Mud Test: Mattel Death Trap! (The Vietnam Era AR15/M16) 

Once again the wheelbarrow proves to be 100% reliable regardless of mud.

I know I am years late to this video but I would like to share a personal experience with the M4A1. I was an assistant gunner on an M240 gun team and one time we had a platoon live fire training event. It consisted of; dry run, blank run, then live fire day & night iterations. It had been raining on and off all day creating awfully consistent sticky mud. I had never cleaned my M4 between any of the iterations. We finally got to the live fire iteration and I had set my gunner on a giant dirt berm which was now mud. In between barrel changes and ammo linkages I would fire my M4 at targets as they popped up. Long story short I kept laying it down in the mud and almost every time facedown on the bcg with dustcover open. I remember several times there was a fat glob of mud on the bcg and it would explode away as I would fire. Needless to say I had absolutely zero malfunctions that day or night. When we got back from the field and conducted weapons maintenance I found pebbles/grime in the buffer tube, star chamber, and every other possible orifice you can think of. These weapons preface at least a decade or more before I even joined the Army so they had definitely been beat to hell and were “tired.” I carried an M4A1 in the Iraqi and Syrian moon dust and fired countless 1000’s of rounds through it (blank & live.) The only malfunctions I have ever had were from ammo. Take care of your weapon and all components; mags, optics, internals, etc and this weapon will never let you down. The amount of fudd-lore that was pushed about the M16/M4 series during my time was always extremely aggravating. I am ironically an AK lover at heart but Mr. Stoners design is superior in my opinion.

It's almost as if Eugene Stoner knew what he was doing. Like he was a professional firearms engineer, or, something.

What most people seem to forget that the real reason why most M16s in the war jammed was because of the cheap rounds that they used, that's the real reason why. It's not the environment that was the downfall, it was the shitty primers and powder they used.

A Russian friend of mine once quipped that in America, high quality means "doesn't break down", while in Russia it means "easy to fix when it breaks down". We weren't actually talking about rifles at the time, but I've always thought the line summarised the AR vs. AK debate quite well.

I like the 16 inch carbines as much as the next guy, but damn that AR looks gorgeous with those triangle handguards, carry-handle rear sight, 20 inch barrel and fixed stock.

About what Ian said, the army research paper/Congressional Report is declassified. The data is astounding. The powder change brought the reliability from ~3 failures per 1,000 rounds, to *~10.5 FAILURES.* (1963-63 Evaluations vs SAWS Period.) After the buffer was improved, the reliability went back down to ~4 fails per 1,000. Then the chrome lining brought it down further, to the original ~3 fails per 1000. The worst part, was that it was very prone to jamming by Failure to Extract. The rifle was ruined until the round/case was pushed out with a cleaning rod (which didnt even get issued at first). Ball powder took it from 0.16 instances per 1,000 rounds, to 1 instance per 1,000. In the Panama tests, after the buffer and chroming improvements, and updating the powder specs, the instances of F-t-Ex were only 0.10 per 1,000 (1 per 10,000).

"When my older brother was in 'Nam, he had a failure to eject on his M16. Picked up an AK off a dead Charlie to replace it, but he said he couldn't hit the side of a barn with that thing. Picked up a Mosin off another dead Charlie, didn't have a single failure to cycle for the rest of the war." -A Fudd, probably

My dad was 1st Air Cavalry early in the Vietnam war. (originally 11th Air Assault but became 1st Cav on the way to Vietnam I believe in '65). They were one of the early units issued M16s and he said they loved the rifles ... much easier to rappel out of a helicopter with one than an M14 and much more powerful and reliable than an M2 Carbine (his hatred of the M1/M2 Carbine was pretty intense ... said they were unfit for plinking, let alone military service). He said even in the jungle they never had serious problems with their guns and always believe the rifles got a bad rap. He also hated the AK and thought it was an over rated POS (mostly because the VC had no idea how to care for their rifles and many of them were in tremendously poor condition before they worked their way through Soviet supply lines down to the lowly VC). Wish he was still alive to see his vindication in this video.

