M4 Failure makes headlines

[usnavdoc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_weapons_failures;_ylt=AgRhslqbcrHiLcRt4xArZyDBF4l4;_ylu=X3oDMTMyOXNoZDRvBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDExL3VzX2FmZ2hhbmlzdGFuX3dlYXBvbnNfZmFpbHVyZXMEY3BvcwM1BHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDd2VhcG9uc2ZhaWxl

I found it interesting that this topic has now made the headlines. Wonder if it will help spur the Military/govt into action.

[longcall911]

It's so hard to believe that we don't have weapons in the battlefield that are up to the task. In the article one soldier states that 1/2 hour into a firefight his M4 barrel had turned white hot, then refused to fire.

I'm not sure the M4 is all that well positioned against the AK47, but I'm no pro. It may be fine for the house calls in Baghdad, but we need major fire power in the mountains.

/*tom*/

[LateNightFlight]

From the article: "U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle."

I wonder what they're replacing the M4s with. I wish the article would have elaborated.

[Slamfire]

From Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_weapons_failures;_ylt=AgRhslqbcrHiLcRt4xArZyDBF4l4;_ylu=X3oDMTMyOXNoZDRvBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDExL3VzX2FmZ2hhbmlzdGFuX3dlYXBvbnNfZmFpbHVyZXMEY3BvcwM1BHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDd2VhcG9uc2ZhaWxl

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.

Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

I don't shoot 360 rounds in under 30 minutes. So I don't know how many rounds and at what rate it takes to over heat a M4 type weapon. I do know that on the rebuild line at Anniston Army Depot, a M16 (maybe M4) is fired full auto for 6000 rounds during lot testing. I have been told by a guy who worked there that they shoot 6000 rounds as fast as possible, (full auto) and blow compressed air through the barrel during the magazine change. Evidentally that compressed air removes enough of the heat so the weapon is not over heated.

The worker also said he could not remember a single time where the rebuilt M16 broke a part or did not finish the test.

That does not mean the M16 is not dust sensitive or maintenance heavy, but it does mean that it has a high degree of mechanical reliability.

If you fire any full automatic weapon long enough it will over heat. If these guys were firing till the barrels were white hot, their weapons were operating beyond their operating envelope.

You can't make thermodynamics go away.

Must have been one bad day for our troops.

[sc928porsche]

Soldiers have been complainging about the Mattel toy from the time they came out. No matter how you cut it, the rifle is just not rugged enough! It should have been replaced decades ago. What is needed is a tough, lighweight, auto capable rifle that is chambered is something like 7.62x51, that has enough power to do some heavy damage.

Perhaps they should think along the lines of titanium for the reciever to compensate for a little heavier barrel to help dissapate the heat. A mixture of maybe kevlar and carbon fiber for the stock might work, and something more along the design of the AK and with a little slower rate of fire to keep the heat down. Just a thought.

[Crosshair]

Fair warning: All my insight here is gathered second hand.

I've had mixed responses when I've asked servicemen about the M4 and M-16. many liked it. (With the universal, "as long as you keep it clean" cop-out.) Others cursed it's maintenance requirements because they had other work they needed to do besides going over their gun with a dental pick twice a day. Most mentioned that the AK needed to be cleaned often in that environment as well, but not nearly as often as an M-16 and the cleaning regiment was faster and easier.

Many said one major advantage was the ease of mounting optics and lights to their weapons vs the AK. In the US that isn't true as good AK optic mounts are readily available, but optics on AKs over there are rare.

The responses on the M-249 are more universal. Great when it works, but many have reliability problems, apparently clearing some jams is very time consuming. Part of the problem was that many were/are just worn out. The belts often get messed up, causing jams.

[Lashlarue]

The Israelis had M-16s in the 1967 war, which is why they commissioned the Galils.They have since switched back as the M-16s are supplied by the US for free.M-16s do not function as well as the AK47 in sandy or dusty environment.

[THEZACHARIAS]

Another issue (this strictly from a weather mans point of view), is that the hottest fighting in-country right now is occuring in the hottest part of the country (literally). Some of the valleys in eastern Afghanistan, not to mention the southern deserts, reach and remain well over 100 degrees for most of the day. Now given, this is still much cooler than a white hot M4 barrel, but on an air-cooled rifle, it isnt helpful and will exacerbate the problem more quickly. Then theres the issue of dust. The stuff is everywhere, and its not like the blowing sand you see in movie dust storms. A lot of the stuff is almost like powdered sugar in consistency, and it gets into absolutely everything. Dust in an action = added friction, and added friction = extra heat. Multiply that by about 400 or 500 rounds in a short period of time.... No bueno.

Ive personally put thousands of rounds through my duty weapon, but nothing that compares to the kind of shooting the article describes. The M4 was not designed for the kind of fighting being encountered, and these issues have been a recurring issue for decades with this family of firearms. Maybe its time to ask the Israelis to let us manufacturer the Tavor under contract in the states somewhere...

[vsgonzo]

M16 is a battle rifle to me in all aspects. I carried it for 8 years and trust it unlike many weapons ive fired. Thing is it is not a support fire weapon. I had three round burst but never used it except for ****s and giggles in a few fan fires. To me it os designed for well aimed single shots. Can it do wonders in full auto? Sure it can but your accuracy goes to waste to me. Now is the 249 a piece of junk?? To me it is, but it is a compromise to the 240g. For the weight savings and the true needs the m16 is hard to beat.
I do feel that SAW needs a replacement of heavy duty closed bolt full auto m16 variant. If we can the M2 reliable for the last 50yrs we can make a reliable closed bolt m16. Might weigh close to 25lbs but if u can feeding it and it last ill hump it.

Next is bullet size for me. I wish the 5.56 was a little larger but heck i can only imagine a the weight of a double combat load. I remember 6 mags on chest, 10 mags in day pack and 1 in magazine well. Thats 520rnds and if i went through that there better be a company of enemy soldiers. A normal Marine squad is 13 Marines and to me thats a lot of fire power down range. Times will get tough and squads will be pinned and i much have the more ammo than not having it.

Thinking of the white barrel comment. Ive seen weapons over heat in training when you are constantly feeding it but i cant imagine in a combat zone. Did these guys take cover? Did they have a barrel of loaded magazines? Ive done magazine dumps upwards of like 20 mags in a supported position. I couldnt grab the barrel with gloves on. The rifle still fired with out a hiccup.

I just hope that these fellow service members do get the finest equipment. I hope what they are taking into combat is the newest proven equipment. I do hope marine war fighting labs and other R&D components read this because like everything else there is room for improvement.

Semper fi
Gonzo

[lexington1]

I find the story somewhat suspect. The account of the soldier firing until the barrel turned 'white' from the heat is just bs. I have fired M16's to the point that the would get hot enough to fry your fingers if you touched them, but 'white hot'?.

This story sounds to me like an attempt to distract attention of the attack and unfortunate loss of personel from poor leadership (read politics) to something else, and in this case that something is the supposed failure of the M4.

[kraigwy]

Sounds like a case of poor fire disiplan to me. Thats why the A2 came out with the 3 round burst.

I find it odd, that with all the bitching, 80% of the end users are happy with the M-4.

I dont care what you get, unless its water cooled, you just can expect a gun to fire all day without getting hot.

I've seen an RPD get so hot it blew up killing the gun crew. That is the reason so many autos fire from the open bolt.

I'm not a fan of the AKs, but do a search on U-tube, some guy caugt an AK on fire, it wasnt the gun, it was the way it was fired.

I remember a fire fight where the plt sgt was going behind the shooters slapping them in the head, yelling SIX ROUND BURST, SIX ROUND BURST,

The ones that listened kept shooting, the ones that didnt ended up with useless rifles.

Its not the guns, its the shooter and lack of disiplan. Notice the problem is not with the A2 but the M4. Why, because the A3 is limited to 3 round burst.

But the problem isnt gonna change, regardless of the firearm chosen, for the simple fact the army wont spend the time and resourses for proper training.

WE use SO's types as examples of what rifle works, but thats not a fair example. Yeah they can make Rifle X work, but we dont take into account that they have a lot more training. You give that same Rifle X to the average infantryman its gonna give you problems.

I'm a believer in fire power, but you dont have fire power if you burn up a gun.

I often wonder what would happen to our army if they put in, lets say 25 % of their PT time, in marksmanship training. Thank about it, what happenes to a guy who failes a PT test, Then look at the differance when a guy fails to qualify. You have PT every day, you qualify what, once - twice a year.

Some idiot wrote a manuel saying you need 9 rounds to zero, so some idiot commander draws 9 rounds per soldier to zero, then you shoot your 9 rounds and move, whether you are zeroed or not, to the pop up range (which teaches nothing) and you qualify or you dont, back to the Company clean your weapons thats it until next year or (six months depending on the unit).

Changing weapons will accomplish nothing unless you train soldiers. You dont want to put the time and resourses into training soldiers then give then the A2 that takes the thiniking out of the hands of the individual soldier, forcing fire disiplan.

[Dragon55]

why our boys and girls should not have the absolute very best that is available when stuck out somewhere like this.

The biggest problem I see with the situation described in the article is not that the weapons overheated but why in the heck they had to revert to 1945 style combat when we have multi zillion dollar aircraft sitting on the ground bristling with much better munitions than a soldier can carry.

Air support was obviously very lacking either because officer's on site didn't call it in or the rear didn't send it.

[troy_mclure]

id say improper fire control, and poor lubrication.

12 mags in 30 mins is just ridiculous, sounds like they were spray and praying with them. something its NOT designed for.

ive fired 1000's of rounds thru saws, with multiple barrel changes. the only problem i had was when i fired single burst a 12' belt of tracers. ended up buying that barrel, it got too hot and destroyed the bore.

[kraigwy]

Air support was obviously very lacking either because officer's on site didn't call it in or the rear didn't send it.

Its a differant world, we are stuck with a PC war intead of a winning war.

I'll not debate whether its right or wrong, thats not the topic, we are stuck with what we have, and that being pin point accuracy protecting civilians, that requires marksmanship not bombs. We're not talking Clausewitz, we are talking Liddell Hart.
__________________

[THEZACHARIAS]

On further rereading of this article, I want to know why they are reporting about something that happened more than a year ago. This article is in no way related to the most recent fighting, in which the reported upon error did not recur. I find myself curious how this is news... :confused:

They let out a report like this at least once a year. It happened in Vietnam, it happened in desert storm, in somalia, in Iraqi freedom multiple times, in Afghanistan, blah blah blah blah... I think the news media is digging for stories, and this one is an old (VERY old) standby.

[NSO_w/_SIG]

The weapon system isn't the problem here. The current M4 is more than capable. Some of you guys love taking this media spun story to bash the platform. Won't trust the liberal media about anything else but all of a sudden they agree with you on your rifle bias and they are dead on accurate. Pretty funny IMO.

[Dragon55]

A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

At this point air support was warranted.

You're right kraigwy this has morphed into a PC war with all the same issues that led us to losing in Vietnam.

And you are also right troy... you just can't get away from physics. But, I guess if they were getting overrun by 200 I can see how they might lose some fire discipline. I know I would.

[Slopemeno]

KraigWy speakum truth...

Seriously- this was an embarrasing episode and something/someone needed to take the blame.

And for what it's worth, I've done mag dumps at *least* that bad with an M-16 and yeah, it smoked some afterward, but it didn't miss a beat.

[Come and take it.]

A gun barrel and chamber overheating from firing a couple dozen magazines would not be unusual no matter what gun you had.


If our troops need an improved weapon, it should have some kind of thermal sleeve containing a liquid or gel of some type. Maybe even with a circulating pump and radiator.


modern warfare requires weapons that can fire high volumes of ammunition over extended periods of time from fixed positions. A fixed defensive fortification like the mentioned outpost is the perfect place for such weapons.

In WW1 Rommel demonstrated that water cooled machine guns could be used quite effectively in even fast paced infantry assaults despite their weight.

[Departed402]

I'm not going to write an essay in this forum, but if you want to look into what the US military has been doing to replace the M-16/M-4 get on google, type in "m16 replacement" and read your eyeballs out. I can say some of the more natable posible replacements are the XM8, the FN SCAR, the HK 416, and the Barrett REC7.

The HK416 and Barrett REC7 are basically the M-4 with minor adjustments, while the SCAR and XM8 are different all together.

[finfanatic]

I think the operative word was outnumbered.

I wonder how many weapons are tested with continuous full auto fire like that?

And I agree...this is looking more and more like another political fiasco like Vietnam.

[madmag]

-Under the same conditions and rate of fire does the M4 fail when an AK47 or other rifle would not fail.

-Soldiers are the end users and particular attention should be made when they complain about a weapon system. My experience is that normally GI's like to talk well about their weapons. So when they complain someone should listen.

-We all know the US cannot use AK47's, but that's more political than mechanical.

[Xanatos]

Is 12 mags in 30 minutes really considered that excessive? In ROTC at the end of every field training exercise, if we had extra munitions loaded in our magazines we'd have to unload them. The commander's preference? Shoot it out full auto so we can experience the kind of recoil we'd normally be dealing with.

Last year me and 4 others were charged with dumping the loaded mags of everyone in the "battalion" (in actuality it was only the size of a company). I dumped at least 20-25 mags by myself in far less than 30 minutes. Sure I had jams, FTF, and one NASTY FTE, but did the thing still go bang when I pulled the trigger? More than 95% of the time it did!

On the flip side, we were at Ft. Lewis so the temperatures were nowhere near as extreme (might've been high 60's) and the moisture in the air around here is enough to keep you hydrated.

[5whiskey]

The biggest problem I see with the situation described in the article is not that the weapons overheated but why in the heck they had to revert to 1945 style combat when we have multi zillion dollar aircraft sitting on the ground bristling with much better munitions than a soldier can carry.

This is a legitimate point/question/comment. I have served in eastern Afghanistan. Every time we needed support, it took at least 30 minutes for support to check on with us. It is a matter of logistics, and it's hard to keep enough birds in the air as a reactionary force. We definately need more troops there, if for no other reason but to secure several other strategic air fields. That's the true problem. I'd say 85% of the air support covering the country comes from one location. We need more air fields, troops to secure them, and air support wings. Personal opinion.

going over their gun with a dental pick twice a day.

This is a gross exaggeration. 10 minutes of weapons maintainence once or twice a day will keep it in serviceable condition.

you just can't get away from physics. But, I guess if they were getting overrun by 200 I can see how they might lose some fire discipline. I know I would.

This is an excellent point. When you're getting your tale handed to you it is very hard to control your fire... but you still have to do it. I've been there and it's scary as hell.




You have to take this news article at face value. There are alot of variables that would come into play that are not mentioned in the article. Was it a platoon sized element of American troops? Or a company sized? We know it's larger than a squad from the casualty report. How many crew serves did they have? Were they lacking in crew served weapons? If you have enough automatic weapons to cover all avenues of approach, why would you use M4s as suppressive weapons? Did they only have SAWs for their "crew served" or were any 240s or M2s present? What type of defensive barriers did the outpost have?

Until you answer these questions, you cannot automatically pin this travesty on the use and existance of the M4. You cannot take compact car and haul fertilizer with it. You cannot take a john boat and use it as a barge. You cannot take an assault rifle designed for point shooting and use it in the role of a crew served weapon for extended periods of time. It sounds like the true nature of this unit being "ill-equipped" may have been in not having enough automatic weapons and other crew serves, along with some other tactical mistakes.

You have to know the limits of your weapon system. The AK has it's limits as well (practical accuracy among other things), so don't look to it as the magical solution for all situations. Until an absolutely perfect in all ways assault rifle can be made, then it will be the responsibility of soldiers and commanders to prepare in a way that will mitigate the need to explore the extreme limits of a weapons practical use. That is all.

[mapsjanhere]

One point, why are we talking accuracy if not one in a 100 shots counts? Everyone reports firing several hundred rounds, but a notice of "the outpost was surrounded by hundreds of bodies" is suspiciously absent from the description. It sounds a lot like the defensive strategy was to saturate the air with lead and hope the cavalry shows up before the ammo runs out, or the weapons foul in this case.
The problems of the M-16 type with full auto have been known for a long time, but I doubt a different weapon system would have made a difference in this engagement. Unless everyone had a watercooled Maxim, they'd still be shooting with those.

[SPUSCG]

I see the m16 staying around. Theres a mentality of "it does the job so why replace it." I believe we need top of the line. Sure, an m16 is an okay rifle, nut why get OK when you can have top notch? Ive heard a universal complaint from soldiers I know though. Soem love the AR, some don't, they all hate the crap magazines they're issued.

