I was just wondering what was the grain weight of the projectile used in the original M16s used during the Viet Nam war. Did it vary in any form during the years. If your an expert please expound on any idiosycronys and interesting tidbits. All I think I know was that it was a .556. Thanks
Curious about gr. bullet weight used for orginal M16
- Thread starter igor
- Start date
Rustydust
Active member
I am almost positive that they were 55 grain bullets originally. I am not sure when they went to 62 grainers and heavier but billions of 55 grain were made originally.
Interesting that weight was picked by these so-called "experts" that were shooting at, believe it or not, big cans of tomato juice. Yup. The 55 grain bullet erupted the cans better than other weights did so that was what they settled on. Pretty scientific, eh? Not.
Interesting that weight was picked by these so-called "experts" that were shooting at, believe it or not, big cans of tomato juice. Yup. The 55 grain bullet erupted the cans better than other weights did so that was what they settled on. Pretty scientific, eh? Not.
Winny Fan
New member
The original bullet for the M-16 was indeed a 55 grain FMJ bullet. Tomato cans had absolutely nothing to do with the choice however.
From The Truth About Guns:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/foghorn/the-truth-about-m855-5-56-nato-ammunition/
"The original specifications for the M-16 rifle were that it needed to penetrate the steel helmet of an enemy soldier at a given distance, and while the lighter overall weight of the projectile reduced the penetration power of the projectile at long distance the designers of the ammunition compensated with increased velocity. Increased velocity meant increased muzzle energy, and provided the power to meet the specifications. That faster yet lighter bullet meant that the cartridges were lighter, and therefore the soldier on the field could carry more ammunition into battle than ever before. Even with the lighter projectile, that “armor piercing” capability was still maintained throughout the design process."
There's more at the link if you're interested.
Info on the newer projectile. Again no tomato can were involved as some internet myths would like you to believe....
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010...in-afghanistan/
From The Truth About Guns:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/foghorn/the-truth-about-m855-5-56-nato-ammunition/
"The original specifications for the M-16 rifle were that it needed to penetrate the steel helmet of an enemy soldier at a given distance, and while the lighter overall weight of the projectile reduced the penetration power of the projectile at long distance the designers of the ammunition compensated with increased velocity. Increased velocity meant increased muzzle energy, and provided the power to meet the specifications. That faster yet lighter bullet meant that the cartridges were lighter, and therefore the soldier on the field could carry more ammunition into battle than ever before. Even with the lighter projectile, that “armor piercing” capability was still maintained throughout the design process."
There's more at the link if you're interested.
Info on the newer projectile. Again no tomato can were involved as some internet myths would like you to believe....
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010...in-afghanistan/
Rustydust
Active member
Originally Posted By: Winny FanThe original bullet for the M-16 was indeed a 55 grain FMJ bullet. Tomato cans had absolutely nothing to do with the choice however.
Actually, you are wrong about that.
It was indeed demonstrated to some army bigwigs at a shooting facility how important high velocity was in causing hydrostatic and hydraulic shock. I am not saying that this was the only reason the 5.56 or the 55 grain bullet was chosen but the goal (probably by Armalite) was to impress as many people as possible with the lethality of their offerings. Seems to me that it worked.
Some additional research might be good next time.
Actually, you are wrong about that.
Some additional research might be good next time.
Winny Fan
New member
Originally Posted By: RustydustOriginally Posted By: Winny FanThe original bullet for the M-16 was indeed a 55 grain FMJ bullet. Tomato cans had absolutely nothing to do with the choice however.
Actually, you are wrong about that.
It was indeed demonstrated to some army bigwigs at a shooting facility how important high velocity was in causing hydrostatic and hydraulic shock. I am not saying that this was the only reason the 5.56 or the 55 grain bullet was chosen but the goal (probably by Armalite) was to impress as many people as possible with the lethality of their offerings. Seems to me that it worked.
Some additional research might be good next time.
Actually, any and all demonstrations performed for the military brass to sell the firearm/ammo choices that had been made occurred well after the choices were made for more obvious reasons than "red mist".
In fact, actual bullet performance on real human targets was not anticipated to be as dramatic as they actually were due to the design of the bullet and to the slow twist of the original M-16 rifles which caused the bullets to tumble when they met resistance (human flesh). Experiences in Viet Nam showed the designers that they needed to make changes, hence twist rates were increased and bullet designs were improved over time.
Indeed, "Some additional research might be good next time.
"
Actually, you are wrong about that.
Some additional research might be good next time.
Actually, any and all demonstrations performed for the military brass to sell the firearm/ammo choices that had been made occurred well after the choices were made for more obvious reasons than "red mist".
