Lesser Known AR-15/M16 History

[titsonritz]

And yeah, Vicker's Guides are awesome.

I’ve got the two AR books, they are nice. I would like to score the AK books sometime.

[lysander]

Sorry for the rant, if its too far off topic I can delete it. Weapons procurement is a massive pet peeve of mine. They are beyond dirty. Things like weapon testing the AR15 in the Artic and doing it with FSB pins removed, then pounding in welding rod for when it is set back after testing is complete is just one example I'm aware of (I later fired that same weapon with that rod still in place decades later).

Let's look at that incident for a minute, since it is so often cast as "the Army trying to shut down the AR-15" . . . .

The report that details that test is, "Report of Project Nr 2787 (Arctic), Evaluation of Small Caliber High Velocity Rifles," U.S. Army Arctic Test Board, U.S. CONARC, Fort Greely, Alaska, 17 April 1959.

First off, no manuals, special tools, or spare parts were sent with either the AR-15 or the Winchester Lightweight Military Rifle (WLMR), and before you start trying to blame the Army for not sending stuff, the shipping was from the manufacture's facility as modifications suggested in the temperate test were to be applied, if possible. One of the standard tests done by CONARC all through the T44/T48 series was a field strip and a detail strip in arctic conditions. All previous tested rifles either could be disassembled to a barreled receiver and a pile of loose parts, or had maintenance instructions providing guidance on what were intended to be permanent assemblies. In the particular case of the AR-15s sent to Alaska in 1958 was they were the first prototype (see Figure 1 below). With this version of the AR-15, you cannot remove the handguards without removing the front sight. So the front sight pins had to come out.

So, the first test was four testers would perform a field strip and assembly three times while wearing the M1951 trigger finger mittens over the knit wool mitten liner. Then this was repeated with the testers wearing Type 1 Arctic Mittens with the wool knit inserts. Then the four testers would detail strip a rifle three times in both kinds of mittens. So those three rifles, serial numbers 000007, 000008, and 000009, were taken apart and put back together quite a few times.

No difficulties were reported, other than difficulty picking up small parts like the extractor pin and the firing pin retaining pin. The only special tool required was a punch and ball peen hammer. No parts were lost and only a safety broke during the test.

During Test Number 10 - The reliability test where the rifle was fired at 250 rounds per hour, for four hours per day, over a four week period (or until unserviceable), four of the front sight taper pins became loose and were lost, when they fell out is not in the report. This caused the gas tube to separate and the rifle became inoperative. With no spare parts available, substitute parts (the infamous welding rod bits) were installed and firing continued.

So, the pin becoming lost happened after all of the accuracy tests were complete, and had no impact on the known distance firing (Test Nr 4), transition firing (Test Nr 5), combat firing (Test Nr 6), adverse condition testing (Test Nr 7), feed system test (Test Nr 8), and sight tests (Test Nr 9). During the reliability the two rifles, S/N 000007 and 000008, displayed keyholing at 9,137 and 10,094 rounds, and a total 9,188 and 10,169 rounds respectively. Pretty good for a barrel on required to last 5,000 rounds.

SO

The front sight taper pins being lost had no impact on the test results, which were generally positive, despite Mr. Stoner's recollections years later, during the Ichord testimony and even later interviews.

This is one of those myths that just will not die. And worse than not dying, it get embellished with every re-telling . . .


Prototype AR-15, S/N 000007 - Currently at the United States Army Ordnance Training and Heritage Center at Fort Lee, Virginia
Prototype AR-15, S/N 000008 - On display at Springfield Armory Museum, Springfield MA
Prototype AR-15, S/N 000009 - Location unknown

Figure 1. Prototype AR-15 S/N unk


Figure 2. S/N 000008, image courtesy https://www.flickr.com/photos/578470...n/photostream/


Figure 3. S/N 000008, image courtesy of Springfield Armory National Historic Site webpage

[Uncas47]

Thank You!! Always grateful for your knowledge.

[lysander]

The authors of "The Black Rifle" tell you that they only tell the truth, but unfortunately, that is not true . . .