[danweasel]

12-15 rounds per minute sustained fire. That is straight out of the FM 3-22.9 (I hope that's right) the army field manual for the M16 rifle. 30x15=450. 12x30=360. Seems to me that the weapon should have been able to handle it, by the book anyways. I have burned through 6-7 mags on burst/semi in about 5 minutes or less with no melted barrel so that kind of takes away the, maybe they were all fired at the end of the 30 minutes, theory. I have never had overheating problems. A lot of stoppages of course but not due to heat.

Not that I like the M16/M4. The M4 is cool for urban fighting of carrying in vehicles but it is a joke that we carry them in the Afgan mountains or wide open deserts. And yes, we need more marksmanship training. Would 10-20 times a year be too much? This IS the army after all.

[B. Lahey]

How is it a failure if a rifle gets hot after firing a pile of magazines? Every rifle on the planet has the same problem, it's the nature of gunpowder-burning projectile weapons.

Are we supposed to go to a water-cooled rifle or something?

[Crosshair]

This is a gross exaggeration. 10 minutes of weapons maintainence once or twice a day will keep it in serviceable condition.
I'm just going by what people told me. Some people had to do very little maintenance, some had to do much more. The dental pick was from one of the people who thought poorly of the M4.

[HiBC]

I can't source it,I forget where I read it,but in VN,there was a program to make kaboom rounds for small arms and salt them around for the enemy to find them.This was done very carefully to dovetail with a psyops program to spread rumours among the troops that their AK's and SKS's were of substandard quality,and their government just didn't care about them.
History repeats itself.In the very article in question,it said 90% of the troops were happy with their M-4's.

Having said that,I have a relative who has been involved in the SOCOM efforts.He picked my brain about some prototype options to help with a small team disengagement techique that was causing M-4's to heat fail.That little pencil barrel section under the handguard does get hot.If you shoot a basic load as fast as you can change magazines on the run and fire 30 round bursts,the barrel will fail.Is that the rifle's fault????
BTW,the 16 in HBAR was part of the answer..

Think about the physics and human limitations.A bigger round equals more weight equals fewer rounds carried.

A bigger round equal more heat per shot.Equal weapon weight,fewer rounds till meltdown.

A lighter weapon can take less heat,but you can carry more rounds.

I wonder how many rounds of sustained full auto fire a standard,non E-2 M-14 can deliver(and would any targets get hit)

How many of the guys carrying AK's have 360+ rounds?

Every machine,every tool has its limitations.As kraigwy pointed out,there are skills and diciplines to using an instrument.The M-4 can be used well,or poorly.And,even used well,war is hell.(I'm not dismissing the real and tragic experiences of those who were geuinely failed by their early M-16's)

William Blake wrote two interesting things back in the 1700's.

"All progress is illusion.Each solution brings new problems"

"All attempts at foolproofing are folly.The genius of the fool is infinite"

Many veterans have written here"My M-4 served me well"

If you are a veteran of 21st century experience who can point out genuine opportunities to improve the weapon our troops use,and how it is used,by all means,lets learn and improve.

But if there is some other agenda,maybe a psyops campaign to demoralize today's troops and citizens is ill advised.

Now,2 days ago I received a first hand account of what happened at FOB Keating in Afghanistan ,wheren 8 Ft Carson troops were killed.Out of respect for my source,and the written works of another man,I won't post the account.
But if you understand what was being said by Hal Moore and Mel Gibson,in "We Were Soldiers"...These are Soldiers,and it was a battle.
I think the folks,our family members and friends,on the ground,doing the job,should have the support of the politicians who sent them in harm's way.
I think,if a commander says" I urgently need:troops,or bullets,or air support,or whatever,regardless of the ideaology of the administration and whatever political agende is taking place
We ,including the politicians,owe them the support.

If directions will be changed midstream,whatever,but do not let the folks you ordered in to the river drown while you are trying to decide what to do.

Think about the score between the number of times a troop's weapon fails them,versus the number of times a troops homeland,including the troops politicials,popular culture,press,and citizens fail them.
QAnd don't forget them when they get home.

That M-4 takes better care of a good troop in the field than back home does.

God Bless them.

[NSO_w/_SIG]

HiBC, those operations that you speak about from VN was written in the 2 books by Major John L. Plaster. Where he talks about his days with the covert unit SOG (Studies and Operation Group)

[Chindo18Z]

Other than the fact that the report is dredged up "news" from last year's battle, I'll note...

1. Most current CF Infantry are issued M4s...not M4A1s. M4s are incapable of full auto fire (semi & 3-rd burst only). This would include the guys from 4ID during this month's latest border battle. No full auto rifle fire.

Like many, I've heated up an M249 SAW barrel until it looked like a red stove burner element or a light saber...barrel droop and rounds walking all over the place. I've never heated up an M16A1, M16A2, M4, or M4A1 until it was "white hot". The weapon would fail long before that in any case. So would an AKM. After 12 mags at near-cyclic, it's time to take a few seconds and dribble some oil onto the action.

I guarantee that none of the attackers during the most recent battle were carrying 12 mags for their AKs.

Fire discipline...it's still important.

2. The real question is why a reinforced US Platoon was positioned to secure low ground in a valley along the Pakistani Border Sanctuary ala "Defense of Duffer's Drift"?

IPB would indicate to any idiot that the enemy is capable of massing in battalion strength at will in this area. Some commander tethered a goat for the tiger and called it COIN. Nobody should get all butt-hurt when the tiger comes out and eats the goat. Stupid.

Those 4th Division guys were attacked at probably greater than the school approved solution of 5-1 odds, by a well disciplined force employing supporting fires, heavy weapons, good comms, and a well planned attack and withdrawal. Our guys had a lot of problems...but M4 performance wasn't one of them.

Our vastly outnumbered Infantry beat back theirs...successfully using M4s (among other weapons). Move along...Nothing to see here.

[kraigwy]

I wonder how many rounds of sustained full auto fire a standard,non E-2 M-14 can deliver(and would any targets get hit)

I picked up a bunch of M14 (service grade) to issue to Units so people could practice for our composite matches (using NM M14s) so they would get a bit of experence with the system.

A few showed up in the E-2 config. We took them to the range to play with, On full auto you would be lucking to get more then one round on an E-series Sil at 100 yards. Forearm got so hot you couldnt hold on to it. We tried shooting a Rattle Battle (Infantry trophy match) with them, that was a joke.

Ended up rebarreling then and issuing them as semi only rifles.

[LanceOregon]

I cannot believe that our military after over 40 years of experiencing these problems, is still using the M16/M4 design. There has got to be some corruption going on within our government, for so long to go by without our soldiers getting a better weapon. It just makes no sense.

Here is the complete news story about this, from NBC news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33267598/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/


--

[HiBC]

Myself,I would not bother to click the link on MSNBC news.

I think the M_4 serves our troops better than agenda driven pop news does.

I have far better sources.

[LateNightFlight]

Interesting info from an almost 1 year old article at ArmyTimes.com: "In late November of last year, ('07,) the weapon finished last in an Army reliability test against other carbines. The M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams by the other three competitors: the Heckler & Koch XM8; FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR; and the H&K 416." http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/army_carbineday_112308w/ (I did not see anything in this article referencing over-heating per se.)

There are a number of companies in contention, with the article even mentioning names like Bushmaster and Remington.

A contract to provide a new platform is a huge prize, IF that were to actually happen. I doubt there will be any hints from internal (Army) sources - not even the slightest leak - because some of the companies mentioned are publicly traded. Even Wall St. will be watching this closely.

[5whiskey]

2. The real question is why a reinforced US Platoon was positioned to secure low ground in a valley along the Pakistani Border Sanctuary ala "Defense of Duffer's Drift"?

I agree with this whole-heartedly. I don't know key details but if the situation was as you say it, well you described it well with the tiger and goat story.

Those 4th Division guys were attacked at probably greater than the school approved solution of 5-1 odds, by a well disciplined force employing supporting fires, heavy weapons, good comms, and a well planned attack and withdrawal. Our guys had a lot of problems...but M4 performance wasn't one of them.

Hehe... we won't report on the fact that one of our units did exceptionally well vastly outnumbered and with no support. Better to sensationalize that the perfect assualt rifle does not exist, but we should arm our boys with it no matter what damn it. The better story would be why the heck haven't we sent more boys so a reinforced platoon isn't doing the job better suited for a company with close support.

[azredhawk44]

The "real" truth?

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot.

That's about 60 or 65 people against 200+ insurgents.

200+ attackers can lay down superior suppressive fire than the defending position can respond with their own suppressive fire. The US forces responded by trying to out-suppress the attackers, since flanking maneuvers can't be done from a static defensive position when you're outnumbered.

Without prompt air or artillery support, that was doomed to be a high casualty battle for the US forces. Even with mythical water cooled lightweight 7.62x51 machine guns with infinite ammo supply that weighed a mere 3 pounds.

Pistol is for fighting your way to your rifle.
Rifle is for keeping attackers away from your artillery.
Artillery is for killing attacking ground forces.
No artillery? Big problem.

[Come and take it.]

The fact that a lot of companies are selling "m4" replicas to civilians without chrome plated parts and true mil-spec parts definitely adds to the negative feelings toward the AR platform. Keep in mind that the taxpayers will be the ones to pay for a new weapon system. If the guns they own are junk than they assume the mil-spec versions are junk as well.

Plus as with any combat rifle there is simply no reason for a gun not to have a steel rod to clear the barrel in an emergency. Its funny how a simple solid one piece steel rod could save a soldiers life.

How do we know that some of the recent military testing wasnt done to convince the taxpayers to squander more money away for a new weapon system that in reality has its own basket of problems.

[mapsjanhere]

AZ, while the insurgent probably had more barrels to point at our troops, you're telling me they somehow dragged more ammo 50 miles into hostile territory to actually outgun the US troops in their own base?

[azredhawk44]

AZ, while the insurgent probably had more barrels to point at our troops, you're telling me they somehow dragged more ammo 50 miles into hostile territory to actually outgun the US troops in their own base?

Nope. That's another point.

You had 60 or so rifles on one side.

You had 200 or so on the other side.

Attackers carry their ammo. Defenders have crates and crates of it.

For awhile, you probably had rate of fire parity between the attackers and defenders. But, once the attackers ran low on ammo, the Americans and allied Afghan forces would begin to lay down superior fire.

Result? The defenders put more rounds downrange over-all. Probably at least a 3 to 1 margin. This will naturally result in stress to weapons systems.

[fast-eddie]

There is no possible way that there is any coruption in the US Government.:D
Any goverment that allows special interest groups fund political campaigns isn't going to be on the up and up, especially when it come to the military industrial complex. Wasn't LBJ's wife on the board for Bell helicopters during the Vietnam War? I'm sure a lot of our elected officials have they're hands in the pot, Democrats and Republicans.

[PBjafa]

1.) What's stopping putting the A2 3 round burst system onto the M4?
And would that not that solve the problem of firing too fast...?

2.) Why would you EVER have troops out beyond the umbrella of artillery support?
How many times do armies need to learn (relearn) that lesson for goodness sake???

[mapsjanhere]

AZ, that makes sense, thanks.

[PBjafa]

The report say the guns were shot until they were white hot and then failed...

Actually, any gun that is shot until it is white hot is going to fail...duh!

There are bigger problems here than the rifle.

[TRguy]

MSLSD being quoted ........ ding dang has hell froze over?

folks if you are gonna quote the internets I would believe TMZ over MSLSD......the mouthpiece for the socialist movement in this country cant be a valid source for anything......now I think I will go read Pravda

[JohnKSa]

Written by someone who doesn't understand firearms.

Firearms overheat and can malfunction if too many rounds are fired in too short a time. Inescapable fact of life...

[Kurbsky]

I never heard any complaints from Soviet veterans about their AKMs jamming in Afghanistan. Personally for my own use I prefer AR-15 but that's semi-auto.
I tink that politics should be set aside when it comes to soldiers' lives and they must have a choice of what weapon to take to a battle. Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan did have some choice. For example, they told me that they would always choose an RPD machine gun over a standard issued AK based machine gun because it was better and more accurate. I am not even taling about Spetsnaz who had vacuum grenades, silenced pistols and guns and whole bunch of other goodies to pick from.

[HiBC]

This is relative to the recent story in Afghanistan.As I said,I have a very detailed account of events there.I frankly do not know how much my source would want me to disclose.The information is not classified,but it is the property of the man who wrote it.
The folks who think our troops had unlimited ammo are mis informedAmmunition supply was a critical issue.

You know the old line"Your handgun is for when seconds count,but the police are only minutes away"

Well,there was a time lag before air support could arrive.

Things were serious enough the battle was taking place inside the wire.

[Sixer]

There has got to be some corruption going on within our government

NO WAY!? Lol, I think that may be the understatement of the day.

I agree with the others... you lost me at "NBC News". Find a source that doesn't consist of left wing, libtard, socialist propaganda pushers... Then I would be open to discussion.

[Rattlehead]

I agree with Sixer and HiBC. There may be an impartial report out there somewhere regarding the M-4's performance in modern combat, but I certainly don't trust anything NBC puts out. :barf:

[NSO_w/_SIG]

The fact that a lot of companies are selling "m4" replicas to civilians without chrome plated parts and true mil-spec parts definitely adds to the negative feelings toward the AR platform. Keep in mind that the taxpayers will be the ones to pay for a new weapon system. If the guns they own are junk than they assume the mil-spec versions are junk as well.

:rolleyes:
Sorry but I really hope you don't believe that. I have several AR's, some are as close to mil-spec as you can get. I also have some such as Stag and RRA, both 1/9 twist and no chromed lined, one has a BCG that isn't staked properly, gasp! Honestly, I have had hardly any issues out of any of my rifles 2 BCM's, Colt, RRA, STAG, Model1, Titan Armory and Larue. I really doubt that the most popular firearm being sold in the US today is giving people that many problems that they have negative perceptions of the platform.

[Crosshair]

I remember someone somewhere using the saying, "Relying on air support to save you is like relying on your mom to help you out. No matter how much they say otherwise, it's not always going to be there for you."

[Palmetto-Pride]

I thought the FN SCAR was on the way to replacing the M-16 & M4.

Let's face it as long as politics are involved our military is like a one legged man in a a$$ kicking contest. Its to bad our boys can't just open up a can of whip a$$ and come home.....................God bless our troops!!

[csmsss]

I see this as a mission, tactics, and training failure, not as any sort of weapon failure. The mission failure is pretty simple - right now, our troops have no mission in Afghanistan whatsoever other than to hunker down in certain fortified areas within the country and trying not to get shot. Without a mission, aggressiveness, initiative and morale go right down the latrine. Soldiers get bored, complacent, and angry at the fools who put them in a dangerous situation for no particularly good reason.

Tactically, our current doctrine appears to be not to initiate contact with the enemy and destroy it, but to more or less sit around and wait for trouble. The insurgents pick the date, time, place and disposition of the battle, and engage/disengage at their own pleasure, knowing they are not likely to be pursued. Our well-known reliance on remote fire support and airpower in lieu of aggressive small unit action means our troops are not nearly as prepared for and skilled at close, violent engagements as they need to be - a vulnerability exploited at every opportunity by our enemies.

I see ample evidence of poor training, and sometimes no training whatsoever, in terms of fire control. Fundamental concepts like overlapping fields of fire, positioning of emplacements, and acknowledgement of enfilade and defilade are frequently ignored. Soldiers let off a magazine's worth of ammo with a single trigger pull, seemingly in support of their emotional well-being as opposed to identifying and suppressing/destroying a target.

In my opinion, a fundamental shift in our training and tactical disposition needs to occur, because the primary problems we're seeing isn't that our equipment is inadequate, but that we no longer propagate a warrior mentality throughout our armed services and instead are attempting to instill a neutered, technical and bloodless mindset instead. This may be attractive to politicians, deskbound folks in the Pentagon, and the like, but at the end of the day, the best soldier is one who understands that war is about killing your opponent, not just about getting home safe.

[PBjafa]

I see this as a mission, tactics, and training failure, not as any sort of weapon failure.

Agree completely with that all, couldn't have said it better myself.

[kraigwy]

Why would you EVER have troops out beyond the umbrella of artillery support?

Differant war now. Its not how far you are away from artillery, its getting permission to use it.

[mapsjanhere]

Odd that people still trust any General Electric product.

