Bear, I think we need a whole new thread to address some of your assertions.....
There is evil and there is incompetence and then there is just how things happen in large organizations - especially government run organizations. Quickly:
The M1903 receiver problem was due to limitations and lack of understanding at the time by systems of manufacture in 1903 - not some money issue. Heat Treat was done by eyeball and it had "always worked before" - with low pressure cartridges like the .45/70 and the Krag.
And the M1903 was lighter and more accurate than the clunky M1917 Enfield - but the real reason was that when all three
Enfield Rifle
makers quit making them - all the parts and support was over - and a Government Arsenal built weapon could not be sidelined by Labor Union strikes - which had happened when Civilian makers were used - cannot have that in a war. So the weapon made in US Arsenals (not commercially) got the nod. That and you could adjust the rear sight for windage and Marksmanship was still KING - read Crossman's "Book of the Springfield" - he is fair with the deficencies of the '03 - but the M1917 had a FRAGILE Ejector, to - broke frequently.
The
M14 did have legit advantages over the T48/FN - pistol grip rifles suck for bayonet drill and as a marksman's rifle - at least in the viewpoint of the US.mil in that time period, easy transition for training from the M1 - and I agree. Everything must be evaluated according to where they were then - not from the hindsight of 60 plus years, if you are fair and honest. And the FN sights and trigger SUCK compared to the M14s. The FN was better for conscript dumb troops - not for US Marksmanship trained troops.
The M14 was a full pound lighter - this matters. The M14 could take a salt water dunking and be completely stripped and cleaned by the soldier - the FN required armorer's tools and time to get the salt out. During the trials, the FN choked on Sand - common stuff in the world - and Sand Cuts were eventually added - too late for trials, and the M14 was also more reliable in cold. And the M14 is still successfully in use as an accurate specialist/DMR rifle - the FN is gone. Ever try mounting a scope on an FN/FAL??
The M16s failures were NOT Springfield Armory's fault - McNamara was CLOSING Springfield Armory down in favor of civilian manufacture of our Service Rifles and KILLING the whole Armory System just as the AR/M16 was being adopted and fielded. Thus the original Armalite/Colt ARs did not have the BENEFIT of regular, full Ordnance Testing in sand, dirt, cold, ammo differences. The prototypes with IMR powder tested by the Green Berets (who cleaned the rifles, by the way) worked GREAT.
With it's original IMR powder loaded to original specs, the first AR15/M16s had NO PROBLEMS except chamber rusting from lack of cleaning and cleaning gear (fixed by chroming by Colt and issuing gear). And that was caused by a mistaken belief the Stoner design was "self cleaning" - Ha!
What messed up the AR was the introduction of Ball Powder (cheap by McNamara again - melted down OLD Battleship powder into Ball powder - expense of the Vietnam war) with too much Calcium Carbonate that gummed up the Direct Gas System - IMR powder did not. Colt, to their credit, engineered around all the problems fairly quickly and the M16 became very reliable - with a butt stock cleaning kit and lube added, too.
Without verification by more than one person, in writing - and reviewing all circumstances, I don't believe in just accepting old stories newly told by people with failing memories. Springfield was a MILITARY run outfit - and somebody should have been brought up on charges if these allegations of sabotage of the Civilian Makers was true - hell they would have sued....
I have spent most of my life reading and studying these weapons and their manufacture. Mistakes always get made, and then fixed - in all weapons systems. The early B17s were no prize, either. But unless you have extensive testing (like SA as US Ordnance Department used to do to weapons systems) the Soldier gets to do final test - which sucks. Do some more reading - "common knowledge" is frequently that - common and Wrong. CC
Originally Posted by Col. Colt
Bear, I think we need a whole new thread to address some of your assertions.....
PM
