Author: Badmoon

The M16A1 service rifle (Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16) is a lightweight, air-cooled, shoulder-fired weapon derived from the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle, intended for use by the U.S. military. It originally entered service in 1967 as an improvement over the M16 rifle, which was introduced in 1964 as the XM16E1. It was chambered in 5.56×45mm NATO and could fire with one shot per trigger pull or in fully automatic mode by means of a three-position selector lever.

World War I to Vietnam: The Genesis of the M16A1

The M16A1 instituted a few significant changes over the M16. The changes included a forward-assist, chrome-lined chamber and bore, and an improved flash hider. Most importantly, a regimen for weapon maintenance was developed that had been lacking at the time. However, the Black Rifle needed to overcome many hurdles to get to the top spot over 55 years ago. To understand the story of the M16A1, you have to go back to the end of World War 1, believe it or not. The U.S. Army Ordnance Department began conducting tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1928.

The board recommended that all branches of service should transition to a smaller caliber round than the standard .30 caliber of the time. Combat lethality, weight of the individual cartridge, and a higher rate of fire with less recoil were all cited as reasons for the shift. A 6.8mm or .27 caliber was recommended and subsequently ignored as the Army wanted to stay with the “tried and true” .30 caliber. About 20 years later, after the Second World War, the U.S. military began looking for one sole automatic rifle to replace their current arsenal. However, there was no “One” answer. The M1 Garand proved disastrous in select fire, for example.

The Search for a Replacement

During the Korean Conflict, select-fire M2 carbines replaced the M1A1 Thompson and M3 Grease Gun. However, the .30 carbine round used by these weapons proved to be severely under-powered. The Ordnance Board again concluded that an intermediate-sized round was needed in the form of a small-caliber, high-velocity cartridge. They wanted it bigger than the pistol-inspired rounds such as .30 Carbine, but heavy–like the 45 ACP. Others asked for a round that was shorter and lighter than the .30-06 chambering of the M1 Garand.

Unfortunately, General Grade officers who were veterans of World War II and/or Korea still insisted on developing a powerful .30 caliber round. They wanted this round to see dual use in the development of rifle and belt-fed machine guns at the time. This led to the design of the 7.62×51 mm NATO cartridge.

The U.S. Army solicited different rifles for testing in order to replace the M1 in .30-06 Springfield. The Springfield Armory submitted the T44E4 and heavier T44E5. These were updated versions of the M1 Garand chambered in 7.62×51 mm NATO. Fabrique Nationale (FN) submitted the company’s FN FAL as the T48. A relatively new aerospace company called ArmaLite submitted several prototype rifles known as the AR-10 in late 1956.

Armalite’s AR-10 may have been the most radical of the group. These high-tech rifles had a very unique yet innovative design. They were built on aluminum alloy receivers, and were fitted with synthetic stocks and hand guards. The AR-10 had a rugged set of elevated sights and boasted an adjustable gas system.

The upper and lower receivers of the final prototype had a front hinge and rear take-down pin. The charging handle was mounted on the top of the upper receiver within the body of the carry handle, which also functioned as the rear sight’s tower.

Due to the use of aluminum receivers and plastic furniture, the AR-10 was an incredibly lightweight rifle, even when chambered in 7.62X51mm NATO. The AR-10 tipped the scale at a mere 6.85 lbs. The men who conducted testing found it to be the “best lightweight automatic rifle ever tested by Springfield Armory.” The Army ultimately chose the Springfield T44, a marginally retooled M1 Garand that accepted a 20-round detachable magazine over the Em-Bloc “clips” and had select fire capability. It entered service as the M14 and its first real look at combat was in the early days of the Vietnam Conflict.

Accounts from the front lines claimed the M14 was impossible to control in full-auto fire. Additionally, the weight of the ammo meant that troops were unable to carry sufficient combat loads to gain fire superiority. Especially when the enemy were armed with either SKS or AK-47 rifles that used shorter and lighter .30 caliber rounds (7.62X39). Although some troops were armed with M2 carbines with a lighter round and had a much more controllable and higher rate of fire, that gun was severely under-powered.

Big Army finally conceded that another rifle featuring an intermediate cartridge was needed. Something like what may have been proposed in 1928, for example.