[cavymeister]

That goes along the same lines as "these crown vics are failing the police. We found that if you drove them for 60,000 miles without changing the oil, the engines would lock up..."

[Crosshair]

Did they have any Claymores? Did they have any deployed?

[HiBC]

I think those are classified as land mines and are no longer Marquis d'Queensbury rules.Princess D and all.

[ATW525]

I think those are classified as land mines and are no longer Marquis d'Queensbury rules.Princess D and all.

The United States has never signed the Ottawa Treaty. Even if we did, command detonated claymore mines are still legal under it.

[Crosshair]

I think those are classified as land mines and are no longer Marquis d'Queensbury rules.Princess D and all.
The US is not a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty. The Ottawa Treaty doesn't cover command detonated mines anyway.

Besides, if war did break out, every country that signed that treaty would start cranking out landmines by the millions if it was to their benefit. The treaty even allows for countries to retain some stocks for "training and countermeasure development purposes.":rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to reduce their indiscriminate use, but I don't pretend that the signatories would never break the treaty.

[FrankenMauser]

That goes along the same lines as "these crown vics are failing the police. We found that if you drove them for 60,000 miles without changing the oil, the engines would lock up..."

You're so close on that one... it makes me laugh. I can't remember which department it was (hwy patrol, sheriff, city, etc), but the Crown Vic was turned down by a local department here, in '98 or '99. Made the papers because of the utter stupidity. The "test official" decided that because the Crown Vic couldn't hit a 12" curb, dead on, at 60 mph, and remain drivable... it didn't meet police standards. The PD was back in the news before the year was over, because they were buying Crown Vics again. Apparently the Chryslers they bought were having serious engine and suspension problems, while under the 'hard driving' conditions.


I view the M16/M4 discussion the same way. After all, the requirements for a service rifle were changed specifically so the M16 would win the weapon competiton. It started life by cheating; so, the media feels they can keep the ball rolling from their side.




--This wasn't intended as a slam to Chrysler, or an endorsement of Ford.--

[Palmetto-Pride]

In a time of war we are probably the only country that would honor a treaty anyway. Why we consistently handicap our own military is beyond me....:confused:

[csmsss]

What's failing our troops in Afghanistan isn't their equipment but their senior military and citizen command. What's failing them is a lack of leadership, a lack of resolve, and a lack of any sort of mission. Aside from that, everything's great.

[stevelyn]

There are bigger problems here than the rifle.

Yeah, like an inadequate sized force to deal with the threat, poor intelligence, lack of air or artillery fire support, running the show like a political operation rather than a combat op, incompetent indigenous counterparts to pick up the slack, etc, etc, etc........................

[gyvel]

Oh, dear. An AR-15 variant doesn't work. Go figure.

[Nick-Mc]

my question is why do we have two threads going for this at the same time?

Your weapon is bound to overheat firing hundreds of rounds....the guy with the SAW probably wasn't following the 6-7 round burst rule, although i'm not sure I would either in his situation. Where was his assistant gunner with the other barrel?

It's certainly a shame for those guys and my heart goes out to the families but we can't discredit the weapon system for it, I have buddies who have seen even AKs go down in a firefight. It happens, it's just a shame we lost some of our guys.

[Latex Ducky]

Guys this is not an article written by any msnbc employee, it is an associated press article.

Anyways...

Here is a better discussion of the M-4 controversy:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

[mrnkc130]

maybe they will come out with a quick change barrel for the m4 now:rolleyes:...wont help if they arent using the feature on the m249 either though!

I think there has been a problem with sending rounds down range at the cyclic since...ahh...the invention of the machine gun.

proof we need more guys wielding mini-guns like jesse ventura in predator!!!

my own personal ancedote; i've dumped 10 mags from an m16a2 on burst as fast as i could pull the trigger and swap mags, no problems...lots of smoke...but no problems

[JohnKSa]

my question is why do we have two threads going for this at the same time?Threads merged. ;)

[Come and take it.]

We don't need another rifle if it is going to use the same caliber and the same technology. It would be like switching from a different brand of half ton truck to another.

Save taxpayers money and wait for a revolutionary weapons design at a later date.

[G-man 26]

That is hard to belive. That one soldier fired 384 rounds at 200 bad guys and did not single handedly end the fight in the first 20 to 25 minuets? What the heck was he shooting at? I built an AR and the thing can hit a spray paint can at 150yds more than half the time. If you aim at a target within 300 yards, you got it. I can't imagine how stressful it must be to be in that situation. My thanks go out to them for doing the job they are doing, and I thank you guys who have been there for sharing with the rest of us. But man that does not even sound close to right. Firing at that rate puts one round down range every two seconds roughly. I can't see my gun overheating at that rate. I have warmed it up once or twice to see how it does, but I have not gone that far. To hear some of the stories of 20 plus magazines dumped one after the other and few failures, makes me think I am not far off base in my original thought that one round every 2 seconds or so is not that bad.

I have shot the AK round out of a few guns, and as a civilian in an urban setting, I cannot use the thing. Every round outside of 50 yards goes wherever the heck it wants and past 175 to 200 yards it flat sucks compaired against the 5.56mm. Inside that range it goes through everything, including the neighbors house and the neighbors. The .223/5.56 however does an adequate job out to 350 to 400 yards, and doesn't go through walls and windows with the same lethality as the 7.62. Even better, it goes where I tell it to. As I am accountable for every round I cut loose, this is very important to me.

I guess if it ever fails when I need it to work, I will cuss it like some guys do, untill then, I don't mind the extra cleaning regimen. Thank God I will most likely never "need" it. I think the M-4 could use a heavier barrel. Other than that, if it aint broke, don't fix it, and for sure don't replace it.

[Nisei]

I'm putting my money on poor leadership. One Inspecting Sgt.'s "meticulously cleaned" is another Inspecting Sgt.'s "Dirty as all can get out"

I've come to see that the majority of soldiers are not firearms experts. They know how their weapon works and how to make it run well but they don't know the mechanics like a firearms enthusiast would.

Some Special Operations Forces are switching from the M4 to the SCAR, mainly Rangers from what I've heard. Some Special Forces Groups are not. Talking with some of the guys from various Groups, they know an M4 will have have issues after 60,000 rounds. Most, not all, are taking newer built M4s with spare parts instead of the SCAR.

My sympathies go out to those that died and I mean no disrespect, but it seems to me that the battle was lost before it ever started. The adrenaline and stress of combat makes you lose your fine motor skills and such, but a properly trained soldier (who maintains that level of training) shouldn't be doing what happened there. Again, I think leadership is the problem in this one.

[LanceOregon]

Myself,I would not bother to click the link on MSNBC news.

I think the M_4 serves our troops better than agenda driven pop news does.

I have far better sources.

This story was about research done by military experts.

What possible agenda could NBC have over this issue?

Do you think that they are going to argue that we should pull our troops out because they have lousy guns? That would be a huge stretch.


--

[LanceOregon]

Our vastly outnumbered Infantry beat back theirs...successfully using M4s (among other weapons). Move along...Nothing to see here.


So you consider that their casualty level was acceptable?

If casualty levels in Afghanistan continue to go up, that is going to be very bad news indeed.

I'm truly amazed that the heads of both Armed Services committees in the Congress are against sending in more troops. I cannot ever remembering a situation like the current one before.


--

[NWCP]

While not a huge fan of the M4 or M16 I think situations like the one written about in this particular article are rooted in our strategy, or lack thereof. You can build remote outposts and then wait for the enemy to build up strength and come at you. We seem to have the greatest success when on the move and taking the fight to the bad guys. Static positions are just an attack waiting to happen. I'm not so sure 7.62x51 weapons would have made a great difference in the outcome of this firefight. A larger force with some heavy machine guns and more light machine guns could have made a difference in controlling the situation. Hanging it out in the middle of a province controlled by the loonies we call Taliban was asking to get hit. Get NATO and the press out of the picture, build up our forces and turn them loose. Let the generals in country run the war and keep the milksop politicians and DC brass out of it. Perhaps then we can get a grip on things.

[PBjafa]

So you consider that their casualty level was acceptable?

Actually, considering what I have heard of the situation, it sounds like they got off remarkably lightly, quite frankly.

[Firepower!]

I dont know why people are ignoring the fact that 90% of the troops are satisfied with this weapon.

I personally owned 6 M4s at a time (now 4) and I think it is a wonderful weapon that does, however, require cleaning. So far I had one jam.

On the other side AK47 is a great weapon, but you cannot compare it to M4 necause it lack accuracy beyond 300 yards, and the climb during auto fire is not as controlable as M4. Ak47 is a small machine gun, where M4 is an assulat rifle.

[mkim1120]

a classic now in the forefront for the wrong reasons

[THEZACHARIAS]

I would like to point out again that this attack they are blowing all over the media occurred in JULY 2008. BTW, July 2008 is MORE THAN A YEAR AGO. That means that the AP, or NBC, or whoever originated this story (it doesnt matter who, I dont maintain a lot of respect for the media as a whole) has been sitting on this information for very nearly that amount of time, waiting for another similar attack to occur, so they could "compare" the two. And frankly, the fact that they are using stories involving the deaths of American soldiers to benefit their own business model &/or ratings is appalling in a variety of ways.

Despite the geographic similarity of the attack in this story to the most recent attacks (again, separated by more than a YEAR), there are no reports that this same problem recurred. The defenders in the most recent attacks held out for the better part of a DAY, which they would not have been able to do with malfunctioning weapons. The articles all over the news today even specifically state that the only similarities between the two situations was the sheer number of Taliban attackers!

This story is nothing more than sensationalist journalism based on unfortunate failures on the modern battlefield. No matter how heart breaking the outcome, or how much we hate to admit it, failures do occur. The fact that they sat on this story for so long and are now using it as a cheap headline is deeply offensive.

[Powderman]

We don't need another rifle if it is going to use the same caliber and the same technology. It would be like switching from a different brand of half ton truck to another.


And that is the best post in this thread.

Do our soldiers deserve the best? YES.
Do they get the best? Believe it or not, YES.

So, what is the exact problem?

Look at, and read, the article again. You'll notice some fantastic round counts: 600 rounds from a 5.56 machine gun before it malfunctioned. That's 6 bandoleers, folks. That comes from utilizing NOT rapid, sustained, or cyclic fire, but spray and pray. That comes from jamming the muzzle in the general direction of the enemy and shooting into the air.

""My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

12 magazines? How many times did the soldier move--as in shoot, move, communicate?

That's 360 rounds or more, folks. Guess what?

Almost ANY weapon will start burping and farting if you put that many rounds through it in a short period of time.

Back to the machine gunners. I would be curious to see how many of them had range cards ready; how many of them had the weapons mounted on T&E; how many of them USED the T&E, firing 5-7 round bursts while giving 3-5 clicks of windage with each burst--or elevation, when searching?

Did they have mortars emplaced? How about Mk19's, and/or heavy machine guns?

If they had any time to build an emplacement or defensive perimeter, where were the NCO's, making darned sure that those soldiers were building proper fighting positions, with secondary and even tertiary positions; clearing out their sectors of fire, mapping out kill zones and covering dead space with indirect fire weapons?

Did they prepare for the night ambush, with tanglefoot, battlefield illumination or antipersonnel/barrier denial ops?

I know the truism: "The best laid plans and order of battle go to crap after the first shot is fired." But there are a couple of things that jump out in the story. Shooting until your barrels are WHITE HOT? That's not a weapons failure, that's a training failure! Are they mounting wave attacks, where you HAVE to shoot full cyclic to keep thousands of troops from over-running your position? Or did someone throw a few rounds in your direction, and you responded with three full magazines, mostly in the air, and DEFINITELY not aimed?

There is something wrong over there, folks--AND GUESS WHAT? IT AIN'T THE WEAPONS.

I remember that, as a machinegunner (M60 and M2), with my '60 I knew that after the first two belts, it was time to hang the third bandoleer, squirt some oil onto the cartridges, and commence to whoop a**. When I followed that simple step--along with using a couple of quick swipes with a parts brush to get all that "gold" out of the feed tray cover--using 5-7 round bursts, I put over 1000 rounds of 7.62 ball/tracer linked through my machine gun--MULTIPLE TIMES!!! Guess what? I had a spare barrel, too--do ya think I changed it?

Cordially,

Your friendly neighborhood Powderman
(former SSG/E6, US Army)
who had troops that positively HATED me because while everyone else was screwing off in the field, mine were digging fighting positions and going through classes.

[gyvel]

The M-16 was foisted on our military by the same Ordnance Board that gave us the:

1873 "Trapdoor" Springfield, despite obvious inferiority to current European trends, i.e. the 1871 Mauser bolt action, et.al...

1892-1902 Krags, designed by an obscure Norwegian engineer, and which cost a fortune to make, despite (once again) superior European trends, i.e. the 1889, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 98 Mausers...

1903 Springfield, a copy of the Mauser 98, but with many useless features added...

M-1 Garand, truly a magnificent weapon, but which cost a fortune to build...

M-14, which was an attempt to "modernize" the venerable, reliable M-1, but which got its butt kicked by the T-48 during test trials...

(Last but not least) The Beretta M92, replacing the tried and true 1911.

So why should the M-4 be any different?

[LordofWar]

Its a miracle that the guys' M4 went those marginal 234/384 rounds.

I would'nt dare to use my M4/A1 for atleast a good 10-15 minutes if I've dumped 5 magazines in consecutive fire.

I personally think it's a failure on part of the soldiers training. (I wouldnt blame the equipment or the soldier as anyone of us in such a situation would keep on dumping rounds through out weapon if surrounded by 200+ Taliban).

My point here is that was one guy who shot 384 rounds in less than 30 minutes. There were 65 guys out there and realistically they must have shot a minimum of 200 rounds per person which easily comes down to in excess of 13,000 rounds being fired at more or less 200 Taliban.... How many Taliban were found dead?

13,000 rounds is a lot of ammo to be fired within 30 minutes. The military guys have a comparative advantage over the Talibans as their M4s have more range and accuracy with a myriad choice of optics available even if 10% of the rounds would have accounted a casualty the threat could have easily been neutralized.

If not every shot atleast every 10th shot should count. If 13000 rounds could not stop a mere 200 Talibs the military shouldnt have let those poorly trained guys on the ground at all. Eight families were destroyed. 28 soldiers injured out of which some injuries would be permenent..... for the brevity of it the relative damage was collossus.

If AK is a reliable platform there are numerous variables that makes it an underdog at least in the military vs Taliban situation.

1. Talibans do not have access to quality ammo. Most of them use hand loaded sub standard ammo.
2. The Talibs are poorly trained as compared to the military guys and are ill equipped.
3. AK-47 has poor accuracy and range.
4. Bullet drop is substantial.
5. Available capacity at that point in time per insurgent is 4-5 magazines per insurgent.

The AK-47s that they are using are aleast 15-20 years old and some of them are modified (with Chinese parts) from worn out Russian AKs and there is a good chance that their AKs malfunction as well but since there is no way of knowing that we assume that their AKs are flawless. (which is in realistic & practical terms is hard to buy)

M4 is a good weapon and has served the US soldier and other militaries throughout the world. The soldiers should be TRAINED to land consecutive but accurate fire at the enemy and make the bullets hit their targets as much as they can. There is no point in wasting taxpayer money on expensive optics when you cant shoot down 200 bloody insurgents with 13,000 rounds.

[Palmetto-Pride]

Do our soldiers deserve the best? YES.
Do they get the best? Believe it or not, YES.

I wholeheartedly believe the first part of that, but I do not believe the that our boys on the ground get the very best money can buy. Look at all those unarmored Humvees that were sent over there when all this **** first begun. I remember reading a few stories where our boys were welding on steel plates to there Humvees and that was a shame. There was also a South Carolina National guard unit that refused a mission because of the sorry ass vehicles they had that were breaking down every time they went out......I don't blame them one bit! If you ask them to put their life on the line at least give them the very best tools to work with.

[austinjking]

It looks like those soldiers had little more than what was mentioned in the article in terms of firepower. The Taliban fight through opportunity and media. Of course they want CNN, CBS, ABC, all of those networks to report of waves of Taliban over running our bases. The same happened in the Korean War, and the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. Never mind all the insurgents we killed.
There's no way troops get the best money can buy, the Beretta was adopted in place of the Sig Sauer (the real victor of the trials) to provide American jobs instead of European ones.
As far as fire and maneuver, Afghanistan's terrain makes it difficult to drop serious ordnance and not risk friendly casualties. Apaches were called in.
Why are soldiers firing full auto? I've been taught single, single, single; burst was just a way to burn extra ammunition.