I can't say how much I appreciate this video. This explains so much. I always thought that it was the guns fault when it actually were the pencil pushers. I hope this goes atleast semi viral to explain the true history of the AR design.

Thanks guys. I'm a Vietnam vet but served on a patrol ship, a part of TF115 who set up Operation Market Time, the coastal blockade of Vietnam. Our primary rifle was the M1 rifle backed by BARs, Thompson Subs with 30 & 50 cal browning machine guns. That bean counter micro management came straight down from McNamara and LBJ.

I must say, before I stumbled across your videos on this topic, I 100% believed that the AK was just in every way a more reliable weapon than the AR. But you guys have pretty conclusively proven that I was wrong about that.

Here's another myth I hear a lot. "The Soldiers loved the M14 and the M16 was forced on them for propaganda purposes!" Nothing is further from the truth. The M14 was harshly criticized for it's heavy weight, uncontrollable recoil on automatic fire, and not to mention, it was mostly an obsolete design. But the thing is, the military did everything they could to make sure the M14 was going into service even though tests were showing that the AR-15 was the superior gun. In fact Eugene Stoner and Co. weren't able to get the AR-15 adapted and approved for trials until a US Air Force general vouched for them. Btw the phrase that Marines loved the M14 over the M16 that they chanted "I don't need no sweet sixteen, I just want my M14" also is a myth. In my research, that line comes from Full Metal Jacket and there's no reliable sources that say the Marines said that. Also, the line is "I don't need a beauty queen".

"I don't have an emotional fixation with the gun!" Therein lies the issue with all too many gun owners. Don't marry a gun.

"That. Killed. Men. The rifle didn't. The design didn't. THAT did." Damn Karl, your shitposting makes me giggle but that gave me goosebumps. Well said.

I remember a teacher telling me, "How do you tell your mens mom that he died because he didn't clean his rifle" He is a Vietnam veteran

Minigun mudtest please.

I absolutely love the tone of righteous indignation in Karl's voice. "Huh! It locked open!" hahaha Great video as usual, gents.

Huh, it's almost as if the engineers at Armalite thought about this when they were designing it...

My neighbor, a Seabee Vietnam Vet, said that the last time he was in a firefight with an M16 he dropped it into a muddy river and he hoped to god that it wouldn't blow up and the rifle performed as usual

13:34 Ian showing of his Matrix dodging skills

"The AR won because the Ak wasn't fired by an authentic Russian soldier!!!!" No matter what you do, people will still make piss poor excuses. Merry Christmas to Ian and Karl!

My dad enlisted in the Army Reserve as an 11B in 1982. He still to this very day, tells stories of having nightmares in Basic Training of his M16 jamming in a firefight. He admits he enjoys shooting the AR/M16 platform because it’s a great rifle to shoot, but still prefers the AK because of the horror stories and experience with the early Army ammunition that was apparently still being issued in 1982. Fast forward to 2008 when I enter service and I’ve yet to see an M4/M16 have issues after basic maintenance, even while firing hundreds of blanks. I’m a Tanker so granted my primary is a pistol, but I still have a fair amount of time on the M4.

Sadly, the image of the problematic M16 (experienced when first fielded in Vietnam) lives on today. I've talked to new soldiers fresh out of Army basic training who claimed that some of these M16 "POS" stories were being repeated by their drill sergeants. I had a Colt M4 Carbine for my 1 year in Afghanistan and I always had 100% confidence in my weapon. Thank you InRangeTV for helping to kill a foolish myth.

Great video as usual. My Dad served in the USMC in Vietnam and went from the M14 to the M16 and they had some problems, but not too bad. I think with the USMC and their philosophy on marksmanship, it was a natural reaction to outright reject the AR-15 just as they were reluctant to give up the '03's in WWII. When I was shooting in competition and M16's started showing up sometime in the 90's, the old timers from Vietnam would still talk smack to them and bring up the failures from Vietnam mostly because they wanted to still cling to the M14 which was being challenged on the firing line for the first time.

