M16 Charging Handle

[Ken White]

structural integrity of the cast upper receiver and the bolt carrier, the slot for a non-reciprocating side handle would be longer than was desirable due to the length of the bolt carrier. Though the Army then turned around and compromised that integrity with the totally useless -- even dangerous -- forward assist mechanism.

The original Stoner AR-10 (top picture) design had the ambidextrous handle in the open space between the Rear Sight / Carrying Handle and the Top of the receiver as seen below. It didn't provide enough leverage so the M-16 system was developed.

He later went to a side handle for the AR 18 (center picture) but that was with a piston system in lieu of the gas impingement on a weapon that was designed to be very cheap to produce or purchase. Note that the charging handle is raised above the top of the receiver so one could reach across with the left hand and pull it to the rear.

With the Stoner 63 system (bottom picture) his last production light rifle, he returned (for the Rifle and Carbine variants) to a top mounted charging handle, the cylindrical projection above the barrel about 8" to the rear of the front sight. It was ambidextrous, located near the support hand and gave positive control of bolt movement. It was also relatively silent.

[Kiwigrunt]

Though the Army then turned around and compromised that integrity with the totally useless -- even dangerous -- forward assist mechanism.

I’ll take your word for it as I have no experience with the AR series at all. However, I had one of our SF NCOs explain that that was one of the reasons they preferred the M4 over the Steyr. It allowed them to silently cock the weapon by gently riding the bolt forward and completing the action with the forward assist.
The other reason was scope/accessory rails which 10+ years ago where less common on other weapons. And I suppose low weight would have been another reason as well.

[GI Zhou]

If you need to move your weapon from the load to the action/instant condition, (Kiwis will understand my lingo) that close to the bad guys you really screwed up, unless you were changing magazines to a different type of round, or were claeaning a weapon, or wrer in the lines and trying to quietly load your weapon. These scenarios I find rather hard to envisage as an excuse to change from the Steyr POS to the M4. The weapon should always be in the action condition anywherere outside the wire.

I can think of three or four reasons I would prefer to carry a M4 than an OZSteyr POS, but I remember when the L1A1 was always used in preference to the M16A1 due to reliability and knock down power reasons. The exception was if except if your were the grenadier, as the M16/203 being a better battle combo that a separate M79 and L1A1 separate but not as accurate. Damn, I am showing my age.

[Ken White]

And Old Age Solidarity has nothing to do with it...

Though I'd go a step further and suggest his "unless..." scenarios would show poor training other than in highly unusual situations.

Seriously, any commander or leader who directs unloaded weapons in a combat zone -- that's zone, even 'inside the wire' -- is acknowledging inadequate training and / or a significant and dangerous lack of trust in his or her people. Probably both. Personally, I'd ignore that stupid order. Have done so, in fact...

The 5.56 cartridge has inadequate stopping power against humans. Period. You can tweak it but it still will be a poor military cartridge. Still it is the weapon we're stuck with due to the massive costs of a replacement. Thus while it should never have been purchased in the first place, we're stuck and so cartridge tweaking is the best option at this point.

Politics...

[William F. Owen]

The 5.56 cartridge has inadequate stopping power against humans. Period. You can tweak it but it still will be a poor military cartridge.

I'd find it a lot easier to agree with that statment if it was a little more objective!
Are there cartridges that destroy more tissue for the same range against the same target? Yes - but that is also true of almost any cartridge.
For me, the great unanswered... and maybe unanswerable question is "Is it so inadequate as to render it's users at significant risk or less greatly less capable?"

[Schmedlap]

I think this is where I insert my broken record.

[Ken White]

I'd find it a lot easier to agree with that statment if it was a little more objective!

crash into the wall of life. Pun intended...

My personal objectivity in this matter is flawed by having seen too many people shot with that cartridge who were not stopped and too many bullets deflected by leaves and twigs. While I certainly acknowledge all cartridges suffer from problems of one sort or another and that there is not now and likely never will be a perfect military cartridge, the various flaws of the 5.56 are too well documented elsewhere for those interested in scientific objectivity and thus while my statement may not be objective I submit it's accurate and objectively verifiable.

Are there cartridges that destroy more tissue for the same range against the same target? Yes - but that is also true of almost any cartridge.

True but that's laboratory stuff. When we did the Troop Test on the AR-15, we shot a lot of pigs for the local Oscar Meyer packing plant and offered the Carcasses to the SF Lab for dissection (and repair in a few cases -- only to be shot again... ). That testing revealed that the round had considerably less lethality against a living and moving organism than did the 7.62mm baseline cartridge. We used Pigs as the Doctors assured us that the pig would more closely react as would a human than would dogs or goats. That Test report is probably available on DTIC somewhere...

For me, the great unanswered... and maybe unanswerable question is "Is it so inadequate as to render it's users at significant risk or less greatly less capable?"

Oh, I think that's answerable to a very slight extent. For most people most of the time, it is not so inadequate. For those unfortunate few for whom it did prove inadequate that is little solace. The objective issue thus is to (a) determine how many times the inadequacy apparently did occur or may have occurred. (b) eliminate all other factors as causative of that inadequacy, (c) assess the results and determine a likelihood of occurrence, (d) define 'significantly' and 'greatly' to the satisfaction of all concerned and thus assign an element of risk level that is acceptable.

IOW, you've indeed posed an unanswerable question. Or, more correctly, one that must be subjected to some subjectivity to be answered.

Perhaps a far better question from a military standpoint is: does the weapon or cartridge inspire full confidence in the majority of its users with some combat experience and who are familiar with the effects of other cartridges for general issue and worldwide combat use ?

Schmedlap hits it with the same point I made -- reality is that the weapon isn't going away and it is marginally adequate, the problem is the general issue US Army cartridge. As he said in one of those links about the weapon but also applying to the cartridge :

There, I said it. But I suspect we’ve got a better chance of settling the abortion debate than the M4 debate.

Yep.

[William F. Owen]

That testing revealed that the round had considerably less lethality against a living and moving organism than did the 7.62mm baseline cartridge. We used Pigs as the Doctors assured us that the pig would more closely react as would a human than would dogs or goats. That Test report is probably available on DTIC somewhere...

I concur, that compared to 7.62x51mm (M80), 5.56mm (M877) will possess less energy on impact, and given no fragmentation of the round, will destroy less tissue.

....and I likewise concur that we are no nearer an answer....