[lmccrock]

I usually leave the M4 discussions alone, but here are samples of more details:

They began by concentrating on the American's heavy weapons -- a 120 millimeter mortar, a TOW missile system, and a .50 caliber machine gun. (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/28/inside_an_afghan_battle_what_happened_at_wanat_last_july_i)

Coalition troops responded with machine guns, grenades, and claymore mines. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wanat)

Lee

[Come and take it.]

There are too few Taliban to launch human wave assaults like the Chinese and the Bonzai Japanese infantry charges of WW2 and Korea. Even in Vietnam the NVA and VC had enough soldiers to launch human wave assaults in echelon at times.

The Taliban have to husband their manpower and resources.

If I use this logic and hypothesize than I could come to conclusion that the weapons were fired needlessly.

As far as casualties go even in Somalia our troops overwhelmingly dealt the Somali warlord militia a devestating tactical blow. But like the Tet offensive we lost strategically.

Our troops are not immortals or Gods. They bleed just like the Taliban and can be killed the same way. The fact that most firefights are so one sided in our favor should suggest that we have superior weapons and the tactics to use those weapons effectively.

[amprecon]

I don't believe anyone can deny that there may be better rifles or rifle designs available that are better than the M16/M4 rifle at this time. There are those that use it and like and there are those that have used it and don't like it.
Regardless, whether a rifle is good or bad or neither or both, what should be the preeminent defining factor in choosing a standardized weapon for our military should be it's reliability/dependability, accuracy, ease of use, firepower and weight. Traditionally you couldn't have more than one or two of these qualities without sacrificing elsewhere in the design. But with today's technology all these factors have been incorporated in modern designs and in other current production rifles........and have probably been available for quite some time now.
The number one inhibiting factor in having the "best" rifle lies with our politicians and their allegiances and profits. As has been the case since the beginning of warfare, supply your army with the cheapest yet most effective weapons available, save the bottom line so when looting does occur the booty and gold can elevate the quality of life of their leaders higher than before.
If we have a problem with government supplied equipment, the ultimate responsibility lies with the politicians, they work for us. Make them fix it or vote for someone who will.
When a soldier dies because of bad equipment, his/her death is on the hands of those that authorized the use of that equipment, they should be held accountable.

[rodwhaincamo]

I feel this is no longer much of a "war on terrorism" as it has become more of a policing, and a wait 'til they show up ordeal. I feel that our soldiers have their hands tied. Back to the point: I don't really know enough about our current firearms so please bear with me... My understanding is that with the M4's shorter barrel the bullets no longer have sufficient velocity for the round to be effective at ranges longer than 100 yds or so. I saw on Mail Call R Lee Ermey claimed the XM8 was looking like our replacement rifle. But one of the variations, if I'm not mistaken, has a 9" barrel! Hmmm... A thought on barrels overheating: bull barrel with fluting might be an idea. I personally feel a larger bullet like the 6.8mm that was tested would be better, and not weigh too much more. Not only did it do better at longer ranges, but also did much better in a carbine. And wouldn't a gas piston system be better than the impingement system currently used? Seems that would help with the jamming and whatnot due to being dirty. Like I said, I don't KNOW enough to argue about this, but just what I see from my limited view point. I don't know exactly how our encampment was situated, but it seems they should have had some sort of artillary/ mortars in such a far out hotbead location where it would take time to get air support to. Especially in a key outpost. And I'm upset that we have so few troops. This shouldn't have happened like that. I also feel that our soldiers should get better training. It's their job to be good at what they do, and fire training once or twice a year doesn't cut it. I feel we ought to be on top of our game now more than ever since it seems there are so many nations out there looking dangerous. China recently displayed how strong their military is with their 60th anniversary of communism march resembling the cold war era Russia. N Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia again (unofficially trying to send Iran missiles recently), and what of Pakistan? And who really supports us now? Seems lots of our European allies are turning their backs to us now. I feel we ought to have a mandatory service by our young men at 18-19. Might keep them out of trouble in the "young and dumb" years. Not to mention it would give our nation a leg up were the STHTF. Just the thoughts and opinions of a naive guy in Texas.

[HorseSoldier]

Why would you EVER have troops out beyond the umbrella of artillery support?

If you re-read the story, it says that those guys were the artillery (well, the crews, anyway) . . .

[HorseSoldier]

So you consider that their casualty level was acceptable?


For the position they were assigned, and the attack they faced, it was acceptable, yes. Whether they should have been in that spot at all, and whether an attack of that size should have been able to get at them without being detected and engaged from beyond small arms range are other questions, but they don't have anything to do with the M4 or other weapons they were issued.

[Come and take it.]

I don't know if I can take an account seriously where the person says their barrel turned white hot. A dark reddish glow maybe at nighttime. If the barrel had turned white hot it would have no longer been a barrel but a puddle of liquid metal.

[B. Lahey]

R Lee Ermey claimed the XM8 was looking like our replacement rifle

Now if you want to talk about problems overheating...

The M4 may get hot, but that screwball XM8 thing had problems with melting. It's not good when your rifle turns into liquid plastic. I would call that a "failure" without any hesitation.:D

[tipoc]

lmccrock provided a service here that folks may want to take advantage of...

Battle of Wanat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wanat

tipoc

[Chindo18Z]

LanceOregon: So you consider that their casualty level was acceptable?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

I have spent the last 8 years of my career dealing with deaths, wounds, funeral services, unit memorials, and remains escorts for my Friends and Brothers as well as casualty notifications to their families. Every single casualty is a personal tragedy and a painful loss.

It's what we do. It's what we get paid to do. Tough, but there it is.

What I said (actually what I implied) is that the casualties were uneccessary and a result of poor operational planning by the higher headquarters of both platoons emplaced in the Wanat & Kamdesh COPs.

If you are going to tether goats as tiger bait (emplacing a platoon outpost), YOU HAVE TO DEVELOP A REALISTIC INTELLIGENCE PICTURE OF THE BATTLESPACE and EMPLACE A NEARBY HUNTER TO KILL THE TIGER. This means agressive patrolling, local development of human intelligence, aggressive day/night employment of LP/OPs and ambushes, and the surreptitious emplacement of an interdiction force sized and cocked to deal with an enemy battalion sized element. Responsive indirect fire support is always a plus. :rolleyes:

The casualties in each battle had little to do with weapons (like M4s) and everything to do with underestimation of the odds while hunkered down in defense.

Both attacks were conducted by an enemy who carefully reconnoitered his target, moved enough muscle into place to overun those targets, and took advantage of terrain, light, weather, and the element of suprise to move undetected to within striking range.

What speaks volumes is that (in both cases), despite ~70% US casualties and massive enemy numerical superiority, the Taliban were UNABLE to accomplish their objective and were severely mauled by M4 equipped Americans. In WWI, WWII, Korea, and even Vietnam, heroic actions like this were lauded by the American public, desensitized as they were to the sheer volume of weekly casualties in those conflicts.

In today's instant electonic media age, every casualty producing event becomes something greater than the sum of its parts, as our enemies manipulate US public opinion and support for the struggle.

We used to celebrate stands against incredible odds (Lexington & Concord, the Alamo, Adobe Wells, Chief Joseph & Battle of Bear Paw Mountains, the Lost Battalion, Midway, Bastogne, Guadalcanal, the Pusan Perimeter, Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Nam Dong, Lang Vei, etc.).

Since Mogadishu, Somalia ("BlackHawk Down"...an epic and locally victorious battle), successive US Administrations seem unable to socialize the American public to the heroism of her troops, instead allowing our enemies free reign over the electronic court of public opinion. Our enemies are quite happy to redefine a tactical pasting as victory for their side.

Added to this is a a uniquely American tendency to seek equipment solutions to every problem encountered (and substitute blame of equipment for Strategic, Operational, and Tactical failure). Our small arms work just fine (as long as they are not worn past their service life).

I can think of several times over the last few years where we have lost more than eight troops due to an aircraft crash. Media coverage of such an event usually lasts a day or two. We lose more troops each year (dead and injured) to off-duty motorcycle and automobile accidents at home than we do in combat. Media coverage of that fact is almost non-existent.

Our Warriors, doing an unimagineably tough job, fight and die (in an age old manner), but (generally) with some of the best equipment any military force has fielded in all of recorded history. If you must go to war, pray that you are equipped by the richest and most technologically advanced fighting force on the planet...the American Military.

The NCOs of the several Special Forces battalions of my Group haven't generated an M4A1 specific complaint [After Action Report (AAR)] over the last several combat rotations. We have asked for (and received) better ammo and improvements to certain optics and target aquisition devices. I have both SCAR and M4A1 in my unit. I've trusted the M4 and carried it successfully in combat. The people we shoot die, the carbines work, and there is little grumbling in the ranks.

The SCAR adoption will come slowly (as we beta-test the weapon), but the Threshold Objective with SCAR is to see if the 7.62 version offers better effective range, barrier penetration, or lethality across both CQB and long distances (in a portable and controllable package). So far, the boys like the SCAR-H for long range. The SCAR-L hasn't offered any significant improvement over the M4A1. Both offer slightly worse ergonomics and require some minor tweaking.

The improvement piece of the SCAR pie that's missing is the 6.8mm cartridge it was intended to launch. That won't happen now due to budgetary concerns (among other things). We will soldier on with our existing carbine caliber and a shoehorned machinegun bullet and make the system work.

For now, make mine M4A1 all day long.

PBjafa: Actually, considering what I have heard of the situation, it sounds like they got off remarkably lightly, quite frankly.

Exactly.

LanceOeregon: This story was about research done by military experts.

I've yet to meet an Army Historian who exhibited even the slightest expertise regarding weapons performance, terminal ballistics, or small arms procurement. I've worked with, travelled with, lived with, and been interviewed by several.

LanceOregon: If casualty levels in Afghanistan continue to go up, that is going to be very bad news indeed.

True. Unfortunately.

My .02 ....YMMV.

[SPUSCG]

U.S. Soldiers get the best gear? Im pretty sure they get crap magazines (almost every friend of mine in the marines and army hate the mags they're issued, regardless of their opinion on the m16, which some like, some don't) instead of lets say, PMags. And only recently they released a 5.56mm round capaple of doing good damage out of a m4 length barrel, i believe a 77gr round, up to then they were using 55 gr stuff.

[azredhawk44]

Chindo, excellent post. Thank you.

[Chindo18Z]

SPUSCG: You're being "pretty sure" doesn't make a fact. Your military friends have an opinion... not necessarily backed up by experience or expertise. Sounds like gunshop talk to me.

What specifically do you find wrong with issue 5.56 magazines?

I've been using military issue aluminum 5.56 mags for several decades of training and combat without any issues. Not badmouthing P-Mags, but they are a relatively recent and commercial improvement to AR mag design.

I DID go through a stage where we all had to have and carry uber-HK mags...until we found that they suck. Most of them currently reside in dust covered piles inside footlockers.

Ask your friends which manufacturer stamp is found on the "crappy" mags they hate? Which followers? Most of them will give you a dumbfounded look.

We haven't been generally issuing 55 gr M193 for our M4s or M4A1s since the M16A2 replaced the M16A1 back in the 80s. M855 62 gr and a 1-7 twist has been standard for...oh...about two decades now.

And yes, we use several versions of 77 gr. to good effect on today's battlefield.

Before you venture an opinion on relative quality of weapons, ammo, kit, and major end items, you might want to spend a few years working with several other nations' militaries (just to provide yourself a fair basis for comparison).

If the US Coast Guard issues you clapped out 30 year old hard usage magazines, then you have my sympathy.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Most of us realize the mass media is incapable of reporting firearms issues accurately and routinely screws up even the simplest details in reporting on stateside firearms use. Yet why is it when they have something nasty to say about the current infantry rifle, people rush to lap it up like a dog eating his own puke?

The "news" article is based on an unreleased rough draft of the Battle of Wanat by Douglas Cubbison. You can find a copy of that rough draft at:
http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/battle-of-wanat-historical-analysis-rough-draft-release/

At least that way we can skip the speculative nonsense in the AP story and read the actual firsthand accounts. Reading these, you get a much better sense for how desperate the situation was and how hard the AP "reporter" had to reach to drum up some controversy.

"The insurgents so aggressively pushed their advance that their positions were within the minimum arming range of the 40mm grenades. Additionally, their small arm fire was so devastating that one of the grenade launchers was struck with a bullet through the feed tray, permanently disabling it. The other Mk 19 grenade launcher jammed, which they are prone to do. Thus, the American defenders at the main COP had only a single .50 caliber machine gun, the Marine M240 Medium Machine Gun, and their own small arms to repel the assault. It is to the credit of the Chosen soldiers that they maintained at least fire parity from the COP. To achieve this, the 2nd Platoon soldiers were firing their weapons “cyclic,” on full automatic at the highest possible rates of fire. As a result, numerous soldiers experienced weapons malfunctions, just as Staff Sergeant Phillips had faced at the mortar pit. One young specialist fighting at the COP Kahler later complained, “…I ran through my ammo till my SAW would not work anymore despite the ‘Febreze’ bottle of CLP I dumped into it.”

Frankly, when you are maintaining a rate of fire that is burning up SAWs, you shouldn't be surprised that the M4 can't keep up either.

Some other good quotes:

"I then grabbed the Engineers weapon that was left at our position and which was a SAW and…started laying down about 800-1,000 rounds at the bazaar and wood line around the mosque."

"RPGs were coming in constantly from the west. I remember at one point I had to slow my fire down because the barrel was red hot and there was a debate on how much ammo was left. By this time I had shot about ten .50 cal 100 round ammo cans…"

"As Specialist Hamby attempted to get the .50 M2 Heavy Machine Gun back into action, it was struck by a 7.62mm round directly in the top of the feed tray cover which was raised for re-loading, which put that gun out of action permanently."

"Specialist Bogar fired approximately six hundred rounds at a cyclic rate of fire from his SAW when that weapon became overheated, and eventually jammed the bolt forward. "

"Sergeant Phillips poured out fire, as recalled by another Engineer Specialist loading for him, “…[SSG Phillips] went through three rifles using them until they jammed.” SSG Phillips recalled: “My M4 quit firing and would no longer charge when I tried to correct the malfunction. I grabbed the Engineers SAW and tried to fire. It would not fire, so I lifted the feed tray tried clearing it out and tried to fire again. It would not.” Staff Sergeant Phillips did not realize that Sergeant Queck had earlier attempted to fire this SAW, and it had failed at its first shot when a bullet jammed in the barrel."

As you probably noted, not all of the weapons failures reported by Cubbison are the result of overheating. Given the intense fire, a fair amount of weapons were disabled from damage. In other cases, the M4s simply stopped working when they exceeded the rate of fire they were designed to handle.

[azredhawk44]

I DID go through a stage where we all had to have and carry uber-HK mags...until we found that they suck.

HK... because they suck, and we hate them. (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/hk-because-you-suck-and-we-hate-you/):D

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p17/azredhawk44/HK-advert.jpg

[pvt.Long]

Its not realy the weapon system thats causeing what is happening but there were how many rounds beeing put through the weapons? Combine that with the climate with sand finer then baby powder any weapon will fail like they did in this fire fight in this climate. This sounds like some storys I have heard from vets in nam. There is no casualty level that is acceptable not even 1. I do have to say that weve been in worse with worse. The reason their not puting more troops I would like to say is becuse their trying to cover their arses. Less troops more good news from the media the longer they will stay in office up on high getting their wallets fat with our money and egos fat with power. Our Men and Women do get the best for what they need. The Ak is the cheapest rifle on the market accurate out to 300 yards thats only if you are lucky. Shure it has a good punch but what would you rather have a weapon that requires some maintenence and able to knock down a target at 600 yards with pinpoint accuracy or one that will be lucky to hit a target at 300 yards? Why does this media coverage style sound so familiar? hhhmmm...

[joe1347]

How is it a failure if a rifle gets hot after firing a pile of magazines? Every rifle on the planet has the same problem, it's the nature of gunpowder-burning projectile weapons.

Are we supposed to go to a water-cooled rifle or something?

