Washington Times: Flaws in The M4? [Archive]

View Full Version : Washington Times: Flaws in The M4?

Korgs130

02-20-14, 19:09

Just curious what those of you who carried the M4 overseas think of this article.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/19/troop-left-to-fend-for-themselves-after-army-was-w/

brushy bill

02-20-14, 19:45

Just a suggestion, but you may get more responses under the AR general discussion section vice general discussion.

Mauser KAR98K

02-20-14, 19:50

Atricle has a lot of bad information, and inaccurate comments from some of the sources.

This was my letter to the Washington Times in regards to the article:

o the editor John Solomon:
Please forward this to Mr. Rowan Scarborough.

In regards to the February 19th article on the Army's flawed rifle, the M4, there are some glaring inaccuracies, and information that is not presented on the known flaws of the M4 based weapon system. I believe the research done on this article was not correct and not thoroughly done, the cited consultants of the article, particularly Major General Robert Scales statement, are also inaccurate and do not expound knowledgeable information.

The history of Eugen Stoner's direct gas impingement system in the AR-15/M-16/M4 weapon system has had its problems, and the history is well documented of the troubles the M16 family has gone through. For a weapon that has been in service since the Sixties, it has gone through a lot of changes, but it in fact stays as the U.S. Military's primary small arms weapon of choice is for a reason. It is very modular in terms of attachments to be used, lightweight, and inherently has low recoil impulse due to the 5.56 carriage and the straight barrel-to-stock design.

the early problems that arose with the M16 during the Vietnam war was Military's assumption that the weapon could be issued and put to the field without a cleaning kit. Anything man made can and will break, and the idea that a weapon does not need a cleaning kit for proper maintenance was a very short sighted failure. The changes that went into the M16 during that time--from engineers from Colt--where chrome lined chambers, different powder propellent, and proper maintenance.

In the 1980s, the M16 was upgrade to the M16A2 via request by the Marine Corp, and the need to produce a new round that could penetrate Soviet body armor that, at the time, could withstand the U.S. issued 55 grain projectile. The upgrade to the M16A2 was a faster twist barrel to support the 62 grain penetrating round (the XM855/SS109), a longer stock, and a three round burst. In the 1990's the M4 was developed for SOCOM forces and saw its action mainly in Somalia.

The M4, and its carbine gas system, does have its flaws, considering how new it relatively was when the Global War on Terrorism began on September 11th, 2001. It had also seen virtually limited combat experience. One of the noted known observations with the M4 was that the shortened barrel did not cause the XM855 to tumble when it impact enemy combatants. The problem was the round was not meeting the resistance of Soviet body armor to slow down the velocity to tumble and fragment. This problem was also experienced in the Battle for Fallujah when Marines were having to put multiple rounds in enemy insurgence to stop them, at times taking head shots for effect central nervous system neutralization.

With this known, the M4 system in its current issued configuration is a reliable and effect weapon. The A1 with its heavier barrel profile was a much needed improvement due to soldiers "mag dumping" in combat. The heavier barrel profile takes longer to build up heat, but it also takes longer to dissipate heat. With any weapon with a closed bolt system, the weapon is going to heat up dramatically and will cause problems. Any weapon. This is why most machine guns (heavy and light) are open bolt to allow air to circulate and cool the weapon down. They also have the capability to change barrels; the M4 does not. When standard infantry soldiers use their rifles/carbines in a support weapon role and go through magazine after magazine of ammunition, the weapon is going to heat up and will be more prone to failure. Even the Khlasnikov (AK pattern system) can fail at the barrel with overheating the weapon.

What the article did not state, and what needs to be stated, is how the M4, and the M16, are cared for in the field and out of the field. I took a semester with my College's ROTC and went to their field training exercise, where we got to use the M4 system for rifle qualifications. These weapons were very well used. It was when we sat down to clean the weapons for two straight hours--that is me cleaning just one weapon for two hours--where I noticed where some of the problems that the military was having.

I, myself, have several AR-15s, two in the M4 configuration, but my main weapon is modified. Prior to the FTX (field training exercise) I went to a private training class on the application of the M4 carbine (which also included any carbine with a 16" barrel or shorter). We ran over 1,000 rounds of ammo through our weapons without cleaning them. Prior to the class, I had shot over 700 rounds or more through my carbine without cleaning. After the class, I ran another, or close to, 1,000 rounds of ammo through my carbine. i only had one problem and that was when one of my reloads failed to fire. The weapon operate flawlessly. During the class, we had done exercises that had our weapons running hard for over 500 rounds, though in a semi-auto configuration.

In this class, we learned to clean our weapon. One thing that was stressed was over cleaning your weapon, which from my observations of the way the military has their personnel clean their weapons is over cleaning. What over cleaning does is it takes out the oil and grease build that, even though you cannot see it, but the scrubbing and using of cotton swabs inside the star chamber, removes them, and will cause undue friction on bare metal parts. Furthermore, when it came time to lube the weapons after the intense cleaning, our instructors lined us up and gave to shots of Clean, Lubricate, and Protect (CLP) in to the semi-open chambered of the weapons, and told that the weapons were lubed.

They were in fact not lubed enough, if hardly at all. From my course I took, plus from many leading instructors and AR-15 armors, the AR-14/M4 system needs to be ran "wet." This means that not only is the outside of the bolt thoroughly coated, but the inside as well, including the gas rings that seal the bolt for the direct impingement gas system to perform, but also the firing pin, and the a small film around the locking lugs. This heavy lubrication allows the weapon, more notably the bolt, to cycle, push contaminants into the less sensitive areas of the weapon, and to help keep the bolt cool. Two shots of CLP does not do this.