"IT JUST WORKS." Todd Howard confirmed for Armalite employee.

Modern AR’s can absolutely be abused and still function beyond a reasonable point.

When I went through Army Basic Training, everyone else's M4s would jam. However, mine never would. Why? Because the *MAGAZINES* would get dropped into the sand and dirt, causing the rounds to become fouled..... If you want your gun to operate correctly and as designed.... please....... *KEEP YOUR MAGAZINES IN GOOD CONDITION!!!!!!* Think if your magazine is a Trojan horse.... could be a really cool thing, or could be your demise.

FYI: The propellant issue was far more complicated than the popular narrative supported by the Ichord Subcommittee. More than a fair amount of mythology has been built up about the DuPont Improved Military Powder (IMR), and I suspect IMR 4475 would have posed its own problems in Vietnam if DuPont had not withdrawn it as a qualified propellant for M193. It certainly would not have solved the problems with chamber corrosion or non-existent case hardness standards. You have to remember that the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) saw the procurement of the AR-15 and its .223 ammunition as a Commercial Off The Shelf purchase. The expectation was that little tweaking would be necessary to field it successfully, and that the Army could simply adopt the commercial specifications for the rifle and ammunition as-is for their own Mil-Specs. For instance, the military’s original velocity and pressure specifications for 5.56mm M193 were based on Remington’s commercial specifications for .223. However, while the average civilian user of the .223 would have no way to tell if Remington had fudged their figures, the military did, and took Remington to task. All of the hype about the effectiveness of the rifle and cartridge was tied to its high velocity, and thus, a reduction of velocity could easily be seen as reducing its effectiveness. As the prime user of the rifle in 1963 when all of this was hashed out, the USAF was unwilling to accept a loss in range by relaxing the velocity specifications. (The same thing had occurred earlier when the USAF discovered that the bullet was unstable in cold weather with the 1-14″ rifling twist. The USAF testers suggested that the stability problem could probably be solved if the bullet was simply shortened by going to a flat-base design of the same weight, but the change in shape would reduce long range performance.) However, the refusal to budge from the velocity standards led to an additional complication when it was discovered that IMR 4475-loaded ammunition could not meet these specifications while consistently maintaining the proper tolerances for chamber pressure. Previously, Remington could simply cherry-pick lots of IMR 4475, but this would no longer be possible once M193 reached mass production. Some have asked why the chamber pressure specifications were such a problem, and why not simply increase the chamber pressure specifications so IMR 4475 could be kept. The problem was that the military evaluations in late 1962-early 1963 had already shown signs of pressure excursions like popped primers. Some of the over-pressure events during were probably the result of Remington and Colt not comparing notes on Remington’s changes in ammunition and chamber dimensions when they established SAAMI specifications for the .223. It appears that Colt’s chambers at the time were smaller than the final SAAMI specs for commercial .223, which is even smaller than what we now have as standard for 5.56mm. Increasing chamber dimensions partially helped moderate the pressure issue, but then likely resulted in a reduction in velocity. The first clue that the pressure/velocity specifications were going to pose a problem was when all of the major commercial ammunition manufacturers balked on bidding for M193 production contracts as long as the existing specifications remained in place. With no one willing to budge on pressure or velocity, the only other possibility was the propellant. The first to suggest a change of propellant from IMR 4475 was Remington themselves, in order to fulfill an existing USAF