Curious about gr. bullet weight used for orginal M16
- Thread starter igor
- Start date
6mm06
Well-known member
Here's a good read about the M16. Sadly it doesn't talk a lot about the weight of bullet, though a chart on down the page shows a 55 gr. A lot of information is packed into this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
AWS
Custom Accessory Maker & Retired PM Staff
Not having been a fan of the M-16 when I had to use one and never saw the results of having to fire one in combat I did get some use of one in Vietnam doing ADC work on the base. We had a problem with rabid dogs and I was elected to take care of the problem as I ran the base garbage dump where they would frequent. The original 55 gr Ball round was horrible most of the time it took more than one to put down a dog with body shots. I soon traded the M-16 for a M-14 and things took a turn for the better.
I still have a couple of bandoleers of the old ammo in 20rd boxes, 10 rds to a stripper clip.
I still have a couple of bandoleers of the old ammo in 20rd boxes, 10 rds to a stripper clip.
Willy Brotz
New member
Originally Posted By: pyscodogI don't know if its true or not. Really doesn't matter a whole lot now considering how long ago it was. I thought the 222 was the original cartridge designed for the military. A guy I met a few years ago showed me unopened ammo cans of 222 marked for military use only. He said it was ammo designed for use in the AR 15 rifle. I pretty much said OK, didn't know one way or another and it wasn't worth debating. But I didn't insinuate he was not telling the truth either.
Makes sense. I found this online also.
"Benchrest was not the only competitive game in which the “Triple-Deuce” excelled. In 1960, the Remington Model 760 pump gun in .222 was adopted by the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit at Ft. Benning, Ga., for use in 100-meter international running deer competition, where a moving target is exposed for only a few seconds."
Makes sense. I found this online also.
"Benchrest was not the only competitive game in which the “Triple-Deuce” excelled. In 1960, the Remington Model 760 pump gun in .222 was adopted by the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit at Ft. Benning, Ga., for use in 100-meter international running deer competition, where a moving target is exposed for only a few seconds."
Originally Posted By: RustydustOriginally Posted By: liliysdad
One of these is not like the other......damned fine example of backpedaling. Bravo.
There must be something about this place that seems to give vermin the necessary strength to push the rock that they live under away and crawl out from under it just long enough to show their true colors. Sure is sad that there are people out there that think that it is necessary for them to continually behave in such a manner. Likely it is these very people that have caused so many of our members to go elsewhere. What miserable people they must be to be around. Tsk. Thank God that not everyone is like that.
Spout wives tales as truth, backpedal when called on it, and argue till the end....
Yeah, people like us are the issue.
One of these is not like the other......damned fine example of backpedaling. Bravo.
There must be something about this place that seems to give vermin the necessary strength to push the rock that they live under away and crawl out from under it just long enough to show their true colors. Sure is sad that there are people out there that think that it is necessary for them to continually behave in such a manner. Likely it is these very people that have caused so many of our members to go elsewhere. What miserable people they must be to be around. Tsk. Thank God that not everyone is like that.
Spout wives tales as truth, backpedal when called on it, and argue till the end....
Yeah, people like us are the issue.
Rustydust
Active member
Originally Posted By: liliysdad
Spout wives tales as truth, backpedal when called on it, and argue till the end....
Yeah, people like us are the issue.
Sure is sad that morons like you feel that you have to keep making a fool out of yourself. Who told you that the article I read about shooting tomato juice cans was an old wife's tale? No one, right? For some morbid reason you just felt like saying that, huh? Yeah, I thought so. Sucks to be you to be sure.
Some people just dont know when to let sleeping dogs lie. smh
Spout wives tales as truth, backpedal when called on it, and argue till the end....
Yeah, people like us are the issue.
Sure is sad that morons like you feel that you have to keep making a fool out of yourself. Who told you that the article I read about shooting tomato juice cans was an old wife's tale? No one, right? For some morbid reason you just felt like saying that, huh? Yeah, I thought so. Sucks to be you to be sure.
Some people just dont know when to let sleeping dogs lie. smh
sandy hicks
New member
Is it true that Stoner used a chrome liner in an aluminum barrel for the trials?
