Blue,
They only way that I know of that just WATER can be a problem is if the weapon is fired with the barrel full of water. That would be a real problem because the water would act as a serious barrel obstruction.
However, weapons that have been dropped into silt, mud, or sand under the water, or into water that has been roiled with mud, sand or silt, such as would happen in an amphibious landing, could definitely jam weapons.
As a rule of thumb, the more complicated a weapon is, and the closer the parts fit together, the more it is likely to jam because of foreign material intrusion.
All US weapons adopted since about the beginning of the twentieth century have been tested for such conditions before being accepted.
The bolt-action Springfield has fewer moving parts and, as far as I know, is not overly sensitive to foreign material intrusion.
The Garand and M14 were manufactured with a lot of "room" between moving parts and therefore can handle a lot of stuff in 'em and keep going. The M1911 .45 can deal with dirt pretty well. The M9 Baretta 9mm works in dirt and sand even better than the M1911.
I don't have any first-hand experience with the Stoner system (M16) as far as foreign material intrusion.
The Israelis bought a bunch of M16s from us back in the 60s and they had a lot to say about the M16s not getting along with desert sand. Their primary shoulder arm at that time was the Galil which is considered by many to function better in a sand environment than the M16.
|