There is also a very bad myth going around in the U.S. Military of having soldiers under lube their weapons in dusty areas of operation as the lube will stick to the parts and cause them to jam. This is a fallacy that dates back to the Vietnam era. Yes, dust will cake up on the weapon, but the lube will push the dust around and will make the weapon last a lot longer. This is akin to not putting oil in your vehicle.

The problem with the M4 stems from cleaning and maintenance habits, a Soviet era round that was designed to counter a specific threat, and excessive full-auto fire. It seems the military is having these problems while here in the civilian side, a well maintained weapon is not.

My "M4" has about four different companies in it: Daniel Defense for the lower receiver parts kit, Bravo Company Manufacture for the bolt and bolt carrier, Lewis Machine and Tooling for my upper receiver, which has a heavy carbine length barrel on it, and an ALS trigger that has a military spec trigger pull to it. The Warrant officer that was quoted in the beginning of the article is correct. There area lot of civilian companies that are making enhanced parts that are in some ways better than what the military does provide. Many of these parts have gone through some testing that the military has not done. Shooting competitions has done wonders for the M4 platform. But some of us have also taken with the military has deemed to be the standard.

The biggest flaw with the M4/M16, that has been solved, that the article did not address was the magazine follower issue. There are three generations of magazine followers. The first generation (black followers) had tilting issues where the rounds in the magazine would tilt and clog inside the magazine. The green followers (second generations) were to solve this problem, but never did. The current, third, generation, developed by Magpul, are no tilt followers and has increased the reliability of the M4/M16 by 70%. The major flaw to the Stoner system has always been the magazine. Next was the extractor springs, but those problems have also been fixed.

The comments made by Major General Robert Scales are very inaccurate. For one, he states that the Military should look into the AK-74 and the German HK G36. Apparently he has not looked closely at them, himself. The AK-74 uses the 5.45x39mm round, which has about 200-400 less velocity than the standard 5.56 XM855. The round is known for its wound channels, but the round does not penetrate very deep. it also drops off further than what the M4 does due to the lower velocity, and the accuracy at longer range is out performed by the 5.56. The G36 has also known issues. The worst is that after 200-300 rounds fired, the weapon's accuracy drops off dramatically. The barrel sits in a polymer housing that locks the barrel into place. When this heats up, the barrel loosens and causes an erratic shot pattern. From my understanding, HK has made huge recommendations to fix the problem to the German Military, but military has declined to implement the fixes.

Another thing to point out is the AK-47 used by the insurgents. When the weapon was designed and built, its design was based around what the Soviet Union was wanting in a standard infantry weapon. Full and semi auto capability, and to fire an intermediate cartridge that was not expected to have an effect range passed 300-400 meters. The insurgence are using a weapon which intent was for short to intermediate combat, the same as the M4. The AK-47 has a general 16" barrel. The M4 has a 14.5" barrel. Most civilian shooters prefer the 16" barrel on an AR over a 14.5" due to a slight accuracy difference and muzzle velocity, albeit not much.

I encourage to make contact with Pat Rogers of EAG Tactical and inquire of his M4, "Filthy 14". The weapon has an enormous amount of rounds put through it and was cleaned hardly at all. He can also explain the true faults of the system, mostly operator maintenance issues.

I would also advise looking into the Mid-Length gas system of the M4 platform. Currently Daniel Defense and Bravo Company make what is known as a mid-length gas system, which runs very well on a 16" barrel. The M4 runs on a carbine gas system that sits roughly half way between the chamber and the end of the muzzle on the barrel. The problem of the carbine gas system is that it does not offer enough dwell time for the gas to expand in the barrel, in turn goes into the gas tube that will push the bolt carrier group to the cycle the next round. Unlike what a piston system (the AK47, FN FAL or HK416) does by having a rod push the bolt carrier to cycle the next round, the gas impingement system works as using the gas of the burnt powder to act as a piston arm. That is where the similarity ends. Unlike a metal piston arm, say one from your car engine, the short it is, the lighter the force will be on one end of the piston when energy is applied to the opposite end. The longer the piston arm, with the same energy applied to it, the heavier the force is felt on the opposite. With the direct impingement gas system of the M4, the shorter the length the gas flows and impacts the bolt, the strong the force.
As gas is looking for the easiest way out from expansion, the closer it finds something to leak or break through, the more force it exerts. With the carbine length gas system, when the bullet is being pushed down the barrel, the gas is expanding. When it enters in the gas tube, it pushes the bolt carrier back. but since the gas has not expanded enough, the force exerted by the gas on the bolt carrier is immense, and causes a lot of wear on the parts, particularly the bolt.

What a mid-length gas system does is that it offers more room for the gas to expand before it enters into the gas block and into the gas tube. What is meant by mid-length is that the gas port, where the gas enters, is between where a carbine gas port is (half way between the chamber and the muzzle) and a rifle has port is (2/3 away from the chamber; 1/3 from the muzzle). The problem with running a rifle type system of a short barrel (carbine) is that once the gas has entered the tube, the bullet has left the muzzle, and the gas is now exiting more out of the muzzle, and less into the gas tube causing the gas to not exert enough force to cycle the bolt. With the mid-length gas system, it allows gas to "dwell" more in the barrel, but when it enters the gas port and runs down the gas tube, it will hit the bolt to cycle it but will hit it with less force, causing less wear on parts. The system, however, works best on a 16" barrel rather than the 14.5" the U.S. military uses. The mid-length systems is very popular in the civilian market, and to my knowledge, the only market that it is being used and tested by end users.

