toy, as being forced on them by McNamara and Curtis LeMay (com gen. of the Air Force, who bought them for the air force security police); when they wanted to continue using the m14.

Now, specifically a lot of folks blame McNamara, because he forced the Army to adopt the rifle, and is reported to have said "If it needed a chrome bore, Eugene Stoner would have designed it that way".

It may have been true, and I’ve certainly heard the quote before; but it was definitely not Colts fault, or McNamaras fault even that the changes were made, or more importantly that the required changes to make the M16 combat ready for the jungles of Viet Nam, were not made until 1968.

If you read up on some of the stunts the Ordnance Board pulled during the acceptance trials, they boil my blood.

The AR platform was first tested (as the AR-10) by the Army ordnance board in 1956; and it was rejected, for various stated reasons only one of which was true. The original AR10 had a light weight composite barrel, which would shatter in heavy rain or extremely cold temperatures. During the original ordnance board trials, Stoner decided that the one legitimate complaint the board had was that the rifle needed a conventional barrel, and the bore needed to be chrome lined (in fact, Stoner had always thought so. The lightweight aluminum and compsite barrels were not his idea, they were forced on him by the president of Fairchild, John Sullivan).

In ‘58, the board held the cold weather trials, and rejected the AR platform again, because of it’s “inadequate performance and failure to meet standards in harsh environments”, based on a ridiculous series of rigged tests, using deliberately sabotaged rifles.

Eugene Stoner reported that the commander of the tests told him that there was no way his rifle would pass, and that he didn't understand why Stoner was trying to destroy the Army with his rifle. That he believed Stoner was unpatriotic, and honestly wanted to destroy the Army and possibly America; just because of this rifle.

These were not the sentiments of a rational and objective man.

Stoner also reported that when he arrived to oversee the trials, the rifles used for the test had all their pins removed and replaced with machine screws that had the heads ground off; that springs were deliberately clipped; that sights had been deliberately knocked off true etc... The army ordnance board was simply not going to allow this rifle to even be considered.

Maxwell Taylor, at the time chief of staff of the army (then chairman of the joint chiefs), personally hated LeMay to an unreasonable degree and "blamed" this new rifle on him. Taylor also directly intervened in the testing process to express his disapproval of the new weapon, preferring instead the more traditional M14; and leting his people know in no uncertain terms he expected the plastic toy to fail completely.

So, the AR was rejected again; and Stoner left Fairchild/Armalite to work with Colt, and Cadillac Gage. In 1961-62 he started working on his next design, the Stoner 62/63 weapons system, and later the Bushmaster cannon, leaving the AR to Armalite (the trade name the M16 is known under throughout most of the world).

In 1960, after seeing a demonstration of the AR15 at a barbecue in Texas, Curtis Lemay ordered 8,500 M16s for the Air Force (initially countermanded by McNamara, but later allowed to go through); believing that the light, handy rifle was perfect for air base security.

ARPA (the advanced research project agency) also acquired a quantity of the rifles, and sent them to Viet Nam with SF a teams; to be used as personal weapons, as well as to arm indigenous irregular troops. This order was allowed to proceed; and ARPA reported (with some unbelievable hyperbole one might note), that the rifle was an unqualified success.

McNamara stopped the M16 order for several reasons, including believing (rightly) that LeMay was too big for his britches; but his primary justification was the initial army ordnance board reporting. After the order was suspended, ArmaLite corporation (which was founded and spun off by Fairchild, who were Stoners employers when he created the AR design),who had licensed the design from Stoner, filed a complaint with McNamara about the original tests, which caused him to initiate an inspector generals investigation into the trials.

Two years after that, and after receiving an IG report showed that the original M16 trials were rigged; McNamara halted production of the M14 and ordered the M16 adopted; officially because economic and production analysis by the “whiz kids” showed the M14 was uneconomical (production costs were too high, and production could not be economically increased), vs the M16.

Actually, much of why McNamara made the decision, was because he was supremely pissed off at the Army Ordnance board at their deception (and they were continuing to insist the trials were legitimate even after the report came out). McNamara felt that he needed to force the board to heel.