ammunition contract. Ironically, Remington proposed alternative was Olin’s WC846. (Mind you, Remington was owned by DuPont, the manufacturers of IMR brand powders.) A search for alternate M193 propellants was underway when Remington and DuPont withdrew IMR 4475 as a qualified propellant in March 1964. WC846 and IMR CR8136 were approved by the Army for M193 in April 1964. At that time, only Remington chose to load M193 with CR8136. Winchester and Federal went with WC846. By the end of 1964, Remington dropped CR8136, again due to lot-to-lot consistency issues. So this set off another search for alternative propellants, and IMR 8208M was approved for use in M193. This time, all of the commercial manufacturers, including Remington, went with WC846. As a result, Lake City and Twin Cities ended up loading M193 with IMR 8208M. IMR 8208M was not dropped from use with M193 until after the WSEG testing in 1968. The mere fact that other propellants, including IMR-types, were approved for M193 should put to rest the old myth that IMR 4475 was rejected so the Army could sole-source Olin Ball Powders like WC846. IMR 8208M had in fact been the off-shoot of another propellant developed by DuPont under Army contract for 7.62mm NATO. The 7.62mm propellant had to be modified as its grains were too long for automated loading given the 5.56mm’s narrower case neck. The stories that WC846 was never tested or that Colt did not know or approve of the change are also false. Colt had USAF ammo loaded with WC846 in early 1964, and pointed out the increase in cyclic rates in March. Colt went even further and had tests done at H.P. White to determine the cause of the cyclic rate increase. In April 1964, Colt’s senior product engineer Foster Sturtevant wrote in an internal report that the higher gas port pressures with WC846 were “in no way harmful to the AR-15” and would lead to more positive functioning of the rifle. It strikes me that the increased cyclic rate was initially tolerated because some uninformed souls saw it as a bonus feature, not a flaw. After all, the USAF’s aircraft armaments were designed around even higher cyclic rates. Imagine trying to argue in favor of revising the velocity specs of M193, when Remington and Colt have already signed off on a change in propellant. As for the claim that the propellants were not tested for port pressure, Colt simply didn’t know what the appropriate port pressure should be, and the OSD’s pressure to get the rifles fielded meant that no one wanted to wait to run tests to find out what the acceptable limits should be. William C. Davis, Jr. and his colleagues at Frankford Arsenal basically had to guess. Another myth is the idea that the military should have kept IMR 4475 despite its issues since it was part of the .223 design since the beginning. A curious point to come out of the Ichord Hearings was multiple mentions that Remington had not always used IMR 4475 for the early .223. Yount mentioned that some test ammunition had been loaded with IMR 4198, and one of the USAF witnesses claimed that they had IMR 4064 in the USAF’s initial 1963 specs until they contacted Remington as to their preferred powder and primer. Most damning was the DuPont witness who testified that Remington adopted IMR 4475 for the .223 as late as 1962. I find it particularly odd that Ichord never subpoenaed representatives from Remington, Olin, Federal, or Hercules. A seemingly unkillable narrative is that IMR was a new improved design sabotaged by traditionalists unwilling to give up outdated surplus propellants or offend a powerful vendor like Olin. First, the name “Improved Military Rifle” was merely a brand name. It signified the change from DuPont’s earlier “Military Rifle”-brand extruded powders, which used straight nitrocellulose to IMR’s deterrent coated nitrocellulose. IMR propellant types are actually older than Olin’s Ball Powder types. The specific type used, IMR 4475, was actually introduced back in the 1930s. To somehow suggest that DuPont was not a full-fledged, card-carrying member of the Military/Industrial Complex and had any less of a cozy relationship than Olin is patently ridiculous.