To conclude this letter, the flaws in the article mentioned are not as serious as Scarborogh has made it seem. The issues that the M4 faces now are the maintenance and upkeep habits the U.S. military has, plus the issue of improper lubricating the weapon system, and an armor penetrating round against a majority of unarmored insurgence. Much of the flaws that have been recorded of the M4/M16 have been solved by a better magazine follower (Magpul), heavier carbine buffer (mentioned in the article but only in passing), and a heavier barrel. If the over cleaning of weapons to keep bored soldiers occupied is lessened, a much heavier lubrication doctrine is established, the flaws mentioned in the article could be far less than what was written. That flaw is not in the weapon but the operators.

I am a Bachelor of Science in History graduate from Tennessee Technological University in Cookeville, Tennessee. I have been fascniated, and have had a lot of hands on experience with military small arms. I own four AR-15s in different variations, and have built four others using quality parts after through research. I have also taken classes with very knowledgeable instructors who are either law enforcement officers or military vets, including one that trained Marines to become riflemen at Quantico, Virgina.

Jason of Monroe, Tennessee.

Bowden, Mark. Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War. Grove Press: New York, 1999.
Chivers, C.J. The Gun. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks: New York, 2010.
Pat Rogers of EAG and "Filthy 14" (http://eagtactical.com/abouteag.asp)

Feel free to hammer me on my response, but I'm sure it is more accurate than the main article itself.

Heavy Metal

02-20-14, 20:06

For starters, the reason for civvy use of 16 inch barrels is not so much preference as it is NFA.

I would also find a way to chop the length. It is too large for a letter to the Editor, it is almost too large for a feature. They will not publish an article of that size. it needs chopped by 2/3rds.

You need a good editor.

Mauser KAR98K

02-20-14, 20:27

Heavy Metal

02-20-14, 20:30

You are throwing out too much info. Pick two or three points and buttress those.

Sticking to one or two would be even better. Pick an angle and hammer the Hell out of it. Quality vs quantity of info is what you want.

Chop the shit out of your CV info.

I would also write the editor and ask him what the word limit is first of all.

Too much minutia too. Remember who your target audience is, it ain't this forum.

Armati

02-20-14, 20:30

Just curious what those of you who carried the M4 overseas think of this article.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/19/troop-left-to-fend-for-themselves-after-army-was-w/

A hot load of crap.

Personal bias and typical MSM gun ignorance abound. First time I ever heard of the M4A1 being called the "Commando Version".

Heavy Metal

02-20-14, 20:34

And I am not impressed with what I am reading that Gen. Scales has contributed to the Times article. The guy is an Arty Officer. I suspect I could generate a more informed opinion of the weapons than he did.

vicious_cb

02-20-14, 20:49

Are you really taking an article from the washington times seriously?

Mauser KAR98K

02-20-14, 20:51

Are you really taking an article from the washington times seriously?

It's the Times. Not the Washington comPost.

Mauser KAR98K

02-20-14, 20:51

Endur

02-20-14, 21:28

Wholly ignorance at an unprecedented level. Wow, just wow..

Heavy Metal

02-20-14, 21:33

Wholly ignorance at an unprecedented level. Wow, just wow..

I know, the whole damn thing is one giant facepalm. The comments over there are KOS worthy too.

It's 10 percent Chicken Salad and 90 Percent Chicken Shit.

Writer needs to be calling Larry effing Vickers, not some Vietnam-era Cannon Cocker for small arms advice. No disrespect intended for the Generals service, just calling it like I see it.

montanadave

02-20-14, 22:59

Hey, maybe Kahr Arms wants to get into the military carbine biz and needs to gin up some buzz for a new gun.

Iraqgunz

02-20-14, 23:42

There is so much bullshit in that article that I could start a fertilizer factory in AZ and make a shit ton of money.

Mauser KAR98K

02-21-14, 00:04

Though i like H&K, and they make some of the best pistols, this almost seemed as an indirect push to go to a 416 DoD wide.

The major flaws have been worked out and the article is about 5-8 years behind the ball in address the "past" flaws. The magazines were most of the issues, but thanks to the no-tilt followers, the main problem has been sorted. Everything else is due to maintenance and up keep by the grunts and the armorers. Mostly over cleaning and under lubing.

Todd00000

02-21-14, 07:54

A hot load of crap.

Personal bias and typical MSM gun ignorance abound. First time I ever heard of the M4A1 being called the "Commando Version".I agree.

SurplusShooter

02-21-14, 08:00

The type articles always sound like a sales-pitch to me, can you spot the kit being pedaled? (Not hard to spot in the original article :rolleyes: )

Todd00000

02-21-14, 08:20

Atricle has a lot of bad information, and inaccurate comments from some of the sources.

This was my letter to the Washington Times in regards to the article:

Feel free to hammer me on my response, but I'm sure it is more accurate than the main article itself.
Copied and pasted for future reading and rebuttal against stupid article use. Good job.

BBossman

02-21-14, 08:29

The type articles always sound like a sales-pitch to me, can you spot the kit being pedaled? (Not hard to spot in the original article :rolleyes: )

I'm no expert, simply a hobbyist so I won't comment on the "technical issues" reported in the article, but there did seem to be some "sales pitch". If I had the inclination, I'd look at "where are they now" for all the persons quoted... follow the money.

KevinB

02-21-14, 08:43

In my less than humble opinion the article is crap.

And for what it is worth, IF today I had to go back into combat, I would not feel unarmed or diminished at all by a M4/M4A1 Carbine.