Winny Fan
New member
Rusty, I had decided to just let this thread slide off into irrelevant history to cause you no more problems, but since you are so good with the
when you think you'll gain something, both here and elsewhere, I'll toss this out to specifically answer your tomato can story:
The largely untested in battle M-14 was the battle rifle which many GI’s carried to Viet Nam early on. It quickly showed its strengths and weaknesses in combat. In firefights with the Russian AK-47, it exhibited superior accuracy, range, and power, but the size of the M-14/7.62x51 NATO combination offered a logistic disadvantage in jungle fighting. Smaller Viet Cong troops could carry a lot more ammo per man for their SKS and AK-47 rifles than could the average GI for the M-14, so in extended operations, the GI’s had to be regularly re-supplied while the Viet Cong still had sufficient ammo per man in most situations of extended contact. And on full auto, the M-14 was not very effective due to excessive recoil that affected good individual fire control.
As a result, even though the M-14 was a fairly new battle rifle, the military was soon looking for an alternative weapon in a smaller caliber that was easier to control in full-automatic fire than the M-14 allowed and that also allowed troops to carry more ammunition per man. Studies from past wars had taught them that most kills from small arms were at fairly close range, typically less than 300 meters. Studies had also taught that the side that shoots the most rounds tends to get the most kills. Obviously, the smaller round allowed for more ammo to be carried and expended.
As an aside: The US military was not the only ones considering getting away from large battle rifles and large battle rifle cartridges for standard troop issue. The Soviets as well as the British had looked extensively into developing a mid-range cartridge even smaller than the 7.62x51 NATO after WWII. The Soviets already had it in their SKS and AK-47 assault rifles chambered for 7.62x39 in the1940's.
The British had tried to get the US military to consider their smaller .280 round for NATO standardization years earlier, but we had instead forced the 7.62x51 on them. Hence they adopted the FN FAL rifle in 7.62x51 NATO. However, within a few years, the US military finally recognized the need for a smaller cartridge from the Viet Nam experience. From this came new and more intense interest in the fairly recent 1957 CONARC testing and recommendations. As stated before, the CONARC tested rifles had been provided by Armalite (a scaled down AR-10) and from Winchester, with the Armalite rifle being recommended along with the “222 Special” cartridge (later designated 223 Rem/5.56 NATO) with its 55 grain FMJ bullet.
Many in the US military (mainly the Army and USMC) vehemently resisted the adoption of the “mouse rifle” recommended by the CONARC testing so nothing happened for a few years following the conclusion of the military trials until our early experience in Viet Nam showed a need to re-think the issue.
Because Armalite was a relatively small company with limited financial backing and marketing capabilities, they sold the rights to their rifle to Colt in 1959 for $75,000 and a small commission on all rifles sold for a period of time to follow. Colt vigorously tried to market the rifle/cartridge combination to the US military as well as to numerous foreign military commands for several years from that point on with little success.
Here it comes Rusty:
On the 4th of July in 1960, Colt held a “picnic” for various military folks that included General Curtis LeMay who was soon to be the head of the Air Force. At the picnic, LeMay and a few others observed the AR-15 being shot at watermelons placed at 50, 100, and 150 yards down range. LeMay was the focus of the Colt Marketing demonstration because he had long voiced his negative opinion of the bulky M-14, and he wanted airmen to be able to carry a less bulky weapon than the M-14 for guard duty. LeMay was so impressed with the results on watermelons (once again, from the already existing CONARC recommended AR-15 rifle and cartridge combination) that one year later upon his promotion to USAF Chief of Staff in the summer of 1961, he immediately requested an order for 80,000 AR-15’s from Colt for the U.S. Air Force to replace their few remaining and aging M-1 30 Carbines and their bulky M-14’s for guard duty use at USAF facilities. However, upon the recommendation of General Maxwell D. Taylor who advised the Commander in Chief on such matters, he informed Kennedy that having two different calibers within the military system at the same time would be problematic. President Kennedy accepted Taylor’s advice and LeMay’s request was ultimately denied by the McNamara Department of Defense upon Kennedy's request. As a result, the M-14/7.62x51 combination remained unchallenged as the US small arms choice as the US Department of Defense definitely wanted all US combat troops moving forward in time to be equipped with the same rifle/cartridge combination.
As Viet Nam unfolded in the early 1960’s, the US Defense Department saw an immediate need for a solution to the M-14 combat and logistic issues and hastily settled on the already existing and later designated M-16/M193 Ball Ammo combo with all of its warts and good points totally unrecognized until combat in SE Asia showed both the good and the bad in both the rifle and the ammo, as has been well documented. How the rifle ended up largely untested in Viet Nam is another issue totally, but the topic is highly interesting none-the-less. As often happens, politics played a part.
