Misfire: The Tragic Failure of the M16 in Vietnam Kindle Edition

The problems the M-16 rifle had (and to a great extent, still has) in battle have already been extensively documented and I've probably read most of the material available to civilians about them... these major problems generally discuss the main issues which permitted the lamentably bad design and testing process that caused a defective rifle to be dumped on American troops before it was ready. I'll sum them up here since this is exactly what the author of this book failed to cover in depth:The M-16 was the first "space age" rifle introduced to a major army, and used materials, forged aluminum and new plastics that had never been used in a battle rifle before. Designed by Eugene Stoner (an aircraft engineer) the rifle's first incarnation was as the AR-10, which was chambered in 7.62 NATO, but was tested but not adopted by the Army (being edged out by the M-14). Asked to redesign the rifle to fire the 5.56 round, Stoner did, and the rifle was shipped with little or no testing to American troops already fighting in Vietnam c. 1964. Picked up by General Curtis Lemay for Air Force security troops, General Earl Wheeler made a snap decision to adopt the weapon and soon every soldier in Vietnam was equipped with the M-16 - which unfortunately, had not been in Army service long enough to have its flaws worked out. The result was a rifle that would chronically jam in battle - requiring much time and effort to unjam. In combat this was often fatal to the rifle's owner, and word of this, from enraged GI's and shocked families soon reached Congress (in particular a Rep. Ichord who launched a congressional inquiry, and leaned on the DOD and the Army in particular until the problems were fixed and the rifle "unf#cked" as a Marine might put it. (I have read about, but can't verify, rumors that General William Westmoreland himself also got wind of the problems with the M16, and threatened Colt that if the issues weren't fixed, and fast, he'd personally order the Army to drop the M16 and switch rifles to the-equally new- AR180 - a more crude rifle but a more dependable gas piston design).If you didn't know any of this before, and were interested in the subject, you'd know only a small part of the picture from reading this book. the problem i have with "Misfire" is not that it's badly written (it is well written) or that it's sources are inadequate or wrong - the problem is the book doesn't tell you nearly enough of the whole picture on how and why the M-16 was adopted, what caused it's fatal jamming problems, and how they were ultimately fixed. It only tells you less than half the story.I like to think I'm not a "book snob" if that even exists, or that I know more than somebody who actually wrote a whole book about something... I've only been studying (reading habitually) on the topic of military affairs for about 50 years. In that length of time, anybody who "researches" (probably just another word for habitual reading about one topic, when you are not getting paid to do it) any subject like this is naturally going to be exposed to redundant and over-lapping histories of a thing. This book has a place on a weapon fan's shelf, but is nowhere near the final word on the subject. If you want a better guide to the history of the M16, you can find more and better information online (one article i found with my first search while writing this comment that was particularly good, comes from "The Atlantic" "M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story" as it had more and better info on the topic than this book...) . The best TWO books on the M-16 I'd recommend are "the Black Rifle: M-16 retrospective" by R. Blake Stevens and "The M-16" by Gordon L. Rottman.

I found this new book very informative and documented regarding the M16 Rifle. The authors cover itshistory as well as its good points and its problems as the main battle weapon for the U.S. military.This publication should be mandatory reading for U.S. military officers and non-commissioned officers.As I served 10 years in the U.S. Army, I am well versed in the capabilities, function, shooting andmaintenance of the weapon. The shortfalls of the M16 should have been clearly documented while itwas undergoing trials prior to its introduction in the early 1960s. There were several factors thatcontributed to it "not" being the best "jungle rifle" selected. The rifle was prone to misfires and "jams",magazine faults, the type of caliber for it and other malfunctions. In combat, its performance was inquestion. The M16 replaced the excellent M14 rifle which was an improved version of the M1 Garand rifle.The M14 rifle used a tried and proven caliber, the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge which was excellent for amain battle weapon. Today, the M16 rifle and the M4 carbine are very good as it relates to function, useand reliability (except for the caliber). These are my opinions, but are based upon facts.Warrior

I was one of the lucky Marines that was issued the XM16e1, it failed in my first action and I managed to get rid of it. Never used the M16 againI knew much of this story and was glad that someone took the time to bring this to the general publicThe war in Vietnam Nam was very divisive and it interesting for non combat people to read about what we had to contend with

Excellent explanation of how the early M16 went from a nasty weapon loved by its users to a disaster that killed its users.Another reason to hate MacNamara.

This was an in depth, quality, very informative book on what politics can do to hamper combat situations and the end result being the loss of life. Top notch facts presented by combat veterans reviews. A MUST READ!!HawkeyeOneZero-1967-1969

This book is well written and very well researched. As a vet from the era we heard all sorts of rumors as to why there were problems with this rifle. Except read.

I buy so much from Amazon it is difficult to spend time writing reviews. If I have any problems, I will let you know, otherwise everything was fine.