I think chiver's book is mostly pop history.

In 1964, the Army was informed that DuPont could not mass-produce the IMR 4475 stick powder to the specifications demanded by the M16. Therefore, Olin Mathieson Company provided a high-performance ball propellant. While the Olin WC 846 powder achieved the desired 3,300 ft (1,000 m) per second muzzle velocity, it produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the M16s action (unless the rifle was cleaned well and often).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Adoption

In 1970, the new WC 844 powder was introduced to reduce fouling.

In October 1967, the Ichord Subcommittee released its 51-page report on the M16's troubles in Vietnam. The Army and Department of Defense (DOD) were faulted on a total of 31 points. The switch-over from IMR to Ball powder was the focus for much of the criticism.

"The change from IMR extruded powder to ball propellant in 1964...was not justified or supported by test data."

"...the sole-source position enjoyed by Olin Mathiseon on ball propellants for many years and their close relationship with the Army may have influenced the decision-makers."

"The failure on the part of (Army) officials... to correct the deficiencies of the 5.56mm ammunition bordered on criminal negligence."

http://web.archive.org/web/20160101074134/http://www.thegunzone.com/556prop.html

The tide began to shift toward Ball powders in the '50s; indeed, in April 1954, the Chief of Ordnance wanted every small arms cartridge to be loaded with it. Declared "the greatest development in the field of explosives in nearly 100 years" by W.H.B. Smith

Ball powder is faster, it's more efficient to make, it stores better and longer.

What would take two weeks (originally it took 6 months) with non-ball powder can take 2 days with ball powder.

Ball powder is safer to make.

Making ammunition with ball powder is easier and cheaper.

ArmaLite developed 5.56mm nato with "IMR 4198, IMR 3031, and an unnamed Olin Ball propellant"

When the frankford arsenal started manufacturing 5.56mm nato they initially made it with IMR 4475, the same powder used manufacturing 7.62mm nato ammo, but they found that 4475 5.56mm nato didn't reliably reach the 3,250fps needed to meet the helmet penetration requirements.

The military held fast on the 3,250 requirement, but also wouldn't accept an increase in chamber pressure. Remington, winchester, and federal refused to bid to manufacture ammo to those specs.

The pressure requirement was 52,000 psi, the manufacturers wanted 53,000 or 54,000.

In late 1963, remington asked for permission to change from IMR 4475 to Olin WC846 and got it.

The military needed 149 million rounds, and IMR 4475.

The alternatives were WC846 and the rod dupont CR 8136, they used WC846 which caused an increase in the cyclic rate (rate of fire), but the Air Force simply changed the cyclic rate spec to fit, and the army signed a series of waivers. Remington was owned by dupont, and chose CR 8136. When the army started receiving lots with CR 8136 they stopped issuing waivers allowing WC846 powder. Unfortunately, CR8136, like 4475 fluctuated too much from lot to lot.

Acceptance testing, though, was completed with CR8136 ammunition.

Production switched to dupont ex 8208-4.

Between '65 and '66 5.56mm nato was delivered to troops in vietnam at a 9:1 ratio with CR 8136 in the minority and WC846 in the majority

Colt's analysis of the WC846 pressure was that, if anything, it would improve rifle performance.

The fouling problem with WC846 was with the calcium carbonate content, an additive that reduces the acidity of the ammunition, and different lots would have different amounts.

I'm very much interested in hearing a separate evaluation of Chivers's argument in general. He is obviously fiercely critical of to initial rollout and introduction of the M16, but how valid are those criticisms?

One of the biggest problems was that when the M-16 was issued, it was advertised as "a self-cleaning rifle." Now, anyone who has ever owned anything mechanical or with moving parts, knows that nothing is "self-cleaning." Not even ovens. But, given the fact that this was the 1960s, and the Second Industrial Revolution with materials such as plastic being introduced just a decade before, many GIs thought the rifle was new technology, and actually believed that it was self-cleaning. There was a saying, "You can tell its Mattel," in reference to the plastic toy company when GIs described their new rifle. Hence, many believed that it didn't need cleaning when clearly, and a Congressional committee found out later, that it did need cleaning. Even the AK-47 has to be cleaned once in a while. Additionally, Colt advertised that the rifle if easily to maintain, and it is. Of course, this depends on what you mean by "easy." As a result, the company didn't even issue cleaning kits or instructions on how to clean it. When, the M-16 was re-issued, it came with a comic book written by famous comic book writer Will Eisner to show GIs how to effectively use the M-16. Objectively, however, one has to realize that no weapon has ever performs 100% as advertised. Mainly, this is because, that being out in the field is drastically different than being tested in the factory or under "realistic" conditions.