In fact, actual bullet performance on real human targets was not anticipated to be as dramatic as they actually were due to the design of the bullet and to the slow twist of the original M-16 rifles which caused the bullets to tumble when they met resistance (human flesh). Experiences in Viet Nam showed the designers that they needed to make changes, hence twist rates were increased and bullet designs were improved over time.
Indeed, "Some additional research might be good next time.
RePete
New member
Originally Posted By: Winny FanThe original bullet for the M-16 was indeed a 55 grain FMJ bullet. Tomato cans had absolutely nothing to do with the choice however.
From The Truth About Guns:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/foghorn/the-truth-about-m855-5-56-nato-ammunition/
That's a good article.^^^^^^^
I learned a couple of things.
From The Truth About Guns:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/03/foghorn/the-truth-about-m855-5-56-nato-ammunition/
That's a good article.^^^^^^^
I learned a couple of things.
Winny Fan
New member
Originally Posted By: RustydustOriginally Posted By: Winny Fan
Indeed, "Some additional research might be good next time.
"
Great. I do hope that you will do that very thing next time. No one likes to look like they are a mindless twit. At least I hope not!
What's changed Rusty? You've never minded looking like a mindless twit (your words) in the past.
Mr. RePete:
It is a good skeleton discussion of the early M-16.
The silliness above caused me to think of a gentleman who I met in my career maybe 40 years ago who was career military. As a young 2nd LT (IIRC) he was assigned in some way to the military observation board tasked with overseeing a new military cartridge that resulted in the adoption of the M-16 and the original M193 Ball ammo. Armed with the Rustydust theory on how the 55 grain bullet was arrived at, I called him this AM. He is in his late 80's but he's still as mentally sharp as he was the first day I met him. He retired with 3 stars on his shoulder and was up for 4 in a couple of more years when he hung it up.
Anyway, to cut to the chase - I asked him about the tomato can episode. He laughed and told me that he had not seen it nor had he heard of it before even though he had heard and read a "butt-load" (his words) of silly observations about the M-16/M193 Ball combo. He did say that Armalite was ran by some "real doosies" (his words again) and that they may have gotten some generals drunk and tried to impress them with a demonstration.
However, he distinctly stated and assured me that tomato cans had nothing to do with the 55 grain bullet being adopted, of which Armalite had no direct voice about. He said a lot of parameters were played with and the 55 grain bullet gave the best performance as required under the US Continental Army Command (CONARC )requirement for a new rifle/cartridge which began development work in 1957. What resulted after some looking at existing options was a project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity light weight firearm. Eugene Stoner of Armalite was invited to submit a rifle design as was Winchester. Remington was highly involved in the cartridge design.
The parameters that were requested by CONARC for the new rifle/ammo combination are (I looked these up so I could cut and past even though he ran through them):
-.22 Caliber
-Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards
-Rifle weight 6 lb
-Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
-Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic
use
-Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
-Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards
-Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition of the
30-06 (m1 Garand)
-Wounding ability equal to M1 Carbine
He told me that the penetration requirement was the biggie for the military command and that the 223Rem (now 5.56 NATO) 55 grain bullet combination demonstrated the best results against other bullets and cartridge designs when tested.
He is a wealth of information that could go on forever, but he told me to tell my "internet friend" that if the military has been in charge of the "tomato can test" that they would have required #2 cans of peaches because soldiers like left-over peaches far more than they do tomato juice.
But as I stated earlier, he didn't have any information about what Armalite might have done on their own to sell their rifles "after hours" (his words once more) even though they had nothing to do with the cartridge/bullet design itself.
One interesting thing he told me today that I did not know is that the AR-15 is nothing but Stoner's already existing 7.62MM AR-10 sized down, and that the AR-15 was not a totally new design as its often depicted as being. The military had looked at the AR-10 design but wanted a smaller lighter rifle which allowed soldiers to carry more ammo than could be carried with the 7.62 NATO, so the already existing AR-10 was not considered as an option.
Anyway, that's the story from someone who participated in the development of the combat weapon still used - with iterations in both rifle and ammo - for well over 50 years.
YMMV with other theories.
Indeed, "Some additional research might be good next time.
Great. I do hope that you will do that very thing next time. No one likes to look like they are a mindless twit. At least I hope not!
What's changed Rusty? You've never minded looking like a mindless twit (your words) in the past.
Mr. RePete:
It is a good skeleton discussion of the early M-16.
The silliness above caused me to think of a gentleman who I met in my career maybe 40 years ago who was career military. As a young 2nd LT (IIRC) he was assigned in some way to the military observation board tasked with overseeing a new military cartridge that resulted in the adoption of the M-16 and the original M193 Ball ammo. Armed with the Rustydust theory on how the 55 grain bullet was arrived at, I called him this AM. He is in his late 80's but he's still as mentally sharp as he was the first day I met him. He retired with 3 stars on his shoulder and was up for 4 in a couple of more years when he hung it up.
