|
The urban legend, left over from the Vietnam War, regarding the M-16, was generated by an embellishment of individual soldiers experiences by a press that was already beginning to turn on the administration.
I have heard many variations of the early problems of the switch over in systems. The disbursement of cleaning kits did not keep pace with the issuing of the new rifles. This was erroneously reported as the rifle being so well made that it did not need a cleaning kit, all one had to do was merely crack it open and pour water down the barrel. My uncle, who did 3 tours in Nam , (one as a Canadian soldier who then went south and joined the Marines) told me that where a lot of soldiers that tried to get the old M-14 back. Often they would try to claim the “poodle shooters” as battle losses, concocting incredible stories to cover their butts.
I was under the impression that rifle encountered problems because it was designed around a very clean burning propellant and that the uniquely chromed chamber wouldn't work well with lower grades of powder. Wasn’t there a congressional hearing into the switching of powder ingredients that implicated a US Governor? Wasn’t the forward assist button added to subsequent production runs in order to help the bolt properly feed and seat the round manufactured with the lower grade powder? I believe the rationale was that there had been millions of rounds made with the LG powder and that it would be more cost efficient to alter the production runs than to recall and replace the existing ammo stocks.
I have asked these questions on other forums and would appreciate any input from those in this thread with real life experience. During the GW3, I’ve seen many variations of the M4 and M16 A2. Some have different optical sights, camo patterns, forearm stocks w/wo pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc,etc. Does the individual soldier buy his own add-ons? Who decides which soldier gets the “bells and whistles” and who gets the plain issue?
__________________
si vis pacem, para bellum
|