Maybe not water cooled - but are there more advanced materials that will hold up for a few more rounds before failing? I don't know - but one would think that there might be a few material science advances in the past few decades (since the M16 was originally invented) that would be of use. Granted, advanced materials aren't cheap. So it's a question of priorities regarding where to spend defense dollars. Alternatively, are there methods that could reduce the amount of heat that the rifle's receiver and barrel absorbs (from the round detonating)? Again, I don't know. But for example, if the rifle cycles a little slower, does the spent brass cartridge heat up more and pull out more heat or does just a little slower cycling delay overheating by a few hundred rounds? If overheating actually is the problem (on full auto) - possibly the cyclic rates are set too fast. Alternatively, What about a different cartridge material (besides brass) that could more easily pull the heat out - or different propellents that create less heat? Or on the crazier size - what about a electromagnetically propelled projectile (mini-rail gun)?

The point is that our soldiers should have a grossly UNFAIR technological advantage over their opponents in battle. It's appalling that we're still debating the merits of the AK47 vs. the M16 (M4). :mad: Why don't our soldiers have weapons that make the AK47 look like a useless piece of junk.

Of course, I'm just guessing that any of this is technically viable.

[csmsss]

The point is that our soldiers should have a grossly UNFAIR technological advantage over their opponents in battle. It's appalling that we're still debating the merits of the AK47 vs. the M16 (M4). Why don't our soldiers have weapons that make the AK47 look like a useless piece of junk.That is certainly the optimal situation. So why on earth would anyone propose to undergo the massive disruption, cost and trouble of implementing a new primary rifle that offers, at best, only arguable improvements?

You cannot blink your eyes twice and replace all the M-4's, M-16's, and derivatives at an instant. It's a hell of a task logistically just to replace the equipment and keep a proper accounting - then you have all of the training which would be required - and not just the soldiers but the armorers and logistics personnel too. Then you have to deal with the supply piece of the puzzle - both for new rifles as well as parts. Then, you have to deal with how to deal with the old rifles being replaced.

If we're going to do anything, let's leave the infantry rifles alone and improve our squad weapons. Replace the SAW, upgrade the M240 to allow for higher sustained rates of fire, and for God's sake why can't we field something equivalent to, if not better, than the RPG-7, and in adequate quantities?

[PBjafa]

If you re-read the story, it says that those guys were the artillery (well, the crews, anyway) . . .

Hmmm... perhaps that explains why they didn't quite have a handle on fire discipline and procedure?

On another note: one of the links earlier had an article that clearly stated that the M4 was developed as a compact alternative for support troops and situations where their pistols weren't cutting it. How does that end up being used as a primary combat weapon and even, from the sounds of this incident, as a light automatic support weapon. That is gross misuse of equipment, tactically and strategically.

[pvt.Long]

Good point. Its a stripped down lighter shorter version of the m16 for as you said support and spec ops it was never ment to be used as a main combat weapon that is what the m16 is for.

[Chattownusa]

I was a gunner in Iraq. I carried a .50 cal and M-249 on a dual mount, and than a M4 for RoE proposes and more procise shots. I have seen guys link up 800 rounds in their saw and hold the trigger till it was gone. the weapon cant fire that many rounds that fast at one time. i have personnel fired 900 rounds in a engagment over time using proper firing habbits. just cause a weapon can shot that fast doesnt give the person a right to do it. My car can go 180 but i sure as hell dont drive it that fast. As far as the M-4 is concerned i have fired alot of rounds in training and engagments not 360, weapon is hot as hell does jam way to much but i found like the .50 you spare in CLP through your firing it works longer like the engine on your car change your air filter and oil it works better longer. I agree Military should change weapons as far as assult rifle or like one guy on here said maybe material switch to titanium I dont know nothing about different metals but if it will work please do it. I personally like H&K assult rifles i would rather have stand off distance stopping power and pin point shots. AK's though prove decade after decade to stop anything we throw at it.

[KChen986]

Quick thing I wanted to point out, the M4 Development article in American Rifleman mentioned that the M4's handguards very easily became too hot to hold with one heatshield, and as a result, the M4 Adopted double heat-shields for the handguards. (I am not sure if this is attributable to the carbine system causing faster and harsher cycles).

Also, consider that the DI system blows hot gasses straight back in to the reciever of the weapon, indeed the hot gas is the catalyst that cycles the weapon.

Given these two things, is it possible that a piston system may have been more reliable? As we know, heat usually introduces stress on a system. The ARs with broken bolts and the the like are usually regularly subjected to harsh firing schedules.

Also, consider that in the Army dust tests, the Hk416 experienced about 1/3rd of the failures of the M4. I'm hypothesizing that the 416's better performance is attributable to lower heat buildup.

Thoughts?

[5whiskey]

Chindo, we're on the same side bud but....

What specifically do you find wrong with issue 5.56 magazines?

With this, I'll tell you exactly what I find wrong...

They dent at the smallest thing. Forget loading a full 30 rounds. Yes, trust me. I didn't just take my NCOs word when I first joined my unit on 28 rounds in a mag. I had to test the theory myself. About every 8th magazine there is a double feed after firing the first round. The magazines are not durable at all, and sometimes they will start to fail for no explicable reason, and with no signs of damage. I mean magazines that were issued to me brand new and had been used for a deployment work up and had seen a few hundred rounds or so through them apiece.

The general GI issue magazines ARE prone to failure but it seems to be a QC issue. My better magazines didn't look brand new by any means. They were old, faded, and barely had any of the coating left on it. That tells me that the magazines are capable of greatness, but some defects (too many from my experience) are getting out. I'd say 1 in every 6 or 8 mags turns out bad in my experience.

EDIT: I forgot about the part where the tack weld or whatever is used to hold the bodies together sometimes breaks free, essentially making the upper portion of the magazine body start to spread apart when loaded with rounds. It still works, but it's a B#$%H to seat the mag. You have to slap the snot out of it. Plus, it doesn't fall free when hitting the mag release. You have to physically yank the mag out. That is annoying as well. I'm sure I'll think of other problems I've encountered. However, if you know what you're doing you can have 12 good mags after a year or so of trial and error if you keep track of them and you know what you're doing when you go in. Obviously, I didn't know to find a way to mark my mags at first so it took me a couple of years to amass a group of 12 quality mags.






As for the "we just did start shooting 77 grain pills"... standard 855 ball is still in use, but it's quite effective. Been in use for some time as well. It's 62 grain. The 77 grain pills are for the secret society types that get to order cases and cases of black hills. The 77 grain pills work quite well, but 855 ball isn't exactly sub-standard in the lethality department. The ammo works great and has for some time. My only complaint is the magazine and the stupid cheap speed loader in the bandoliers. The speed loader bends up the first clip you load if you aren't careful with it. The easy to bend metal in the magazines don't help matters here either. Oh yeah, FN needs to find a new maker for the buffer springs. I've seen several of them fail to the point where the rifle would never cycle in battery but always require Forward assist. These are my only complaints.

[Nick-Mc]

Alot of the posts on here are something to the effect of...

"If they fired so many rounds why wasn't the firefight over and why didn't they kill more taliban members"

The pure stress and adrenaline combined with fear is enough to throw off even the most disciplined marksman. And in that situation alot of rounds are fired for the simple purpose of keeping the enemies heads down.....suppressive fire....you cover your buddy while he moves, he does the same for you, etc.
In that situation your not going to be sitting there in the prone, taking one shot at a time while waiting for your "respiratory pause," You're going to be putting alot of lead downrange and you have to keep an eye on your rate of fire, especially if you're the gunner, because that's the last weapon you want going down.

If every round was meant to hit its mark, we would probably still be using springfields.

[rugerdude]

I find this story very interesting. I was doing ambush training and platoon IA drills last week and I got to do a good deal of full auto firing with my M4A1. During our ambush I went through 8 mags in maybe 5 minutes. On a contact right that lasted maybe 10 minutes I went through another 8 mags. I had no malfunctions and while the barrel was hot, it was no where near white hot. Now 12 mags is a bit more, but 30 minutes is a lot more time.

Our para-SAWs were firing like crazy trying to get through all the drums they were given. One made it through 600 rounds and the other 800 rounds and while there was a good heat mirage off the barrels, they didn't turn white. No jams either. They're great when they work, but I have seen a good many that didn't. The belt feed opens the door for a lot of problems with loading and operation especially at night (say you have a jam and when you clear it the belt falls into your drum and now you've got to bust it open and use a fully exposed belt).

EDIT: If I recall, the M4 and M4A1 have different barrels, the M4A1's being much heavier than the M4's due to it being capable of fully automatic fire. Maybe someone here can remember better than I can, I haven't seen an M4 in a while but I know my M4A1 has got a pretty thick barrel. The army guys would most likely have M4's and therefore would overheat faster if I'm remebering right.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Quick thing I wanted to point out, the M4 Development article in American Rifleman mentioned that the M4's handguards very easily became too hot to hold with one heatshield, and as a result, the M4 Adopted double heat-shields for the handguards. (I am not sure if this is attributable to the carbine system causing faster and harsher cycles).

It seems to me that if you insulate the handguards better to keep heat from affecting your hands (double heatshield), then you are probably trapping a lot of heat next to the barrel. That's just speculation on my part though. I haven't tested that.

Given these two things, is it possible that a piston system may have been more reliable? As we know, heat usually introduces stress on a system. The ARs with broken bolts and the the like are usually regularly subjected to harsh firing schedules.

Possible? Sure. Probable? Not so likely in my view. The firing rates mentioned in the history were fairly extreme. A carbine just isn't a SAW and you can't make it one. If you use it like a SAW, it will break - and that is whether it is a piston or direct impingement. It'll damn sure break if you start firing it at rates that are killing beltfed, intermediate caliber weapons designed for sustained full-auto.

The other issue is what type of problem was caused by the heat? From the history, it sounds like the major issue was a stuck cases (unable to charge the rifle). This was not just an issue of the weapon not having enough oomph to cycle when hot - these guys couldn't manually cycle it either. Since the heat of gas pistons in the chamber is pretty much the same as direct impingement, I don't see how a gas piston would have made a difference.

Also, consider that in the Army dust tests, the Hk416 experienced about 1/3rd of the failures of the M4. I'm hypothesizing that the 416's better performance is attributable to lower heat buildup.

Considering over 1/4 of the M4 failures were magazine-related, I would suggest that lower heat buildup is not the most obvious place to make an improvement in the M4 system.

It also highlights a problem with a limited test like the dust test. The HK High-Reliability Magazines apparently did well for the HK416 in testing; but as Chindo18Z noted, they haven't held up well in long-term use (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=364874&highlight=). If the HK416 had been widely fielded based on the results of that test; what would have happened when the mags for it started falling apart?

[KChen986]

Great answers Bart. Thanks for assuaging my curiousity. So basically any rifleman-type weapon subjected to those rates of fire would probably have suffered similar failures?

[JohnKSa]

Coupla things.

1. A writer for the San Francisco Chronicle (Richard Lardner) is not likely to be a great source of accurate information relating to firearms, military procurement or the war in Afghanistan.

2. Cyclic Rate of Fire, Effective Rate of Fire and Sustained Rate of Fire are not the same things. In particular, not exceeding the Sustained Rate of Fire is important to keeping a weapon operating properly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_fire

[joe1347]

Coupla things.

1. A writer for the San Francisco Chronicle (Richard Lardner) is not likely to be a great source of accurate information relating to firearms, military procurement or the war in Afghanistan.



Why?

[Baratacus]

"Sergeant Phillips poured out fire, as recalled by another Engineer Specialist loading for him, “…[SSG Phillips] went through three rifles using them until they jammed.” SSG Phillips recalled: “My M4 quit firing and would no longer charge when I tried to correct the malfunction. I grabbed the Engineers SAW and tried to fire. It would not fire, so I lifted the feed tray tried clearing it out and tried to fire again. It would not.” Staff Sergeant Phillips did not realize that Sergeant Queck had earlier attempted to fire this SAW, and it had failed at its first shot when a bullet jammed in the barrel."


What the hell was Phillips doing? He burned through 3 rifles, then he grabs a discarded SAW and tries to fire it? That man is the epitome of uncontrolled fire. Not only was he not hitting the enemy by firing at that rate, but he was destroying his weapons as he wasted his ammo. When he can't get his hands on anymore M4's he grabs a SAW that he found discarded. 2 things about that situation:
1st A SAW should not be fired or maintained by personnel not specialized in its usage.
2nd You never pick up a discarded weapon and try to fire it without first checking that the barrel and breach are clear.

I completely agree with the consensus that the error is most likely not in the equipment, but in the operator and the operation of the equipment. Firing any weapon at it's cyclic rate for a sustained amount of time is going to cause it to fail. That rate of fire isn't going to be any more effective at supression than a weapons effective rate of fire. Those soldiers were just wasting ammo and weapons.

[deadcoyote]

My co-worker was with a SEAL team from 80-92 (yes i've actually seen the DD214). He says they never used the M16/M4 platform. Just HK MP5 or the old M-14. It seems those years everybody was certainly using the M16, I don't know when the M4 came around. Just thought it was interesting their team never used the country's main weapon.

[IZZY]

Spray and pray has it's limits.

The army seems to pride itself in mass volumes of firepower with little result other than calling in for an air strike.

As big of an AK fan as I am, I see training AND equipment issues here.

[Dannyl]

The Israelis had M-16s in the 1967 war, which is why they commissioned the Galils.They have since switched back as the M-16s are supplied by the US for free.M-16s do not function as well as the AK47 in sandy or dusty environment.

Hi,
I need to correct you.
In 1967 the war was fought with UZIs and FN Rifles (7.62 x 51) other than that the good old LMG as support weapon.
The first M16's were shipped to Israel during the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Other than that, your statement is correct.

I served in a reccon unit in the early 80's and at that time the M16 was all but rejected by all ground forces, too many jams and magazine problems, not only in sandy areas( if you bashed them a bit too hard on a rock when diving for cover sometimes bits broke off them) . We all carried the Galil which is an israeli Assault Rifle, chambered for the 0.223 round, but with a mecahnism similar to that of the AK. although heavier, it is VERY reliable and efficient.

Now the IDF has gone back to M16's and its variants, I believe that it was decided that the combined weight of a heavier rifle and havier magazines makes the soldier too cumbersome, I personally do not agree with it but my opinion is not relevant. If I have to go i nto combat again, I would much rather carry a GAlil, or a Tavor, which is the latest AR made by the IMI.

I AM not writing this to bash the US military in any way, merely correcting historical facts and voicing an opinion (served 3 years plus inside Lebanon, I needed to know I can trust my rifle)

Brgds,
Danny

[thallub]

The maximum effective rates of fire for the M4 rifle:

Semiautomatic - 45 rounds per minute
Burst - 90 rounds per minute
Sustained - 12-15 rounds per minute

http://www.armystudyguide.com/flashcards/flashcards.php?cat=20&qnum=74

[Double Naught Spy]

12 mags in 30 mins is just ridiculous, sounds like they were spray and praying with them. something its NOT designed for.

12 mags in 30 minutes is 360 rounds over 1800 seconds or an average of 1 round every 5 seconds. Ridiculous? Spray and Pray? Not designed for?

If 1 round every 5 seconds average is spray and pray, I would like to know what you consider to be slow fire.

[thallub]

One guy in that fire fight fired his SAW at its cyclic rate for one minute. Little wonder the gun quit working.

The maximum effective rates of fire for the M4 rifle:

Quote:
Semiautomatic - 45 rounds per minute
Burst - 90 rounds per minute
Sustained - 12-15 rounds per minute

http://www.armystudyguide.com/flashc...cat=20&qnum=74

[thallub]

The Mk 43 machine gun (M60E4) is one of the very few guns that can be fired at its cyclic rate for over one minute.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/52637/m60_machine_gun/

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So basically any rifleman-type weapon subjected to those rates of fire would probably have suffered similar failures?

Well, I wasn't there so I am just spitballing. I based my opinion on two statements from the history by Cubbison:

1. The weapons were being fired at a cyclic rate (i.e. as fast as they can fire them). 360 rounds through an M4 as fast as you can fire it is going to cause trouble even on semi-auto. On burst or full auto, you will see cook offs and possibly even barrel bursts with that kind of usage.

2. The report notes multiple SAWs malfunctioned due to overheating. Keep in mind that this is a gas-piston, belt fed, open-bolt weapon firing an intermediate caliber (less heat than say 7.62x51). If multiple examples of that weapon could not keep up with the rate of fire demanded of it, I just don't see how a carbine is not going to have the same fate.

So far I've haven't finished reading the full history; but if I see something that changes that opinion, I'll definitely share it.

12 mags in 30 minutes is 360 rounds over 1800 seconds or an average of 1 round every 5 seconds.