Anyway, to cut to the chase - I asked him about the tomato can episode. He laughed and told me that he had not seen it nor had he heard of it before even though he had heard and read a "butt-load" (his words) of silly observations about the M-16/M193 Ball combo. He did say that Armalite was ran by some "real doosies" (his words again) and that they may have gotten some generals drunk and tried to impress them with a demonstration.
However, he distinctly stated and assured me that tomato cans had nothing to do with the 55 grain bullet being adopted, of which Armalite had no direct voice about. He said a lot of parameters were played with and the 55 grain bullet gave the best performance as required under the US Continental Army Command (CONARC )requirement for a new rifle/cartridge which began development work in 1957. What resulted after some looking at existing options was a project to create a small-caliber, high-velocity light weight firearm. Eugene Stoner of Armalite was invited to submit a rifle design as was Winchester. Remington was highly involved in the cartridge design.
The parameters that were requested by CONARC for the new rifle/ammo combination are (I looked these up so I could cut and past even though he ran through them):
-.22 Caliber
-Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards
-Rifle weight 6 lb
-Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
-Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic
use
-Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
-Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards
-Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition of the
30-06 (m1 Garand)
-Wounding ability equal to M1 Carbine
He told me that the penetration requirement was the biggie for the military command and that the 223Rem (now 5.56 NATO) 55 grain bullet combination demonstrated the best results against other bullets and cartridge designs when tested.
He is a wealth of information that could go on forever, but he told me to tell my "internet friend" that if the military has been in charge of the "tomato can test" that they would have required #2 cans of peaches because soldiers like left-over peaches far more than they do tomato juice.
One interesting thing he told me today that I did not know is that the AR-15 is nothing but Stoner's already existing 7.62MM AR-10 sized down, and that the AR-15 was not a totally new design as its often depicted as being. The military had looked at the AR-10 design but wanted a smaller lighter rifle which allowed soldiers to carry more ammo than could be carried with the 7.62 NATO, so the already existing AR-10 was not considered as an option.
Anyway, that's the story from someone who participated in the development of the combat weapon still used - with iterations in both rifle and ammo - for well over 50 years.
YMMV with other theories.
Rustydust
Active member
Actually, it's rather sad that some folks out there will be foolish enough to claim that something never ever happened just because they themselves never heard of it.
Takes all kinds I guess. Sure am thankful that not everyone is as shallow minded as this. A bit of maturity can go a long way.
Takes all kinds I guess. Sure am thankful that not everyone is as shallow minded as this. A bit of maturity can go a long way.
Winny Fan
New member
Originally Posted By: RustydustActually, it's rather sad that some folks out there will be foolish enough to claim that something never ever happened just because they themselves never heard of it.
Takes all kinds I guess. Sure am thankful that not everyone is as shallow minded as this. A bit of maturity can go a long way.
Takes all kinds I guess. Sure am thankful that not everyone is as shallow minded as this. A bit of maturity can go a long way.
Rustydust
Active member
Thank, Bill. It seems that there are some people out there (few, thank God) that think that only their beliefs are the correct ones. These are usually the same people that are never man enough to admit it when they are wrong or that there just may be more than one answer to a question. It's a shame that these people have to behave in this manner but as I said, thank goodness they are few and far between.
Brad Phillips
Active member
I have seen a few really good salesmen work some magic, being able to push a person over the fence as far as buying something. I would not doubt the Tomato can story at all.
Brad Phillips
Active member
Actually reminds me of an old training movie. An M-113 with a couple of goats inside that is then shot with a round from an M-60 tank.
I don't know if its true or not. Really doesn't matter a whole lot now considering how long ago it was. I thought the 222 was the original cartridge designed for the military. A guy I met a few years ago showed me unopened ammo cans of 222 marked for military use only. He said it was ammo designed for use in the AR 15 rifle. I pretty much said OK, didn't know one way or another and it wasn't worth debating. But I didn't insinuate he was not telling the truth either.
Winny Fan
New member
Originally Posted By: pyscodogI don't know if its true or not. Really doesn't matter a whole lot now considering how long ago it was. I thought the 222 was the original cartridge designed for the military. A guy I met a few years ago showed me unopened ammo cans of 222 marked for military use only. He said it was ammo designed for use in the AR 15 rifle. I pretty much said OK, didn't know one way or another and it wasn't worth debating. But I didn't insinuate he was not telling the truth either.
The 222 Rem was indeed the first cartridge tested by CONARC, but it did not meet the requirements for the cartridge bullet combination that the CONARC required, so it was scraped early on. It was an existing cartridge having been designed in 1950. It's not surprising that some of the ammo loaded for the CONARC testing might still exist somewhere. Not too many years ago, some of the original test 30-06 ammo designed for the Garand rifle testing was uncovered somewhere in an arsenal back east.
