View Full Version : M4 Failure Article - What Do You Think?
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat
The above link takes you to an article titled "What Really Happened at Wanat?" which was published in "Proceedings Magazine", by the U. S. Naval Institute in July 2010. It's interesting reading if you've never seen some of the intended rates of fire and their related failure modes for the M4. Most of that information comes up in the "rounds per minute" section of the article. There are also discussions of other M4 issues, many of which have been kicked around previously on m4c.net.
One quote that particularly surprises me is found in the "other causes" section: "Maintenance regimens, including weapon cleaning and lubrication, have very little or no impact on . . . weapon stoppages" the report said. However, Soldiers who used dry lubricants in the maintenance of their M4s, rather than CLP, "decreased the probability of experiencing a stoppage by half."23 Soldiers reporting a high frequency of lubricant application (one or more times per day), particularly M16 users, were more likely to experience stoppages.24 (emphasis added). This seems to be in direct conflict with most of the information from SME's and Industry Professionals here at m4c. Is this statement likely due to poor study design, poor training of users, misinterpretation of the study results by the article author, or ???
RogerinTPA
12-22-10, 20:29
Yeah it was kicked around quite a bit here after the incident occurred. I think the Soldiers giving those accounts are simply out of touch as to actual condition of their weapon at the time of the engagement. Lack of lube, lack of fire discipline and lack of leadership is what caused the failure of the weapons. The quote about a Soldier shooting 12 Mags (360 rounds) in a 30 minute period is disturbing. A well known and world renowned trainer on this very forum stated that in combat, your shooting will diminish to approximately 50%, depending on the shooter, from the square range. Using fire discipline (controlled and aimed fire) he should have at least killed or wounded at a minimum of 180 bad guys, accounting for a 50% miss rate as the fire fight ensued, just from the stress of the engagement. But I doubt it. As KevinB once stated, they should have aimed more and shot less.
Lubricant isn't the issue.
#1 cause of malfunctions in magazine fed weapons.... is the magazine.
What is the US Mil, or for that matter any LE agency's, methodology of ensuring an individuals issued magazines function in their assigned weapons. O' wait, there is none.
GermanSynergy
12-22-10, 20:45
This-
Big Army has a tendency to re-issue mags that should be taken out of service & shitcanned/crushed, but never are.
Lubricant isn't the issue.
#1 cause of malfunctions in magazine fed weapons.... is the magazine.
What is the US Mil, or for that matter any LE agency's, methodology of ensuring an individuals issued magazines function in their assigned weapons. O' wait, there is none.
Wait!!! Didn't they put out that feed lip gage???
I found this part interesting.
A December 2005 study conducted by the 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), for example, which evaluated the HK416 and Colt's Close Quarters Battle-Receiver (CQB-R), concluded that CQB-R "out performed the HK416 in mechanical reliability
What is a CQB-R?
I gotta agree on the mag issue. Probably the biggest reason for malfunctions.
Thomas M-4
12-22-10, 21:52
I found this part interesting.
What is a CQB-R?
I gotta agree on the mag issue. Probably the biggest reason for malfunctions.
10.3" barreled colt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Quarters_Battle_Receiver
SW-Shooter
12-22-10, 22:30
I was issued magazines that had been worn down to the bare metal around the feedlips. The first thing I did was go out and replace all twelve magazines.
Whoever said it first was right. Big Army doesn't give a shit about weapon expendables like magazines, too many supply Sergeants and systems just completely screwed the pooch on this, weapon spares, and cleaning supplies.
I remember ripping up t-shirts and getting oil from the motor pool because CLP and rags couldn't be found anywhere.
Magazines are an expendable part that has a limited lifespan. Until they adopt that policy they'll continue to have issues.
Using fire discipline (controlled and aimed fire) he should have at least killed or wounded at a minimum of 180 bad guys, accounting for a 50% miss rate as the fire fight ensued, just from the stress of the engagement...
He could have been shooting suppressive fire but I agree that most lack fire control and more likely in this situation, it probably is the latter
I seem to recall this was an extremely poorly set up "study" that indicated nothing, really, except for the preconceived biases and prejudices of the author of the study.
Exactly. And we are talking about an organization that still teaches soldiers to stagger their gas rings. That should say alot as to how much they understand the operation of the weapon.
Lubricant isn't the issue.
#1 cause of malfunctions in magazine fed weapons.... is the magazine.
