This is a great report on the evolution of the M16 rifle that specifically addresses many of the weaknesses reported over the years regarding reliability and combat readiness. It is a very worthwhile read.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a953110.pdf

Of additional interest is an overview of the operational shortcoming of other American service rifles over the years including fundamental design problems with early Trapdoors (extractors very fragile) , Kargs (hard to load and common failure to feed from magazine), 1903s (excessive barrel fouling due to improper bullet jacket material and rifles blowing up), Garands (need for complete gas system redesign in 1939 and problems with failure to feed the 7th round from the clip) and M14s. The point being that all of our service rifles demonstrated major problems at the time they were placed into service that required multiple design changed to correct those initial flaws.

It also goes without saying that much of the bad rep given the early M16 was due to bias among both Ordnance and the troops, most unjustified or blatantly untrue. The old “I carried one made by Mattel” always come up during a conversation with old vets. A patient some years back always wore a Viet vet hat (his file showed a birthday in 1957) and hated the “jamamatic” M16 because the bullet was designed to tumble in flight and would rise for a couple of hundred yards and then just drop to the ground. He insisted that his “team” had special M16s chambered for the .30-30 because it cut the brush better when they went “up country”. Recently, I visited with a pair of young specialists just back from the “sandbox” who thoroughly despised the M4. A friend was shooting his Garand and allowed them to shoot it a couple of times. They pronounced it superior in every way to the M4 and indicated that we would be better armed with it than the new mouse guns. They shot my AR15 a couple of times and had difficulty in removing the magazine or releasing the safety. REMFs who couldn't shoot shit but had strong opinions about M16s.

Apparently, there were a couple of actual and major shortcomings in the release of the M16. The first and foremost was the lack of training of soldiers issued the rifle. Many were told the rifles were self-cleaning and in fact the early rifles were issued without cleaning equipment. While many servicemen in Vietnam were highly trained and professional warriors, one must admit that overall our troops at that time were the most poorly motivated, least dedicated and inconsistently lead soldiers we have ever sent to war.

The change from the IMR powder the 5.56mm was designed for to the ball powder was a significant factor that was exacerbated by shoddy manufacturing from Colt. Colt was overloaded in the demand to produce rifles and push back by the unions caused significant quality control problems, most notably improper chamber dimensions. This combined with the increased fouling and cyclic rate caused the rifles to fail. The chrome plating was credited in improving function but it is often missed that the changed in chamber dimensions took place at the same time.

Notably, the rifles manufactured by Armalite did not suffer these problems.

Modern AR15/M16 are remarkably effective and efficient rifles that preform as well as or better than anything else out there.

In closing, it is expected when the new G150 20 watt pulsed plasma rail gun is released the it will be criticized because it takes too long to charge...

Byron