Feasability, AHC, and WI: Congress Kills the XM16E1 in 1966-7?

Question 1: How feasable would it be for the XM16E1 project to be killed by congress in 1966 or 1967? Lets say it gets a lot more negative press, the problems with the different propellants is worse, or a combination of those and other factors makes the Ichord committee conclude that it's politically safer to kill off the program despite the expenses than to continue it.

Question 2: If it's not feasable given the above, with a POD of early 1965, what would it take for the program to be killed?

Question 3: In either case, assuming that it does get killed off, what happens? I assume the M-14 will be the interim weapon until something more appropriate can be cooked up.
 
Problem was, there was nothing else in the pipeline that could replace it

The SALVO program that was researching flechettes would lead nowhere.

The only other rifle the Army looked at after the M16 was the AR-18, the stamped version of the M16, and the Stoner 63. Neither had any real advantage over the M16
 
Problem was, there was nothing else in the pipeline that could replace it

The SALVO program that was researching flechettes would lead nowhere.

The only other rifle the Army looked at after the M16 was the AR-18, the stamped version of the M16, and the Stoner 63. Neither had any real advantage over the M16

Yeah, I was thinking one of those two eventually.
 
The only other rifle the Army looked at after the M16 was the AR-18, the stamped version of the M16, and the Stoner 63. Neither had any real advantage over the M16
Aha!
OK, thanks. I had no clue, none at all, what the OP was talking about. With the 'different propellants' line, he had me thinking of rockets.
 
Problem was, there was nothing else in the pipeline that could replace it

The SALVO program that was researching flechettes would lead nowhere.

The only other rifle the Army looked at after the M16 was the AR-18, the stamped version of the M16, and the Stoner 63. Neither had any real advantage over the M16

So the answer to the OP question is: continued use of the M14. Eventually there would be improvement programs for that weapon, or another try at a smaller caliber 'assault rifle'.
 
So the answer to the OP question is: continued use of the M14. Eventually there would be improvement programs for that weapon, or another try at a smaller caliber 'assault rifle'.

Nah, the M14 program had too much trouble attached, the poor QC from H&R didn't help, as the theory that M1 tooling could be repurposed proved to be false.

I think the DoD would force the Army to bite the bullet and use the T48, aka the FAL, that narrowly lost out to the M14, since the last two rifles that Springfield Armory approved, failed.
 
Oh, eventually the FAL or something else could be adopted, but I think the M14 could carry on into the 1970s. In 1975 I remember the Marines of the 1st FSSG bringing M14s to the rifle range. Was told the air wings still issued it to their personnel.
 
Oh, eventually the FAL or something else could be adopted, but I think the M14 could carry on into the 1970s. In 1975 I remember the Marines of the 1st FSSG bringing M14s to the rifle range. Was told the air wings still issued it to their personnel.

That's part of the reason the M16 was adopted so quickly. Only 1.4 million M14 were made. Colt had made over 2M by time of this TL aborting them, and there were around 2.5 million in Active duty.
There just aren't enough M14s to go around
 
Top