Recognition...

PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:29 pm
Doc and I have decided to establish an Admin and Moderator Test Area in order to provide a workspace for the writing of articles and for other testing before the final product goes into production...whether it be here on the Owners Forum or at the F.O.A. Blog site.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:08 pm
F.O.A. Blog TEST #1

M16 RIFLE

The M16 (officially Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16) is the United States military designation for the AR-15 rifle adapted for both semi-automatic and full-automatic fire. The weapons platform fires the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge.

The M16 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle, with a rotating bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation. The rifle is made of steel, 7075 aluminum alloy, composite plastics and polymer materials.

The M16 utilizes direct impingement gas operation energy from high-pressure gas tapped from a non-adjustable port built into the front sight assembly actuates the moving parts in the weapon. Combustion gases travel via a gas tube above the barrel directly into a chamber in the bolt carrier behind the bolt itself, pushing the carrier away from the bolt. This reduces the number of moving parts by eliminating the need for a separate piston and cylinder and it provides better performance in rapid fire by keeping reciprocating masses on the same axis as the bore.



The primary criticism of direct impingement is that fouling and debris from expended gunpowder is blown directly into the breech. As the superheated combustion gas travels down the tube, it expands and cools. This cooling causes vaporized matter to condense as it cools depositing a much greater volume of solids into the operating components of the action. The increased fouling can cause malfunctions if the rifle is not cleaned as frequently as should be. The amount of sooting deposits tends to vary with powder specification, caliber, and gas port design.

In the early 1960s, the U.S. Air Force's rifle, the M16, and the Army's XM16E1, were the first versions of the M16 rifle fielded. Soon the U.S. Army standardized an upgrade of the XM16E1 as the M16A1 rifle, an M16 with a forward assist feature and other improvements requested by the Army. All of the early versions were chambered to fire the M193/M196 cartridge in the semi-automatic and the automatic firing modes. The U.S. Army followed close behind and finally issued the weapon to troops in the late 1964.

The M16A2 rifle entered service in the 1980s, being ordered in large scale by 1987, chambered to fire the standard NATO cartridge, the Belgian-designed M855/M856 cartridge. The M16A2 is a select-fire rifle (semi-automatic fire, three-round-burst fire) incorporating design elements requested by the Marine Corps: an adjustable, windage rear-sight; a stock 5⁄8 inches longer; heavier barrel; case deflector for left-hand shooters; and cylindrical handguards. The fire mode selector is on the receiver's left side.

The M16A3 rifle is an M16A2 rifle with an M16A1's fire control group (semi-automatic fire, automatic fire) that is used only by the U.S. Navy.

The M16A4 rifle was standard issue for the United States Marine Corps in Operation Iraqi Freedom since 2004; it replaced the M16A2 in front line units. In the U.S. Army the M16A2 rifle is being supplemented with two rifle models, the M16A4 and the M4 carbine as the standard issue assault rifle. The M16A4 has a flat-top receiver developed for the M4 carbine, a handguard with four Picatinny rails for mounting a sight, laser, night vision device, forward handgrip, removable handle, or a flashlight.







In 1954, Eugene Stoner of the newly formed ArmaLite helped develop the 7.62 mm AR-10. Springfield's T44 and similar entries were conventional rifles using wood for the "furniture" and otherwise built entirely of steel using mostly forged and machined parts. ArmaLite was founded specifically to bring the latest in designs and alloys to firearms design, and Stoner felt he could easily beat the other offerings.

The AR-10's receiver was made of forged and milled aluminium alloy instead of steel. The barrel was mated to the receiver by a separate hardened steel extension to which the bolt locked. This allowed a lightweight aluminum receiver to be used while still maintaining a steel-on-steel lockup. The bolt was operated by high-pressure combustion gases taken from a hole in the middle of the barrel directly through a tube above the barrel to a cylinder created in the bolt carrier with the bolt carrier itself acting as a piston. Traditional rifles located this cylinder and piston close to the gas vent. The stock and grips were made of a glass-reinforced plastic shell over a rigid foam plastic core. The muzzle brake was fabricated from titanium. Over Stoner's objections, various experimental composite and 'Sullaloy' aluminum barrels were fitted to some AR-10 prototypes by ArmaLite's president, George Sullivan. The Sullaloy barrel was made entirely of heat-treated aluminum, while the composite barrels used aluminum extruded over a thin stainless steel liner.





