- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Official AR-15 thread
Posted on 10/7/14 at 4:22 pm to Propagandalf
Posted on 10/7/14 at 4:22 pm to Propagandalf
Pretty much covers the early development and adoption history of the M16 dated 1 JUNE 1968.
LINK
I don't know if the index of modifications Colt requested during production of the early M16's is in this document but I'll post that one too. What is interesting in it is some of the material changes that were made and have become sacrosanct as "Mil-Spec" today where actually justified on the basis that they don't significantly impact the designed performance and durability in what was originally contracted. Some changes where asked for simply to give flexibility in material selection (bolt carrier and barrel extension material) while some offered performance improvements at no additional or even less cost (Parkerizing substituted for electrolytic plating (nickel/chrome)).
LINK
I don't know if the index of modifications Colt requested during production of the early M16's is in this document but I'll post that one too. What is interesting in it is some of the material changes that were made and have become sacrosanct as "Mil-Spec" today where actually justified on the basis that they don't significantly impact the designed performance and durability in what was originally contracted. Some changes where asked for simply to give flexibility in material selection (bolt carrier and barrel extension material) while some offered performance improvements at no additional or even less cost (Parkerizing substituted for electrolytic plating (nickel/chrome)).
1
Posted on 10/7/14 at 6:54 pm to Clames
In the first report you posted didn't it point out that case hardened 8620 carriers were better than other options, and that chrome plating build up in the corners of the bolts led to failures, so magphos was better?
Both of those seem to be advantageous. I'd like to see the reasoning behind Carpenter 158 v regular ol' 9310...or phos parts vs nitrided (wouldn't have the same buildup issues as other coatings).
Both of those seem to be advantageous. I'd like to see the reasoning behind Carpenter 158 v regular ol' 9310...or phos parts vs nitrided (wouldn't have the same buildup issues as other coatings).
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News