12 mags in 30 minutes would be within the sustained rate of fire (12rpm) assuming that he started firing at the very beginning and maintained a steady rate of fire throughout the whole fight. However, all we know is that in the first 30 minutes of the fight, he fired 360 rounds. That could be 60 rounds in the first 20 minutes and 300 rounds in the last 10 minutes for all we know.

Cubbison reports that the soldiers in that position went "cyclic" to maintain superiority of fire over the attacking enemy.

O and for you M14 afficianados, there was at least one of those in the fight (possibly more) if you want to read the account of the fight. However, if a belt-fed, open-bolt, intermediate caliber MG is overheating, I can guarantee you the M14 would have been dead/black long before the SAW went down (assuming they were fired at the same rates).

[LordofWar]

Alot of the posts on here are something to the effect of...

"If they fired so many rounds why wasn't the firefight over and why didn't they kill more taliban members"

The pure stress and adrenaline combined with fear is enough to throw off even the most disciplined marksman. And in that situation alot of rounds are fired for the simple purpose of keeping the enemies heads down.....suppressive fire....you cover your buddy while he moves, he does the same for you, etc.
In that situation your not going to be sitting there in the prone, taking one shot at a time while waiting for your "respiratory pause," You're going to be putting alot of lead downrange and you have to keep an eye on your rate of fire, especially if you're the gunner, because that's the last weapon you want going down.

If every round was meant to hit its mark, we would probably still be using springfields.

Nothing justifies approx. 13,000 being fired with the help of the most sophisticated optics at any military's disposal with not even a 100 hits. Stress is an inherent aspect in a soldier's job description. They are taught & expected to handle it and be at their best in every situation. If that was a factor in Wanat again it's a failure of the government/military.

I would still blame flawed training & planning on the establishments part rather than blaming the weapon or the soldier.

[azredhawk44]

O and for you M14 afficianados, there was at least one of those in the fight (possibly more) if you want to read the account of the fight. However, if a belt-fed, open-bolt, intermediate caliber MG is overheating, I can guarantee you the M14 would have been dead/black long before the SAW went down (assuming they were fired at the same rates).

100% agreed, as an M14 aficionado.

It wasn't built to be a machine gun. It was built to be the pre-eminent infantry rifle for a nation of marksmen, modeled after the Garand's successes.

I wouldn't want to be in Wanat with an M14. Probably one of the worst weapons to have in that situation... pretty much anything in 7.62Nato and shoulder fired is unacceptable for a seige where you're outnumbered and crawling for cover and trying your best to return superior suppressive fire. You won't accomplish that with an M14.

Most of us M14 fanbois feel that the M14 is best used as a civilian "disturbance" rifle since full-auto is extremely rare for the lay market, and none of us can call in artillery support to back up a poodle-shooter. The 7.62Nato has more effect downrange and penetrates more cover.

For the Army in this situation? Heck, no. AR all the way. Imagine diving from foxhole to foxhole with an M14 while sporadically returning fire. AR mags all around you, but no M14 mags to scrounge.

If everyone had M14's issued here, the base would have probably been overrun.

It's amazing that the M4 in the hands of artillery and engineer troops could help fend off an attacking force of three times the size of the defending force. Even with a high failure rate.

I'm also willing to bet that a classic M16A2 or similar 20" modernized AR would have fared worse than the M4. That short barrel lets more hot gasses escape out the muzzle and traps less heat in the steel of the barrel.

[thallub]

Ditto on what Bart Roberts and AzRedHawk said about the M14. The M14 is un-controllable on full auto. That is why it was not normally fitted with the full auto selector. Think that two members of the infantry squad had full auto selectors on their weapons.

The US Army had a version of the M14 that was supposed to replace the M1918A1 BAR. The M14E2 had a straight stock a with pistol grip and a bipod. The flash supressor was different from the one on the M14 rifle. The gun was originally to have a heavy barrel but that was dropped in favor of light weight.

The M14E2 overheated easily and it was replaced by the M60 machine gun in the infantry squad.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18493259/FM-238-M-14

[troy_mclure]

What the hell was Phillips doing? He burned through 3 rifles, then he grabs a discarded SAW and tries to fire it? That man is the epitome of uncontrolled fire. Not only was he not hitting the enemy by firing at that rate, but he was destroying his weapons as he wasted his ammo. When he can't get his hands on anymore M4's he grabs a SAW that he found discarded. 2 things about that situation:
1st A SAW should not be fired or maintained by personnel not specialized in its usage.
2nd You never pick up a discarded weapon and try to fire it without first checking that the barrel and breach are clear.

1) as a former engineer sergeant, most engineer squads(combat) have 2 saws and everybody in the squad knows how to use them. they also usually have 2 m240b per platoon

2) how would he know its discarded? many fighting positions have crew served weapons kept at them 24/7, and how do we know that he didnt try to clear it(pull back the charging handle) something like that wouldn't be included in the story.

[Double Naught Spy]

12 mags in 30 minutes would be within the sustained rate of fire (12rpm) assuming that he started firing at the very beginning and maintained a steady rate of fire throughout the whole fight. However, all we know is that in the first 30 minutes of the fight, he fired 360 rounds. That could be 60 rounds in the first 20 minutes and 300 rounds in the last 10 minutes for all we know.

Bart, right, I understand that. However, the complaint was that 12 mags in 30 minutes was a ridiculous amount of firing, that the soldier was spraying and praying, that the rifle wasn't designed for that kind of firing.

The point I apparently didn't make clearly enough was that based on the information, 12 mags in 30 minutes is indicative of NONE of those things.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

According to what I've read so far, the Amry was establishing a new combat outpost in Wanat. They had been there approximately four days when the attack occured and almost nothing had been built because the local contractor hadn't showed up. As a result, the only things they had were what they could carry in five Humvees and a couple of Toyota Hilux trucks; plus some HESCO containers (which they could only fill to 4' because all they had was a Bobcat with a bulldozer blade). There were 49 Americans (a platoon of the 173d, 3 Marine trainers embedded with Afghan forces, some engineers, and a TOW unit and 2 guys from command) and approximately 24 Afghan nationals on the base.

The Humvees were all up-armored with a .50, 2 Mk19s, and a TOW. Because the combat outpost was set in a valley, the commander had positioned an OP on the nearby ridge. It was later determined that one of the purposes of the attack was to suppress the outpost while attackers overran the OP and took prisoners/bodies for propaganda purposes.

As a result, the nine guys at the OP (in three fighting positions with 4 claymores and a single strand of unstaked concertine wire) faced the brunt of the attack (this is also where the example of the overheated rifle and SAW come from in the news article).

What the hell was Phillips doing? He burned through 3 rifles, then he grabs a discarded SAW and tries to fire it? That man is the epitome of uncontrolled fire.

SSG Phillips (who had already received he Distinguished Service Cross for a similar fight earlier in the tour at a place called "Ranch House") was in the mortar pit with the engineers when the attack kicked off. Being one of the heavy weapons, they came under immediate heavy fire.

In fact, the TOW HMMWV and the 120mm were already ready to go as they had spotted five insurgents on the hills above some 20 minutes earlier and they were waiting for permission to take the guys out. The attack was so sudden and so violent (two long RPD bursts was the signal for a volley of RPGs) that the TOW never fired a shot and the 120mm fired only four (it had some protection from half-filled HESCO containers) before they were destroyed. This was in the outpost, which wasn't even the main point of the attack.

At the OP, the initial RPG volley killed or wounded every single one of the nine soldiers. The OP was partially overrun until a counterattack drove off the enemy attackers.

As for the M14, it never fired a shot that night. The soldier using it was killed in the initial attack by RPG fire and the M14 was "bent into a pretzel."

Stress is an inherent aspect in a soldier's job description. They are taught & expected to handle it and be at their best in every situation.

I don't think anyone can teach you to handle 200 guys opening up on you with DSHk, RPDs, PKMs, recoiless rifles and a whole lot of RPGs from very close distance. I can understand the need for fire discipline; but it is definitely worth reading the history of this attack before you put too much blame on the guys handling it. They were handed an untenable position and task and given nothing to do it with - and then they proceeded to do it anyway in the face of overwhelming odds.

The point I apparently didn't make clearly enough was that based on the information, 12 mags in 30 minutes is indicative of NONE of those things.

Yeah, another point is that the same soldier repeatedly referenced several different things as happening about 30 minutes into the fight in the history. I get the impression this may be a classic case of eyewitnesses not making the best evidence.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

One other point - there were three M240s in action during this fight. Two at OP Topside (the main target) and one at the Outpost with the Marine trainers. Of the two at topside, one went black (one of the downsides of 7.62x51) and the other was overrun. So one reason the rate of fire was so high is that out of 4 HMMWV weapons and 3 M240s, only the .50 BMG and one M240 (both at the outpost) were still running.

This meant most of the work had to be done by SAWs and M4s.

[Dannyl]

Hi All,
I am not American, nor have I ever served in any American unit.
I have, however, served in several years in conditions not too different from those your chaps are fighting in, against a very similar enemy. I also had a shot or two fired in my direction so I have a fair idea of what these soldiers went through, and therefore I have a lot of respect for them.

Some people in this forum are taking the liberty of criticizing the actions of soldiers, that were apparently outnumbered between 2 to 1 to 10 to one, in a position that was anywhere but prepared for battle.

I think that most of those have probably never faced an armed oponent, certainly not 200 at once. Until you do, please be more respectful of those that have. (It is unfair and disrespectful to criticize them in a manner that does not even offer them a chance to speak up.

The OP asked to discuss whether a particular firearm is prone to failure at certain conditions involving rate of fire, climate and environment. Not to discuss (and criticize in a manner that comes accross as crucifying) the actions of a bunch of soldiers under fire in very unfavourable conditions.

Please let us all keep our tones respectful.

Brgds,

Danny

[pvt.Long]

Well I have to say I agree. Please dont judge the boys in uniform untill you have walked a mile in thier sand filled boots. We are there to put a wold wide terror organisation to rest. They have attaced us on more then one occasion and this time was it. Any weapon AK M16 M14 or SAW is not built to withstand such rates of fire in such an extream enviroment and not fail.Yes AKs do fail not as much but they do. They are put on a leash for political reasons. We may win all the battles but we can still loose the war becuse of politics.
Iwill put my m14 on any field of battle not just urban areas.

[Baratacus]

thank you Danny L. the topic had digressed a bit. Asside from my earlier criticism of Phillips, I and a few other posters mentioned the rate of fire of the weapon in question. Regardless of how many magazines was gone through we don't know at what points in those thirty minutes was spent pinned down or finding cover in a different position, or aparently finding another weapon to fire. What we do know is that it is stated that the weapons were being fired at a cyclic rate of fire. That rate of fire is beyond what the weapon is designed to be operated at. It can fire at the cyclic rate for a few magazines, but sustaining that rate of fire will destroy the weapon. Even if you don't know your enemys exact position, firing 6 rounds in short burst in the general direction of the enemy has a better chance of hitting something than 30 rounds at full cyclic rate. Not only is it extremely inaccurate but at that rate of fire, after your first few clips, your bullets are going to be dangerously unpredictable, not only missing your intended target, but very possibly hitting a target that is friendly.
Whether or not the situation called for cyclic fire I do not know. I wasn't there. The circumstances that normally would call for cyclic fire would be extreme close quarters.... in your fox hole close. To maintain this rate of fire through more than one or two magazines though is not adviseable.

[Double Naught Spy]

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

That means the barrels first turned red hot before turning white hot as white hot would be the stage just before the metal starts to flow. From what I can find, white hot metal will be over 1800 F degrees.

Now, note that soldiers had problems with .30 and .50 cals at the Battle of the Bulge in WWII when their guns only got red hot and stopped functioning (page 17 http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:Zcxo58cEqMUJ:www.vermontfolklifecenter.org/multimedia/radio/pow/pow_hb_boh.pdf+battle+of+the+bulge+%22red+hot%22+rifles+cooled+barrels+in+snow&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNFPatKBp0RfW04OyXNIjbHT5TpcwA). Red hot barrels would be somewhere between 1000 and 1600 F degrees.

Gurkas firing on rioters until their barrels were red hot and could not be fired any more, page 187 http://books.google.com/books?id=YWB0GmmoOSMC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=%22barrels+were+red+hot%22&source=bl&ots=XwC4nPAXB3&sig=GtFAf-VHNyPD7RCTt5h0u7sXzXw&hl=en&ei=kxbVStqyK5D0MdeG2ZUD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=%22barrels%20were%20red%20hot%22&f=false

[Come and take it.]

The answer to the problem has existed since long before the Great war of 1914-18. There is no reason why water cooled machine guns should not be used in modern warfare. Especially when you are using fixed positions with the intent to invite attack on those positions.

Mini guns seem to be the modern answer to sustained weapons fire however they are much too expensive to produce for the numbers needed.

It was the failure of the support weapons that put such a high demand on the M4 rifles forcing them to be used heavily as it appears they were the most reliable gun of the whole lot that day.

[HorseSoldier]

It actually seems that the problem was that most of their heavy weapons were knocked out of action early on in the action, or were used to the point where the available ammunition for them was exhausted -- water cooling (or miniguns) wouldn't help with either of those.

[pvt.Long]

I wouldent say they got whit hot becuse the weapons would be to hot to handle and would have already been warped by the pressure behind the rounds. At the begging of the red hot stage they would have shut down and jammed. Twords the end is were the steel starts to warp. This was studdied back in the day of flintlocks and the octogon barrel came to be. Nothing could have helped the big gun situation mili guns or water jackets. I would say that they were knocked out of the game early.

[Adventurer 2]

White hot - maybe creative licensing???
Maintenance of weapons has been mentioned - I'm guessing being a combat unit - that was performed like clockwork.
The comment I want to make - not the design of the weapons but the condition of the weapons.
It was all I could do to qualify with my M16A1 when I was a "light infantry" soldier, but when that M16A1 was replaced with a never touched M16A2 - I became an Expert shooter. Never had a problem with my new M16A2.
I hated the 45 I was assigned - no telling how old and abused it was and it couldn't shoot a magazine without malfunctioning. Now, the Beretta M9 that replaced it, that was a handgun I had confidence in - it was brand new and shot flawlessly to point of aim.
The M60 that I humped for over a year would turn into a run away gun from time to time - I don't think it was from overheating (I had two spare barrels and ammo bearers) - I think it was worn parts.
I had a brand new never touched M249 SAW (the kind with the wire stock not the plastic one). I could light up a 200 round drum, clip in a new one and do it over and over again - no problem. The M16 magazine in the SAW - that didn't always work.
I got one of the first M4s, never touched by anyone but me. Never had a malfunction.
Time to leave for other units - my replacement M9 - not brand new, but new enough. My replacement M4 was looser than my previous one.
Who knows what the previous owner did with his weapon - did he use the magazines for an improvised sterno stove? Did he mount the bayonet to the rifle and chop down aiming stakes? I know I have a lot of 3-5 second rushes under my belt and everyone ended with a buttstock slamming into the ground.
Has anybody in the military not dropped their weapon? Seriously - be honest. What if that drop was off a 5 ton or a Bradley?
I was fortunate to recieve some brand new, never assigned to anyone but me weapons. They worked - all the time. The weapons I had problems with had previous owners. Kind of like a rental car.
Just wanted to add something else to the conversation.

[LordofWar]

The SAW (FN Minimi) comes with three barrels in total. A barrel change takes less than 10 seconds.

[kraigwy]

I think it was I who first brought up the shooters rather then the guns, but no way in hell was I faulting the soldier, I'm fauliting the military for lack of proper training.

I also point out that I dont buy the WHITE HOT bs, a gun will quit long before we get to that point.

Also, BEEN THERE DONE THAT, I got the T-shirt (CIB) and have been fighthing the training, or lack there of since the 60s. I do believe the A2, (three shot burst) helped the problem.