My background allowed me to be fairly close to military weapons testing procedures during my civilian working career and I was pretty sure (to say the least) from the git-go that shooting tomato cans did not determine the 223 Rem cartridge/55 grain bullet combination that became the AR-15 standard. My old military friend, even though some here might question his sanity due to his age, stated, and I passed his answer along in my long post, that none of the formal testing involved tomato cans. He did say however, and I mentioned it in my long post, that Armalite may have tried to sell a few rifles "after hours" to military brass utilizing tomato cans to convince some that the rifle that they were hoping to peddle was the cat's meow.
For a fact, Armalite had no true input in the ultimate cartridge design other than to provide technical information as to what cartridge shapes might work best and what wouldn't based on their rifle design and feeding. For another fact, the 222 Rem Mag case was designed for formal testing to meet CONARC requirements, but the design did not feed well in either the Armalite or the Winchester designs, so it too was scrapped for military use even though Remington did legitimize it also as a civilian cartridge.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm reading that if I tell someone that they are wrong that I'm calling them a liar but if someone tells me that I'm wrong, I'm just wrong? Some people here who have no other life get butt hurt very easily if the masses don't agree totally with them. But that's not a new thing here.
The 222 Rem was indeed the first cartridge tested by CONARC, but it did not meet the requirements for the cartridge bullet combination that the CONARC required, so it was scraped early on. It was an existing cartridge having been designed in 1950. It's not surprising that some of the ammo loaded for the CONARC testing might still exist somewhere. Not too many years ago, some of the original test 30-06 ammo designed for the Garand rifle testing was uncovered somewhere in an arsenal back east.
My background allowed me to be fairly close to military weapons testing procedures during my civilian working career and I was pretty sure (to say the least) from the git-go that shooting tomato cans did not determine the 223 Rem cartridge/55 grain bullet combination that became the AR-15 standard. My old military friend, even though some here might question his sanity due to his age, stated, and I passed his answer along in my long post, that none of the formal testing involved tomato cans. He did say however, and I mentioned it in my long post, that Armalite may have tried to sell a few rifles "after hours" to military brass utilizing tomato cans to convince some that the rifle that they were hoping to peddle was the cat's meow.
For a fact, Armalite had no true input in the ultimate cartridge design other than to provide technical information as to what cartridge shapes might work best and what wouldn't based on their rifle design and feeding. For another fact, the 222 Rem Mag case was designed for formal testing to meet CONARC requirements, but the design did not feed well in either the Armalite or the Winchester designs, so it too was scrapped for military use even though Remington did legitimize it also as a civilian cartridge.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm reading that if I tell someone that they are wrong that I'm calling them a liar but if someone tells me that I'm wrong, I'm just wrong? Some people here who have no other life get butt hurt very easily if the masses don't agree totally with them. But that's not a new thing here.
SlickerThanSnot
New member
Originally Posted By: igorlol u guys are great. Thanks
what he said^^^^^
lol
what he said^^^^^
lol
Quote:Interesting that weight was picked by these so-called "experts" that were shooting at, believe it or not, big cans of tomato juice. Yup. The 55 grain bullet erupted the cans better than other weights did so that was what they settled on. Pretty scientific, eh? Not.
Quote:I am not saying that this was the only reason the 5.56 or the 55 grain bullet was chosen but the goal (probably by Armalite) was to impress as many people as possible with the lethality of their offerings.
One of these is not like the other......damned fine example of backpedaling. Bravo.
Quote:I am not saying that this was the only reason the 5.56 or the 55 grain bullet was chosen but the goal (probably by Armalite) was to impress as many people as possible with the lethality of their offerings.
One of these is not like the other......damned fine example of backpedaling. Bravo.
Rustydust
Active member
Originally Posted By: liliysdad
One of these is not like the other......damned fine example of backpedaling. Bravo.
There must be something about this place that seems to give vermin the necessary strength to push the rock that they live under away and crawl out from under it just long enough to show their true colors. Sure is sad that there are people out there that think that it is necessary for them to continually behave in such a manner. Likely it is these very people that have caused so many of our members to go elsewhere. What miserable people they must be to be around. Tsk. Thank God that not everyone is like that.
One of these is not like the other......damned fine example of backpedaling. Bravo.
There must be something about this place that seems to give vermin the necessary strength to push the rock that they live under away and crawl out from under it just long enough to show their true colors. Sure is sad that there are people out there that think that it is necessary for them to continually behave in such a manner. Likely it is these very people that have caused so many of our members to go elsewhere. What miserable people they must be to be around. Tsk. Thank God that not everyone is like that.