MovieChat Forums > Platoon (1987) Discussion > 15 round magazines

15 round magazines

posted 9 years ago by bubblenator
19 replies | jump to latest

Just a basic question for when the M16A1 was given to troops as their MBR replacement for the M14 in the Vietnam War.

As the M16A1 has a safe, semi or auto action why were they only issued the short 15 round magazines it seems? As stories go inexperienced troops would fire on full auto and have a empty magazine in 2-3 seconds. So why only the 15 round magazines and when were they changed for the US Army and Marines to th e30 round magazine?

Thanks!

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

[–] bravomailer 9 years ago

First, the M-16 replaced the M-14. The M-16A1 came ca 1968. The difference is the "forward assist" device on the latter which pushed partially jammed rounds into the chamber.

Second, the smaller magazine was designed to hold 20 rounds, not 15.

Third, not everyone in an infantry platoon was "authorized" to fire on full automatic. I believe it was only 2 per squad. The other 8 were trained to fire on semi which delivers more accurate fire. Inexperienced troops who fired on auto without authorization would be swiftly reprimanded as it reduced the overall effectiveness of the unit's firepower.

Not sure, but the bigger "banana" mags might have been more prone to jamming as the spring inside that pushes up the new round weakened. This was a problem with the 20-rd mags and soldiers were instructed to put only 17 or 18 rounds to reduce wear on the mag spring.

Hollywood thinks banana mags look cool, but they were not nearly as common in VN as movies suggest. They were more for special forces guys.

[–] ncdwbmk6 9 years ago

I was in the Army in the mid 70's, and we used the M16A1. For range practice we normally used semi, but we were trained to use the auto setting and fire three-round bursts, which is accurate and more effective in combat than single shots.

---
Choocheechoo choocheechoo choocheechoo ya ya pow!

[–] kenpowolf 9 years ago

You're full of crap. Any who has actually fired a weapon in real life can tell you that automatic fire greatly reduces your accuracy.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bubblenator 9 years ago

You're full of crap. Any who has actually fired a weapon in real life can tell you that automatic fire greatly reduces your accuracy.

I pretty sure that ncdwbmk6 was talking about the latter that being the "three round burst" is more "accurate and more effective in combat than single shots" not firing on fully auto. After experiences in Vietnam both the USMC and U.S. Army in the 80s concluded that three-shot groups provide an optimum combination of ammunition conservation, accuracy, and firepower thus you have the M16A2.

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

[–] jelperman 9 years ago

Accuracy isn't always important. Covering fire is one example.

[–] movies789 8 years ago

In the 1st Cavalry Division in 1969, we carried "20"-round magazines, never 30s. I use quotes around 20 because it wasn't really designed to hold 20 rounds and function. Sure, you could pack 20 rounds into one (just barely), but you couldn't chamber a round from a packed-full magazine. Even 19 rounds was iffy; 17 or 18 was more like it if you wanted to be able to begin firing with any degree of certainty.

No one was ever designated as authorized to fire on automatic, or as being limited to firing on semi-auto. It was never even discussed, let alone mandated. It was simply left to each soldier's discretion, without ever being an issue of any sort. As for which a soldier would select, I can tell you that generally M-16s were set to automatic fire. If you suddenly found yourself being ambushed, generally through heavy foliage through which you couldn't even see the people who were firing at you, believe me - you wanted to start right out putting out massive firepower, and that meant on automatic. On those rare occasions when you could see your enemy, you could fire in short bursts or semi-auto, assuming you had the presence of mind and self-discipline to do so, what with being terrified right out of your Buster Browns and all.

As for being caught firing on auto against policy, that could never happen - even if such a policy were in place (which it never was). In a firefight, the volume of fire became so great that, at its greatest intensity, you couldn't even discern individual shots; it became a wall of continuous, thunderous sound. An officer or NCO would have been too preoccupied with firing his own weapon to be able to monitor who was on semi-auto versus on auto.

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

From what I gathered from reading John Plaster's 'SOG' memoirs, He (on the sharpy sharpest end of the spear imaginable) had to mail order 30 round magazines from a rifle periodical from the US--he even had to pool his money with all the other 'One-Zeros' in his recon company so each one had 1(one) 30 round mag in their basic load.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] MaximRecoil 8 years ago

Sure, you could pack 20 rounds into one (just barely), but you couldn't chamber a round from a packed-full magazine. Even 19 rounds was iffy; 17 or 18 was more like it if you wanted to be able to begin firing with any degree of certainty.