What is the US Mil, or for that matter any LE agency's, methodology of ensuring an individuals issued magazines function in their assigned weapons. O' wait, there is none.
SW-Shooter
12-23-10, 01:34
Exactly. And we are talking about an organization that still teaches soldiers to stagger their gas rings. That should say alot as to how much they understand the operation of the weapon.
Hey I resemble that remark. It was something I was taught and to this day I do it. Don't ask why, call me a creature of habit but it's one of the things I've failed to unlearn.
variablebinary
12-23-10, 01:58
Yeah it was kicked around quite a bit here after the incident occurred. I think the Soldiers giving those accounts are simply out of touch as to actual condition of their weapon at the time of the engagement. Lack of lube, lack of fire discipline and lack of leadership is what caused the failure of the weapons. The quote about a Soldier shooting 12 Mags (360 rounds) in a 30 minute period is disturbing. A well known and world renowned trainer on this very forum stated that in combat, your shooting will diminish to approximately 50%, depending on the shooter, from the square range. Using fire discipline (controlled and aimed fire) he should have at least killed or wounded at a minimum of 180 bad guys, accounting for a 50% miss rate as the fire fight ensued, just from the stress of the engagement. But I doubt it. As KevinB once stated, they should have aimed more and shot less.
There is a lot of bullshit, chest thumping, Monday morning quarterbacking over Wanat.
A dead PL, breached defenses, running outside the wire to help dead and wounded at an outpost. Wanat was a shit storm, and a lot of Good American boys were killed by a well coordinated enemy with superior numbers within combatives range, not because they were trigger happy **** ups waiting to get smoked.
Wanat exposed a deficiency with the M4 under EXTREME conditions, and we'll get an improved weapon as a result.
Some people need to get their head unwrapped from ass and realize the M4 is not perfect, and it can be improved to ensure that Soldiers have a better chance when hell goes to 11.
Variable Binary, well said.
The Soldiers at Wanat did an incredible job defending an indefensible position. It's a miracle that they weren't over run and only 9 were killed. They were literally fish in a barrel. There were failures, well above the pay grade of anyone at that outpost, that allowed what happened. Trying to blame a rifle or how the Soldiers used their rifles, is allowing the politicians and Generals who are responsible to walk.
No one here has stated that the M4 is perfect. It obviously has some faults. However, you still have a military that teaches out dated crap to this day. The lubrication thing being one of them. I have talked with literally hundreds of military personnel who still do not know how to properly lubricate their weapons.
What weapon do you think the military is going to get as a result? I personally do not see any change on the horizon.
What improvements would you make or recommend to the platform if you could?
There is a lot of bullshit, chest thumping, Monday morning quarterbacking over Wanat.
A dead PL, breached defenses, running outside the wire to help dead and wounded at an outpost. Wanat was a shit storm, and a lot of Good American boys were killed by a well coordinated enemy with superior numbers within combatives range, not because they were trigger happy **** ups waiting to get smoked.
Wanat exposed a deficiency with the M4 under EXTREME conditions, and we'll get an improved weapon as a result.
Some people need to get their head unwrapped from ass and realize the M4 is not perfect, and it can be improved to ensure that Soldiers have a better chance when hell goes to 11.
Wet lubes can be both your friend and enemy in the M16 platform. All things being equal, dry lubes may also be preferred. It could be that coated - i.e. Nickle Boron - internals may be the future in the M16 platform to help keep it running at a higher level of reliability.
published in "Proceedings Magazine", by the U. S. Naval Institute in July 2010.
Along the line of thought that 120mm mentioned above, consider for a moment that you're reading an article from Proceedings....
...which is about as pure a blue-water Navy pub as exists on the planet, opining on matters concerning the ground-combat element.
That's like getting marital/sexual advice from a Monsignor McFadden Boylover.
The quote about a Soldier shooting 12 Mags (360 rounds) in a 30 minute period is disturbing.
We also need to be skeptical about how the soldier knew he fired all of those rounds in 30 minutes. I rather doubt he was checking his watch, so he probably only perceived the time to be 30 minutes. Folks under stress often grossly overestimate the elapsed time.
Doc Safari
12-23-10, 09:19
Man, there is a lot in this thread that I've never heard.
Not staggering the gas rings? Dry lube instead of CLP?
Is there one place I can get this and other updated information?