Meanwhile the layout of the weapon itself was also somewhat different. Previous designs generally placed the sights directly on the barrel, using a bend in the stock to align the sights at eye level while transferring the recoil down to the shoulder. This meant that the weapon tended to rise when fired making it very difficult to control during fully automatic fire. The ArmaLite team used a solution previously used on weapons such as the German MG42 and Johnson light machine gun; they located the barrel in line with the stock, well below eye level, and raised the sights to eye level. The rear sight was built into a carrying handle over the receiver.

Despite being over 2 lb lighter than the competition, the AR-10 offered significantly greater accuracy and recoil control. Two prototype rifles were delivered to the U.S. Army's Springfield Armory for testing late in 1956. At this time, the U.S. armed forces were already two years into a service rifle evaluation program, and the AR-10 was a newcomer with respect to older, more fully developed designs. Over Stoner's continued objections, George Sullivan had insisted that both prototypes be fitted with composite aluminum/steel barrels. Shortly after a composite barrel burst on one prototype in 1957, the AR-10 was rejected.

In 1957, a copy of Gustafson's funding request from 1955 found its way into the hands of General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command. He immediately put together a team to develop a .223 caliber (5.56 mm) weapon for testing. Their finalized request called for a select-fire weapon of 6 pounds when loaded with 20 rounds of ammunition. The bullet had to penetrate a standard U.S. steel helmet, body armor, or a steel plate of 0.135 inches and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound at 500 yards, while equaling or exceeding the "wounding" ability of the .30 Carbine.



Wyman had seen the AR-10 in an earlier demonstration, and impressed by its performance he personally suggested that ArmaLite enter a weapon for testing using a 5.56 mm cartridge designed by Winchester.Their first design, using conventional layout and wooden furniture, proved to be too light. When combined with a conventional stock, recoil was excessive in fully automatic fire. Their second design was simply a scaled-down AR-10, and immediately proved much more controllable. Winchester entered the LMR, a design based loosely on their M1 carbine, and Earle Harvey of Springfield attempted to enter a design, but was overruled by his superiors at Springfield, who refused to divert resources from the T44. In the end, ArmaLite's AR-15 had no competition. The lighter round allowed the rifle to be scaled down, and was smaller and lighter than the previous AR-10. The AR-15 weighed only around 5.5 pounds empty, and 6 pounds loaded (with a 20 round magazine).

During testing in March 1958, rainwater caused the barrels of both the ArmaLite and Winchester rifles to burst, causing the Army to once again press for a larger round, this time at 0.258 in (6.6 mm). Nevertheless, they suggested continued testing for cold-weather suitability in Alaska. Stoner was later asked to fly in to replace several parts, and when he arrived he found the rifles had been improperly reassembled. When he returned he was surprised to learn that they too had rejected the design even before he had arrived; their report also endorsed the 0.258 in (6.6 mm) round. After reading these reports, General Maxwell Taylor became dead-set against the design, and pressed for continued production of the M14.



Not all the reports were negative. In a series of mock-combat situations testing the AR-15, M14 and AK-47, the Army found that the AR-15's small size and light weight allowed it to be brought to bear much more quickly, just as CONARC had suggested. Their final conclusion was that an 8-man team equipped with the AR-15 would have the same firepower as a current 11-man team armed with the M14. U.S. troops were able to carry more than twice as much 5.56×45mm ammunition as 7.62x51mm for the same weight, which would allow them a better advantage against a typical NVA unit armed with AK-47s.



At this point, Fairchild had spent $1.45 million in development expenses, and wished to divest itself of its small-arms business. Fairchild sold production rights for the AR-15 to Colt Firearms in December 1959, for only $75,000 cash and a 4.5% royalty on subsequent sales. In 1960, ArmaLite was reorganized, and Stoner left the company.

Air Force General Curtis LeMay viewed a demonstration of the AR-15 in July 1960. In the summer of 1961, General LeMay had been promoted to the position of USAF Chief of Staff, and requested an order of 80,000 AR-15s for the U.S. Air Force.However under the recommendation of General Maxwell D. Taylor, who advised the Commander in Chief that having two different calibers within the military system at the same time would be problematic, President Kennedy turned down the request. However, Advanced Research Projects Agency, which had been created in 1958 in response to the Soviet Sputnik program, embarked on project AGILE in the spring of 1961. AGILE's priority mission was to devise inventive fixes to the communist problem in South Vietnam. In October 1961, William Godel, a senior man at ARPA, sent 10 AR-15s to South Vietnam to let the allies test them. The reception was enthusiastic, and in 1962 another 1,000 AR-15s were sent to South Vietnam. Special Operations units and advisers working with the South Vietnamese troops filed battlefield reports lavishly praising the AR-15 and the stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm cartridge, and pressed for its adoption. However, what no one knew, except the men directly using the AR-15s in Vietnam, were the devastating kills made by the new rifle, photographs of which, showing enemy casualties made by the .223 (5.56 mm) bullet remained classified into the 1980s.