I currently have an old Colt/USGI 20-round magazine, and I had another one in the past; old-style aluminum follower in both cases. I've never had any problems loading 20 rounds, nor chambering a round, and I've never had any malfunctions when using either magazine (no malfunctions at all, ever, for that matter). The first magazine of that type I had came with a Colt AR-15 SP1 (manufactured in the early '70s) that I bought in the early '90s when I was 18. The one I have now I bought for use with my current AR-15 (I no longer have the SP1), which I built from an unissued 1970s USGI Colt M16A1.

So I've never encountered that problem with two different AR-15s and lots of different USGI 20-round magazines (2 of them being vintage), but here is a thread about it:

https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=17&t=490210

You may have had a weak buffer spring in your M16.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] movies789 8 years ago

"You may have had a weak buffer spring in your M16."

Well, they were how they were, and that's how they functioned. (And many of the posts in the link you gave bear that out.)

But, hey - if M16s and their magazines have improved in the past 50 years, that's fine by me.

[–] MaximRecoil 8 years ago

I don't think anything has improved in that respect. Regardless of what some people say on that thread I linked to, spring technology has been plenty mature for ages. If not, old guns would never have worked in the first place, because all of them depend on springs, even muskets from hundreds of years ago.

I know that the two vintage Colt/USGI magazine I have/had are/were the same design as those used in Vietnam in the late '60s (the vintage Colt one I have now was made between 1966 and 1971, based on the markings on the floorplate and the aluminum follower [newer ones have plastic followers]), and both of the rifles I mentioned are Vietnam-era designs as well (here's a picture of my current rifle - https://i.imgur.com/YGHgB68.jpg). So that makes me think that some rifles issued in Vietnam had a weak buffer spring or some other defect which caused that problem.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] movies789 8 years ago

Well, there must have been weak buffer springs a'plenty, then, because 17 to 18 rounds max per magazine was the universal standard while I was there (unless you were prepared to begin every magazine by pounding the first round or two into the chamber with the bolt-assist).

Then again, I was just an infantryman, not a Colt rep or a gunsmith, so I suppose I could be wrong about what our experiences were.

[–] MaximRecoil 8 years ago

Well, there must have been weak buffer springs a'plenty, then, because 17 to 18 rounds max per magazine was the universal standard while I was there (unless you were prepared to begin every magazine by pounding the first round or two into the chamber with the bolt-assist).

I think it was probably more of a case of some people having problems which led to a rule of thumb to only load 18 just to be on the safe side. That rule of thumb not only pertains to difficult chambering of the first round, but also, there are many people who believe that a fully-loaded magazine isn't as reliable as one that's downloaded by 2 rounds, so even if they don't have problems with a fully-loaded magazine, they still download their magazines (including 30-rounders) for their own peace of mind. There are plenty of people who still do that today.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] Dijjmann 8 years ago

That's an excellent looking build you did there. What lower did you use? Or was that from old stock as well? I would love to get an sp-1. I've always have like the triangle hand guards and over all look of the sp-1/m-16a1. Thanks for sharing the pic.

[–] MaximRecoil 8 years ago

The lower receiver is a NoDak Spud NDS-16A1, which is a semi-auto-only A1-style lower receiver (machined from 7075 T6 aluminum forgings) with an "XM gray" anodized finish intended to match the finish on vintage (pre-A2) Colt AR-15/M16s (and it is indeed a very good match, as you can see from the picture I posted). The quality of the machining, fit, and finish is excellent. I have no complaints whatsoever.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] MightyTiki 8 years ago

The 30-round magazine was issued around ~1969-1970 but in limited numbers for Special Operations Forces (Special Forces, SEALs, Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, etc.).

The U.S. military would not adopt the 30-round magazine until after the Vietnam War.

"Toto, I've [got] a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

Funny story: Per John Plaster (SOG Vet) he had to take up a collection from other SOG comrades & mail order a bunch of 30 round mags direct from the maker.
And yeah, he also griped that 'office pogues' & 'keyboard commandos' in the rear echelon, all could have 30 round mags for their CAR-15s.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] nakedgirl 8 years ago

No wonder we lost

[–] runit73 8 years ago

The military did not lose. They were pulled out after a peace treaty was signed with North Vietnam. America lost because the US Government did not support South Vietnam enough after the US military left.