*but please no M885A1, if Rowan Scarborough wants to take a swing at something, he should dig into M855A1.

ginzomatic

02-21-14, 10:31

That article served well as some Friday morning laughs for my section. good stuff

Renegade

02-21-14, 11:09

A hot load of crap.

Personal bias and typical MSM gun ignorance abound. First time I ever heard of the M4A1 being called the "Commando Version".

Bizarre wording I agree, I presumed they meant Commando version of the M4A1, which would be the R0933 family.

ra2bach

02-21-14, 11:28

yeah, i take after Mark Twain. Editor...what's that?

maybe you should be more like Rep. Joe Wilson - "You Lie!"...

Outlander Systems

02-21-14, 12:03

I call bullshit.

Grand58742

02-21-14, 12:41

I also see the gripe isn't just with the M4 system itself, but someone who thinks we ought to go back to a 7.62 weapon as well. Ret Maj Gen Scales comments of:

“It has no penetrating power,” he said of the M4. “It’s ineffective against vehicles, against bunkers. It’s ineffective against virtually anything except a man in the open. Put a flak jacket on the enemy and it’s virtually useless.”

Just screams of the whole "I want another 7.62 weapon!"

So when's the next carbine competition or test? Because you know someone from Congress is going to read this and push the issue yet again.

blade_68

02-21-14, 12:54

A load of propaganda. For and by lame stream media. .. with an axe to grind on ARs
Mauser KAR98K
I'd hate to see what craps that they may edit your response to the editor. I done that one time back in 1990 my letter to editor was re-wrote and changed to what they wanted it to say then expressed as my opinion. Not one part was what i said was left. Mine was about 3 paragraphs long (reference to Desert Shield) I haven't trusted any thing said by "newspapers or news" since.

markm

02-21-14, 12:56

I'm DUMPING all my M4 type firearms and going ALL IN on the TAVOR!!! :dance3:

(just kidding, Dano!)

Doc Safari

02-21-14, 14:00

Feel free to hammer me on my response, but I'm sure it is more accurate than the main article itself.

I think it's a great response and dispels many misconceptions.

Heavy Metal

02-21-14, 14:15

Dano,

If I read right, the General is a Cannon Cocker, not even a Leg. I suspect some reporter had this guy on a Rolidex because he was listed as a Defense Consultant and didn't go any deeper than that.

Slater

02-21-14, 15:26

The M4/M4A1 weapons get no shortage of press.

Our newest, bestest 7.62 rifle (the SCAR), however, seems to be the opposite. You never read or hear anything about that particular rifle, good or bad.

RogerinTPA

02-21-14, 20:32

Mauser KAR98K,

Great rebuttal but too long, and needed bullet points. Lack of lube, quality mags, followers, and not having a Mx schedule to replace spare parts: buffer springs, gas rings, extractors, and bolts when necessary, has always been the weak link. Above all, institutional BS at all levels about this weapon, has been the bigger problem to address, but will not die. It's like a phantom ghost or dark cloud plaguing the effing gun, as far as big army is concerned.

RedXd

02-22-14, 14:01

Junk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TacMedic556

02-22-14, 22:34

I stewed over the inaccuracies in the article as well. What really perturbed me was the allowance of competitors to put their two cents in as if it were unbiased. Every issue raised has been refuted by users and experts for years.

Much of the issue is a "software" problem and NOT a "hardware" problem, would you all agree? If guys are firing 830 rounds on full auto (28 mags?) with a dry bolt what we have is a training problem. The M4 is not a squad operated machine gun. That is not its role or purpose. When a mechanical device that has known to function well for over 40 years has a hiccup by some users, how is it that the mechanical object that is intelligently designed and tested at fault?

I have put multiples of thousands of rounds through the Colt 6933 while at work and in training. I can honestly say I cannot recall a single malfunction with that carbine.
I quickly tried to address the issue yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByELy_N-Uws&list=UUwOtpCIoguW8idgdLt_iQBg&feature=c4-overview

http://dennyducet.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-flaws-of-m4-carbine.html

RyanB

02-22-14, 23:17

The M4/M4A1 weapons get no shortage of press.

Our newest, bestest 7.62 rifle (the SCAR), however, seems to be the opposite. You never read or hear anything about that particular rifle, good or bad.

They break stocks and optics. Mags were in short supply for a while, and are very heavy even before the heavy ammunition is added. Some SOF loves them, some don't.

T2C

02-22-14, 23:21

They break stocks and optics. Mags were in short supply for a while, and are very heavy even before the heavy ammunition is added. Some SOF loves them, some don't.

In a unit, what percentage of stocks break? Is there a cost effective fix for the problem without purchasing a whole new weapon system?

TacMedic556

02-22-14, 23:24

A Friend of mine was a green beret in Afghanistan. He passionately talked about the SCAR Heavy destroying optics. It had something to do with harmonics. I looked it up and sure enough its a valid concern.

RyanB

02-22-14, 23:39

In a unit, what percentage of stocks break? Is there a cost effective fix for the problem without purchasing a whole new weapon system?

I don't know. I do know that they couldn't get parts so they just set them aside and issued new ones with the intention of getting parts when they were available after orders for complete weapons were filled.

RyanB

02-22-14, 23:39

Boba Fett v2

02-22-14, 23:45

Atricle has a lot of bad information, and inaccurate comments from some of the sources.

This was my letter to the Washington Times in regards to the article:

Feel free to hammer me on my response, but I'm sure it is more accurate than the main article itself.

A good well thought out piece, but no one who works at the Washington Times has time to read all that, and I bet it'll fall on deaf ears. You need to keep your shit short and to the point.

