How Did the M-16/AR-15 Gain a Reputation for Jamming?

          I came across this post at The ENDO blog that has distilled the trash talk on various popular rifles, handguns and cartridges. For the entry on the AR-15, it stated:

 Great, awesome, unbelievable rifle(when it works). Can hit a fly in the butt at 300 yards (when it works). If one is ever attacked by a pack of feral poodles post-SHTF, this is the perfect defensive rifle (unless it jams, in which case you’re poodle food). The upside is that one can hang more plastic aftermarket doo-dads on it than a Christmas tree, which may effectively frighten away bad guys when the gun jams. Also, by simply changing the upper, one can convert it into a Ruger 10/22.

However, it raises a sort of interesting question about why the AR obtained--and maintained--a reputation for being unreliable when other rifles, such as the M-14, which initially had just as bad or worse teething problems, never seemed to acquire the same reputation.

          As compared to the M-14, I think the answer is fairly obvious--The M-14 was never used in combat while its flaws were being addressed. On the other hand, the M-16 had already been issued to troops in Vietnam when certain problems cropped up. In his book, American Rifle, Alexander Rose addresses the primary problem with the AR, which, like most things, involved a bureaucratic bungle. The M-16 had originally been designed to use Du Pont IMR4475 powder--a stick form of powder that burned quickly--quick enough that gas pressures began to drop before the bullet exited the barrel--and gave a cyclic rate of 750-800 rounds per minute. However, in 1964-65, the military switched to a ball powder manufactured by Olin. Because the powder was slower burning, and maintained higher pressures throughout the entire firing impulse, it increased the cyclic rate to 1000 rounds per minute, and seared and fouled the weapon. (p. 386). Initially, this caused jamming problems in combat with the consequential fatalities. Rose describes some of these incidents in his book. (p. 386-387). He also notes that with the original IMR powder, the M-16 malfunctioned 3.2 times out of a thousand, but with the Olin powder, it increased to 18.5 malfunctions per thousand. (p. 386). It also didn't help that soldiers were initially told that the rifle didn't need cleaning, and cleaning kits were not properly distributed. (p. 388).

          However, these problems were addressed. A recoil buffer was introduced in 1966 that reduced the cyclic rate, and chromed barrels were introduced. (p. 387). Rose notes that the rifle was very popular with the troops, and there were even reports of soldiers being issued M-14s that spent their own money to purchase black market Armalite rifles. (p. 387). Other improvements were made over time. Yet the rifle still seemed to carry a reputation for jamming.

         I suspect that the experiences in Vietnam contributed greatly to the weapon's poor reputation. For instance, a survey of soldiers performed in 1967 showed that 80% had experienced a stoppage while firing. However, current troops do not seem to have the same reliability concerns regarding their rifles and carbines. (But see this article).

         The fact that the M16/M4 requires extensive cleaning to function reliably does not help its reputation for reliability. Rose mentioned this issue in relation to the battle at An Nasiriyah in Iraq. (p. 391-392). A similar point was raised to explain weapon malfunctions in the Iraqi military's ambush of the 507th (the Jessica Lynch). This article from Defense Industry Daily also mentions:

Like its predecessor the M16, the M4 also has a reputation as an excellent weapon – if you can maintain it. Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments. Kalashnikovs may not have a reputation for accuracy, or lightness – but they do have a well-earned reputation for being able to take amazing amounts of abuse, without maintenance, and still fire reliably. The Israeli “Galil” applied these lessons in 5.56mm caliber, and earned a similar reputation. Colt’s M16 and M4 have never done so.

         Related to this is that people often have different conceptions of what they think is reliable. The outlook of some people (generally military or ex-military in my opinion) is that reliable is whether it can shoot a large number of rounds over a short period of time (i.e., sustained or heavy fire) without malfunction. Many others tend to view the term "reliable" as meaning whether it will function without regular cleaning or maintenance, particularly regarding carbon buildup in the gas system. (Dragging the rifle through mud or burying it in sand does not test this issue, by the way). It is this difference of point of view that drives the AR-15 versus Mini-14 debate (or direct impingement versus piston debate).

         Part of the problem may have been the transition from building the select fire M16 to the semi-auto AR-15. For instance, in his book The Terrorist Next Door, specifically in his account of the 1983 shootout between U.S. Marshals and Gordon Kahl near Medina, North Dakota, author Daniel Levitas specifically notes that the semi-auto AR-15 was considered unreliable. Although I could not find any written descriptions of this part of the incident, if my memory serves me right, more contemporaneous accounts indicated that one of the officers dropped his AR in a puddle or ditch, after which it would not function.

         While we now expect firearms to work reliably out of the box, it wasn't always so. Practically any book on the Colt 1911 written prior to the late 1990's would, as a matter of course, go through the basic gunsmithing modifications necessary just to make the pistol reliable. Since the AR was available from a variety of manufacturers, I'm sure that the variances between manufacturers of parts simply made the situation worse.

         Finally, it wasn't until a few years ago that shooters started becoming widely aware of the differences between .223 and 5.56 chamberings, which probably led to many unusual problems. For instance, several years ago, I was shooting with a friend that had picked up a used Bushmaster AR, which proceeded to spit the primer out of every single casing when firing, which by itself wouldn't have necessary a big deal, but the primer fell back into the trigger mechanism, rendering it inoperable. (While frustrating to him, I had to laugh as I ran the same ammunition through my rifle without a hiccup).

         In short, there were some good reasons why the M16/AR-15 initially earned a reputation for jamming, and there probably were good reasons for it continuing to keep that reputation up through the mid-1990s. Quality manufacturing has gone a long way to make the AR more reliable under whatever definition you use. But how you define "reliable" is probably the single biggest factor on whether you consider the AR to be reliable or not.