Don't forget that the original specs for chrome plated chamber and bore were dropped for cost reasons. Add to this the lack of available cleaning kits and poor initial ammo specs created a perfect storm.

Winchester also made a competing design, the Winchester Automatic Rifle (W.A.R.) which looked like a miniaturized M-14 (sorta). As a company that had a much longer relationship with the US Army Ordnance Board than did those upstarts in Costa Mesa, they had a vested interest in seeing the AR-15 fail. Guess which company was the exclusive maker of the sole powder used in the development of the AR-15's cartridge? Olin-Winchester. Do you know why the Ordinance Board and all of the contractors who made ammo needed to find a new powder, and famously switched from IMR to Ball powder? Because Olin-Winchester stopped production of that powder when their design was initiated. Whoops. Probably just a coincidence.

I guess what could be better said is that an AK is more resistant to neglect, but an AR is more resistant to abuse

So basically the issue was politicians cutting unimportant things like using modern ammo and issuing cleaning kits? Thank god humanity always learns from its past to never make the same mistake again. Imagine if we cut the military budget for armored transport right before a war filled with IED's? Then someone would have had to say "you go to war with the military you have not the one you wish you had". Thank god that didn't happen and we didn't let people die to save a few pennies...again?

Great video guys! I had completely bought into the preconceived myths about the first generation M-16's in Vietnam. Thanks for the valuable lesson, keep up the good work.

.....remember...the M14 was the US Army's baby. The M14 was their design and they had just adopted it (a shoulder fired rifle that was full auto and fired a full powered cartridge, go figure right?) Then all of the sudden the Army is ordered to test and evaluate a design that might replace the M14. **GASP** The Army did everything they could to sink the AR!

I have a lot of respect for you guys digging into the technical side of how a gun works so people can actually understand all the different things behind a firearm - its not just the gun, it's the supply line, it's the manufacturer, it's the support, its everything that affects how a weapon works.

Inrangetv Killing myths better than the mythbusters themselves

"...prevents the ingress of filth and dirt..." "...filth..." NO COMMIES IN MY AR15 thanks for the content guys, merry christmas

Even though we had M16A2s in Iraq, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, I'd take my M16 over those junk AKs the insurgents had. And they had AKs that were Chinese, North Korean, Yugoslav, and Arab make. We test fired a lot of them, and they were all junk. Inaccurate, cheap parts, and jam with lots of dust and dirt in the chamber. M16? Works like a champ. But what do I know. I was just a tanker in OIF III in a combat zone at the time...and then was a SAW gunner in the squad.

Not quite sure why so many people hate on you guys, when you guys are one of the most honest and unbiased gun based you-tube channels around.

I'm starting to see a pattern here, I just can't put my finger on it. Perhaps if you do two or three more...

You need to make a spandau vs bren mud test.

My grandmother is Vietnamese and she was a combat medic fighting against communism. She always said the m16 never failed them and that she hates war. She now lives in America and still hates communists.

Dear Ian and Karl, I am writing this message in response to an argument I duly lost to a friend of mine. I apologize for wrongly insulting and critiquing this well thought out video. Thank you for spending your time and money to provide us with this information and disabusing those such as myself, who succumbed to believing all the myths surrounding such guns as the m16. Your videos are both interesting and informative, and I am ashamed for my act of immaturity I have presented upon myself.

I'd like to add to the "$500 AK is as good as a $1000 AK" thing. Some of the cheaper AKs are dangerous and beat themselves to death and expand their own headspacing.

I feel like my m16a4 ran bad because of the intense amount of blanks ran through it...

The military had a contract for the old powder that was used in all the other ammunitions and didn't want to purchase the specific powder required for the 556 munitions. The powder specified for the munitions of the M-16 had a agent blended in to basically slow down the burn of the powder. This had the effect of slowing the maximum rate of fire. If I remember correctly, the design of the M-16 was for a max rate 350-450 rounds per minute (RPM). The older powder cased the rate of fire to exceed 700 RPM. This cause numerous jams and other breakdowns. Many solders were found lying on or near their weapons with cleaning rods shoved in the barrels. They had died trying to remove the what ever caused the misfire. The military came to a compromise on the powder mix with the weapon manufacture and the powder manufacture. This powder was acceptable to all manufacturers. It would also not have a negative affect any other existing weapons. The RPM after the inclusion of the new powder on the M-16 was around 500. I could be wrong about the details, but it's as close as I can recall.

The M16A1s we used at Ft.Benning for Basic and Infantry School in the 1980s were rebuilt rifles from the Vietnam era by Anniston Arsenal in Alabama.I remember mines was built by GM Hydramatic Division and the rebuilt stamps were on the magazine well below the ejection port.They were roll marked with the arsenal and year,mines had AND (Anniston Depot)75,AND 78,AND 82,and the last was AND 85.I went through in 1986 and used the same rifle for my duration at Benning which had lots of sand and some red clay dirt.Of course our Drill Sergeants made us clean our weapons constantly.The M16A1 was serving everywhere throughout the world and worked well in all conditions.I used it in Germany,Panama,Hawaii and the deserts of Ft.Irwin CA.It has handled abuse from me jumping out of airplanes,helicopter jumps into lakes and rivers,and numerous live fire exercises.I found it to be a really dandy rifle.