RogerinTPA
12-23-10, 09:54
There is a lot of bullshit, chest thumping, Monday morning quarterbacking over Wanat.
A dead PL, breached defenses, running outside the wire to help dead and wounded at an outpost. Wanat was a shit storm, and a lot of Good American boys were killed by a well coordinated enemy with superior numbers within combatives range, not because they were trigger happy **** ups waiting to get smoked.
Wanat exposed a deficiency with the M4 under EXTREME conditions, and we'll get an improved weapon as a result.
Some people need to get their head unwrapped from ass and realize the M4 is not perfect, and it can be improved to ensure that Soldiers have a better chance when hell goes to 11.
No body is Monday morning quarterbacking, and thanks for reminding of the obvious as to the outcome of that engagement at Wanat. Nobody is pissing on that unit or the men who died. The flaws that have been in the system from Nam are still with the military today. Lube needs to be applied. Mags need to be inspected and changed. Extractors need to be replaced, especially before deployment. Leadership needs to be more tactically aware when placing outpost well out of range of range of Arty and CAS in damn near indefensible positions which are vulnerable to a determined, all out 360 attack. The average Soldier doesn't know the condition of their weapon and thinks it's OK, until a fire fight ensues. Do we need a new weapon system in the hands of the Infantry? You bet. But a lot of the issues the military is having with the M-4, and the members of that unit, could have been mitigated.
The average Soldier doesn't know the condition of their weapon and thinks it's OK, until a fire fight ensues.
That is the tragedy. There is no substitute for training to include weapons maintainance.
Wet lube can be both your friend and enemy. All things being equal and with technological advances in lubricants, ultimately dry lubes may be preferred. I do believe that coated - i.e. Nickle Boron - internals may be the future in the M16 platform to help keep it running at a higher level of reliability in some of the worse conditions.
SeriousStudent
12-23-10, 10:43
Man, there is a lot in this thread that I've never heard.
Not staggering the gas rings? Dry lube instead of CLP?
Is there one place I can get this and other updated information?
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=7009
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61505
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=35490
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=7355
These four stickies are a great place to start.
If they were getting their weapons white hot from shooting so much, it doesn't sound like there was a magazine problem or an extraction problem or anything else, other than sooting the shit out of the gun.
RogerinTPA
12-23-10, 11:00
If they were getting their weapons white hot from shooting so much, it doesn't sound like there was a magazine problem or an extraction problem or anything else, other than sooting the shit out of the gun.
If you observe a new or maintained barrel VS a good used one, you will notice the used one is lighter in color than the other. The new or maintained ones are very dark gray. I've gotten my AR barrels to turn damn near ash white. That's from the oil cooking off the barrel after 5 or six mags being fired in rapid succession, and not from the barrel turning actually white hot. The finish of the barrel is designed to hold oil...longer, even if it appears to be dry. It will continue to lighten with use to a point, even when whipped down with an oily rag, which will restore some of the color, but not to it's original state. To an untrained eye or a person who hasn't shot a lot, it would appear that the barrel got "white hot". A barrel would have failed (burst) and melted long before the point of the metal actually turning "White Hot". In other words, it would have melted in the users hands, if he could have held on to it to that point.
The bottom line is that the M4 will never be a reliable weapon with DI when you intend to shoot 12-20 mags through it in 30 minutes.
An AK will live up to that abuse. A M4 will not.
An engineer specialist who loaded for Phillips recalled that, "Staff Sergeant Phillips poured out fire," going "through three rifles using them until they jammed."8 Specialist Chris McKaig, defending OP Topside, also experienced problems with his M4. "My weapon was overheating," he recalled. "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."9
THREE RIFLES????
8. Ibid., p. 110.
9. Ibid., p. 125.
Wanat was a really bad situation, and the M4/M16 has a history of letting you down right in one of those situations. It has come a long way, and there are many things we love about it, but it just is not a rifle that you can use outside of its intended design. You can use all kinds of cool new technologies like nickel boron, but the M4 will never be able to live up to abuse like the AK can. I do not recall ever seeing even one thread on akforum.net about lubrication. NOT EVEN ONE! Why do you think that is?
