Nope. The handgrip of the M16 rifle was made by Mattel. When the gun was first introduced in Vietnam, it was notoriously unreliable. Soldiers noticed the toy company’s logo embossed on the handgrip and complained, "the rifle must be built by Mattel". Later shipments arrived without the imprint, but the grips were still manufactured by Mattel. See Snopes for the skinny.
My understanding is the gun itself was fine, it was just the ammo.
Something like the original ammo spec had a certain type of powder, but they were actually provided an ammo with a different type, that had a different burn rate, and didn't like humidity. And it was the new (with the wrong powder) ammo that caused the guns to jam all the time.
Where's @famousone? Im sure he can confirm for us...
The test versions were issued with cleaning kits, chrome lined barrels and finer powder. Spec Ops and CIA loved them.
The issued ones had no cleaning kit, no chrome barrels, and coarser/hotter powder.
Not cleaning a rifle for a year long jungle deployment is bad. Having a barrel with minimal pitting resistance is worse. Using a harsher and meaner load for the ammunition on top of the other issue is worst. A perfect storm for battlefield failures.
Many veterans (my grandfather included) believe that the first generation M16s were sabotaged by Army Logistics because some higher ups were getting kickbacks for M14 orders.
The early issues plague the rifle's reputation to this day, but the improvements from the A1 onwards make it a weapon superior to the Kalashnikov in every manner except for cost and ease of use, and I will fight anyone who suggests otherwise.
I believe there were some rumors that popped up about the M16 that it was self cleaning as well that led to improper or neglected maintenance which compounded those issues. Plus people still liked guns with wooden stocks and bodies, and the M16 felt cheap and weird with it's plastic. Also the theory about the M16 being shafted has some weight in that most people still preferred the M14 as the weapon of choice, despite the flaws it had. It fell in line with the more traditional idea of what a service rifle should be.
A lot of good info here, and ultimately a combination of those things and more led to the early bad reputation of the weapon. It was a very new design philosophy at the time and unlike any gun 99% of people would have shot let alone what career soldiers were used to. The weapons that went first into service were not the same as the tested weapons as famousone says, and the supply chain and I go in Nam was often fucked- so there were weapons without cleaning kits and rumors the new “space gun” cleaned itself.
All exacerbated by the fact that that the weapon really hadn’t been extensively tested for harsh jungle environments and the early designs still had some issues that could cause all manner of issues in them. It was humid, wet, muddy. Weapons get dirty I. These conditions but the design- especially the early M16 was very prone to operation issues when dirty or not serviced.
Many operators and their chains of command in field lacked discipline in procedural areas. People were tryin. To survive and don’t forget at the time there were draftees and those who went to Vietnam yo avoid jail time. Not professional volunteer soldiers and often not well trained for the task. Some people just didn’t bother to properly clean their weapons, or lost, damaged, etc. parts of their kit. Granted a full strip and dress of the system in jungle conditions would be less than the ideal environment- especially for guys who never touched a weapon or guys used to more simple weapons designs.
And so it is. Ask guys who served since the 80’s and some say the M9/M92(fs) is a wonderful pistol and others curse it. From bad contractor ammo and badly designed mags, guns out of spec or in poor adjustment and service, early problems on models with bad blocks and no slide stop pin, weak or worn mag springs, flattened springs, bad manufacturing batches.... so many things that could rant any one persons idea of a specific gun and that’s before we start getting stories of “my cousin knew/was stationed with a guy who...”
The “AR” platform has a good track record over all. It’s been tweaked and redesigned countless times since nam. There are variations of the platform and guns that look alike but share little or no parts with the “family” despite the resemblance- including weapons with a totally different impingement system like the Heckler and Koch variants- and each has its lovers and haters.
With any weapon- extensive and varied testing gives some idea of real performance but is hardly perfect- and for most folks-
Even many militaries and law enforcement bodies- it is impractical and those seeking a “good” gun simply get whatever one of the major militaries has tested/fielded and maybe do some light revising and call it good. Ultimately- how reliable or wether someone likes a weapon- and how effective they can be with it- comes down to the individual.
I like the M9, just not the 30 year old beat to shit things that should've been retired around the same time my grandpa did. Sure as hell wouldn't pick it as a military service pistol if I had the choice. Thank Odin for the M17.
Putting asides the “Ive never had any problems with my favorite kind of gun” crowd- some percentage of any run of guns will be worse than the rest one way or another. “AR” owners being honest- most can’t say they’ve never had a jam or had to tinker with their weapon. But really- that’s true of almost any autoloading weapon. The AR is no AK when it comes to sheer durability, but that’s the cost of precision. Same is true that you can’t bang a sharp shooter M24 around either. It’s no glass dancer, but it’s also more sensitive than an iron hammer.
Oh- and of course- speaking on simplicity- the M-16 and its family members aren’t rocket science to work- but they are more complex and particular than certain other popular battle rifles/assault riffles, and they are more complex to operate than the infantry riffles up to the Vietnam war. Some things are not intuitive to a person who has some familiarity with other rifles- especially older bolt and even auto loading designs.
@famousone- lol. No worries. I love the M9 family too- but brand new out of the box guns need broken in, and old duty guns... you covered. Nothing like 3+ decades of abuse to make a real train wreck. Also- no disrespect to the “AR” family- personally- I’m not the biggest fan. They fill a need I don’t have, needs I have can be filled with other systems. But- lots of folks have put their lives in the hands of the “AR” family without issues. You won’t prove any point of mine by arguing beyond the point that everyone has their own tastes and experiences with various guns.
Something like the original ammo spec had a certain type of powder, but they were actually provided an ammo with a different type, that had a different burn rate, and didn't like humidity. And it was the new (with the wrong powder) ammo that caused the guns to jam all the time.
Where's @famousone? Im sure he can confirm for us...
The issued ones had no cleaning kit, no chrome barrels, and coarser/hotter powder.
Not cleaning a rifle for a year long jungle deployment is bad. Having a barrel with minimal pitting resistance is worse. Using a harsher and meaner load for the ammunition on top of the other issue is worst. A perfect storm for battlefield failures.
Many veterans (my grandfather included) believe that the first generation M16s were sabotaged by Army Logistics because some higher ups were getting kickbacks for M14 orders.
The early issues plague the rifle's reputation to this day, but the improvements from the A1 onwards make it a weapon superior to the Kalashnikov in every manner except for cost and ease of use, and I will fight anyone who suggests otherwise.
Even many militaries and law enforcement bodies- it is impractical and those seeking a “good” gun simply get whatever one of the major militaries has tested/fielded and maybe do some light revising and call it good. Ultimately- how reliable or wether someone likes a weapon- and how effective they can be with it- comes down to the individual.