Being the sexiest gun l know of, a Vietnam-style AR taking a mud bath is strangely satisfying.

"Those bean-cunters, -counters..." I think we all know what Karl wanted to say

I love the extreme sarcasm, perfect.

Thank you for clearing up the common misconception that the m16 was "jam happy" and was "unreliable in dirt and mud"

When soldiers used it to break wires.... WHAT?

I have to clarify why exactly it is so emotionally touching, especially for those who are Russian/Soviet patriots to any degree. The thing is, the Soviet Union was a failure as a country/state with few good things about it. The AK series were generally considered one of them. Long has it been believed our AK had a balancing difference against the M16: while M16 was believed to be just more precise and overall lighter than an AKM, the AKM itself was considered much cheaper and more reliable, able to withstand whatever harsh conditions were thrown at it. Your mud test just proved one thing: it isn't. Reliable. At all. The M16 can withstand the conditions and shoot as purposed. The AK just can't. And your video isn't the first and the last one to show it. Coupled with the fact that AK is actually quite expensive in production (well, the first models were), it fully ruins the myth and one of the few good things we had about the SU. That's why we are so outraged in a nutshell.

It was not the military, but the US Army Bureau of Ordnance that tested the M-16 with fast burning powder, then switched it to slow burning powder when the rifle was deployed to the troops. This caused several other problems including corrosion in the gas tube because the slow burning propellant was still burning in and fouling the gas tube. As for cleaning kits, there is no way to clean the gas tubes even with modern AR15's cleaning kits, but it is not a problem because fast burning propellants are standard and the gas tube is chrome lined. This is also why today there is no Bureau of Ordnance in any branch of the US military. The various military Bureau of Ordnance throughout US history had messed up big time several times. And they were done away with.

Pff. Anyone can do it with a cheap knock-off romanian or checkoslovakian mud. Authentic vietnamese mud would've jam this gun right away.

I first watched the AK video and was shocked at the results because of what i use to hear about the AK didn't come true. I was an Ak fanboy but this has totally changed my mind. Thank you InRangeTV!

Great video guys, just like always. This new camera should become your primary in my opinion, it looks so clear and the colors are so lively, beautiful. Thanks for providing such amazing content, have a great day. Happy holidays :)

Love both AR and AK but I won't deny I prefer the AR's and you guys hit the nail on the head. Just as durable as long as the rifle is taken care of which is so true.

the passive aggression is strong in this one

The "adobe" test really drives the point. when mud dries is when it really becomes an issue and that AR handled it great. Awesome stuff guys!

That was the best m16: m193,1:12twist,20"barrel Awesome rifle!!!

Great video! The reminder about Sullivan's comments and the congressional hearing conclusions are a stark reminder that those at the top don't always care about us individuals.

Awesome video! Thats why I love your channel! Good rational arguments. Thanks for all the great work guys.

AR's work in mud?! INCONCEIVABLE! (Princess Bride)

You guys have such great chemistry, you bounce off each other so well, and also teach me so much. You really are like those really good teachers in schools, where you're learning cool stuff and they're also really entertaining at the same time. I don't know what I'm saying.

Learned a lot from this video! A friend of mine told me a lot of guys died because of these weapons, but I never knew exactly why!

In my house my AR is right next to my AK. Love em both. Every platform has its strong and weak points. If you have an adult mind, you will see it and use it to its advantage. I'm just glad that I live in a free country where I can own guns.

"inconceivable!" "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means..."

This is probably my favorite channel right now.

I love you guys. These videos are some of the most entertaining on RU-vid. I've learned so much history from you guys. keep it up!