The largely untested in battle M-14 was the battle rifle which many GI’s carried to Viet Nam early on. It quickly showed its strengths and weaknesses in combat. In firefights with the Russian AK-47, it exhibited superior accuracy, range, and power, but the size of the M-14/7.62x51 NATO combination offered a logistic disadvantage in jungle fighting. Smaller Viet Cong troops could carry a lot more ammo per man for their SKS and AK-47 rifles than could the average GI for the M-14, so in extended operations, the GI’s had to be regularly re-supplied while the Viet Cong still had sufficient ammo per man in most situations of extended contact. And on full auto, the M-14 was not very effective due to excessive recoil that affected good individual fire control.
As a result, even though the M-14 was a fairly new battle rifle, the military was soon looking for an alternative weapon in a smaller caliber that was easier to control in full-automatic fire than the M-14 allowed and that also allowed troops to carry more ammunition per man. Studies from past wars had taught them that most kills from small arms were at fairly close range, typically less than 300 meters. Studies had also taught that the side that shoots the most rounds tends to get the most kills. Obviously, the smaller round allowed for more ammo to be carried and expended.
As an aside: The US military was not the only ones considering getting away from large battle rifles and large battle rifle cartridges for standard troop issue. The Soviets as well as the British had looked extensively into developing a mid-range cartridge even smaller than the 7.62x51 NATO after WWII. The Soviets already had it in their SKS and AK-47 assault rifles chambered for 7.62x39 in the1940's.
The British had tried to get the US military to consider their smaller .280 round for NATO standardization years earlier, but we had instead forced the 7.62x51 on them. Hence they adopted the FN FAL rifle in 7.62x51 NATO. However, within a few years, the US military finally recognized the need for a smaller cartridge from the Viet Nam experience. From this came new and more intense interest in the fairly recent 1957 CONARC testing and recommendations. As stated before, the CONARC tested rifles had been provided by Armalite (a scaled down AR-10) and from Winchester, with the Armalite rifle being recommended along with the “222 Special” cartridge (later designated 223 Rem/5.56 NATO) with its 55 grain FMJ bullet.
Many in the US military (mainly the Army and USMC) vehemently resisted the adoption of the “mouse rifle” recommended by the CONARC testing so nothing happened for a few years following the conclusion of the military trials until our early experience in Viet Nam showed a need to re-think the issue.
Because Armalite was a relatively small company with limited financial backing and marketing capabilities, they sold the rights to their rifle to Colt in 1959 for $75,000 and a small commission on all rifles sold for a period of time to follow. Colt vigorously tried to market the rifle/cartridge combination to the US military as well as to numerous foreign military commands for several years from that point on with little success.
Here it comes Rusty:
On the 4th of July in 1960, Colt held a “picnic” for various military folks that included General Curtis LeMay who was soon to be the head of the Air Force. At the picnic, LeMay and a few others observed the AR-15 being shot at watermelons placed at 50, 100, and 150 yards down range. LeMay was the focus of the Colt Marketing demonstration because he had long voiced his negative opinion of the bulky M-14, and he wanted airmen to be able to carry a less bulky weapon than the M-14 for guard duty. LeMay was so impressed with the results on watermelons (once again, from the already existing CONARC recommended AR-15 rifle and cartridge combination) that one year later upon his promotion to USAF Chief of Staff in the summer of 1961, he immediately requested an order for 80,000 AR-15’s from Colt for the U.S. Air Force to replace their few remaining and aging M-1 30 Carbines and their bulky M-14’s for guard duty use at USAF facilities. However, upon the recommendation of General Maxwell D. Taylor who advised the Commander in Chief on such matters, he informed Kennedy that having two different calibers within the military system at the same time would be problematic. President Kennedy accepted Taylor’s advice and LeMay’s request was ultimately denied by the McNamara Department of Defense upon Kennedy's request. As a result, the M-14/7.62x51 combination remained unchallenged as the US small arms choice as the US Department of Defense definitely wanted all US combat troops moving forward in time to be equipped with the same rifle/cartridge combination.
As Viet Nam unfolded in the early 1960’s, the US Defense Department saw an immediate need for a solution to the M-14 combat and logistic issues and hastily settled on the already existing and later designated M-16/M193 Ball Ammo combo with all of its warts and good points totally unrecognized until combat in SE Asia showed both the good and the bad in both the rifle and the ammo, as has been well documented. How the rifle ended up largely untested in Viet Nam is another issue totally, but the topic is highly interesting none-the-less. As often happens, politics played a part.
Tim Neitzke
New member
Interesting read.
From what I've seen, Rusty is the only one name calling. Just say'n.....
From what I've seen, Rusty is the only one name calling. Just say'n.....
Rustydust
Active member
Wow, Winny. So you have a problem with a "
" now? I see. Sad.
