The designs for the ever popular M16 nearly ended up in the shredder. The evolution of this rifle (over the past 50 years) is a fascinating story, involving politics, strategies, and many errors.
At first glance, the M16 may look to some like a toy. Its materials make it very lightweight, and due to its designs there is little to no recoil. But make no mistake – this is a deadly and lethal tool, forged for war.
The M16 is known as the “Vietnam gun”, but the idea of creating a lightweight machine gun is an idea that designers and weapons engineers have been toying with since the late 40’s.
For a decade or so, this idea remained exactly that – an idea, nothing more. With the advent of the Korean War, the U.S. government was looking for a weapon which could replace the M1 Garand, which was the standard issue military rifle, as well as the M1 Carbine.
Humble Beginnings The American infantrymen, fighting in Korea, needed more firepower than the M1 could provide. There was a growing demand and undeniable need for a better assault weapon, one which the U.S. troops could stand behind. The Chinese were also using older WWII weapons, but they had sheer numbers on their side.
Many battles in Korea were close quarter combat (CQC) situations. This, perhaps more than anything, demonstrated the need for a new kind of weapon. One which could be operated in varying conditions, and which would give the U.S. an advantage against the larger numbers of the enemy.
M1 Garand Rifle
A trained soldier could fire 50 rounds a minute with the M1. This was not nearly enough, considering you were confronting hundreds and thousands of enemy troops who were running towards you.
Out of this great need, the idea of the M16 was born. A lightweight assault rifle which could be operated easily, which could compensate for the lack of accuracy on the shooter’s part, and which would allow many more rounds per minute, and improve success at short-range battles.
The idea of short-range combat was one which went against a firmly-held belief – bordering on myth – which was a part of the heritage of the U.S. Armed Forces. That belief was that long-range combat is the best way to win a war. One shot – one kill. This harks back to the days of the American Revolution, when a claim that America won the war because of its sharpshooters was in heavy circulation. This idea stuck, and it was perpetuated during WWI with stories of American marksmen wiping out the enemy using heavy-caliber, long-range weapons.
In 1950, during the Korean war, this idea/myth went under the microscope of the U.S. Army’s analysts and specialists. These individuals studied infantry operations and weapons usage in Korea, and they found that in most cases, an infantryman would hold his fire until the enemy was within 200 yards. In other words, it became clear that a long-range weapon was not as necessary as was thought. Something new needed to rise from the ashes of the M1, and that something was the M-14.
The M-14 was very similar to the M-1, but it had a 20-round magazine. There was a great downside, though. Accuracy. It was very poor, when in full-automatic mode. Recoil was harsh, and follow-up shots were not proving to be as accurate as the first shot. Even in the hands of trained soldiers, full-auto mode was a problem. In semi-automatic mode, however, the M-14 was a definite improvement over the M1.
Eugene Stoner: Father of the Modern Day M16 Eugene Stoner was the engineer, inventor, designer, and father of the modern-day M16. In the 1950’s, Stoner was chief engineer and designer at a company named “Armalite”, a division of Fairchild aircraft. He had the idea of using fiberglass, aluminum alloys, and the advanced and lightweight materials which were used in the aircraft industry to create a new kind of weapon. Stoner died in 1997, but his designs have revolutionized the world.
Eugene Stoner
The U.S. Army began to notice Stoner and Armalite when the AR-10 assault rifle grabbed their attention. It was incredibly lightweight (7 lb), it fired 7.62mm caliber rounds, it had a 20-round magazine, and it was a very versatile design. In spite of its many positive attributes, the Army chose not to develop it. Combined with the fact that the military saw no real problem with the M-14, it was decided the AR-10 was not the weapon for the military.
In 1957, a four-star general named Wyman paid a visit to Armalite’s facilities in California. He told Stoner that he was interested in developing the AR series for the military, and Stoner went on to create the AR-15. This was the earliest version of what later became the M16. The AR-15 was made primarily of fiberglass and aluminum. Only the barrel, along with a few other parts, were made of steel. This was a huge advantage, and it was one which was met with great enthusiasm. It had semi- or fully-automatic capabilities, and it could fire a 25-round magazine.