The damage caused by the .223 (5.56mm) "varmint" bullet was observed and originally believed to be caused by "tumbling" due to the slow 1 in 14-inch rifling twist rate. However, this twist rate only made the bullet less stable in air. Any pointed lead core bullet will turn base over point ("tumble") after penetration in flesh, because the center of gravity is aft of the center of the projectile. The large wounds observed by soldiers in Vietnam were actually caused by projectile fragmentation, which was created by a combination of the projectile's velocity and construction.



U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara now had two conflicting views: the ARPA report favoring the AR-15 and the Pentagon's position on the M14. Even President John F. Kennedy expressed concern, so McNamara ordered Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance to test the M14, the AR-15 and the AK-47. The Army's test report stated only the M14 was suitable for Army use, but Vance wondered about the impartiality of those conducting the tests. He ordered the Army Inspector General to investigate the testing methods used, who reported that the testers showed favor to the M14.

Secretary Robert McNamara ordered a halt to M14 production in January 1963, after receiving reports that M14 production was insufficient to meet the needs of the armed forces. Secretary McNamara had long been a proponent of weapons program consolidation among the armed services. At the time, the AR-15 was the only rifle that could fulfill a requirement of a "universal" infantry weapon for issue to all services. McNamara ordered the weapon be adopted unmodified, in its current configuration, for immediate issue to all services, despite receiving reports noting several deficiencies with the M16 as a service rifle, including the lack of a chrome-lined bore and chamber, the 5.56 mm projectile's instability under arctic conditions, and the fact that large quantities of 5.56 mm ammunition required for immediate service were not available. In addition, the Army insisted on the inclusion of a forward assist to help push the bolt into battery in the event that a cartridge failed to seat in the chamber through fouling or corrosion. Colt had argued the rifle was a self-cleaning design, requiring little or no maintenance. Colt, Eugene Stoner, and the U.S. Air Force believed that a forward assist needlessly complicated the rifle, adding about $4.50 to its procurement cost with no real benefit. As a result, the design was split into two variants: the Air Force's M16 without the forward assist, and for the other service branches, the XM16E1 with the forward assist.



In November 1963, McNamara approved the Army's order of 85,000 XM16E1s for jungle warfare operations; and to appease General LeMay, the Air Force was granted an order for another 19,000 M16s. Meanwhile, the Army carried out another project, the Small Arms Weapons Systems, on general infantry firearm needs in the immediate future. They recommended the immediate adoption of the weapon. Later that year the Air Force officially accepted their first batch as the United States Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16.

The Army immediately began to issue the XM16E1 to infantry units but the rifle was initially delivered without adequate cleaning supplies or instructions. When the M16 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in March 1965, reports of stoppages in combat began to surface. Often the gun suffered from a stoppage known as “failure to extract,” which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle. Although the M14 featured a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions, neither the bore nor the chamber of the M16/XM16E1 was chrome-lined. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with inoperable rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation.



The root cause of the stoppages turned out to be a problem with the powder for the ammunition. In 1964 when the Army was informed that DuPont could not mass-produce the nitrocellulose-based powder to the specifications demanded by the M16, the Olin Mathieson Company provided a high-performance ball propellant of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. While the Olin WC 846 powder was capable of firing an M16 5.56 mm round at the desired 3,300 ft (1,000 m) per second, it had the unintended consequence of increasing the automatic rate of fire from 850 to 1000 rounds per minute. This would leave behind dirty residue, making the M16 more likely to have a stoppage. The problem was resolved by fitting the M16 with a buffer system, slowing the rate of fire back down to 650 to 850 rounds per minute and outfitting all newly produced M16s with an anti corrosive chrome-plated chamber.

On February 28, 1967, the XM16E1 was standardized as the M16A1. Major revisions to the design followed. The rifle was given a chrome-lined chamber (and later, the entire bore) to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges, and the rifle's recoil mechanism was re-designed to accommodate Army-issued 5.56 mm ammunition. Rifle cleaning tools and powder solvents/lubricants were issued. Intensive training programs in weapons cleaning were instituted, and a comic book style manual was circulated among the troops to demonstrate proper maintenance. The reliability problems of the M16 diminished quickly, although the rifle's reputation continued to suffer.



