Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b:
The biggest problem with the Stoner 63 system was one that seems to have plagued several Stoner designs -- intolerance to dirt, wear, and tear. Eugene Stoner designed weapons that were highly-accurate, light in weight, and didn't kick much, but they also used very close tolerances that meant just a little dirt could gum up the works, and he tended to design his weapons for specific types of propellants (he preferred IMR's line of propellants in particular). Knock something out of line through even normal use, and the weapon could just stop working. (In my experience, for example, the most common problems with the M-16 are related to feed failures or extraction failures -- that tiny little extractor spring had a nasty tendency to stick and not kick the spent case out, and the older magazines wore out pretty fast, especially the feed lips.)
In short, Eugene Stoner designed excellent rifles -- but they are simply not soldier-proof. The M-16 never should never have been issued beyond the Air Force Security Police for which it was designed; an even better use would be a civilian target rifle or varmint hunting rifle. (I know it's a controversial opinion to many, but that's what I think.) The Stoner 63 system was well liked by the SEALs, and it was a better weapon than the M-16, but it still had problems with dirt -- it's saving grace was actually the SEALs themselves, who made a virtual religion of weapon maintenance.
Hmm I never had any problem's with my M-16.