Shiz

02-23-14, 00:53

Well shoot, the truth is finally out. Time to close up shop here boys. Maybe we can change the name of m4carbine to bowsandarrows.net?

waffentomas

02-23-14, 00:55

The WT article is risible, the published response by Mauser I couldn't finish...too many typos...(I HATE it when people call my CORPS 'Marine Corp'!) Sending a letter to the editor that poorly written ends up in the circular file, just like a poorly written resume or CV would sent to me.

Grizzlyatoms

02-23-14, 02:32

Arctic1

02-23-14, 02:49

It's Marine Corpse

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

I do hope you are joking....

Grizzlyatoms

02-23-14, 02:54

I do hope you are joking....

Yes

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk 2

Arctic1

02-23-14, 03:45

Ha! All good!

Rifleman_04

02-23-14, 05:58

http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

Alias posted this article by Mike Pannone on FB last week. Good timing.

T2C

02-23-14, 11:27

I don't know. I do know that they couldn't get parts so they just set them aside and issued new ones with the intention of getting parts when they were available after orders for complete weapons were filled.

A unit armorer with a unit deployed to a combat theater of operations should have access to enough parts to quickly put a rifle or carbine back in service. This goes back to restrictions per the unit T.O.&E. and this has been a problem for quite a few years. I am reasonably certain that soldiers complained about the same problem at the Battle of Gettysburg and in France during WWI.

MountainRaven

02-23-14, 11:55

http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

Alias posted this article by Mike Pannone on FB last week. Good timing.

Maybe I missed something, but it seems that according to that (nearly four year old) article we should all be running Sprinco action springs and H3 buffer weights.

TacMedic556

02-23-14, 13:07

Just traded all my M4 Carbines for some SKS rifles. Yup, wanted to grab them up before the Times article spread and the panic started to sweep the nation. It has already started. The SKS guy held out and we finally agreed on 1 M4 and $200 cash per Samozaryadnyj Karabin sistemy - SKS. Whew....now I feel so much better.

HKGuns

02-23-14, 13:35

Though i like H&K, and they make some of the best pistols, this almost seemed as an indirect push to go to a 416 DoD wide.

Did I read the wrong article?

The article I read didn't even mention the 416, let alone push for it to be adopted DOD wide. There was a single, incorrectly worded sentence that mentioned the HK G36 along side a statement condemning 5.56 leading you to think, incorrectly, the G36 isn't a 5.56 rifle.

The article I read did mention both SCAR platforms. So, unless I'm completely stupid, which is certainly plausible and my spouse just might agree some days, I don't think this is a push for HK anything to be adopted DOD wide.

ETA: This is just a re-hash of several articles of a theme that have been written since 2000 or so.....You either agree or disagree based on your intended use and/or experience. There is nothing new here and this particular article isn't even very well written.

There are some valid points worth considering, again, in the context of your intended use. I don't find a lot to argue with the statement of effective range being a bit of a reported problem in Afghanistan.

Killjoy

02-23-14, 13:47

I noticed the good general stated the US has been giving the troops unreliable rifles since WWII. So the M1 Garand was inferior to the Mauser K98 and the Arisaka?

HKGuns

02-23-14, 13:58

I noticed the good general stated the US has been giving the troops unreliable rifles since WWII. So the M1 Garand was inferior to the Mauser K98 and the Arisaka?

There are some (not me) who would take on the Mauser v. Garand argument! But that does give a bit of insight into the General's understanding of history as well as his knowledge of firearms.

SurplusShooter

02-23-14, 15:09

There are some (not me) who would take on the Mauser v. Garand argument! But that does give a bit of insight into the General's understanding of history as well as his knowledge of firearms.

I wasn't there, but from what I've read: even the original selection of the M1 Garand (vs its competitors) was covered in controversy at the time. Various arguments of reliability, doctrine, cost, and supply issues.

voiceofreason

02-23-14, 16:30

Jason, TN

Great letter.

MistWolf

02-23-14, 16:41

I wasn't there, but from what I've read: even the original selection of the M1 Garand (vs its competitors) was covered in controversy at the time. Various arguments of reliability, doctrine, cost, and supply issues.

There was great controversy. Every new rifle has teething problems and every rifle has it's strengths, weaknesses and quirks. In the end, it was the right tool for the job. The Garand proved itself the World Champion of Battlerifles.

Our soldiers, carrying the AR in one configuration or another have won many more battles than their opponents. I think the M4 and our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen have proved themselves quite well

Rifleman_04

02-23-14, 16:50

Maybe I missed something, but it seems that according to that (nearly four year old) article we should all be running Sprinco action springs and H3 buffer weights.

That wasn't the point of the article or why I posted it.

Iraqgunz

02-23-14, 17:21

I think I mentioned this before and I'll do so again.

1. Set up and perform a more aggressive maintenance program.

2. We have better ammo out there so why are we still issuing variants of the M855 trash. Something like the SOST or MK262.

3. Do some serious research into a mid length gas system and see what happens.

4. Use a better lubricant and have soldiers generously lube their weapons.

I personally use Sprinco springs and I would be interested to see what would happen if they were to set up some test guns using the A5 and Sprngco springs.

Grand58742

02-24-14, 10:18

Unfortunately with budget cuts potentially looming as I saw in the New York Times today, #1 will end up being "more clean" instead of PM. If the money is not there for maintenance, chances of someone getting the bright idea that clean = properly maintained go up exponentially.

#2 I can agree with especially as the Mk318 is cheaper to produce than the M855A1.

#3 Thought this was already played around with in earlier years. But agree it could be dusted off. But budgets and all...

