Close-ups of firing with M16A1 rifle in 5.56 × 45 mm. Military legend from Vietnam era. More details, videos and Hi-Def pictures at www.gundrak.cz . Music: Kevin MacLeod incompetech.com
You can easily see why it replaced the M14!! Although it had it’s problems at first it was lightweight, easier to control (semi/auto), you can carry WAYYY more ammo etc. and overall the platform had a lot of potential (as you can see now) almost 70 years later.
The M14s originally were full auto, but the militaries using it realised how shabby it was in full auto, so later iterations were semi auto only. Not saying that you're wrong or anything, just putting this out there.
When I was in the Army in 1969/70 it was this rifle and the XM-16E1, with the duckbill flash suppressor, that we carried. Firing the M-16 was like firing a toy gun, since it had so little recoil. It was a surprise how much more recoil there was in firing the M-14, a larger caliber rifle.
The original M-16 in Viet Nam didn't have a forward assist or "Birdcage" flash hider. It had a "Duckbill" flash hider. There wasn't a "fence" (the raised area) around the mag release or across the top of the lower. You had to be careful to not loose the forward pivot pin if you took it out, as it wasn't retained by a spring loaded detent pin. It also had a triangular shaped charging handle and a roll pin to hold the buffer tube in place. If you do your research, there are other differences too.
when you call it a "duckbill" flash hider, I immediately know that you have no idea what you're talking about. the M16A1 was also the original Vietnam-era AR-15. I bet you have no idea what a Colt Model 605 is.
It was a firearm that I used as a personal firearm when I was in the military, and I can't believe it was already 27 years ago. I miss those days, but if I go back and ask them to do it, I can't.
Maybe not, still killed way more of their troops though than ours did spite the jams and other problems they encountered from using the wrong gun powder and saying it did not need to be cleaned.... Later on became a very serviceable weapon when other variants came along and served well for years...
Thats the rifle I qualified high expert with in 1976. It was old & well worn in. The recoil spring slung back & forth like a rubber band. 5 rounds in about a 3" circle at 500 yards prone.
Same, the A1`s grown on me. Nowadays people buy those Brownells things and put bare-bones shit on them spending up to 1k, when they might as well could of gotten aa A1 and slap an Acog on the carry handle/rear sight housing, that`s as bare-bones as it gets.
M16A1 Elisco was my rifle issue from 1992 to 2000. it is very reliable as long as you regularly clean it- meaning as you finished all your firing clean the bolt.
That, and constantly racking the charging handle for every mag it seemed. Use your thumb and push the bolt release after the first magazine spent. Makes loading easier and faster. Don't take it from me, though. Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch will drill ya.
Phil Hand Dude, Is it really worth getting mad over a term people use for a firearms category? I mean, "Assault Rifle" is literally *just a name* used to describe any fully automatic rifle meant for warfare. As long as people don't use the term in a demonizing or anti-Second Amendment context, I'm pretty sure everything will be fine.
Special place in my heart for this rifle, had it in basic and my first 3 years in the Army. The only time it jammed on me was with the *()&&% blank adapter with MILES gear...
Same with the M4A1 for me. I had it jam a time or 2 with the blanks and double feed once with live rounds. Good rifles as long as you clean them often enough
I remember in boot camp how at our first day out to the firing range, Drill Sgt Cole picked a guy out from our platoon and had him stand up online with the weapon on his balls and fired the weapon. He was demonstrating the recoil, or lack of that this weapon has. It was funny too!