Enter the M16

The Army found itself reevaluating a 1957 request submitted by the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). They wanted to design a select-fire rifle weighing chambered in the new round based on the .222 Remington Bench Rest cartridge.

Engineers at Remington lengthened the case of the .222 Remington by 2 mm. This aimed to produce ballistics closer to the longer and more potent .222 Remington Magnum.

The projectiles were intended to tumble when contacting a soft target like a human body instead of passing straight through like the .30 Carbine. Some of these supersonic projectiles fragmented and caused huge wound channels. These projectiles were so light that they allowed the rifle to be controllable in full auto fire with a cyclic rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute. The result was the .223 Remington (in civilian parlance) and the 5.56mm NATO designation given the round once it was adopted by the military.

This rifle was a smaller version of the Armalite AR-10 and used a similar gas system. It weighed 6 lbs. with a full 20-round magazine. The lighter weight of these rounds allowed the troops to carry more ammunition and have a higher sustained rate of fire in the field. It was dubbed the Armalite AR-15, and its inventor, Eugene Stoner, had unveiled it to the Army at a demonstration at Fort Benning, Georgia, in May of 1957.

The following year, the Army’s Combat Developments Experimentation Command ran war games by arming squads of soldiers with the issued M14 and the AR-15. This testing resulted in the command recommending the adoption of a lighter-weight, smaller-caliber rifle over the M14.

Once again, ignoring this test, the Powers That Be declared that all service rifles and machine guns had to use the same ammunition and ordered full production of the M14.

Despite that, advocates for the AR-15 courted Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay. After conducting similar testing to what the Army did, the U.S. Air Force adopted the AR-15 as its service rifle and ordered 8,500 rifles with 8.5 million rounds of ammunition. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) subsequently acquired 1,000 AR-15s and shipped them to be tested by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN).

Early Adoption and Controversy

South Vietnam released extremely positive reports of the AR-15’s reliability in the field. The Vietnamese report revealed that the rifle suffered no broken parts after firing 80,000 rounds in one stage. Only two replacement parts were required for the evaluation of 1,000 weapons. The report came with the strongest recommendation that the United States should provide the AR-15 as the standard rifle of the ARVN. However, Admiral Harry Felt, Commander in Chief of Pacific Forces, rejected this after hearing the advice and counsel of the U.S. Army.

In 1962 and 1963, the military extensively tested the AR-15. The rifle was praised for its lightness and reliability. On the other hand, Army Materiel Command criticized its inaccuracy at long ranges and its lack of penetration at these ranges.

The U.S. Army’s Special Forces asked and were permitted to make the AR-15 their standard weapon. Requests from Army units such as the 101’st Airborne and clandestine units affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency quickly followed.

At this time, Lieutenant Roy Boehm, who was developing the U.S. Navy SEALs at the time, was subjected to a Board of Inquiry over buying AR-15s over the counter instead of going through the Navy’s Bureau of Weapons. However, the investigation was closed after Boehm received authorization from President John F Kennedy after the president witnessed the rifle performing in a demonstration by the SEALs during a visit to their facility in Little Creek, Virginia.

More units began adopting the AR-15, prompting Army Secretary Cyrus Vance to investigate why the Army initially rejected it. It turned out that the Army Material Command rigged the earlier testing by using match-grade M14s while the AR-15s were standard off-the-shelf types.

By January 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara determined and stated that the AR-15 was the best current choice as a weapon system and immediately ceased the M14 production and closed the Springfield Armory. The Department of Defense started mass procurement of AR-15 rifles for the Air Force, special Army units, and the Navy SEALs. The U.S. Army Ordnance Department had permission to modify the design as needed. The first modification was the addition of a forward-assist mechanism to allow a troop to force a round into the chamber if it failed to load properly.

Of course, the U.S. Air Force and the US Marine Corps objected to this addition, with the Air Force noting there was no record of malfunctions that the use of the forward assist could have corrected. Additionally, it was noted that the forward assist added weight and complexity to the manual of arms, which had the potential to reduce the AR-15’s reliability. The Air Force, Colt’s Manufacturing, and Stoner himself objected to it on multiple grounds, including the expense of retooling.