Initially the AOB absolutely refused McNamaras order that the M16 be adopted. McNamara forced the AOB by direct order to retry the weapon, with ARPA as an overeseeing agency. The board dickered so much, and insisted on so many changes to the rifle; in fact saying that even with the changes it was unsuitable; that McNamara ordered that they adopt the M16 as is, with no changes, anyway.

Those changes were actually rather important; including the chrome bore, the forward assist, and a different twist rate for the rifling. They would later be implemented in the M16A1 (and later revisions); but because of the boards hostility with McNamara, they were not put into the intial production models as issued.

After McNamara overruled the board completely, they went about deliberatelyt making sure the M16 would fail; because they wanted it to be a spectacular disaster, so they could go back to the M14 and give McNamara a black eye.

The first, and most important thing they did, was chang the powder from stick to ball; without testing the new powder, or changing the springs, gas port diameter etc... as would be required to properly function with this change.

...But it didn't take changes in the rilfe or ammo to sink it.

Even with the wrong powder, the weapon COULD have been a success. The board did something far far worse. Colt was advertising the civilian versions of the rifle as "self cleaning", and so natural and intuitive that anyone coudl shoot it with no training. THe board thought they would throw those claims back in Colts face, and they specified that the rifle not be distributed with cleaning kits, didn't have kits or supplies put into production, and didn’t create training manuals or standard procedures.

In fact, they didn’t even distribute armorers manuals (something done with any and all devices the military uses); and the flysheets that they DID distribute, instructed armorers to issue the weapon without kits, telling soldiers that they didn’t need to clean the weapon; that it was self cleaning (Colt picked this up as sales propaganda, but the AOB certainly knew better).

When the weapon initially went to field units, no training was conducted. Troops were given “field expedient familiarization”, which consisted of firing a few magazines off into the tree line. There was no training in stoppage drills, how to break the weapon down, how to field or detail strip it, how to maintain it at all etc… The weapon was first issued to troops in late ‘64 and early ‘65, but cleaning kits and manuals weren’t issued until 1967.

What we CAN blame McNamara for however, is not listening to the troops reports of the weapons failures. He still believed that it was the AOB falsifying the problems in order to make the rifle fail. He was half right.

In 1968, finally realizing that they had lost the M14 fight, and that they had to respond to the issues the troops were having; the Army began issuing the revised configuration M16s (the E1, E2, and what was finally classified as the M16-A1), incorporating those changes initially recommended; as well as creating new manuals, procedures, and training; as should have been done in 1964.

All of that was a direct result of the ordnance board, and their desire to keep using the M14; and all of that resulted in the deaths of hundreds or thousands of good men. It's not Colt or McNamaras fault, you can lay the blame squarely on the Army Ordnance Board from 1958 through 1968.

The Myth of AR Unreliability

Ok guys, its time to smack down the bullshit here.

If an AR is properly maintained, and properly made in the first place, it is completely reliable. I have owned, been issued, and have used in harsh conditions, several AR's (including M4 variants); and I'm on my second M14. My AR's have been, without exception, more reliable than my M14's, more reliable than my G3, and in general more reliable than any other semi auto rifle I've owned.

A few days ago, in prepartion for a range trip, I detail stripped my Bushmaster superlight. I have had this rifle since the beginning of October, and I have averaged 250 rounds a week through it, plus 1500 rounds I put through it in the first week.

Whenever I get a new AR I do a few things with it. I clean it throughly, fully detail strip it, clean it down to bare metal (or finsih). I then shoot 250 rounds through it and do it again, and 250 more rounds and do it again. From there, I then put as many rounds as I can through it until I get a stoppage. During the test all I do is wipe the gun down with a rag, inside and out, run a bore snake down the bore every 1000 rounds, and properly lube the gun.

I passed the 5000 rounds mark through this rifle last week, 4500 rounds since I detail stripped it last. I have not had a single stoppage because of the rifle in that entire time (I had one bad magazine that I crushed). I decided I had to stop shooting and clean the thing or the bolt would permanently carbonize. I have fed every sort of ammo there is through it in that time, including various shit from our nato allies, and even a few hundred wolf (damn that stuff smells like shit).