The AR-15 was a marvel, and it was powered by a sophisticated gas system. It weighed just under 5 lb, had a bakelite grip and thin barrel, and a three-pronged flash-suppressor. The bakelite was a very light and fragile material, which could very easily be broken. It was a good weapon, but it was somewhat not reliable.
The original AR-15 used smaller .22 caliber bullets, whose ballistic range was shorter and who were more susceptible to the interference of weather conditions. The army wanted something more soldier-like, which could withstand punishment, be it at the hand of the common infantryman or the elements.
The AR-15 had one major advantage – weight. This was the game-changer. Soldiers could carry a lot more AR-15 ammunitions than M-14 ammunitions. Three times as much, actually. And this was one thing which the Army could not ignore.
It was very clear, even back then, that the AR-15 had great potential. However, due to bureaucracy, politics, (and no small amount of ego), the AR-15 was passed on. This rifle had a very tough time getting the approval of the Army. It was thought that issuing lower caliber weapons would be a step back for the infantry, not forward. Plus, there were those who did not like the fact that the weapon was designed by an outsider. They wanted the U.S. troops to use in-house-designed weapons.
AR-15
In 1958, General Wyman – who had always believed in Stoner – gave the go-ahead for official tests to be conducted on the AR-15. Army officials were impressed with the performance of the AR-15, and they saw no major disadvantages. However, when further testing was done in the arctic region, the AR-15 performed poorly. It was malfunctioning, inaccurate, and unreliable. Some claim that those 1958 arctic tests were fixed, in order for the AR-15 to be marked as a failure. When word of the poor performances reached Stoner, he flew to the testing grounds to witness and oversee the operations firsthand.
What Stoner saw when he arrived was that his rifles had been tampered with. Certain pieces were taken off the weapons, and other, inferior pieces were put in their place. This caused parts to be misaligned, and rendered the gun inoperable. The officers at the testing were somewhat hostile towards Stoner, and they did not want his design to be successful. Par for the course, some would say, as the Army had already shown how much they were not interested in Stoner’s new weapon.
At first glance, the M16 may look to some like a toy. Its materials make it very lightweight, and due to its designs there is little to no recoil. But make no mistake – this is a deadly and lethal tool, forged for war.
The M16 is known as the “Vietnam gun”, but the idea of creating a lightweight machine gun is an idea that designers and weapons engineers have been toying with since the late 40’s.
For a decade or so, this idea remained exactly that – an idea, nothing more. With the advent of the Korean War, the U.S. government was looking for a weapon which could replace the M1 Garand, which was the standard issue military rifle, as well as the M1 Carbine.
Humble Beginnings The American infantrymen, fighting in Korea, needed more firepower than the M1 could provide. There was a growing demand and undeniable need for a better assault weapon, one which the U.S. troops could stand behind. The Chinese were also using older WWII weapons, but they had sheer numbers on their side.
Many battles in Korea were close quarter combat (CQC) situations. This, perhaps more than anything, demonstrated the need for a new kind of weapon. One which could be operated in varying conditions, and which would give the U.S. an advantage against the larger numbers of the enemy.
M1 Garand RifleA trained soldier could fire 50 rounds a minute with the M1. This was not nearly enough, considering you were confronting hundreds and thousands of enemy troops who were running towards you.
Out of this great need, the idea of the M16 was born. A lightweight assault rifle which could be operated easily, which could compensate for the lack of accuracy on the shooter’s part, and which would allow many more rounds per minute, and improve success at short-range battles.
The idea of short-range combat was one which went against a firmly-held belief – bordering on myth – which was a part of the heritage of the U.S. Armed Forces. That belief was that long-range combat is the best way to win a war. One shot – one kill. This harks back to the days of the American Revolution, when a claim that America won the war because of its sharpshooters was in heavy circulation. This idea stuck, and it was perpetuated during WWI with stories of American marksmen wiping out the enemy using heavy-caliber, long-range weapons.