Many people here till tout the accuracy of the AR-15/M4/M16 they carry or own. Virtually no one will tout the reliability of the gun they own, unless it is made by a tier one manufacturer. I honestly doubt the accuracy of the platform matters if you are going to issue ammo that is not capable of sub 2-3 moa anyway. I would love to see a durable platform available. I think we need to learn from the past here with both popular rifles of the past 40+ years here. Durability is way more important than accuracy. The SCAR, the G36(xm8), The IAR, and other better platforms exist! Why keep giving colt money here? How effective is 5.56 really? If DocGKR refuses to carry an AR-15 with M193 or M855 because of lack of effectiveness, why are we issuing it to troops? If barrier blind projectiles are the future, why can't we step up to a caliber that will be more effective, make them cheaper to produce, and available to everyone?
I do not think you can blame magazine issues to someone who had to use THREE RIFLES in less than one hour because of issues with the design.
I own a KAC SR-15 and I love it, but it will never be as reliable as my AK74 is. I had a failure within the first 100 rounds... The bolt did not go all the way into battery. I pulled the trigger and it went "click." That is not a confidence inspiring thing. The AK has never bobbled -- no matter how many rounds you fire though it or how hot it gets.
Heavy Metal
12-23-10, 11:51
.....and yet for some reason, the US Special Forces and the British SAS, not to mention other SF like the Poles GROM all use the M-4 and M-4 type rifles by the truckload when they could choose any one of the above you listed.
Big effing clue there.
Heavy Metal
12-23-10, 11:56
The bottom line is that the M4 will never be a reliable weapon with DI when you intend to shoot 12
Who ae we going to believe? You or our own lyin' eyes?
See the second video:
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/m4-and-m4a1-guns/
.....and yet for some reason, the US Special Forces and the British SAS, not to mention other SF like the Poles GROM all use the M-4 and M-4 type rifles by the truckload when they could choose any one of the above you listed.
Big effing clue there.
The SAS use the G36, The HK33, The G-3, and many many other carbines too!
The POLISH special forces? ROFL???
Look at Israel bro. They can have anything they want -- ANYTHING!
Do they still use the M4/M16? HELL NO!
Here is a poland pic from the sandbox for you bro:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Polish/foto019ht.jpg
Do you see any M4/M16s there?
Here is a pic with a timestamp!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Polish/dscn01916dw.jpg
I do not think those are pmags?
Exactly. And we are talking about an organization that still teaches soldiers to stagger their gas rings. That should say alot as to how much they understand the operation of the weapon.
Wasn't there someone making a 'one piece' gas ring that was installed like a key on a key ring?
The videos show why we have belt fed weapons with 'quick change' barrels.
.....and yet for some reason, the US Special Forces and the British SAS, not to mention other SF like the Poles GROM all use the M-4 and M-4 type rifles by the truckload when they could choose any one of the above you listed.
Big effing clue there.
exactly...just as one example, in the Lone Survivor story no-one had any reported weapon failures, but killed a shit load of enemy in the process..and yet I wouldn't be surprised if that whole team probably expended less ammo than that one soldier in the report
but I'll concede that if you choose to do mag dump after mag dump, with your whole combat load, then yes, maybe the M4 will fail..but since when was the M4 designed to be a Squad Automatic Machinegun? hell with that kind of rate of fire you'd probably burn out the barrel of your machine gun too...
and yes you can do that with the AK, i.e. 360 rounds worth of spray and pray, and set the handguards on fire in the process, but are you producing effective fire or just a bunch of noise?
fhp: I don't think that those Poles are SF, you could find all sorts of pictures of Polish SF using M4's. And actually I think that the AR type rifles and carbines are used extensively by the IDF, much more often than Galil's for example, including by IDF SF's
exactly...just as one example, in the Lone Survivor story no-one had any reported weapon failures, but killed a shit load of enemy in the process..and yet I wouldn't be surprised if that whole team probably expended less ammo than that one soldier in the report
The thought of a one hour battle with automatic weapons and a total expenditure of less than 12 mags for 48 people is insane. What drugs are you on?:laugh:
Dude, it happens. These were not people on a patrol here that were humping around a combat load. These were people here that were at a defended static position. I agree that the M240 and the M2 are the workhorses of defending a position like this, but in this case, many of the heavy weapons were taken out by the four sided attack with RPGS and a much much larger force of afgans.