Colonel Harold Yount, who managed the Army procurement, later stated that the addition of the forward assist came as a directive by senior leadership and not from any test or complaint in the field. Yount testified: “The M-1, the M-14, and the carbine had always had something for the soldier to push on; maybe this would be a comforting feeling to [them] or something.”

After adding the forward assist and relocating the charging handle to the rear of the receiver instead of within the carry handle, the redesigned AR-15 was initially adopted as the XM16E1. The Air Force version lacked the forward assist and was adopted as the M16.

However, this rifle, already swirled in controversy, was about to have some teething problems in combat.

When the M16 Faltered

The small changes to the AR-15 did not include one feature critical to operating in a humid environment: A chrome-lined bore. Compounding this was a lack of an adequate cleaning kit for a smaller bored weapon than the .30 caliber weapons previously in inventory.

This led to a misconception due to advertising by the manufacturer, Colt’s Manufacturing. Colt boasted that the modern materials (aluminum and plastic) used in the rifle’s construction required little maintenance. This was somehow interpreted as the rifle being “self-cleaning.” Most cleaning used the wrong fluids, from water to mosquito repellent to aviation fuel, leading to further wear on the rifle.

Adding to this was an issue with ammunition. In 1964, DuPont announced that it could no longer produce the IMR 4475 rod powder according to the specifications provided by the Army. Competitor Olin Mathieson Company said its WC 846 high-performance ball powder could achieve the 3300 feet per second muzzle velocity. Yet this powder produced much more fouling, which induced stoppages in the rifle’s action when not properly maintained.

The most severe stoppage reported by troops was a failure to extract a spent case. There were documented accounts of dead troops holding disassembled M16s, which resulted in a Congressional investigation. Some troops claimed that the issued rifle contributed to more casualties than the enemy’s attacks.

Another, albeit less serious issue, was the rifle’s distinct three-prong flash hider that proved to be fragile and prone to becoming entangled in vegetation in a jungle environment.

The Not-So-Carriable Carry Handle

Perhaps the most unique feature of the M16A1 service rifle is the ubiquitous carry handle.  Yet one of the first things you were taught in the U.S. Military was to never carry the rifle by the handle. More importantly, it acts as a sight tower to hold the rear sight. This feature is largely absent on modern M16s and AR-15s and has been replaced by a Picatinny rail in most cases.

The carry handle was present on its predecessors to house the rear sight and protect the charging handle. On the M16A1, the rear sight is only adjustable for windage and can be adjusted by means of either a sight tool or a 5.56 NATO cartridge to hold down the detent and turn the wheel in whichever direction it is needed. Elevation adjustments are performed by raising or lowering the rifle’s front sight post.

For more accurate shooting, there is a groove in the top of the carry handle as well as a hole. This was intended for the ability to mount an optic, provided by Colt. The fixed power 3×20 telescopic sight included a bullet drop compensator, allowing the shooter to adjust between 100 and 500 yards. Other sights were available in later years, including the Trijicon ACOG and the ANPVS-4 night vision scope.

The rifle’s rear sight is a dual aperture flip-up sight shaped like the letter “L.” One is used for short-range out to 250 yards, and the other allows the shooter to range to 400 yards.

Lessons Learned

In order to eliminate issues with corrosion in the humid jungle environment of Vietnam and extraction of the spent cases, the bore and chamber of the M16 were lined with chrome. Additionally, a proper cleaning kit was issued with the rifle and a list of authorized cleaning agents and lubricants.

To its credit, the U.S. Military began intensive training programs for all troops. It went as far as to publish a cleaning and instruction manual in the form of a comic book, generously using illustrations in a storyboard format to educate the troops. Later versions of the rifle incorporated a compartment in the butt stock to store the cleaning kit. A raised section was incorporated around the magazine release, sometimes referred to as the “fence.” This was to prevent troops from accidentally hitting the magazine release while handling the rifle.

Lastly, the flash suppressor was replaced by a bird cage design that strengthened it, prevented it from catching on things, and decreased muzzle rise by acting in a sense like a compensator or a muzzle brake. These measures resolved issues with reliability, and the M16A1 emerged, leading to widespread acceptance by troops across all military branches. In 1969, the A1 officially replaced the M14 rifle as our nation’s standard service rifle, and in the following year, Olin introduced a cleaner burning propellant with its WC 844 powder.