From what I've gathered is that in terms of reliability, the AR platform is more suited to professional militaries with basic proper training, where as the Kalashnikov is meant for people who don't know proper weapon maintenance such as the Vietcong, ANA, the Iraqi military, terrorist organizations, ect.

Your phone camera seems to be clearer then your other camera

The issue with the original M16 had nothing to do with mud. It was all about the complete lack of chrome lining and cleaning kits in an extremely humid environment. Which lead to chambers pitting, which then leads to brass expanding into the pits upon firing, which then leads to failure to eject or in extreme cases the base being torn off the casing while the walls were left behind in the chamber. The issues were fixed almost instantly with the introduction of chrome lined chambers and cleaning kits.

Interesting report. My father was issued one of the original M16s in Vietnam and he had a lot of trouble with it. He’s extremely fortunate it did not kill him. His opinion of the M16/AR15 was soured because of his experience in Vietnam. Because of that, my opinion of the AR15 was soured for many years until I had the opportunity to learn more about it.

You guys think this stuff is getting boring?!? This group of videos is some of the most interesting thing I've seen on youtube. Like Stephen Fry interesting. Keep up the good work

UNFAIR WE NEED A $4,000 AK IT'S UNFAIR, UNFAIR!!!!

I’m glad I ended up seeing this explanation of why the M16 got this reputation. Thanks!

I've used the A1 variant in the Singaporean military. Cadillac of a rifle. Despite being about 20 years old during my time in the early 2000s, it did have a few stoppages during firing but overall it was light, highly accurate, has firepower due to the 20 inch barrel and easy to maintain. To be honest, I would not trade it for any other rifle, it was literally the AR of ARs.

Every time its almost painful to watch the moment when mud hits a gun :/

The powder issue coupled with rotted, pitted chambers was the recipe for disaster.

Sarcastic, slightly passive aggressive, Ian and Karl are glorious.

Very informative. Thanks guys. As a former 0311 and "professional" user of the M-16A2, I found this to be quite enlightening.

10 years and 2 deployments so far and i can honestly say that the AR family if weapons is by far the most reliable system i have ever used, including AK'S.

i wonder how the "super weapon" ak12 handles after mud with its fancyness and effort put into it to make it "more reliable and powerful" than a akm

yes you have and despite me disagreeing with the vietnam war, you gave me a whole next level of respect for our troops. it really sucks the way they were treated at home and on the front lines across the board. God rest their souls. you cleared up alot of misconceptions in my mind. keep up the good work.

Dear Inrange TV but more importantly the comments section Failure to Chrome Plate the Chamber The principal and most serious cause of the malfunctions of the AR-15/M16 rifle in Vietnam was the failure to chrome plate the chamber. From experience gained in the Pacific Theater during World War II, it was found that chrome plating a chamber of a firearm would prevent many serious failures to extract. This military requirement was set forth by Ordnance Technical committee since 1957. Corrosion causes pitting in the chamber. When the cartridge is fired, it expands to the walls of the chamber. The cartridge would stick in these pits causing the extractor to tear the rim off the cartridge cases and the only way to remove it was to hammer it out with a cleaning rod. If the chamber was corroded and pitted, no cleaning would make it function properly. The question is, if we learned this lesson in World War II and made it a military specification on all U.S. small arms, why did the AR-15/M16 rifle not have it? The blame here goes not to Ordnance Corp but to the “Wiz Kids” on Secretary of Defence McNamara’s staff who made all the decisions. This micromanagement of money in resources and decisions was made by people who had not the slightest clue about small arms. As stated by William Davis, Jr. about the decision to not chrome plate the chamber, “If the rifle needed a chrome chamber Stoner would have designed it that way. So it did not have one therefore it did not need one.” Despite that fact, the rifle that Stoner and Colt showed the government was not a finalized weapon. It would need development to get ready for the troops to use at large. This problem was simply corrected. First to appear were barrels with chrome plated chambers only. The barrels were marked “CMPC”(Colt magnetic particle inspected and proof tested). Barrels were also sent to Rock Island to have the chambers modified and chrome plated. This prevented the serious failures to extract and made the chamber easier to clean. Later in the war, the barrels were chrome plated in both the bore and chamber. These barrels were marked “CMPB” or “ CMP Chrome Bore.” With this modification the failures to extract became a thing of the past in the rifle. Additionally the original gas tube was made from AISI 4130 steel. Due to corrosion issues that came up in the jungles of Vietnam the gas tube material was changed to stainless steel. This was implemented in the 1966 to 1967 time frame. This change eliminated the corrosion issues. Christopher R. Bartocci. 2014. THE M16 IN VIETNAM. [ONLINE] Available at: www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1735. [Accessed 2 January 2017]