Let's look at page 71:

"The Curiously Missing Results of the First Aberdeen AR-15 Trial -

. . . Bill Davis recalls having first seen an AR-15 when specimens from the first 17 rifles were sent to Aberdeen for the mentioned 1958 engineering trials. A description of these tests constituted the elusive Fifty-Seventh Report on Ordnance Project TS2-2015 of February 1959, entitled A Test of Rifle, Caliber .22, AR-15; Rifle, Lightweight Military, Caliber .224 [Winchester]; and Pertinent Ammunition, by Laurence F. Moore. . . . when these critical recommendations and conclusions extended to the basic design as well as the performance of Ordnance-sponsored weapons, which they very often did, Moore's uncompromising attitude was not so well appreciated in the Pentagon offices of the Ordnance Corps.

With this in mind it is interesting to note that the published version of Larry Moore's Aberdeen report on the AR-15 and Winchester .224, as well as two. further trials discussed in chapter 4, contain none of the usual recommendations or conclusions."

First off, this is hardly an "elusive" report, but you do actually have to ask for it at the Defense Technical Information Center, Accession Number: AD0211240, and give them a good reason you want to read it.

This part, "With this in mind it is interesting to note that the published version of Larry Moore's Aberdeen report on the AR-15 and Winchester .224, as well as two further trials discussed in chapter 4*, contain none of the usual recommendations or conclusions," is just flat wrong.

"Section 4. CONCLUSIONS," starts four lines into page 71, and is three short paragraphs, "Section 5. Recommendations," follows immediately and ends on the signature and approval page.

If the report was truncated as we are told it was the Observation Section would end in the middle of a sentence, and there would be no signature or approvals. Also, page numbering would jump from page 70 to 73. No the report was published in its entirety, and anybody that read all the way through would get all the information the author intended.

Then Mr. Bill Davis is quoted as saying on pg 73, this: "... Our recommendation was that development of the AR-15 proceed, under Army sponsorship . . . "

He may have thought he said that, but he did not. What he wrote was:

"It is recommended that further development be conducted on the caliber .22 rifles and ammunition to correct deficiencies observed in this test and, when this is accomplished, the material be again subjected to a standard engineering test.

AR15 Rifle

The barrel be replaced with one of heavier design.
The magazine be redesigned by decreasing the length to give a capacity of twenty rounds.
The automatic fire feature be eliminated.
The sights improved by replacing the metallic sights with a low power telescopic sight or by installing a rigid front sight at the muzzle and a rear sight, adjustable for both elevation and windage on the receiver.
The hand guard be redesigned to improve its heat insulation characteristics.
Roll pins be replaced with a type which gives better endurance and disassembly characteristics."

No mention of the Army taking over from Armalite. And, if those are not his desired recommendations, then why is his signature right below them, not once, but twice as both the Branch Chief and the Division Chief?

* The other report is "No. DPS 101 A Test of Rifle, AR-15" of November 1960, also by Larry Moore, and is exactly what he asked for in the earlier report. Colt got the rights to the AR-15 and fixed some stuff and returned it for testing. Read it for yourself and see that the reason this report has no recommendations is because the author did not write any.

[26 Inf]

Why does the Army fly Apaches and the USMC flies a Super Cobra and Viper variants?

The Marine Corps wants two engines for greater overwater safety and increased payload. Their Hueys also had twin engines.

Unsure about the Cobra and the Hueys, but to my knowledge most other USMC and Navy helicopters have rotor brakes.

The Viper and the Venom (UH-1Y) also have four rotors.

[Hank6046]

The Marine Corps wants two engines for greater overwater safety and increased payload. Their Hueys also had twin engines.

Unsure about the Cobra and the Hueys, but to my knowledge most other USMC and Navy helicopters have rotor brakes.

The Viper and the Venom (UH-1Y) also have four rotors.

Short answer is landing surface. The Cobra's and Huey's have a much smaller landing space which makes them more ideal for ship to ship and ship to shore operations, the second is overall operational cost, the cost of maintaining a Blackhawk type Helicopter on the bottom end is $3000 per flight hour verse $1600 per flight hour for a UH1Y, this is also data from when I was in from 2011 so it's dated but not necessarily changed in the ratio of dollars per flight hour.