Yet, the initial reports from troops in the field during the War’s early days continued to plague the entire M16/AR-15 platform. Although these issues largely disappeared with the introduction and adoption of the M16A1, the rumor mill continued to churn out misinformation about the rifle’s abilities that lasted into the 21st Century.

Despite these rumors, the M16A1 and its variants were manufactured by Colt, Harrington & Richardson, and GM’s Hydramatic Division until 1982.

Although superseded by the later M16A2 by the early 1990s, the M16A1 continued to see service by Reserve, National Guard Troops, and Law Enforcement Agencies well into the 2000s. For as many updates as the A2 and even later models received, a lot of troops preferred not only the simplicity of the M16A1 but the full auto mode over the restricted “3-round burst” mode and, of course, the smoother and crisper trigger of the A1 over the A2.

In many ways, it paralleled the idea of a classic car being phased out for more modern automobiles. It not only could be called the muscle car of the AR-15/M16 platform, it should be.

Or at least one of the muscle cars!

Molon Labe: the phrase dates back many centuries, but it’s been used more in any month (or week, or day) here in the United States than in all the years since the phrase was coined. Most simply put, Molon Labe means either “Come and take them,” or “Come and take it” depending on how the original Greek is interpreted.

Most of you reading this probably recall the following scene (you’ll need to scroll about 30 seconds in):

Just a fewer will recognize this one.

Molon Labe Pronunciation

“How is Molon Labe pronounced,” you ask? Glad you asked.

The correct pronunciation of Molon Labe is, at least according to everything we’ve seen in our research, mow–LAWN law-BAY.  You put the stress on the second syllable of both words. If you believe some of the self-proclaimed purists, the proper Greek way would have it pronounced mow-LAWN law-VAY.

Are either of those correct? Probably both. Maybe neither, at least not completely. See, we’re not Greek linguists. But we’ve been given to understand that the ancient pronunciation of β was the same as the english b, while the v/w sound came from ϝ/.  The latter, διγαμμον, is apparently a letter that eventually disappeared

That seems reasonable. Alphabets change, or never matched up to modern English in the first place. For instance, there weren’t any “U” letters in ancient Latin, they were all actually “Vs”. Anybody who watched the ending of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade can tell you that. But we digress.

Molon Labe Pronunciation (Video Explanation)

See also:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/sparta-history-molon-labe-origin-second-amendment.html

Molon labe 3/16/8.9k

Molon Labe meaning 4/4.4k/450

Molon Labe pronunciation 2/700/600

Molon Labe shirt 0/450/40

Molon labe t shirt 0/50/200

Molon Labe Tattoo 0/1.5k/400

Ballistics and effective range can be a tricky subject to get into, especially when you’re working with a caliber that isn’t as common as some. Luckily Faxon has covered and provided this nifty ballistic breakdown. Let’s dive into the effective range of 6.5 Creedmoor.

via the Faxon Firearms blog (which you should be reading if you’re not already). 

6.5 Creedmoor Effective Range

The maximum effective range of the 6.5 Creedmoor is roughly 1,200 yards, depending on ammunition, rifle platform, and the shooter’s ability to make precision hits at a distance. If you’re hunting with the 6.5 Creedmoor, the maximum effective range for an ethical kill is roughly 500 yards.

What is maximum effective range? 

 The effective range represents the furthest distance at which a firearm can accurately and reliably hit a target, maintaining sufficient kinetic energy for its intended purpose. For the 6.5 Creedmoor, achieving an effective range involves more than mere distance; it requires precision, power, and the ability to meet specific objectives, whether in hunting or competitive shooting.

Factors Influencing Effective Range

Barrel Length’s Impact: The length of the barrel directly influences the bullet’s velocity and stability. Longer barrels allow for a more complete burn of propellant, increasing the bullet’s velocity and potentially its range. However, shooters must balance these benefits against factors like maneuverability and overall rifle weight.

Kinetic Energy Considerations: Kinetic energy, crucial for determining the effective range, especially in hunting, depends on the bullet’s mass and velocity. The energy delivered at the target must be sufficient to achieve the desired outcome, making understanding and maximizing kinetic energy essential for extending the effective range.

External Ballistics and Its Effects: After a bullet exits the barrel, external factors such as wind, air pressure, and temperature influence its trajectory. Understanding how these elements affect the bullet’s path is vital for accurately estimating and adjusting for effective range.