I am sure you can dig up stories from vietnam or the korean war where a small group of marines gets overrun by the mass swarming tactics of the Chinese. It happens. In the "history of the M16" on the history channel a vietnam vet claimed to fire 20+ mags in one session and also claimed that everyone in his platoon carried that much ammo while on the move. The M16 is just going to fail in that scenario. It is not going to fire 12-20 mags at once and not fail.
but I'll concede that if you choose to do mag dump after mag dump, with your whole combat load, then yes, maybe the M4 will fail..but since when was the M4 designed to be a Squad Automatic Machinegun? hell with that kind of rate of fire you'd probably burn out the barrel of your machine gun too...
These were not people with a combat load. This was a base.
I seem to dobut that you would burn a machine gun barrel out with 2-300 rounds.
and yes you can do that with the AK, i.e. 360 rounds worth of spray and pray, and set the handguards on fire in the process, but are you producing effective fire or just a bunch of noise?
When a group of 48 or less is attacked by a group of 200 or more than it is not really hard to shoot mabye 300+ rounds over the course of an hour or so. 360 rounds will not set the handguards on fire either. I will attest that they do get very very warm and eventually will get set on fire, but when is that? 750 rounds? 1000 rounds? when? When does this happen on the RPK as well? Many of those are in this same region. Many of those 200 attackers at Wanat did not bring AKs to the party here -- They brought PKMs, RPDs, RPKs. I do not think it is outlandish to say that those guys used that amount of ammo here.
Just calling the AK series, "spray and pray" when you compare them to a M855 service rifle is laughable. M855 is not winning any accuracy contests here. I think im going to side with Larry Vickers! ;)
fhp: I don't think that those Poles are SF, you could find all sorts of pictures of Polish SF using M4's. And actually I think that the AR type rifles and carbines are used extensively by the IDF, much more often than Galil's for example, including by IDF SF's
Who really gives a shit what Polish SF use? What have they done that is so important? I am sure that any special forces that get to use whatever they want will almost assuredly use the M4/M16 at some point as it is a good series of rifles overall. Why the hell do you think everyone is here at M4c?
I think it is a bit embarrassing that the country that you pimp for the M4, does not even use the M4 as the service rifle.... That is despite them joining nato in 1999 and buying 5.56 AKs. Thats just funny bro. You actually prove what I tried to explain.
My army buddies tell me that the special forces they have seen over in the sandbox had FN SCARs. Personally I know they have used the HK 416 and the SCAR for some time. Big surprise there hunh?
The IDF has moved to the Tavor, and they did use the Galil and M16/M4 series of rifles. The Galil is a heavy rifle, but it is also a very loved rifle. They wanted something shorter, lighter, and more 21st century -- I do not condemn them for that at all.
Failure2Stop
12-23-10, 14:02
This thread is getting ****ing stupid.
If you have not worked directly with a particular unit, you shouldn't be talking about what they carry, no matter what Wikipedia or your buddies told you. I have, and I can tell you that pretty much every SF unit in the world carries an AR based weapon. Does that mean that the M4 is the bestest thing in the world? Nope. But it does indicate that a trained and proficient user will be able to do good work with it.
RE: DI
It is what it is. There is no substantial proof that simply sticking a piston into an AR will make it more "reliable". It will make it less susceptible to issues caused by installing or removing a suppressor, if that is an issue for the user using 10.5 family guns.
The M4 is not a light machinegun, and when you shoot it like one, it's going to puke, especially if it isn't frequently lubed. Even M249s and M240s need lube to run reliably/consistently. 200 rounds or more in 2 minutes or less= hot barrel, the point at which a machinegunner should perform a barrel change to be able to continue safe firing. There is a reason that the sustained fire rate for virtually all assault rifles is somewhere between 12 and 20 rounds per minute, with allowances for brief periods of rapid rate firing.
The events of that fight are tragic and sad. Training, equipment, and planning all suffered failures, some due to the failures of the others. It's a cyclical vortex of ****uppery, and focusing on a single event without considering the circumstance and reality of the converging topics will lead nowhere useful.
Heavy Metal
12-23-10, 14:13
The SAS use the G36, The HK33, The G-3, and many many other carbines too!
The POLISH special forces? ROFL???
Look at Israel bro. They can have anything they want -- ANYTHING!
Do they still use the M4/M16? HELL NO!
Here is a poland pic from the sandbox for you bro:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Polish/foto019ht.jpg
Do you see any M4/M16s there?
Here is a pic with a timestamp!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Polish/dscn01916dw.jpg
I do not think those are pmags?
Some other Polish trooper with a Beryl ain't GROM. Apples aren't oranges either.