According to a February 1968 Department of Defense report the M16 rifle achieved widespread acceptance by U.S. troops in Vietnam. Only 38 of 2100 individuals queried wanted to replace the M16 with another weapon. Of those 38, 35 wanted the CAR-15 (a shorter version of the M16) instead.





In March 1970, the U.S. stated that all NATO forces should eventually adopt the 5.56x45mm cartridge. This shift represented a change in the philosophy of the military's long-held position about caliber size. By the middle of the 1970s, other armies were also looking at M16-style weapons. A NATO standardization effort soon started, and tests of various rounds were carried out starting in 1977. The U.S. offered their original 5.56x45mm design, the M193, with no modifications, but there were concerns about its penetration in the face of the wider introduction of body armor. In the end the Belgian 5.56x45mm SS109 round was chosen (STANAG 4172). Their round was based on the U.S. cartridge but included a new 62 grain bullet design with a small steel tip added to improve penetration. The U.S. Marine Corps was first to adopt the round with the M16A2, introduced in 1982. This was to become the standard U.S. military rifle. The NATO 5.56x45mm standard ammunition produced for U.S. forces is designated M855.

Shortly after NATO's acceptance of the 5.56x45mm NATO rifle cartridge in October 1980. Draft Standardization Agreement 4179 (STANAG 4179) was proposed in order to allow the military services of member nations easily to share rifle ammunition and magazines during operations, at the individual soldier level, in the interest of easing logistical concerns. The magazine chosen to become the STANAG magazine was originally designed for the U.S. M16 rifle. Many NATO member nations, but not all, subsequently developed or purchased rifles with the ability to accept this type of magazine. However the standard was never ratified and remains a 'Draft STANAG'



The NATO Accessory Rail STANAG 4694, or Picatinny rail STANAG 2324, or a "Tactical Rail" is a bracket used on M16 type rifles in order to provide a standardized mounting platform. The rail comprises a series of ridges with a T-shaped cross-section interspersed with flat "spacing slots". Scopes are mounted either by sliding them on from one end or the other; by means of a "rail-grabber" which is clamped to the rail with bolts, thumbscrews or levers; or onto the slots between the raised sections. The rail was originally for scopes. However, once established, the use of the system was expanded to other accessories, such as tactical lights, laser aiming modules, night vision devices, reflex sights, foregrips, bipods, and bayonets.

All current M16 type rifles are capable of launching NATO STANAG type 22mm rifle grenades from their integral flash hiders without the use of an adapter. These 22 mm grenade types range from powerful anti-tank rounds to simple finned tubes with a fragmentation hand grenade attached to the end. They come in the "standard" type which are propelled by a blank cartridge inserted into the chamber of the rifle. They also come in the "bullet trap" and "shoot through" types, as their names imply use live ammunition. The U.S. military does not generally use rifle grenades, however they are used by other Nations.

Currently, the M16 is in use by 15 NATO countries and more than 80 countries world wide.
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:20 pm
BTW our traffic is now up to 500 visitors a day which is AWESOME for how young this site is. It really is growing quickly.

By DHonovich
Another awesome idea

New series...what do you think ?!
http://firearmownersassociation.com/201 ... on-4-2012/

Thanks for letting us know there was an issue. Thanks again for your amazing articles! I know you have me hooked on reading them each day.

I can certainly add a test section to all the sites in the moderator section. I think that is a great suggestion. I have not heard back from 5.11 on the shirts. I put in the request but I am still waiting on their response. As soon as I do I will send you a pm.

I will pick up a shirt for you no problem (barring I don't forget) so if you have internet access next week just drop me another pm and I will pick one u for you.

I just wanted to thank you for all your work with the sites and especially with FOA. The site traffic went from 1400 views in OCT to 2300 views in Nov to 3600 views so far in DEC. The site is slowly picking up steam and I can not wait till we release the update in the near future. It should be much more interactive

SHOOTER13, just when I think that these articles can't get any better you post another one that tops the previous weeks. Traffic to the site has tripled since you started doing your articles and continues to climb!

SHOOTER13, Your gun of the week series gets better and better each week. They really are enjoyable to read and from the looks of the site traffic others feel the same way. There always is a nice bump in traffic after you post and then it continues to stay higher than it did the week prior. I think the rep points is a great idea and I will go ahead and add some myself! Sorry I have been mia on the forums lately but I am working on releasing an updated version of FOA site as well as getting some logos made up. I will start posting my daily parts reviews again soon as well. I have a bunch that just need to be submitted. Thanks again for all your hardwork and dedication with the sites. I can't wait for the day when I can get gun manufacturers to send you firearms to review on FOA.

