Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon
A look at the Army’s once secret research on the effectiveness of infantry rifles. And this led to the military adopting the M16.
5 Responses to “Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 3rd, 2011 at 10:13 am
So the military went with the M16 to increase hits on the targets and ease logistics.
What about the recommendation that “toxic missiles” be used to “increase hit lethality?”
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:11 am
I thought shooting watermelons at a farm lead to the M16 being adopted?
March 3rd, 2011 at 2:59 pm
The watermelon engagement was with a Colt representative demonstrating for Gen. LeMay, and led to the AR-15 being adopted by the U.S.A.F. That was prior to official Army adoption.
Seems to me the allegation that the M1 was not MOA capable at over a mile and simply ‘the finest battle implement ever devised’ could set off a sh*t storm on another gun blog, a la Tam’s nice work on the 1911 as disected by the illiterati on another board. Might be humorous to watch if it happens.
Neat read. Been to Gettysburg many times, which made the document yet more interesting.
March 3rd, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Uncle is right. This ORO study is one of the crucial stepping stones that during the Vietnam War led to removal of M-14 rifles, which were rock solid reliable and the beneficiary of 30 years of development history put into the Garand action, and instead putting into the hands of American infantry M-16 rifles which were buggy, fragile, and unreliable, as they were still at a prototype stage of development!
It was the civilian eggheads vs the professional military which brought this sad state of affairs to pass. And the scientific gloss of the ORO study aided the eggheads (in the primary form of Secretary of Defense McNamara) to do so. As far as the eggheads were concerned, the M-16 was perfect as is, and the military professionals were biased dinosaurs with no credibility.
March 4th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I think ultimately, the problem was requiring that all the different branches, who have different missions and require different tools, use the same rifle. If the Army, Navy, and USMC all wanted to keep the M-14, then they should have been allowed to do so, even if the various tests showed that the M-16 was better(as all the tests which weren’t rigged certainly showed). If they wanted to issued the M-16 on a limited basis, they should have equipped certain number of fire teams members with one, and then gotten their feedback, made necessary improvements, and then continued small scale testing, until there was a wide spread call for it’s adoption. If that never happened, it should not have been adopted.
Having carried an M-16A2 in combat, I can tell you that you spend a lot more time carrying it than you do shooting people with it. Lighter is better for that purpose. They are wonderfully accurate, and have excellent sights. I’ve only seen one person shot with it (not by me) and he was DRT. Bang! Plop. I came to begrudgingly respect the M-16, even admire it. Mine was plenty reliable, but that being said, if I had been asked, I almost certainly would have chosen an M-14 and never had enough experience with the M-16 to learn anything about it.