[rodwhaincamo]

Seems to me a gas piston system would help tremendously since it doesn't foul up like the imp system, therefor helping with the need for a very clean weapon to work, especially in those conditions there. And it seems a fluted barrel would help with the heat problem. Not negate it, but allow for the weapon to function longer under adverse conditions such as those. And this can be done with only a new upper that wouldn't require the larger expense of replacement we all know the government won't go for. Not to mention little additional training would be required. I like the idea of replacing the 5.56 with the 6.8, but I don't see that happening, at least not on a large scale, since it would require us to convince NATO to follow suit.
As for the soldiers in that battle, I have to dip my hat to them. Under those horrible conditions they prevailed despite the circumstances and devastating loss of comrads. I don't feel you can blame them for the way they handled themselves and their equipment under those dire conditions. Would any of us really have done much differently considering that your position isn't fortified, your heavy weapons have been destroyed, and several of your fellow soldiers have been injured or killed? Especially with those odds, firepower being brought down around you, and knowing to be captured would no doubt be a much scarier fate? I think you do what you must. I have never been in such a situation and don't know how I would react. I fear how I would handle facing off with just 1 angry hog, much less a couple hundred crazy m*therf*ckers coming for my head! Under those circumstances I think the outcome was outstanding. And what training they had may have been what made the difference. It's easy to criticize the actions of others from the safety of our homes in our much safer country. Not that I feel their training is as great as it ought to be. I feel our government cuts too many corners. And I'm fearful of the outcome with our government now Democratically controlled. They tend to cut military funding to the point we aren't safe nor ready to handle any major conflict IMO. :mad:
With the way the insurgents strategically took out our heavy weapons so soon makes me question their intelligence. Quite frankly I wouldn't be too trusting of any of the Afghanis. It appears the police force was sided with them. And that's a big part of the problem over there IMO. You can't tell friend from foe. Not like we are fighting an actual army.
Anyway, my THANKS to those of you that serve our country and those allied with us. Our freedoms are due to your sacrifices. It would be a terrible world indeed were it not for people like you.
I have been contemplating the Army (too old for the Marines) since we began this after hearing about the atrocities commited by these dogs. First I felt I could help make a difference and was just mad as hell for what they've done to us here and there. Was in a dead end job anyway. But now I have 2 young children to consider, and things are harder than ever. And I'll soon be seing the top of the hill (late 30's now).

[johnwilliamson062]

I have seen a few posts about Israeli weapons. They switched back to the M16 b/c of pressure to standardize w/ NATO/US equipment. The M16s were sold to them at extremely high discounts by the US. They quickly developed the Tavor TAR-21 and are currently adopting it, although not at an impressive rate. From the little i know of the rifle it seems to be much nicer than M16A4s or M4s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Tavor_TAR-21

The key to the whole thing?
M16 rifle and its variants will remain in service for some time to come; their unit purchase price is about one third that of the T.A.R. 21.

The AR is just about the cheapest rifle used by a western industrialized nation.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Seems to me a gas piston system would help tremendously since it doesn't foul up like the imp system, therefor helping with the need for a very clean weapon to work, especially in those conditions there.

Except that based on the reports, none of the weapons stopped working due to fouling. They stopped working due to overheating - and the M249 SAWs (piston-operated) were overheating as well.

With the way the insurgents strategically took out our heavy weapons so soon makes me question their intelligence.

The enemy knew the Army was coming for a long time. According to the history, in order to win "hearts and minds", the Army wanted to purchase the land from the villagers at Wanat. The villagers, who lived deep in Indian Country, wanted the Army to take it so they could have plausible deniablity. Considering that the enemy pretty much entered Wanat at will and had killed several Afghan government officials there with relative ease, you can understand their concern.

Instead, the Army had multiple shuras with the villagers over a protracted period of time to negotiate a purchase - so everyone knew that the Army would be building an outpost there and where it would be. In addition, the outpost was built on top of a defensive position used earlier by an Engineers unit that built bridges nearby.

When the bridges had been built, they used roughly 2-3x the forces and assets for the smaller job. In addition, the Engineers were given local currency to spend in the local economy and hired local villagers. This made them popular in Wanat and they enjoyed good relations.

This time around though, there was no intermingling with the villagers or any money spent. They also hired an outside construction company of a different ethnic group (which never arrived because of fear of what would happen when it did) which also served to offend the villagers.

Once they arrived and began building the camp, the soldiers noticed several military-aged males watching them build defensive positions from the nearby bazaar. In addition, they could observe small groups infilitrating via thermal sights at night on occasion. In both cases, they weren't allowed to do much about it. In addition, due to having much more limited manpower than the earlier effort (which involved much less construction), they were unable to mount patrols.

On top of this, they were unable to use the two UAVs organic to the unit (one required an airstrip and the nearest piece of suitable flat ground was too far away - the other could be individually launched; but due to its small size, suffered massive flight problems with the downdrafts coming off the nearby 10,000' peaks).

So with the exception of the thermal sights, which were line of sight only, they were blind and building their camp while the enemy observed them from a short distance away unmolested.

Not suprisingly, the initial attack was very successful in destroying the heavy weapons they had. Despite routinely changing the position of the TOW HMMWV, it took at least 3 hits from RPGs in the first salvo, causing the missiles to begin cooking off.

Once the heavy weapons were gone, the only thing they had was Apaches at Jalalabad (30 minutes flight time away) and 155mm howitzers (which due to the circumstances, could not fire any closer than 600m from the camp perimeter, making them minimally useful). The first Apaches showed up around an hour and twenty minutes into the fight - so for that first hour +, it was SAWs and M4s vs. 200 guys with no shortage of heavy weapons.

Quite frankly I wouldn't be too trusting of any of the Afghanis. It appears the police force was sided with them.

Eh... double edged sword. The platoon involved was very distrustful of Afghanis as one of their favorite Sergeants had been killed in a "friendly fire" incident by an ANA soldier who basically shot him (with no combat going on). They were so distrustful in fact, that, if you believe the historian, they missed several opportunities to get help from the locals who were disposed to help them.

It was also interesting reading their opinions of the ANA who fought with them. The ANA at the Outpost took 5 wounded (4 seriously, including one who was severely burned when the TOW blew up). That was about the same ratio as casualties among the Americans at the Outpost; but many of the 2nd Platoon soldiers felt that it was evidence that the ANA soldiers were not targeted by the enemy. The history also mentions that some of the 2nd Platoon soldiers were angry that the ANA did not fire faster or more often during the attack (an issue of some debate here) and considered that as evidence of collaboration.

On the flip side, the reports from the Marine trainers of the ANA and the 1st Platoon QRF that responded to the attack were both very positive and suggested a well-disciplined force that fought all the way through the attack.

However, it does seem that the Afghan National Police in Wanat sided with the enemy and large caches of weapons were found there as well as a lot of expended brass on the side of the wall facing the outpost.

O, and the Afghans who did support us? We pulled out of Wanat and left them to their fate in that part of the world. So the trust thing is a two-way street.

[rodwhaincamo]

I didn't necessarily mean that the gas piston system would have helped during that battle. Since, at times, our soldiers are too busy dealing with things (on the move, long term dust storms, building fortifications, etc.) they may not have the time or ability to keep their gas imp systems clean enough. So if they were to have piston systems it would help with the # of rounds before "needing" cleaning, much less fouling, and, not that I know anything about this, but maybe less heat buildup around the chamber area. It just seems a much superior design. Seems the imp system is too finicky.

[HorseSoldier]

They switched back to the M16 b/c of pressure to standardize w/ NATO/US equipment. The M16s were sold to them at extremely high discounts by the US. They quickly developed the Tavor TAR-21 and are currently adopting it, although not at an impressive rate. From the little i know of the rifle it seems to be much nicer than M16A4s or M4s.


"Quickly" developed the Tavor? They've had M16s and related weapons in their inventory since 1973. Even by military R&D standards the Tavor's arrival is pretty glacial . . .

They did get the M16 cheap from us, but that doesn't explain why the IDF favored it for issue to their infantry and other shooters, and relegated the Galil to a secondary role as a personal defense weapon for tank crews and other guys who have better things to do on the battlefield.

[Dannyl]

Hi Kraigwy,
my comments did not refer to your post. if you look you will see that others took it way too far for good taste (IMO). from other posts I am well aware of your past experience, and yes, perhaps a different manner of shooting would have made a difference, but since I was not there I am not about to pass judgement on anyone.

That said, I have to agree with some points that you bring up; I have had one or two occassions when I emptied magazines rather fast, never saw my barrel turn red or white, certainly hot, but not something to stress about (even afer emptying three x 35 rounds mags in under two minutes firing full-Auto with a Galil) so there may be more to the story.

Horsesoldier,
I think my countrymen decided that lugging a Galil, 14 mags, 6 grenades, some water cantines and whatever squad weapon you carried on top of that made the soldier too cumbersome, which is the only reason I can think for the re-introduction of M16 variants to the foot soldiers instead of the heavier yet trusty Galil.

Brgds,
Danny

[Jseime]

I think that this situation was a result of several bad things compounded in one very bad day.

Be it lack of training, lack of planning, lack of intelligence, poor equipment, panic attacks, stress, who knows.

The rifle failed, we know that, anything else here is all opinion. We were not there, we dont know for sure exactly what went on.

I do not own an M4 I have never been in the military (and likely wont be unless we have a war that I feel needs to be fought) so I cannot say one way or the other if the M4 is a good weapon.

I think that we can all agree that a bunch of US soldiers who were maybe under-trained/ill-equpped faced some ugly odds, fought through it and came out on top.

[greensteelforge]

The truth of the matter is that any gun will overheat, and when that happens, it will fail. Even the venerable AK can become overheated, sluggish, and even stop. What makes more sense is to examine the shortcomings in the system. Slightly larger chamber dimensions and a retrofitted gas piston system would likely fix most of the problems with the AR platform, but nothing will make a weapon capable of firing explosively propelled metal projectiles able to function under endless abuse. I have used issued M4's in combat, and wouldn't want to trade it for an AK. During my time in the Army marksmanship program, I had the opportunity to try out lots of different weapons that were being marketed to the Army, and found that nearly all of the designs were cosmetic overhauls of the M-16 (used the same gas system and bolt/carrier principle), those that departed were generally exotic, and failed to match the performance of the current issue.

[csmsss]

So with the exception of the thermal sights, which were line of sight only, they were blind and building their camp while the enemy observed them from a short distance away unmolested.This is why you run frequent, aggressive patrols. I'm not certain why the commanders on the scene failed to do this.

[Palmetto-Pride]

Don't you just love all these Monday mourning quarterbacks..........:rolleyes:

[greensteelforge]

It's funny, lots of the same people who think the M-4 is such a piece of junk are pretty proud of their AR-15 clone. I didn't see a big run on AK-47's when everybody decided they needed a battle rifle.

[KShaft]

Quote "Hi All,
I am not American, nor have I ever served in any American unit.
I have, however, served in several years in conditions not too different from those your chaps are fighting in, against a very similar enemy. I also had a shot or two fired in my direction so I have a fair idea of what these soldiers went through, and therefore I have a lot of respect for them.

Some people in this forum are taking the liberty of criticizing the actions of soldiers, that were apparently outnumbered between 2 to 1 to 10 to one, in a position that was anywhere but prepared for battle.

I think that most of those have probably never faced an armed oponent, certainly not 200 at once. Until you do, please be more respectful of those that have. (It is unfair and disrespectful to criticize them in a manner that does not even offer them a chance to speak up.

The OP asked to discuss whether a particular firearm is prone to failure at certain conditions involving rate of fire, climate and environment. Not to discuss (and criticize in a manner that comes accross as crucifying) the actions of a bunch of soldiers under fire in very unfavourable conditions.

Please let us all keep our tones respectful.

Brgds,

Danny "

As an 8 year Marine, Army and OIF vet, all I can say is, Amen to that.

If you havent been there, done that, then you should really just shut the **** up. You really dont have a clue. Any whatsoever...

[emcon5]

Easy fix for sustained rate of fire issues:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads15/m4_1917_mod01255569863.jpg

[johnwilliamson062]

This is why you run frequent, aggressive patrols. I'm not certain why the commanders on the scene failed to do this.

I know why. Everyone knew the enemy force was there. No reason to send out part of your force to get eaten up uselessly. Sounds like they were grossly understaffed for this mission. They knew they were being scouted, they knew there was a numerically superior force in the vicinity, their ROE just limited them from doing anything about it. They probably sat around for most of those couple of days wondering why the hell it hadn't started yet.

They had some M16s around, just as we probably have some Tavors now, but when were they the primary issue rifle? No matter the details of historic dates, it looks like the US is going to have one of the most outdated rifle systems in the world within a few years.

[greensteelforge]

There's plenty of B.S. when it comes to people's area's of fantasy-interest. I never knew anyone who took good care of their weapon to have any real trouble with it in a firefight, or anywhere else. The enemy was able to overwhelm the capacity of our machinery, the training, and quality of the weapons are a testament to quality. Isolated, and outnumbered without ideal position, yet able to repel a well coordinated attack. If you haven't been behind an automatic weapon trading rounds with some other guy with an automatic weapon, you don't have any business criticizing those who have.

Army, OIF combat veteran

[B. Lahey]

In pretty much every war there are instances of soldiers ending up badly outnumbered, firing guns to the point where they fail or sustain battle damage, and moving on to the next gun in astounding displays of bravery.

A few medals have been given out for that sort of thing.
http://www.history.army.mil/moh.html

I guess all those guys had substandard equipment too.:rolleyes:

There are weaknesses inherent to gunpowder projectile arms. Things haven't changed much since 1895 or so. Heat, wear, and breakage are still problems, amazingly enough.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is why you run frequent, aggressive patrols. I'm not certain why the commanders on the scene failed to do this.

Well, based on the history, the commander had to a single platoon augmented by a few Engineers and three Marines (who were technically there as trainers for the 24 ANA soldiers).

With that he had to run security for the outpost, man the OP, and build the outpost. They actually had scheduled a joint ANA/Army patrol for 4:30am on the morning of the attack and even then some of the troops felt they were spread too thin for that patrol. That patrol never went out because the attack kicked off first.

The construction was also complicated by Army regs calling for 50 minutes of rest for every 10 minutes of hard labor in that kind of heat. With the limited water (they could only carry in what they brought on the HMMWVs) and the rest requirements, it would make it even harder to use what manpower they did have.

[Erik]

Smacks of an end user issue, as in either at least one of the following: lack of armorer maintenance, preventative maintenance, or continuing maintenance.

If anything failed, it was training and leadership.

Someone firing 360 rounds in 30 minutes comes to a shot every 5 seconds for the duration of that time line assuming every round was sent with deliberation; unlikely that that was the case, which suggest a fair amount of burst fire (unaimed and less effective) was involved.

Regardless, as noted, anything shot until white hot will fail.

[Dannyl]

Can we please stick onto discussing the weapons in question and not the performance of the soldiers?

Once again people are making a point of blaiming soldiers for firing too quicly, lack of maintenance etc.

TFL is not the place to explain the different ways of using fire in a battle (that is best left to army training facilities), so I will not go there, but there are times and places where roughly aimed volleys is either all you can afford to do, and times where it buys you or a friend precious moments to get to better cover.

Surely most of the people criticizing the soldiers know one or two chaps that have been in the military, some may have taken part in a batle or two. I suggest you buy them a beer, and if you can get them to talk about it they can explain more.


Brgds,

Danny

[emcon5]

Here is the draft report the AP writer based his article on:

http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/battle-of-wanat-historical-analysis-rough-draft-release/

The only barrel that was white hot was a SAW, and that was only after going cyclic for ~600 rounds.

[tipoc]

I can understand the need for fire discipline; but it is definitely worth reading the history of this attack before you put too much blame on the guys handling it. They were handed an untenable position and task and given nothing to do it with - and then they proceeded to do it anyway in the face of overwhelming odds.

The above is the point worth noting.

The discussion of weapons failure during the battle of Wanat resurfaces these days due to the currant debate on what road forward in Afghanistan.

Folks who have read the book and the reports on the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia know that the problem there was not equipment or technology.

In Wanat the problem was not the M4 or any other piece of equipment.

While it's useful to evaluate the equipments performance in the battle the equipment itself played a secondary role in the outcome. It usually does.

tipoc

[thallub]

Here is the draft report the AP writer based his article on:

http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/co...draft-release/

The only barrel that was white hot was a SAW, and that was only after going cyclic for ~600 rounds.


+1

Excellent find.

Would it surprise anyone on this thread to learn that AP tooks some liberties with the truth? I have read the account of the battle contained in the draft report through twice, studied parts of it and am in total agreement Emcon5s statement and with this piece:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/10/13/the-truth-behind-the-recent-m4-controversy/

[tipoc]

Many have referenced the report from "A Battlefield Tourist" as a military report. It is not. It is an article by the reporter David Tate...
http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/about/

Appears to be a good and through article but not an official after action report from the military.

The significance of the Wanat battle had little to do with equipment.

tipoc

[TRguy]

7 pages of comments and.....

http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/images/smilies/Beating_a_dead_horse.gif

I'm just saying

[Bruegger]

My agency uses these, and the heat doesn't magically disappear. The heat that would otherwise build up in the chamber and bolt builds up in the barrel and forend. It gets wicked hot when used in FA. Vertical foregrip is mandatory. Same prob with any piston-driven variant I believe.