People need to stop harping on how the M16 operated over 45 yrs ago. The gun is a precise as it can be with consistent 1inch to 1.5 inch at 100 meters, and max iron sight range at 500 meters. I have seen AK74s JAM with excessive dirt and sand in their mechanisms
mike gee The real reason the M16, not the A1 model mind you, kept jamming in the jungle is because someone in the high ranks thought it was self cleaning and troops weren't issued cleaning kits. The XM16E1 and the A1 sought to fix some of the issues but their rifles are married to their cleaning kits now
Furthermore, in the beginning they used a really "jamomatic" corrosive type of gun powder that gunked up the whole gas block, tube, bolt and receiver. GI`s and Marines alike died as a result of this no doubt, we`ve all read about the whole scores of GI`s laying stone cold dead right next to disassembled M16`s. From what I read, not as many Marines because their CO`s ordered people clean their M16`s as much as the M14`s they used to have! I even read about a case in point (might be able to find it again upon request), where an ex-G.I who did clean his gun and made sure his mags and ammo was clean too, was out of ammo on the battlefield so he took a couple of mags from a dead G.I only to have his gun instantly act up and jam, problem being the mentioned dead G.I not making sure his weapon, magazines and ammo was clean. We might take all accounts with a grain of salt, but I do believe everybody was to blame in this over-all shit situation, not just AR/Colt who said it needed no cleaning, or whichever fuckwit made the decision on the ammo, but also the gullible G.I`s for not cleaning their shit. That all said, the rest is a complete no brainer. When everybody wised up and sorted all of this stuff out, the M16A1 was altered with a chrome-lined barrel, polished works and the whole sheblang and proper ammunition.. The M16A1 was as dependable and effective as, if not more so, than the M1`s and M14`s that the M16 replaced, not to mention the M16`s were lighter, had full auto (many M14`s did not), lighter ammo (could bring more on ones person, could bring more on choppers and resupply runs and so forth). Furthermore it was more accurate (when called for) than the contemporary ChiCom Type-56`s, AKM`s and AK47`s. The difference being the ChiCom/AK can take a lot more dirt in the receiver before going jamomatic. Just because you can POTENTIALLY fill it up with mud and still operate the gun to some individual degree, doesnt mean you SHOULD. I`m willing to bet most NVA`s and VC`s cleaned their AK`s to the best of their abilities. That makes it a clean bare bones AK vs clean bare bones M16 affair in 24/7 hot and humid conditions only, both with chrome lined barrels and so forth, but with much NVA/VC ammo supplies being comparatively dirty and corrosive. As a 12 month G.I or 13 month Grunt (either which) I know which I`d personally rather carry on long shitty treks in humid jungle or open landscape :)
It wasn't that the powder was corrosive, it was that it was the wrong burn rate. They used basically 30-06 blended powder. It wasn't until the actual specified powder (what we commercially know as H335) was used that we saw reliability with 5.56. The nice thing about H335 is that it also works for 308. Although there were other issues and frankly no one knows all the different failures of the M16. Whatever the case, the current generation rifles are very reliable and high performing for a very low cost.
To be honest, the A1 has a more smooth and clear design than the recent AR's which have those rails and extra parts on it. A plus for design satisfaction on the A1
Legit Question: -Did the original Vietnam-era M16s have the Forward Assist?... My dad is a Vietnam Vet. When I purchased my 1st AR15 after the "assault weapons" Ban sunsetted in 2004, i was letting him shoot it and he pointed out the FA and said something along the lines of, "...You have no idea how great it would have been to have this on my m16 back in Vietnam...."
If I am not mistaken, the Airforce M16s and early versions did not have a forward assist, The Army M16s had the forward assist because they insisted that it should have it if it is to be adopted by the Army.
it is what it is, the law has some loopholes that aren't being changed anytime soon though so not a big deal (main one being 5 rounds for the caliber the magazine is designed for, i.e. you can get the .50 beowulf conversion and legally put in a full 15-20 rounds).
Takingout thetrash : the model 603 did in fact have a "teardrop" forward assist... The lower is obviously newer because the originals had a "partial fence" on the lower receiver. they did not have a "fence" around the mag release button... an original complete upper assembly can still be bought and then a new lower put on for a full function rifle...
you know what? ROK Air Force still uses M16A1 for base defense while ROK Army uses Korean domestic rifle, K2. So I got trained with M16A1, and I still remember my serial number, 301041.
Wow, you're shooting an original Vietnam Era M16A1, a super rare gun that holds such huge significant value to world history, and your playing stock Kevin MacLeod RU-vidr music over it. Lol
My grandfather served in Vietnam, he said when this rifle was introduced, he and his fellow marines despised it; he called it a plastic piece of shit lmfao.
anybody see the funny looking dude caring his fishing pole and this guy shooting an M16 all the guys walking by in the background with a goofy dumb look on his face carrying his fishing pole
He has 20 rounds magazine but for the video he reloads very often. Here in Czech Republic we haven't mag restrictions. Actually we are ones of the most "pro gun" countries ( especially in Europe)
Bobby Johnson Yes you’re absolutely correct there. We had a couple very early 16’s, no FA, that were former U.S. Air Force rifles originally in life, that were stamped “AR15” actually, with the semi & auto switch. I don’t know for sure when Colt actually started stamping M16 on the receivers. Good Day to You!