In 1950, during the Korean war, this idea/myth went under the microscope of the U.S. Army’s analysts and specialists. These individuals studied infantry operations and weapons usage in Korea, and they found that in most cases, an infantryman would hold his fire until the enemy was within 200 yards. In other words, it became clear that a long-range weapon was not as necessary as was thought. Something new needed to rise from the ashes of the M1, and that something was the M-14.
The M-14 was very similar to the M-1, but it had a 20-round magazine. There was a great downside, though. Accuracy. It was very poor, when in full-automatic mode. Recoil was harsh, and follow-up shots were not proving to be as accurate as the first shot. Even in the hands of trained soldiers, full-auto mode was a problem. In semi-automatic mode, however, the M-14 was a definite improvement over the M1.
Eugene Stoner: Father of the Modern Day M16 Eugene Stoner was the engineer, inventor, designer, and father of the modern-day M16. In the 1950’s, Stoner was chief engineer and designer at a company named “Armalite”, a division of Fairchild aircraft. He had the idea of using fiberglass, aluminum alloys, and the advanced and lightweight materials which were used in the aircraft industry to create a new kind of weapon. Stoner died in 1997, but his designs have revolutionized the world.
Eugene StonerThe U.S. Army began to notice Stoner and Armalite when the AR-10 assault rifle grabbed their attention. It was incredibly lightweight (7 lb), it fired 7.62mm caliber rounds, it had a 20-round magazine, and it was a very versatile design. In spite of its many positive attributes, the Army chose not to develop it. Combined with the fact that the military saw no real problem with the M-14, it was decided the AR-10 was not the weapon for the military.
In 1957, a four-star general named Wyman paid a visit to Armalite’s facilities in California. He told Stoner that he was interested in developing the AR series for the military, and Stoner went on to create the AR-15. This was the earliest version of what later became the M16. The AR-15 was made primarily of fiberglass and aluminum. Only the barrel, along with a few other parts, were made of steel. This was a huge advantage, and it was one which was met with great enthusiasm. It had semi- or fully-automatic capabilities, and it could fire a 25-round magazine.
The AR-15 was a marvel, and it was powered by a sophisticated gas system. It weighed just under 5 lb, had a bakelite grip and thin barrel, and a three-pronged flash-suppressor. The bakelite was a very light and fragile material, which could very easily be broken. It was a good weapon, but it was somewhat not reliable.
The original AR-15 used smaller .22 caliber bullets, whose ballistic range was shorter and who were more susceptible to the interference of weather conditions. The army wanted something more soldier-like, which could withstand punishment, be it at the hand of the common infantryman or the elements.
The AR-15 had one major advantage – weight. This was the game-changer. Soldiers could carry a lot more AR-15 ammunitions than M-14 ammunitions. Three times as much, actually. And this was one thing which the Army could not ignore.
It was very clear, even back then, that the AR-15 had great potential. However, due to bureaucracy, politics, (and no small amount of ego), the AR-15 was passed on. This rifle had a very tough time getting the approval of the Army. It was thought that issuing lower caliber weapons would be a step back for the infantry, not forward. Plus, there were those who did not like the fact that the weapon was designed by an outsider. They wanted the U.S. troops to use in-house-designed weapons.
AR-15In 1958, General Wyman – who had always believed in Stoner – gave the go-ahead for official tests to be conducted on the AR-15. Army officials were impressed with the performance of the AR-15, and they saw no major disadvantages. However, when further testing was done in the arctic region, the AR-15 performed poorly. It was malfunctioning, inaccurate, and unreliable. Some claim that those 1958 arctic tests were fixed, in order for the AR-15 to be marked as a failure. When word of the poor performances reached Stoner, he flew to the testing grounds to witness and oversee the operations firsthand.
What Stoner saw when he arrived was that his rifles had been tampered with. Certain pieces were taken off the weapons, and other, inferior pieces were put in their place. This caused parts to be misaligned, and rendered the gun inoperable. The officers at the testing were somewhat hostile towards Stoner, and they did not want his design to be successful. Par for the course, some would say, as the Army had already shown how much they were not interested in Stoner’s new weapon.