SHOOTER13, I was wondering if you had any interest in becoming one of our bloggers on the F.O.A blog? We are looking for someone to do a post a day "Gun Of Day" which would entail finding a random gun and post a few pictures of it including some information about it and maybe some history. If you are interested just subscribe to the blog and I will make you a blogger. Feel no pressure to accept but thought of you when we came up with the idea.
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:03 pm
Location: New York
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:04 pm
We are now up to 600 visitors a day!
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:35 pm
Excellent news Doc !!
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 7:59 pm
Location: Wandering around at Cabelas.
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:04 pm
Any news on when it is going to be back up?
ripjack13@mossbergowners.com
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:52 pm
What are we talkin' about...?!
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 7:59 pm
Location: Wandering around at Cabelas.
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:20 pm
The firearms blog. WE ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION

and oh! top shot's new season starts tomorrow shooter!!
ripjack13@mossbergowners.com
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:37 pm
Image

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
.410
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:18 pm
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:08 am
Shooter, I can see this, but the system will not allow me to respond to your PM.
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:21 am
Mike...

Rip will tell Doc about this section being in the open...and it will be taken care of.

I will be deleting this thread shortly anyway...Thanks !

Image
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:28 pm
Off the top of my head...

Winchester Black Talon
Kaswer Pin Grabbers
Cor Bon JHP
Cor Bon DPX
Hornady TAP FPD
Hornady Critical Duty
Hornady Critical Defense
Hornady Zombie Max
Federal Hydra-Shoks
Federal Guard Dog
Remington Golden Sabre
Remington Ultimate Defense
Winchester Silver Tips
Winchester PDX1 Defender
Winchester Ranger LE
PMC Eldorado Starfire
Speer Gold Dot
MagSafe Defender
MagSafe SWAT
MagTech First Defense
Glaser Blue Safety Slugs
Glaser Silver Safety Slug
Nosler Defense
Buffalo Bore Low Flash
Grizzly Premium SD Ammo
Pow'R Ball Proven SD Ammo
Dynamic Research Technologies Frangible
Double Tap SD Ammo
Liberty Civil Defense +P
Liberty HALO Point
ASYM Precision LE/SD Ammo
TAC OPS Solid Copper HP
Thunder Ranch +P
HPR Black OPS
SIG Sauer Elite Performance V-Crown

...and the list goes on.
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:41 am
TEST.....!!
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 7:59 pm
Location: Wandering around at Cabelas.
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:00 am
Those are pretty cool....
ripjack13@mossbergowners.com
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:42 pm
Thanks Rip...

I see this "Moderator Area" is still visible to the membership !
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:07 pm
Specifications

Caliber:
5.56x45mm NATO

Capacity:
30 rounds

Trigger :
Single Stage

Sights:
A2 Adjustable military sights

Features:
Direct Gas Impingement operating system

Action:
Semi-auto

Stock:
6 Point Collapsible

Material/Finish:
Steel/blue

Weight:
6.34 pounds

Barrel Length:
16 inches

Twist:
1:9
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:16 pm
I have stockpiled and use:


.22 Long Rifle

ELEY Tenex 40 grain FN... 1085 fps @ muzzle / 935 fps @ 100 yards

CCI Mini-Mag 40 grain CPRN...1235 fps @ muzzle / 998 fps @ 100 yards

Remington Golden Bullet 40 grain BPHP... 1255 fps @ muzzle / 1017 fps @ 100 yards

Federal Champion 36 grain CPHP...1260 fps @ muzzle / 1000 fps @ 100 yards



During the "shortage" I also was able to scrounge up...


.22 Long Rifle

Winchester 555 36 grain CPHP...1280 fps @ muzzle / 975 fps @ 100 yards

Federal American Eagle 38 grain CPHP...1260 fps @ muzzle / 1010 fps @ 100 yards

GECO Optimized for Bolt Action Rifles 40 grain LRN...1082 fps @ muzzle / 955 fps @ 100 yards


.22 WMR

CCI Maxi-Mag 40 grain TMJ...1875 fps @ muzzle / 1366 fps @ 100 yards

CCI Maxi-Mag 40 grain JHP...1875 fps @ muzzle / 1319 fps @ 100 yards


.22 Long

CCI High Velocity 29 grain CPRN...1215 fps @ muzzle / 908 fps @ 100 yards


.22 Short

CCI High Velocity 29 grain CPRN...1080 fps @ muzzle / 857 fps @ 100 yards


.

Return to Garbage Can

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
H&R 1871 Owners Forum is privately owned and operated. It is not affiliated or operated by H&R 1871 company. Views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily that of H&R 1871.