More in the exteded entry ...


Now I will say, cleaning it was a stone ass bitch. I did a basic clean frist with CLP, and pretty much every internal passage was hard coated with carbon, but it wasnt even close to enough to make the weapon malfunction. After wiping off the CLP, I liberally coated every surface and filled every passage with a foaming solvent that will strip any fouling known to man. Its good shit.

That got about half of it.

Then I coated it all in RB-17 and let is soak for an hour, and cleaned it all off again with CLP, and that finally got the rest of it.

Yeah, it was a pain in the ass to detail strip and clean, and that's the design. That is the only consequence of the design that shits where it eats, its a pain in the ass to detail strip and clean. It was the trade off stoner made for a more accurate, lighter, less complex, and more reliable weapon. There's no op rod to break or bend, no gas piston, or piston seals, and if the gas tube does plug up (highly unlikley under normal condisitons) its easy to replace. Not only that but it has less recirocating mass than jsut about any other deisgn out there, which makes the weapon more accurate, and easier to control in rapid or full auto fire.

I can't say the same of my M14. If I run good ammo through it, its a 100% gun, but with the shitty greek and indian 7.62 (not the dangerous corrosive stuff, I like my gun too much for that) I get a failure to feed about once a mag.

This is a custom built, Ron Smith rifle, not some cheap piece of junk either. I'm in the middle of doing the same test with this M14 to see how many rounds it will fire uncleaned without a malfunction (with good ammo). Last week, I had a malfunction with the good stuff, having fired about 1000 rounds through it, now I'm going to clean it and see how nasty it is.

Let's note, the AR design isn't linked inextricably from the 5.56 NATO chambering. I'm a big of the AR-10, (and especially the SR-25) and if I could afford one, it would be in my locker right now. There is a reason I always refer to the design as the AR,becaue the M16 is a specific rifle in a specific caliber, the AR family is the name for the design.

You know what I think is the biggest problem that people have with the AR? It's that they dont read the -10 (note: the military operators manual for the rifle)

Shit man I've got that thing memorized (or at least I used to. I re-read it while I was waiting for the RB-17 to dissolve the carbon, and theres stuff I had forgotten).

The next major problem people have is they dont understand the difference between an assault rifle, and a battle rifle, or if they do, they don't like the idea of an assault rifle.

The AR design, as expressed with todays A3 and A4 variants is the ultimate expression of the assault rifle concept, as practiced in U.S. Military doctrine, much as the AKM is the ultimate expression of the assault rifle as expressed by soviet doctrine.

Think about it, detail strip an AR and see how many functional moving parts there are. Then do the same to a G3, or even an M14. Its even worse when you look at reciprocating parts (parts that cycle when firing). The 16 is as simple as you can make a precision rifle.

There is actually very little that can break during operation, and if there is a failure its most likely caused by crud, bad ammo, or a dodgy mag, not by a part breaking. To get any simpler you need to go soviet, and that's a whole different philosophy.

The problem comes when people try and compare the M16 and especially the M4 (which is an assault carbine, not a full rifle), to battle rifles. A battle rifle will have an effective range of 600-800 yards, an assault rifle will have an effective range of 300 yards, and an assault carbine of 100 yards (according to the -Army, the effective range for a 20" barrel is 460 yards, 350 for an 18" and 50 yards for every inch or so thereafter. The Army spec says the M4 is a 200 yard gun)

Hmm, think we see a pattern forming here?

There are appropriate situations for each, and the vast majority of troops are best served with assault rifles, or assault carbines, in most situations.

The art of selecting a general issue weapon for military purposes is one of compromise. There is no weapon ideal for all missions, so you choose the one that has the most positive factors for it, in the most situations. A battle rifle has one plus, power, and everything else minus compared to an assault rifle or carbine. Individual small arms power is the primary concern for a rifleman, but not for an infantryman serving in a squad with a designated marksman, a grenadier, and a light machine gunner. His primary concerns are ammo capacity, packability, and general handiness.