#4 See #1, Chances of getting new play pretties to include something as relatively inexpensive as lubrication in the days of budget cuts is slim to none. CLP will soldier on (no pun intended) and service members will continue to use it since the contracts are in place and it's a verified item.

I'd actually prefer to see them take a look at better furniture and non operating system improvements myself before going on a large scale testing of a mid length system. SOPMOD stock, even something like the Bravo would work and be more durable than the issue stock. Possibly a Keymod handguard or as a minimum going away from the full length rails. Better/more durable BUIS. Good two point QD sling. Things that can be cheaply phased in that already exist to give a capability boost to the platform that don't require extensive research.

markm

02-24-14, 12:07

Now we're talking Keymod? Oh fukk me. :mad:

Outlander Systems

02-24-14, 12:12

Now we're talking Keymod? Oh fukk me. :mad:

No shit, right?

More lube. Problem ****ing solved.

TacMedic556

02-24-14, 12:13

Now we're talking Keymod? Oh fukk me. :mad:

YES! I am not the only keymod hater?

Outlander Systems

02-24-14, 12:42

YES! I am not the only keymod hater?

No, no you are not.

Solution in search of a problem.

Grand58742

02-24-14, 13:12

Now we're talking Keymod? Oh fukk me. :mad:

Not specifically the Keymod system, but gradually going away from full length rails to something else. I used that as an example only so it could include a way of getting the point across.

Everyone knows the majority of rail space is unused and not needed. And if we are talking improvements to the overall M4 system, the fact it starts as a 6.5 lbs carbine and eventually ends up being a 10+ lbs gadget filled weapon is something that should be addressed. And the weight savings from eliminating unneeded rails into something with a quick change configuration should be explored.

For the record, I don't even own a Keymod.

Trajan

02-24-14, 13:51

I always find it amusing when people suggest that the DOD adopt whatever pet accessory they have.

Yep, we should spend money on replacing one thing for another thing that does the same thing and saves 3 oz. Meanwhile 80 pound rucksacks and the Army is downsizing...

I also don't really get the strong reaction to this article. We know better. No sense getting worked up every time someone says something stupid. People like to complain.

blade_68

02-24-14, 14:30

With the drawdown The crap will become the norm again in the Army... "dry and shiny" and Parade b.s. Lessons learned forgotten. Lubrication of weopons, replace parts as needed. Realistic Training?
The drawdown of 90s, Units with old worn out rifles and magazines (if any) issued was 10-20 years old crap. Some units only had enough to issue 3-4 magazines per Soldier with no funds for replacments. SNCOs white glove inspections "Looks Good is Good" will be back from the leadership. I've seen the purging of experienced soldiers. Leaders that Know and Do lead will be forced out or marginalize.
Training unrealistically, training exercise issued 20-40 rnds of blanks per Soldier. That Don't teach how to make weapons function.
Why do we have the issue of problems with M16, M-4 come up...
I Hope I'm wrong but I'm not holding my breath.
INF. 87-02, M.P. 03-12 :( Ret.

Roklok

02-24-14, 15:08

[

Much of the issue is a "software" problem and NOT a "hardware" problem, would you all agree? If guys are firing 830 rounds on full auto (28 mags?) with a dry bolt what we have is a training problem. The M4 is not a squad operated machine gun. That is not its role or purpose. When a mechanical device that has known to function well for over 40 years has a hiccup by some users, how is it that the mechanical object that is intelligently designed and tested at fault?

Exactly, It's called fire discipline! The M4 is not a SAW. Stop using it like one and these so called problems will disappear.

Grand58742

02-24-14, 15:52

Heavy Metal

02-25-14, 20:11

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/20/cover-up-army-historian-says-report-on-deadly-afgh/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The retardedness has a Part II.

Heavy Metal

02-25-14, 20:12

Don't look at the comments if you value your IQ.

Benito

02-25-14, 21:14

No, no you are not.

Solution in search of a problem.

I am genuinely curious as to why the hate for Keymod.
They're light, do away with unused rails (aka the majority of rail space for most people). If someone needs more rail space, full-on railed handguards are still available, and will continue to be.
For guys like me, who prefer a slimmer lighter handguard that still retains the ability to put rails should we decide they are needed, what's the downside?
Price? Perhaps, but quality AR accessoriess are not an uber-cheap pursuit to begin with.

TacMedic556

02-25-14, 21:55

You liked my quote I see! Thanks. I thought I would get some negative feedback for that.

I cannot believe there is a PART II to that article. Oh well. You can't fix stupid. What we need to do is throw more money at the problem.

Step 1- Form large committees.
Step 2- Divide up tasks to committees to study the efficacy of the M4
Step 3- Spend $29,000,000,000,000,000.00 on studies and more committees.
Step 4- Realize that you spent all the money on committees and studies only to realize the cost benefit to develop a new weapon is not there.
Step 5- Form more committees to study the work and performance of previous committees
Step 6- Due to budget constraints and sequestration all committees are disbanded
Step 7- Quietly walk away and leave the M4 in service because it works and it works well until we invent plasma rifles.

[

Much of the issue is a "software" problem and NOT a "hardware" problem, would you all agree? If guys are firing 830 rounds on full auto (28 mags?) with a dry bolt what we have is a training problem. The M4 is not a squad operated machine gun. That is not its role or purpose. When a mechanical device that has known to function well for over 40 years has a hiccup by some users, how is it that the mechanical object that is intelligently designed and tested at fault?