Thank you for all the information, I'm a Vietnam era veteran and I trained on the M-16 in basic, and we were the first group to have the M-16 so I was worried if I would have had to go to Nam. My second weapon was the M-14 which I loved and to me was a much better weapon. Anyway thanks for the information.

"The AK and Vz58 videos have even been used in Russian and Ukrainian media propaganda." Really now? Do you have a link? I'd love to see this.

Thanks guys, now I don't have to cover MY newly built AR-15A1 i recently finished building in mud. I built my first AR-15 back in 1999 using an Olympic Arms forged lower and an HBAR 20" barreled DPMS upper assembly. The HBAR was dead accurate and on a good day, if the range gods were smiling on me, I could cover my group at 100 yards with a quarter using a 3-9X scope. But I never felt the balance was right. The M-16A1 I used when I was in the US Army in the 70's and 80's just had a really sweet balance to it. My new retro AR-15A1 really feels sweet. The neat thing is I have authentic M-16A1 furniture on it. I am using my original triangular hand guards and pistol grip from my Army issue M-16A1. My buddy happened to be our unit armorer and he gave them to me when I left the unit. I guess they are expendable items. Originally i had to go with an A2 butt stock because A1 butt stocks were so expensive. Last week I found a great deal on an actual GI surplus used M-16A1 buttstock for only $21.85 at Numrich. Be sure to also order the shorter butt stock screw if you buy one. Now she looks beautiful. I have a question for you experts. I have always wondered what those 2 extensions on the bottom of the original M-16 pistol grip were made for. Was there a trap door designed to use them to go on the bottom of the pistol grip?

Totally agree. But it is difficult to no get upset about the issues regarding the M16 failures. As Ian expertly noted, issues we're not with the hardware but with the organization that was supposed to support it. I guess it was easier (for both government and affected individuals) to blame the inanimate object or the company behind it, than to say the US Army or Marine Core failed me. That would have definitely been (and still is) a bitter pill to swallow. May history be judge of us all. Thanks gentleman for your expert and entertaining videos. Always bring a smile...

So much sarcasm it sounds like a middle school english class

Now for the chauchet mud test

Yep! Stick powder is the issue with the Vietnam era AR15/M16. they tested and sold the riffle on ball powder, but then switch to the cheaper "stick " powder which caused excessive fouling and failure of the rifle.

I really loved your comments on the guns just being machines, and they are not representative of ideologies or countries. It's something that needs to be said honestly, and it's the first time I ever heard it as well. Very well said by you guys.

“It just works.” -Todd Howard

Try a bunch of "modern" pistols (thinking of a Glock, a Five-Seven, a Makarov or a P226) for the next video. Honestly if i would fall in mud, even with an AR15, and it would be covered in mud, i wouldnt want to trust it and pull my pistol out which may be less exposed to the mud or maybe more protected with less space for the mud to get into it.

Just realised that if you watch how the mud moves on the rifle during slo-mo (6:35) it gives a really great indicator for primary and secondary recoil during the firing cycle.

It's worth mentioning that the U.S military advisors who took the first batch of AR-15/M16s to Vietnam under Project Agile loved the rifle. The problem was that the U.S Army resisted adopting the rifle initially and then tried to rush it into service when the Vietnam War escalated.

Excellent work!