Bullet Design and Its Influence: The 6.5 Creedmoor’s bullet design, particularly its ballistics coefficient, plays a significant role in its ability to maintain velocity over distance. Bullets with higher ballistics coefficients are more aerodynamically efficient, reducing air resistance and extending the effective range.

The Role of Kinetic Energy in Effective Range

Kinetic energy, fundamentally, is the energy a bullet carries as it moves towards its target. This energy is crucial in determining the effective range of the 6.5 Creedmoor, as it directly impacts the bullet’s ability to perform its intended task upon impact.

The formula for kinetic energy, ½ mv-squared, where m is the mass of the bullet and v is its velocity, highlights the significant role velocity plays in kinetic energy and, consequently, in effective range.

Kinetic Energy’s Impact on Terminal Performance

The terminal performance of a bullet—its effect on the target upon impact—is largely a function of its kinetic energy. 

High kinetic energy at the point of impact ensures that the bullet has sufficient force to penetrate and cause the desired level of damage, whether for hunting or ballistic performance. 

In hunting scenarios, for instance, a bullet must deliver enough kinetic energy to ensure a humane, ethical kill.

Kinetic Energy Across Distances

As a bullet travels, it loses velocity due to air resistance and decreases kinetic energy. 

The rate of this energy loss determines the effective range of the 6.5 Creedmoor. Bullets designed for long-range shooting, such as those commonly used in 6.5 Creedmoor cartridges, are engineered to retain as much kinetic energy as possible over longer distances. 

This retention capability extends the cartridge’s effective range, making it a preferred choice for long-range shooting disciplines.

The Significance of Bullet Design in Kinetic Energy Retention

Bullet design plays a pivotal role in kinetic energy retention. 

Factors such as the bullet’s shape, mass, and ballistic coefficient influence how efficiently it can maintain its velocity and, by extension, its kinetic energy over distance. Bullets with higher ballistic coefficients experience less drag and can therefore retain more kinetic energy at longer ranges.

Shooters aiming to maximize the effective range of their 6.5 Creedmoor must consider ammunition selection carefully. Choosing bullets with optimal designs for kinetic energy retention is crucial. 

Additionally, understanding the ballistic properties of different loads can help shooters make informed decisions that enhance their rifle’s performance across varying distances.

The Impact of Rifle Configuration on Effective Range

Rifle configuration plays a pivotal role in maximizing the effective range of the 6.5 Creedmoor. From the precision of the bolt action mechanism to the length and make of the barrel, each aspect of a rifle’s design directly impacts its accuracy, stability, and overall performance at long distances.

Bolt Action Rifles: Precision and Reliability

Bolt action rifles, known for their precision and reliability, are particularly well-suited for the 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge. The mechanism of a bolt action rifle ensures a tight lockup of the cartridge in the chamber, leading to consistent bullet velocity and trajectory. This consistency is crucial for long-range shooting, where even minor variations can significantly affect accuracy.

Barrel Considerations for Optimal Performance

The barrel is another critical factor in rifle configuration. Its length, twist rate, and material affect the bullet’s velocity and stability. A longer barrel generally allows for more complete powder burn, which can increase bullet velocity and, consequently, kinetic energy at the target.

• Barrel Length: The optimal barrel length for a 6.5 Creedmoor varies depending on the specific application but generally ranges from 20 to 26 inches for a balance of velocity and manageability.
• Twist Rate: The barrel’s twist rate must match the bullet’s weight and design to stabilize the bullet in flight. A 1:8 twist rate is commonly recommended for the 6.5 Creedmoor, accommodating a wide range of bullet weights with excellent stability.

An example: highlighting the Faxon FX7 Bolt Action Rifle

Among the top contenders for the best 6.5 Creedmoor rifles, especially for competition shooters, stands the Faxon FX7. 

This bolt-action rifle exemplifies precision engineering, offering shooters an unparalleled combination of accuracy, reliability, and performance. The Faxon FX7 is designed with a heavy, fluted barrel that not only aids in heat dissipation but also contributes to its exceptional accuracy over long distances. 

Its ergonomic design and customizable features make it a preferred choice for shooters looking to achieve top-tier performance in competitive settings.