Exactly, It's called fire discipline! The M4 is not a SAW. Stop using it like one and these so called problems will disappear.

http://dennyducet.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-flaws-of-m4-carbine.html

Scott Traudt, a small-arms specialist whose company, Green Mountain Defense Industries, is manufacturing its own assault rifle, called the finding a whitewash.

“Fielding a battle rifle whose barrel blows up in sustained fire after only 490 rounds is criminal negligence,” he said. “[The] weapons failed because they were designed around some arbitrary, ‘average’ combat situation by somebody oblivious to the present and future high consumptive, mobile, asymmetric wars and insurgencies we face.”

How is it that competitors who are marketing a competing product, are considered to be offering non-biased advice in this situation? This is like Pepsi releasing a study saying that Coke tastes like piss and everyone needs to drink Pepsi.

Hank6046

02-25-14, 22:22

I've seen tons of failures with the M4. The error is always located between the rifle a pair of shoes or boots.

Heavy Metal

02-25-14, 22:27

Repeat after me:

This is a Rifle, not a Squad Automatic Weapon or a Machine Gun. I cannot sustain a super-high rate of fire and such exceptional expenditures will be limited to executing an Ambush or helping my element achieve fire superiority. I will primarily use this weapon to deliver deliberate aimed fire. I will use my sights whenever possible and take conscious aim at a specific target as I work in concert with my Comrades to achieve our objective. I will manage my ammunition to the best of my ability and remember that I am a Rifleman and not a Machinegunner. I am not the base of fire for my Squad or my Platoon and I will not act as one.

nova3930

02-26-14, 11:16

Not sure why anyone expects intelligent reporting from "journalists." Their intelligence level is just above that of the lowest common denominator that their reporting is aimed at.

Grand58742

02-26-14, 11:24

Don't look at the comments if you value your IQ.

I learned from the comments all infantrymen should be carrying an AK47, an M14 and a Mini-14.

Love all the faux outrage in the article. Somehow bad training and piss poor fire control is overlooked, but the weapon itself is bad, bad, bad.

TacMedic556

02-26-14, 16:14

Having the day off today gave me time to rebut the hogwash of article II by the times: http://dennyducet.blogspot.com/2014/02/flaws-of-m4-carbine-part-ii.html

Done with this.

BoringGuy45

02-27-14, 00:06

The M4's biggest problem, in my opinion, are the M16's early failures and the fact that it was used in the first war that the U.S. "lost". It also didn't have any loud, ringing endorsement for a legendary warrior the way the M1 Garand, for example, did that helped it overcome any early reputation for being finicky or "the answer to a question nobody asked." The gun community, civilian, military, and LE alike, are a conservative to reactionary group normally, mostly among the older crowd. A common attitude, and we see it here a lot, is if it works, no further time needs to be wasted improving a functional gun. If it doesn't work, then turn back the clock and go back to the last thing that did work. There's no doubt that a lot of young recruits entering various services around the time of Vietnam heard the old sergeants who carried the Garand through WWII and Korea complain that the new M16 felt like a plastic piece of junk, the bullet wouldn't even tickle a mouse, there was nothing wrong with the M14, REAL gun is made with wood and steel, etc. Then early M16s shit the bed, the old guys just say, "What did I tell you? Should have NEVER dumped the M14!" So the M16s get modified into the M16A1, they become a reliable, formidable weapon, but the old guys never miss an opportunity whenever an M16A1 jammed, however rare, to point out that an M14 would have kept working in this situation. Up to today, they're telling their grandkids that the M16 was, and still is, the biggest mistake the military ever made. If we could just go back to the M14, the U.S. soldiers would be SO much better off!

On the other side, you have a lot of new guys getting into guns, whose knowledge stems from what they read in Guns and Ammo, what a few ignorant, but blessedly pro-gun politicians said about the M4 (who claim that members of SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force told them), and how much more effective the SCAR, ACR, and AK are compared to the M4 on Call of Duty (which is realistic, because they consulted real special ops guys to make those games :D ). You get companies with their latest and greatest talking about how much more reliable, accurate, and high tech it is than the M4.

So the conclusion the uneducated can draw is the M16 FOW was never that great to begin with, and there are better options out there, so there's really no place for the M4. They look to prove their point by talking to a few people, and using isolated incidents of malfunctioning and poor performance to make it appear the norm.

So that's the main problem. A fight between reactionary ideas and ignorant, overly progressive ideas. Kind of like the rest of America.

walkin' trails

02-27-14, 06:50

Being of the generation that grew up with the M16 - I was introduced to it in 1980 - I heard a lot of complaints BoringGuy45 mentioned, but never from training cadre. Only one NCO who had been a rifleman in Viet Nam cautioned us young ROTC cadets not to tape 30-round mags together because he didn't think the catch would hold the weight. He'd managed to lose a locally manufactured 60-rounder (two 30s welded together) on a trail sometime just before a firefight. I remember that by the Mid 80s, the attitude about the 16 was beginning to change, and the modular capability began to evolve shortly after. One thing I always thought was interesting was that while the 16 supposedly had a bad name in Nam, the Colt Commando or CAR15 was in high demand despite being if the same operating system.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Korgs130

02-27-14, 08:20

FloridaWoodsman

02-27-14, 22:12

Hey, maybe Kahr Arms wants to get into the military carbine biz and needs to gin up some buzz for a new gun.
Chuckle. I wonder how many got the connection?

Heavy Metal

02-27-14, 23:00

That was well written. Nice work!

I agree.

R0N

02-28-14, 03:54

Having the day off today gave me time to rebut the hogwash of article II by the times: http://dennyducet.blogspot.com/2014/02/flaws-of-m4-carbine-part-ii.html

Done with this.

