And notwithstanding the old 'Nam stories, many of which are true,
Two major problems with the old 'Nam stories are 1) we had a number of non volunteers who didn't want to be there forced to learn about a weapon that was still out of the mainstream in the Armed Forces. The older trainers and soldiers in Command didn't understand the theory behind it or had any experience with it. There was no internal support it, and that played into the hands of the anti war supporters and generally disgruntled forced laborers sent into harms way.
You, you, and you, go into combat and guess what, we'll spit on you if you get back.
Second, the so called problems with the M16 were based on the sudden expansion of production ordered by Washington, in which Colt had NO choice. They were told to suddenly ramp up production 4X and that forced them to send out for parts they could only inspect once received.
One item specifically in that regard were barrels, and it's a documented situation that a large number were received, went thru inspection, fielded, and found to be inadequate with chambers that measured just a few thousandths undersize. A replacement program that was conducted in the field in sight and sound of combat gave our soldiers a new rifle if his was found out of spec.
Of course, that soldier still needed to have an active interest in keeping it running, and if it could be made to become inoperable, then ok - he's out of the fight and lags back.
You can't force people into war, it's exactly why we had so many come from Europe. Immigrants would pay outrageous rates for passage to American where they wouldn't be fodder for the campaigns of competing kings.
The second issue was the Government approving the use of reclaimed powder that was shown to have ingredients that separated in handling. Too much of the inert filler settled and in loading operations the ammo had powder that was out of balance. Those loads when fired deposited a higher amount of residue which then created more corrosion than designed.
Tight chambers, bad powder, not the design. It was the DC "whiz kids" who interfered with normal production and the unintended results of their monkeying around created a perfect storm of disaster for those who volunteered or were press ganged into service.
Look further than public myth and street word of mouth, you find out the real goings on.
AR15 vs AR10? I did my own personal experiment over 20 years. I owned a HK91 in .308, and carried in service the M16 variants. While hunting, I could carry as little load as I liked, still hunting and walking over miles of rough terrain and taking all the breaks for setting up ambush points or working out of tree stands. A 12 pound rifle with ten rounds is heavy at the end of the day.
The M16 with full field kit including ten full magazines, water, gear, helmet, pack, etc, would easily top 50-60 pounds on duty, yet the rifle was the least of it, and it was not burdensome to nearly as high a degree. Plus, I could carry a lot more ammo in comparison.
Overall, I'll take the AR15. Not much fan of the 5.56, but I don't disrespect it. Compared to the .308, tho, the recoil is substantially less, which means the reaction and recovery is much less getting the next shot. That is one reason that 5.56 can accurately outshoot the .308 in combat. And why it does it consistently in Service Rifle competition.
If you want to carry around a rifle all day that won't wear you out, gives you more accurate handling, shoots user friendly, and which you can kit out with a lot more options, the AR15 is it.
If you want a heavy rifle with a lot of recoil that inhibits shooting hundreds of rounds in practice at the range, get the big boy calibers.
I know what the sales figures are telling me which is more fun and a better way to go. But, I already knew that.