Tell you want. Let's make a deal here. If you never comment again about anything in any post that I make I will do the very same thing for you. Deal?
You seem to love to rub people the wrong way and for sure I am not the only one here that thinks like this. You have to know that's true. How could you not?
Tell you want. Let's make a deal here. If you never comment again about anything in any post that I make I will do the very same thing for you. Deal?
You seem to love to rub people the wrong way and for sure I am not the only one here that thinks like this. You have to know that's true. How could you not?
Winny Fan
New member
Originally Posted By: RustydustWow, Winny. So you have a problem with a "
" now? I see. Sad.
Tell you want. Let's make a deal here. If you never comment again about anything in any post that I make I will do the very same thing for you. Deal?
You seem to love to rub people the wrong way and for sure I am not the only one here that thinks like this. You have to know that's true. How could you not?
If you tell someone that they are wrong and then imply because they are wrong in your mind that they are a mindless twit, expect some push back. Beyond your not so infrequent silly outbursts like you provided at the start of this thread, most of your stuff usually isn't worth commenting on.
Originally Posted By: RustydustOriginally Posted By: Winny FanThe original bullet for the M-16 was indeed a 55 grain FMJ bullet. Tomato cans had absolutely nothing to do with the choice however.
Actually, you are wrong about that.
It was indeed demonstrated to some army bigwigs at a shooting facility how important high velocity was in causing hydrostatic and hydraulic shock. I am not saying that this was the only reason the 5.56 or the 55 grain bullet was chosen but the goal (probably by Armalite) was to impress as many people as possible with the lethality of their offerings. Seems to me that it worked.
Some additional research might be good next time.
Originally Posted By: RustydustOriginally Posted By: Winny Fan
Indeed, "Some additional research might be good next time.
"
Great. I do hope that you will do that very thing next time. No one likes to look like they are a mindless twit. At least I hope not!
Tell you want. Let's make a deal here. If you never comment again about anything in any post that I make I will do the very same thing for you. Deal?
You seem to love to rub people the wrong way and for sure I am not the only one here that thinks like this. You have to know that's true. How could you not?
If you tell someone that they are wrong and then imply because they are wrong in your mind that they are a mindless twit, expect some push back. Beyond your not so infrequent silly outbursts like you provided at the start of this thread, most of your stuff usually isn't worth commenting on.
Originally Posted By: RustydustOriginally Posted By: Winny FanThe original bullet for the M-16 was indeed a 55 grain FMJ bullet. Tomato cans had absolutely nothing to do with the choice however.
Actually, you are wrong about that.
Some additional research might be good next time.
Originally Posted By: RustydustOriginally Posted By: Winny Fan
Indeed, "Some additional research might be good next time.
Great. I do hope that you will do that very thing next time. No one likes to look like they are a mindless twit. At least I hope not!
Rustydust
Active member
"If you tell someone that they are wrong and then imply because they are wrong in your mind that they are a mindless twit, expect some push back. Beyond that, most of your stuff isn't worth commenting on."
Excellent! Excellent! Then I take it that this will be absolutely your very last moronic retort that you will make to me, right? Right? Say 'yes' please.
I am certain that you have plenty more moronic retorts left in you but as long as none are directed at me that's just fine and dandy. Perfect even.
Excellent! Excellent! Then I take it that this will be absolutely your very last moronic retort that you will make to me, right? Right? Say 'yes' please.
I am certain that you have plenty more moronic retorts left in you but as long as none are directed at me that's just fine and dandy. Perfect even.
Winny Fan
New member
I corrected what I said for you. Go have some watermelon and chill. I'm out.
Originally Posted By: Rustydust"If you tell someone that they are wrong and then imply because they are wrong in your mind that they are a mindless twit, expect some push back. Beyond your not so infrequent silly outbursts like you provided at the start of this thread, most of your stuff usually isn't worth commenting on."
Excellent! Excellent! Then I take it that this will be absolutely your very last moronic retort that you will make to me, right? Right? Say 'yes' please.
I am certain that you have plenty more moronic retorts left in you but as long as none are directed at me that's just fine and dandy. Perfect even.
Originally Posted By: Rustydust"If you tell someone that they are wrong and then imply because they are wrong in your mind that they are a mindless twit, expect some push back. Beyond your not so infrequent silly outbursts like you provided at the start of this thread, most of your stuff usually isn't worth commenting on."
Excellent! Excellent! Then I take it that this will be absolutely your very last moronic retort that you will make to me, right? Right? Say 'yes' please.
I am certain that you have plenty more moronic retorts left in you but as long as none are directed at me that's just fine and dandy. Perfect even.