[Hank6046]

Why does the Army fly Apaches and the USMC flies a Super Cobra and Viper variants? Two completely different airframes for the same mission. The list goes on and on, but the Joint Chiefs could straighten it out in an afternoon if they cared. We don't need classes on affirmative action/ race relations. We don't need classes on how to not rape people. We don't need the endless BS to make people feel good. Take those classes and trade them for combat related taskings, and make everyone go through them.

Hello Stick, not the same mission profiles in a lot of way's while at the same time they overlap quite a bit. Comparing the Apache to the Cobra is like saying the Mk12 and the Mk18 do the same job. The Apache is and has always been a hunter killer of tanks and entrenched units, to be on the battle field for a prolonged period of time, while the AH-1z Cobra is a designed to offer close air support but furthermore to clear paths and harass enemy units while mobile forces move into place. You're looking at it from the McNamara perspective vs the individual needs perspective

[mark5pt56]

Very interesting thread and history we never hear of.

Also--if you guys want to talk helicopters---start a thread in General

[Diamondback]

Very interesting thread and history we never hear of.

Also--if you guys want to talk helicopters---start a thread in General

Mark, I already started one in Stick's section and linked it above... and it promptly got hijacked. As a mod, could you maybe do a Cut-N-Splice moving posts over?

[lysander]

Another method the authors of “The Black Rifle” steer the reader to their biased view, is to not present all the facts.

If we look at page 54 in Chapter Three, we are given a quote by Mr Bill Davis:
. . . Accordingly, we had drafted a letter to [the Office, Chief of Ordnance] some time in 1955, proposing a .22-caliber cartridge, employing a boattail bullet of approximately 55 grains weight, at a muzzle velocity of approximately 3,300 fps, for use in a rifle substantially lighter than the T44/M14. We had also proposed a program to design such a cartridge at Aberdeen, build one experimental automatic "test fixture" (rifle) to fire it, and requested one-year funding authorization in amount $60,000 for this project. . .

Then Makes the bold proclamation:

“DR. CARTEN’S FIRST DENIAL”!

And then the authors go on to say that Dr. Carten hated the SCHV Program AR-15 and wanted to kill the program from the get-go, and the first step was to kill Davis’ request.

This assertion does not hold up to the facts.

First, the testing activity (Aberdeen, where Davis worked) is not supposed to develop stuff, as it will have to test it. Having the inventors do the testing leads to bias. The best policy is to have an independent tester. So Carten was right to deny the request.

And, from Davis perspective it must have been disappointing, but what he did not see was happening elsewhere in the Army. In December 1955, Davis published “An Investigation of an Experimental Caliber .22 High Velocity Bullet for Rifles”. This was the final report on the Aberdeen SCHV project that Davis had been working on since 1953. What this report basically says is: “This little .22 caliber bullet we have been working on seems to be pretty lethal. It’s time to really start developing it into a militarily useful product.”

According to the authors, Carten can have this, so he denies funding to Davis, and sits on the report.

OR, DOES HE?

This all happened in the fall and winter of 1955, at the time Davis was getting his disappointing news about his project, The Midwest Research Institute was being awarded a contract to look into, among other things, a .22 caliber high rate of fire weapon. In February 1956, only two months later, Winchester got a contract to develop a .22 caliber duplex weapon, that would use the cartridges designed by Davis. A few months later, Winchester begins work on their Lightweight Military Rifle (WMLR), and its associated ammunition, as would Stoner at Armalite start the the work to convert the AR-10 to AR-15 in .222 Remington, after suggestions from the Army that such a weapon would be of interest to them.

Dr Carten had been the chief civilian in the Ordnance Department since around 1952, if he hated the idea of a .22 caliber military rifle, why did he authorize money and manpower to develop such a cartridge in 1953? Why did he continue to fund it up until 1956? Why did he contract out development of .22 caliber weapons in 1956 and 1957? Why did he direct Springfield Armory for develop a .22 caliber cartridge in 1957?

The truth is Carten did not try and kill the .22 caliber cartridge idea, nobody in the Army did (at least in a serious manner). But to “make a story”, you need a villain, and Dr. Carten got drafted for that job.