So what it comes down to is, we probably compomised too far down with the 5.56 round. We did it with bad information, and a bad wounding theory, and converted everything over before we knew any better. Once we converted everything over, we didnt have the time or resources to change it, and by the time we did, 30 years had gone by, and the entire world was stuck with it.

But whatever the weaknesses of the caliber (and they can be mitigated to a degree with proper load selection and bullet design) it doesnt change the fact that the AR design is fundamentally both accurate, and reliable. If you start with a properly made gun, and just read the manual and do what it says, which isn't very hard, you'll never have a problem.

I've owned several AR's been issued several more, and served with and worked with hundreds of people who between them were issued hundreds. I have seen reliable weapons, and unreliable ones, and in almost every case the fault could be found in poor ammo, poor maintenance and cleaning, incorrect or out of tolerance repair (or original manufacture), and bad magazines. Bad magazines alone account for at least half the malfunctions I have seen, and improper cleaning and maintenance accounted for at least half the rest.

Let me say it again: When properly maintained, and properly manufactured in the first place, the AR design is highly reliable.

What isn't reliable, is people. I find that maintenance standards in regular forces are often poor, and the acceptance standards for the weapons in the first place are also poor. In particular I believe the acceptance standards, and maintenance standards for magazines are entirely unacceptable.

It never ceases to amaze me just how little soldiers, and especially officers, seamen, and airmen, know about their weapons, and how to properly maintain them. Even if they do know, the standard to which they maintain them is very frequently not up to spec. Perhaps we should have more armorers, and more armorers assistants, and I KNOW we should train our people to maintain their weapons reflexively (as I was trained; You clean your weapon every time you stop moving, whether you've fired it or not, no matter how reliable you think the design is).

Special operations units have a lot more weapons knowledge, and a lot more personal attention is paid to the weapons, as well as attention from armorers. Not only are their weapons 100% reliable (or they wouldn't be using them), but they are also highly accurate.

The AR "reliability problem" is one of lax maintenance, lax cleaning, and lax standards, pure and simple.

Now we can debate whether it is apropriate for a military rifle to NEED those higher standards or not, and it's certainly valid to suggest that they don't. My point here is that there is nothing inherently unreliable about the AR design.

Sure, it is dirty, and it needs more attention to cleaning than a non direct gas impingement design would. That's it. As far as I'm concerned that's a training issue.

Theres no gear required for basic cleaning. You need a rag, a bottle of CLP, a bore snake, and a tooth brush. You carry them in a pouch you can reach at all times and you clean obsessivley (no-one uses the butt stock kit if they dont have to)

It doesnt matter what kind of weapon you have, your weapon is your life, and you clean it and clean it , and clean it. The AR design is about the easiest weapon in the world to quickly clean (if you dont let the gunk build up).

Cleaning your weapon is something you do like breathing. You move you clean. You shoot you clean, you piss you clean. A dust cloud goes by, you wipe off your weapon before you wipe off your face.

It isn't necessary to detail strip a weapon very frequently, if you do a detail strip on an AR every 1500 rounds or so (thats 50 magazines worth), you'll be fine, and it will only take 10 minutes. If you detail strip your weapon every time you engage, before you roll up for the night, then it takes nothing. You can do it with a clean rag, a toothbrush, a toothpick, a bore snake, an empty cartridge casing, and a bottle of CLP.

Babywipes are your friend. I have half a dozen packages of simple green cleaning wipes sitting with my gear. I have more in the trunk of my car. I have foil packed wipes in my LBE and in my gear bags.

An M4 breaks down for cleaning in less than 5 seconds. It takes less than a minute to pull the bolt and do a brush and wipe down, and another minute to clean the bore, lube the rifle, and pin it up again. It only takes another five minutes to do a detail strip and clean if you havent let the gunk build up for a while (like I did in the example above).

It actually take me longer to detail strip and clean my 1911, than it does to do my AR.

You learn this through training and practice, and we haven't trained enough of our people to use these patterns of behavior, but that is not the fault of the rifle.