Look at Israel bro. They can have anything they want -- ANYTHING!
Do they still use the M4/M16? HELL NO!
Excuse me? Are you serious? Other than the odd Tavor, that is what they are overwhelmingly using.
This thread is getting ****ing stupid.
If you have not worked directly with a particular unit, you shouldn't be talking about what they carry, no matter what Wikipedia or your buddies told you. I have, and I can tell you that pretty much every SF unit in the world carries an AR based weapon. Does that mean that the M4 is the bestest thing in the world? Nope. But it does indicate that a trained and proficient user will be able to do good work with it.
RE: DI
It is what it is. There is no substantial proof that simply sticking a piston into an AR will make it more "reliable". It will make it less susceptible to issues caused by installing or removing a suppressor, if that is an issue for the user using 10.5 family guns.
The M4 is not a light machinegun, and when you shoot it like one, it's going to puke, especially if it isn't frequently lubed. Even M249s and M240s need lube to run reliably/consistently. 200 rounds or more in 2 minutes or less= hot barrel, the point at which a machinegunner should perform a barrel change to be able to continue safe firing. There is a reason that the sustained fire rate for virtually all assault rifles is somewhere between 12 and 20 rounds per minute, with allowances for brief periods of rapid rate firing.
The events of that fight are tragic and sad. Training, equipment, and planning all suffered failures, some due to the failures of the others. It's a cyclical vortex of ****uppery, and focusing on a single event without considering the circumstance and reality of the converging topics will lead nowhere useful.
THIS... folks get all bet out of shape and scream for a new weapon every time an event like this happens. News flash.. If I hammer down the trigger on a M240 with one big continuous burst, I can achieve failure.... Fire superiority is not continuous mag dumps aimed in the general direction of the enemy...
Anyone think you can do that with a ACR??? a SCAR??? there is no magical weapon that will do that wich fires smokeless powder and is made from Metal and plastic....:rolleyes:
Heavy Metal
12-23-10, 14:20
The events of that fight are tragic and sad. Training, equipment, and planning all suffered failures, some due to the failures of the others. It's a cyclical vortex of ****uppery, and focusing on a single event without considering the circumstance and reality of the converging topics will lead nowhere useful.
That is exactly right, people get so mired in details they totally miss the big theme right under their noses.
Excuse me? Are you serious? Other than the odd Tavor, that is what they are overwhelmingly using.
They get them for either free or highly subsidized by US tax payers via federal aid. They are good rifles... Why not use them?
From 1995 to 2002 Israel received another 140,000 M-16s per the info release below....so there are more than a few kicking around
Notifications to Congress of Pending U.S. Arms Transfers for year 2002
Country Date ...Transmission No. ....Description............. Transfer Type............... Price
Israel 6/5/2002 unnumbered 50,000 excess M16 Rifles Excess Defense Articles...... $4,460,000
Israel 1/23/2002 unnumbered 30,000 excess M16 rifles Excess Defense Articles .........no price listed
Israel 11/18/1997 M16 rifles and ammunition Excess Defense Articles.................................... free
Israel 10/10/1995 30,000 Colt M-16A1 rifles Excess Defense Articles .......................................... free
Israel 2/15/1995 34,744 Colt M-16A1 rifles .....Excess Defense Articles ......................................free
The SAS use the G36, The HK33, The G-3...
True the British SAS have used many carbines in small numbers. Currently their their primary rifle is the C-8.
My army buddies tell me that the special forces they have seen over in the sandbox had FN SCARs. Personally I know they have used the HK 416 and the SCAR for some time. Big surprise there hunh?
The SCAR Mk16 progam was cancelled last summer and the HK 416 went through a forced turn in back in '08. SOCOM went back to parent service issued M4s.
If you weren't there... Shut your flute holster about armchair second guesses. And what some soldier should or shouldn't have done.
And for the love of simplicity.. All shots in combat are low percentage.. Not light of day, square range, oneway, static, 19"x30" paper drills. I'm pretty sure I could get 99% of forum spewers hit percentage in the teens by mearly throwing rocks at them, in the day on a square range.
Static defense is about the terrain, defensive positions, depth and supporting fires. Leadership decisions. The individual weapon issued is of little import.
All there is to say is wow. I had to check the website to make sure this was M4C. Isnt there another site for this?