A heavier barrel would help heat buildup somewhat, but so far as I know, all the military rifle barrels (M4 and M16 variants) have the thin section for attaching the M203. I saw that the LWRC M6A4 fires from the open bolt when in FA, and closed-bolt when in SA (and for first shot in FA). This would help a bit. But I think it's meant to fill the role of an automatic rifle (like the BAR), replacing the SAW at the fireteam level, not for issue to every rifleman. http://www.lwrci.com/Products/M6A4/tabid/84/Default.aspx

[HorseSoldier]

Here is the draft report the AP writer based his article on:

I think the writer of the AP article deliberately references two different firefights at two different times in a way that some readers may not even notice. It's either bad writing that should have been edited for clarity, or good old fashioned yellow journalism . . .

I saw that the LWRC M6A4 fires from the open bolt when in FA, and closed-bolt when in SA (and for first shot in FA). This would help a bit. But I think it's meant to fill the role of an automatic rifle (like the BAR), replacing the SAW at the fireteam level, not for issue to every rifleman.

I think that was their submission for the USMC IAR contract, which included a variety of pretty interesting weapons from different manufacturers.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Many have referenced the report from "A Battlefield Tourist" as a military report. It is not. It is an article by the reporter David Tate...
http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/about/

The article was posted on David Tate's blog; but it is not his article. As he notes in the post, the article is a rough draft of the historical analysis of the Battle of Wanat put together by the Combat Studies Institute of Fort Leavenworth, KS. The actual author is Douglas Cubbison of the Combat Studies Institute.

[Crosshair]

This is why you run frequent, aggressive patrols. I'm not certain why the commanders on the scene failed to do this.
As was mentioned before, they did not have enough manpower to do this to the degree they should have. Often what you SHOULD do and what you CAN do are two completely different things.

Except that based on the reports, none of the weapons stopped working due to fouling. They stopped working due to overheating - and the M249 SAWs (piston-operated) were overheating as well.
Apples and oranges. The M-249 is a belt fed weapon that gives it a much higher effective rate of fire.

The DI system of the M4/M16 dumps hot propellant directly into the receiver. In my limited experience, the receiver of an AR-15 gets noticeably warmer than the AK, Mini-14/30, and AR-18. (I haven't shot a piston AR-15.) With automatic fire that amplifies the effect even further. So by design the AR will tend to heat up faster.

The AR is just about the cheapest rifle used by a western industrialized nation.
Anyone have any statistics on this? It would be interesting to see what the figures are.

[Chindo18Z]

Bypassing the question of whether or not undermanned units should be trying to carve out miniature Fort Apaches along the Waziristan border...

Some posters seem convinced that M4 combat failure is epedemic due to poor design or, at the very least, somehow contributed to American casualties during two massive and deliberate enemy assaults against small unit outposts.

This thread has been weighing heavily on my mind, as my experience with the same weapon over the last few decades (and several combat tours) does not correlate with that of a number of posters who claim the M4 is liable to fail under stress.

That said, and because I'm currently employed in an organization that issues M4A1s and likes to see them used...

Today I conducted an impromptu and completely unscientific test of my weapon in order to see if I had merely imagined my faith in the little beast.

With this thread fresh in my mind, I broke out 10 brand new GI issue, aluminum body, green follower, Center Industries 5.56 magazines and proceeded to load them with 30 rds each. Not 26, 27, or 28...30 rounds each.

I then proceeded to successfully fire 1140 rds (38 magazines) of M855 62 grain "Greentip" 5.56 through my well used M4A1, on full auto, and in well under 30 minutes.

I checked my watch, noting start time, and began firing the first 10 mags in 3-5 round bursts at a 5 meter target, from a standing position, and executing medium speed combat reloads as each mag ran dry. Shoot to bolt lockback, drop mag, insert new mag, resume fire. 10 times...300 rounds in about 3 minutes.

I then let the rifle cool for about 8 minutes while I reloaded all 10 mags.

Rinse. Repeat. 10 mags in about 3 minutes.

Gun cooled for exactly five minutes while I reloaded all 10 mags at a slightly faster pace.

Rinse. Repeat. 10 mags again in under 3 minutes with slightly longer bursts of 7-9 rds each. By this time, I had lowered the weapon to "hip fire" (just in case...rather have a cookoff or malfunction away from my face).

Last iteration. Let carbine cool while I loaded 8 mags in under 5 minutes. I didn't have a new case of ammo open and I didn't want to slow down the proceedings. Fired all 8 from the hip as fast as I could reload (in about 1 minute and 30 seconds, full auto, trigger depressed until magazines were empty. No attempt at burst fire.

38 x 30-rd magazines fired without a stutter,...in under 28.5 minutes, without a jam, misfeed, doublefeed, cookoff or failure to completely chamber, extract or eject. It hummed like a sewing machine, put all rds on target (except for a few flyers from the hip), and never changed a beat with regards to getting sluggish from fouling.

This performance was delivered by a stock military issue M4A1 that has seen 10s of thousands of rounds down the barrel, probably 5 combat deployments, several months worth of PMT (Pre Mission Training for combat deployments), several shooting schools, and many months of team ranges at home and abroad.

My carbine was relatively clean and I oiled it prior to firing as I stood on the range. I shotgunned the upper receiver, dripped some CLP on the trigger group, liberally coated the charging handle, chamber, and bolt carrier group (without disassembling the bolt from the bolt carrier) and slapped it back together. Aimpoint M68 "on", nomex clad hands on pistol grip and vertical foregrip, KAC quad-rail run exposed with no rail covers (don't need 'em or like 'em).

1140 rounds. Thats three times as much ammo as a normal infantryman would be likely to ever carry on his body, thirty-eight magazines, more than five basic combat loads...all on full auto...in well under thirty minutes. Nemo Problemo.

The upper receiver was still a bit too hot to touch (rear rail, barrel, and ejection port area) without gloves after 10 minutes, but the lower receiver was good to go barehanded.

I took an assumed risk (induced weapon failure) and wore adequate protective gear, but (as it turned out), nothing was necessary. Didn't even need gloves as the vertical foregrip stayed cool.

Someone will no doubt question my ability to conduct such a "test" on a military range. I'll simply say that I have enough rank that very few folks question what I do or why I want to do it.

It's not the first time I've put a lot of rounds down an M4A1, but it's the highest round count I've shot recently in such a short period of time.

Of course, this just an anecdotal account of my experience with just one weapon, but my faith in the M4A1 remains affirmed.

BTW: My barrel didn't get white hot...just black with wisps of smoke coming off of it.

YMMV.

[HorseSoldier]

Anyone have any statistics on this? It would be interesting to see what the figures are.

I don't know if the numbers would even be that illuminating without being adjusted to take into account the economy of scale issues between the price per unit paid by the US government compared to, say, Canada or Denmark (for basically identical weapons).

Add to that the cost of the M16/M4 as a system, not just a weapon with irons sights and plastic handguards (since it isn't 1965 anymore and weapons are systems now and it gets even murkier. And in some cases costing more than the M4 isn't really a mark of distinction (L85A2 comes to mind).

[chemscout]

Speaking as a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan and carrying an M16 daily, I feel somewhat qualified to toss in my two cents. Mind you, it's only my opinion and it's worth what you paid for it.

The M16 family of weapons is probably the biggest POS weapon system EVER used by American forces. It jams when dusty, it's finicky, it's frikkin plastic and you can't beat someone to death with it without the stock breaking. It's another weapon system that should have been DX'd thirty years ago when the first people to test it determined that it was, in fact, a POS.

There are those who are going to say "but my M4/M16/etc NEVER jams because I properly maintain it!" and to that I simply say good for you.

Our enemies (and some of our allies) are using much better weapons than we are at the grunt level. We need to go to a .30 caliber weapon, in my opinion. I'd even be ok with us using the AK. It's a much better weapon and (yes I know most of them won't be able to hit a target at 500 meters, but neither can most Joes using an M4) would enable us to police up the ammo from our dead enemies in a pinch.

Short answer: The M16/M4 should go away. And I hope Eugene Stoner is in hell for designing it.

Like I said...all my opinion.


C.S.

[1goodshot]

I think the people in command leaked the story about the weopons not working properly to cover the fact that they let our troops down by not planning propery.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It jams when dusty, it's finicky, it's frikkin plastic.

15,000 rounds through an M4 with no stoppages and how you can do it too (http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-why-they-occur-and-why-theyre-our-fault/)


and you can't beat someone to death with it without the stock breaking.

If you are trying to kill someone with an M4, there are a lot better ways to do it than beating them with it. In fact, if you are forced to beat someone to death with an M4, I would suggest your planning has probably already failed you on many levels.

would enable us to police up the ammo from our dead enemies in a pinch.

I'd reconsider how smart it is to rely on that tactic given that in this fight, the BDA team recovered exactly one enemy body and it had a green canvas mag carrier, three empty magazines, and no rifle.

An AK47 magazine weighs 1.26 pounds loaded. An M4 magazine weighs 1 pound loaded. Our Specialist McKaig, the soldier whose comment started all of this discussion, fired 12 magazines in "about half an hour." He then later mentions that he was down to 2 magazines remaining when they decided to leave the OP. So Specialist McKaig had 14lbs of 5.56 ammo (or 420 rounds) on him.

Now let's give Specialist McKaig an AK47 in that same situation. 14lbs of 7.62x39 ammo gives him 330 rounds AND a heavier rifle. Now instead of retreating from the outpost with 2 magazine left, Specialist McKaig runs out of ammunition 30 rounds earlier than the M4 stopped shooting from overheating (assuming of course that the AK would continue to shoot and wouldn't be even worse on overheating issues).

So it will be a good thing Specialist McKaig can use enemy magazines (if he can get them); because he is going to need them if he is going to survive.

[Al Thompson]

Chemscout, I'm sorry that you've such bad experience. Unfortunately, between Chindo, Bartholomew Roberts, myself and Horse Soldier, we've probably got a total of over 100 years experience on the platform. We all seem to disagree with you. And HS and Chindo had combat tours, multiple for Mr. Chindo. :)

Should there be a better platform/system and does the American soldier deserve it? Yes, in spades. As someone between here and THR mentioned, we should have a small arms system that flat stomps the crap out of anything else.

In the mean time, the AR system will work, but you've got to be smarter than the machine. The link posted by Bartholomew Roberts should help you gain some professional knowledge.

Oh, having witnessed a proper full strength butt-stroke from an M16, I can assure you, the stock does not break. Faces break, not butts. :p

On the M4, I'd suggest a strong thrust as opposed to a butt-stroke. :eek: Or maybe an extra magazine or (my favorite) an E-tool for those "awkward moments". :D

[johnwilliamson062]

It really does seem these rifles held up well in the circumstance. As far as firing too many rounds, in this situation, I think I would be proud of my self for doing anything short of flipping to full auto and letting loose with every magazine I could lay my hands on.

Unfortunately, between Chindo, Bartholomew Roberts, myself and Horse Soldier, we've probably got a total of over 100 years experience on the platform
And the problem doesn't seem to be with experienced soldiers, or shooting enthusiasts who grew up maintaining hunting rifles. It is with the city kid who joined up to have his college paid for and who's only firearms experience may have been firing a hi-point sideways at an indoor range. When he/she leaves the military he/she may never again posess a firearm. This is a general issue rifle, not something for any sort of elite unit. It isn't used primarily by SDMs and such.

I think it will not be too long until we see a new rifle. For one thing it is now becoming well known that many marines are taking personal arms to theater, and not side arms.

[tipoc]

The article was posted on David Tate's blog; but it is not his article. As he notes in the post, the article is a rough draft of the historical analysis of the Battle of Wanat put together by the Combat Studies Institute of Fort Leavenworth, KS. The actual author is Douglas Cubbison of the Combat Studies Institute.

Thanks for the correction.

tipoc

[Baratacus]

If you are trying to kill someone with an M4, there are a lot better ways to do it than beating them with it. In fact, if you are forced to beat someone to death with an M4, I would suggest your planning has probably already failed you on many levels.


That's signature worthy right there. :cool:

Based on Chindo18z field test and my personal opinion, the M4 did not fail in this combat situation. The situation failed the weapon. On many levels the planing failed the soldies in this scurmish and in turn the weapons. If the weapon was restricted to burst fire then they would not have to control their fire rate as much. As was noted, controling fire rate while being supressed by enemy fire takes a lot of discipline and very few soldiers are capable in that situation, on full auto, of not squeezing their trigger untill they don't have any more bullets or their gun melts. I sure couldn't... but that's why god made burst mode.
Chindo didn't fire that weapon through all of those rounds on full cyclic. No one could or should. It's not even questioned that the weapon would cease to opperate. Chindo, if you do decide to do a field test on full cyclic to see exactly how many rounds it takes to fail, please take thorough safety precautions... crazy head.
Could you explain the advantage of full auto using controled bursts, over a 3 round burst restrictor? I just don't see a reason for full auto on the M4 after this whole issue was dug up.
I can see where it would be usefull on a room broom where you have extremely restricted tight quarters fighting and the spray and pray method is the best method, but the M4 isn't a submachine pistol.

[Dannyl]

Sorry if this is slightly off topic,

How long is a TOUR when your forces go to a deployment?

Brgds,
Danny

[Al Thompson]

Depends on the unit, but generally a year.

[johnwilliamson062]

Marine is 7 months followed by 14 off. I do believe all the rest are one year or very close to it.

[HorseSoldier]

Could you explain the advantage of full auto using controled bursts, over a 3 round burst restrictor? I just don't see a reason for full auto on the M4 after this whole issue was dug up.

Couple of reasons come to mind --

1) Well trained troops can fire a longer burst if their read of the situation requires it for whatever reason. There's rarely any valid reason to burn through a big chunk of a magazine or a whole magazine in one go, but when you need to, you probably really need to.

2) The burst mechanism on the M16A2/A4 and M4 has its own quirks and is another potential failure point on the weapon. It is, ultimately, another one of those technical fixes to a training problem that I think have already been mentioned in the thread -- someone decided it was easier/cheaper to keep troops from firing full automatic with their rifles rather than training them how and when to do so.

[Adventurer 2]

Australian Peel Off

[Bart Noir]

Australian Peel Off

I had to google that phrase, but it was worth it.

Bart Noir
Who like Aussies but has a completely different idea of a peel off.

[5whiskey]

For one thing it is now becoming well known that many marines are taking personal arms to theater, and not side arms.

I would like to see a reputable link for that info. I just so happen to be a Marine and I've never heard of this :confused:. If it's that "well known" then why didn't I get the memo?

If I did have a choice, I would still take an FNH rifle over a bushmaster, which is what most own as personal weapons. Or do they take AKs? Nope. No ammo for it in the supply chain. Oh wait, I know. They all go out and buy M1As on a 1800 dollar a month salary. Their units are gracious enough to special order a combat load of 7.62 NATO for them, along with tea and crumpets. Or better yet, their unit lets them take their own ammo with them.

Maybe some of the super top secret squirrels in delta get to use non-serialized personal gear, but no Marine deploys with a weapon that is not serialized by the Marine Corps. Unless SOCOM wrestled him away from MARSOC and he no longer wears digital uniforms.

[HorseSoldier]

Maybe some of the super top secret squirrels in delta get to use non-serialized personal gear, but no Marine deploys with a weapon that is not serialized by the Marine Corps. Unless SOCOM wrestled him away from MARSOC and he no longer wears digital uniforms.

In the white-side SOF unit I was a support guy in, we had a lot of really cool toys in the arms room for familiarization training, but every one of them was still serial numbered and had to be checked and inventoried on the same schedule as all our more mundane USGI stuff. I do know some team guys who took non-standard AR uppers downrange with no drama or issues, but also know some guys who took privately owned pistols downrange and got in very serious trouble for it (career ending sort of trouble).

May be different for the guys in the black side but I don't know why it would be for them -- when you've got the money and pull to get what you want through official channels, and can tweak it as desired, why would you bother going downrange with privately owned weapons?

Anyway, I'm equally sketchy about the idea that Marines or anybody else from the conventional side of the house are carrying their own long guns in theater. Non-armorer installed aftermarket M4 parts are sergeant major kryptonite, can't imagine how it would go if Joe got spotted with his POF gas piston upper or Springfield M1A or whatever.

[Art Eatman]

Eight pages is enough for now. Review the entire thread and if you have any new thoughts to offer, feel free to begin another thread.