Your photo of "U.S. Navy Seals Have Utilized the M4 for 20 Years" is Force Recon Marines, besides them having MEUSOC/M45s the close one is wearing a hat with a Force patch on it.

Horsehide

02-28-14, 07:00

Don't look at the comments if you value your IQ.

I should have heeded the warning... So much ignorance and stupidity. My head hurts.

waffentomas

02-28-14, 16:39

Just got tired of that M4 hating WT article.

I'm not sure how many rounds the average M4A1 or M16A4 has through it, but my well maintained Colt M4A1 and I had had enough of the hate.

I took it out today and fired 800 rounds through it, all rapid fire, cutting down trees, shooting bowling balls (you should try it!), 3/4 tool steel plate, etc., at my private range in the boonies. (Did you know 'boonies' is short for 'boondocks'...a Filipino word for 'mountain' our troops brought back from the Filipino-American war 1899-1902)

A good squirt of CLP before I left and that was it.

She heated up a good bit. Still, not one failure of any kind.

I shot 140 rounds of steel, then 300 rounds of reloads, then 100 rounds of factory XM193, 100 rounds of hand loaded tracers, finished up with another 160 rounds of steel just to try and break it (Herters).

My rifle passed the 6000 round mark today, and she's never failed me, not one time, nothing...not even a failure to lock-back. The only mods I've made is a Spikes brake, H2 buffer and XP extractor spring. After shooting up 10% of my .223/5.56 ammo today, she's still a keeper.

I was never a big fan of the M16A2 when I was in the Marines. I never had one fail, I just liked the bigger 7.62 bullet I was using in my M21 better...still, mine never failed.

It's good rifle.

Tom

TacMedic556

02-28-14, 18:44

Your photo of "U.S. Navy Seals Have Utilized the M4 for 20 Years" is Force Recon Marines, besides them having MEUSOC/M45s the close one is wearing a hat with a Force patch on it.

taken care of thanks!

sinlessorrow

02-28-14, 18:56

Why does everyone cry and cling to the battle at Wanat and always ignore the M4's huge success at Keating.

http://www.dvidshub.net/video/71026/keating-interview-sgt-harder-part-2#.UxEwOKNMEuo

Heavy Metal

02-28-14, 20:07

TacMedic556

02-28-14, 21:40

Why does everyone cry and cling to the battle at Wanat and always ignore the M4's huge success at Keating.

http://www.dvidshub.net/video/71026/keating-interview-sgt-harder-part-2#.UxEwOKNMEuo

Thank you for providing that great link. Incredible story. I had to go back and insert that into the blog article. It is amazing what is overlooked at times.

Grand58742

03-01-14, 10:16

Why does everyone cry and cling to the battle at Wanat and always ignore the M4's huge success at Keating.

http://www.dvidshub.net/video/71026/keating-interview-sgt-harder-part-2#.UxEwOKNMEuo

Same reason that people cry and cling to the dust test results even though they don't fully comprehend the data that came out. If I had a nickle for every time an M16 or M4 failed to go off three times on burst, I could have retired way earlier than planned.

Faux outrage over things that people fail to comprehend, either through ignorance or by design, is never to be underestimated. And furthermore, gives them the reason to tout their own little pet weapons theory based on countless hours in the Call of Duty simulator. Deep held feelings about a particular weapon's shortcomings (be them real or imagined) will never be dismissed in some people.

Outlander Systems

03-01-14, 11:14

This video is an oldie, but a goodie, showing the M4 shot to failure.

Anyone that would do this to an M4 in a social situation, quote frankly, doesn't know what the chuck he is doing.

http://youtu.be/Kzfm4pYhIyY

Can't find the version where the round count was shown.

wildcard600

03-01-14, 14:19

montanadave

03-01-14, 15:21

C-grunt

03-01-14, 17:53

That rifle failed because the gas tube melted.

montanadave

03-01-14, 18:35

That rifle failed because the gas tube melted.

Well, Shit! Where's a fella gonna get his hands on a gas tube water jacket?

Symmetry

03-01-14, 19:12

That rifle failed because the gas tube melted.

Hrmm.....makes me wonder if some sort of high temperature ceramic could be used in place of a regular gas tube.

Heavy Metal

03-01-14, 22:20

Hrmm.....makes me wonder if some sort of high temperature ceramic could be used in place of a regular gas tube.

There are already two solutions.

1) V7 System's Inconel tubes.

2) Melonited tubes.

BTW, Inconel was used for the wing flap hinges on the Space Shuttle. Made in Huntington, WV.

I guarantee you the barrel will be a molten puddle before an Inconel tube fails.

montanadave

03-01-14, 22:38

There are already two solutions.

1) V7 System's Inconel tubes.

2) Melonited tubes.

BTW, Inconel was used for the wing flap hinges on the Space Shuttle. Made in Huntington, WV.

I guarantee you the barrel will be a molten puddle before an Inconel tube fails.

Well, the V7 video certainly illustrates the problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv9y53K4oDU

Heavy Metal

03-01-14, 22:40

To paraphrase Doc Brown, Inconel is some serious shit!

Iraqgunz

03-02-14, 00:14

If you exceed the sustained rate of fire you are going to have more issues than just the gas tube. There is the potential for bolt breakage, damaging the barrel, etc... The issues that have come up IMO were more than just weapon based.

Heavy Metal

08-20-14, 20:50

Episode VI: Return of the Stupid

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/

sinlessorrow

08-20-14, 22:44

Episode VI: Return of the Stupid

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/

Ahhh yes beating the dead horse once again washingtimes.