To fully harness the capabilities of the 6.5 Creedmoor, shooters must consider their rifle’s configuration carefully. The Faxon FX7 bolt action rifle serves as an exemplary model of what to look for in a competition-grade firearm. 

Its superior design and construction cater to the demanding needs of precision shooters, making it a standout choice for those aiming to push the limits of their 6.5 Creedmoor’s effective range.

Real-World Applications and Limitations

Leveraging the 6.5 Creedmoor in Hunting

The 6.5 Creedmoor has revolutionized the hunting world with its exceptional accuracy, flat trajectory, and manageable recoil. 

Its versatility across a range of game sizes makes it a preferred choice for hunters seeking a cartridge that combines long-range precision with effective terminal performance. Whether targeting deer, elk, or smaller game, the 6.5 Creedmoor delivers the necessary kinetic energy and accuracy at distances beyond what traditional hunting calibers can achieve. 

However, hunters must understand the ethical considerations of ensuring a humane kill, which requires precise shot placement and understanding the cartridge’s limitations based on the game size and distance.

The 6.5 Creedmoor in Competitive Shooting

In the realm of competitive shooting, the 6.5 Creedmoor stands out for its exceptional ballistic coefficients and reduced wind drift. 

Its accuracy at long ranges makes it a dominant force in precision rifle competitions. Shooters appreciate the cartridge’s ability to maintain tight groupings at distances exceeding 1,000 yards, a testament to its design and performance. 

The 6.5 Creedmoor’s efficiency in recoil management also allows shooters to maintain sight picture and make quicker follow-up shots, a critical advantage in competition settings.

Limitations and Considerations

While the 6.5 Creedmoor excels in many aspects, understanding its limitations is crucial for effective application. 

One consideration is the choice of bullet weight and design, which must be matched to the specific task, whether hunting or target shooting, to optimize performance.

• Ammunition Availability and Cost: The popularity of the 6.5 Creedmoor has led to a wide variety of ammunition options, though costs can vary. Shooters should consider the availability and expense of high-quality ammunition, especially for specialized applications.
• Barrel Life: The high-velocity rounds of the 6.5 Creedmoor can lead to faster barrel wear compared to some other calibers. Regular maintenance and monitoring of barrel conditions are essential for maintaining accuracy over time.

Connect with Faxon Firearms on X, YouTube, and the ‘gramz.

6.5 Creedmoor Additional Reading

Looking to learn more? Check out these links. 

• 6.5CM according to the Journal of Mountain Hunting
• 6.5 Creed max distance discussed on Snipers Hide
• All about the 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge on Wikipedia

BAD MOON BLOG – 6.5 CM Effective Range

The chair is against the wall… The chair is against the door… John has a long mustache… Wound my heart with monotonous languor… These are phrases taken from scenes in a couple of movies, one actually a sort of homage to the other. Most of you reading this have heard all the Wolverine Red Dawn quotes, but there’s more to it.

It’s 11:59 on Radio Free America; this is Uncle Sam, with music and the truth until dawn. Right now, I’ve got a few words for some of our brothers and sisters in the occupied zone. The chair is against the wall. The chair is against the wall. John has a long mustache. John has a long mustache. It’s twelve o’clock, American, another day closer to victory. And for all of you out there, on or behind the line, this is your song.”

It’s similar to “Radio London” (Radio Londres), which broadcast through most of WWII from England into Nazi-occupied France. Operated by the Free French in conjunction with the BBC, it served to counter Axis propaganda and also to pass along coded instructions to members of the Resistance, the OSS, and others involved in fighting against the occupation.

These morale patches, which originally engendered this article back in 2012, are from Orca Industries and are available on Amazon.

This article was originally published in November of 2012.

Red Dawn Wolverines

The chair is against the wall.

Red Dawn taught us about John’s mustache and where the chair is leaning, but have you heard this one?

Molasses tomorrow will bring forth cognac.

It’s from this scene from The Longest Day. You see, the Red Dawn Wolverines weren’t the first to use such code words.

John has a long mustache.

There are other versions of this genre of morale patches, too.

The chair is against the wall!

To date, we have yet to find a wound my heart with monotonous languor morale patch. If we find one, we’ll let you know.

Ici Londres ! Les Français parlent aux Français…