SW-Shooter
12-23-10, 20:15
If you weren't there... Shut your flute holster about armchair second guesses. And what some soldier should or shouldn't have done.
And for the love of simplicity.. All shots in combat are low percentage.. Not light of day, square range, oneway, static, 19"x30" paper drills. I'm pretty sure I could get 99% of forum spewers hit percentage in the teens by mearly throwing rocks at them, in the day on a square range.
Static defense is about the terrain, defensive positions, depth and supporting fires. Leadership decisions. The individual weapon issued is of little import.
Yep, it's a WHOLE lot different when the shit is flying past you. That's why heavy guns should be deployed at every outpost, I could only imagine what a couple of Bradley's could have done.
Beyond the article's speculation of what occurred at Wanat, further down the page, I found this bit particularly interesting concerning the carbine trials that occurred and the numbers reported:
"collectively, M4s experienced 863 low-impact and 19 high-impact stoppages over a firing schedule of 60,000 rounds—the other weapons experienced significantly fewer stoppages"
I'm sure most of us remember this test and the numbers reported from this link:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
A very concerning test, and the results were certainly very peculiar to all of us. Everything else in the test performed phenomenally, yet our beloved M4 shit the bed. However, looking into this Wanat article, I've found it stated that:
"M4 performance . . . was significantly different than in the previous extreme dust test in which it participated,"
Odd, right? Well, not so odd when you look into the article more.
"In the test, where ten sample M4s drawn from Army inventory competed against ten samples each of Heckler & Koch's HK416 and XM8 and Fabrique National's Mk16 SCAR,"
"six of the ten M4s drawn for the test did not meet the minimum rate of fire of 700 rounds-per-minute mandated under Mil-Spec IAW Mil-C-70599A(AR) [...] ATEC's testers were unfamiliar with the M4s' 3-round burst configuration which, depending on the position of the cam, will sometimes fire 1 round or a 2-round burst before firing a 3-round burst. This unfamiliarity, said Colt, led to single rounds and 2-round bursts being counted as stoppages."
I'm getting highly suspicious here. The numbers didn't make sense in the first place, but now we start to see why. Not only was the Army putting old guns up against brand new factory models, but they were using ones that were more or less broken and improperly working. Uneven, fixed, and outright fraudulent testing, anyone?
Well, it just gets better:
"Colt contracted a DOD-certified testing agency, Stork East-West Technology Corporation in Jupiter, Florida, to conduct its own dust test according to mil-spec guidelines. In this test of ten M4 carbines, which was conducted under a protocol identical to that used in Extreme Dust Test 3, only 111 stoppages were reported."
So now, under fair and equivalent conditions, subjected to the same testing the other rifles originally were, conducted by an unbiased agency outside of Colt, we see a number that ultimately comes out even LOWER than the others. And yet, we never even hear of this happening?
What this says to me is that no replacement, be it an AK, a SCAR, or a pixie wand that shoots magic gum drops, is going to make a difference in reliability. What it's coming down to is beat up weapons that are long past the service life of ANY weapon and are out of spec, using improperly matched parts, and are improperly maintained by armorers and the individual. That will kill ANY gun's reliability. If we were to switch to ANY gun right now, it would work for a few years, yes, but within a decade or two, we'll be in the exact same position experiencing problems. Why? Because the apparent problem is that we're using weapons past their service life, and more than that they're being improperly maintained.
This whole thing sounds like a smear campaign to me, conducted by corrupt brass and by a couple of fat cats rolling in government contracts and backroom lobbying so they can more comfortably line their pockets.
Thanks for the replies, particularly those that stayed more or less on the subject of whether the numbers and concepts noted in the article were potentially useful data or just poorly informed noise. Any story that includes the words "What Really Happened..." always raises some red flags to me, so I thought m4c was the right place to get feedback. Meplat, thanks for the insight into the dust study results. It's pretty obvious once it's reworded that way.
Sorry if the subject got some folks a little spooled up. Maybe the forum rules should include "no caffeine for one hour before posting." ;)
Just calling the AK series, "spray and pray" when you compare them to a M855 service rifle is laughable. M855 is not winning any accuracy contests here.
If you say so. (http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4706084761/m/9996061915?r=228108402#228108402)
-B
Beyond the article's speculation of what occurred at Wanat, further down the page, I found this bit particularly interesting concerning the carbine trials that occurred and the numbers reported:
"collectively, M4s experienced 863 low-impact and 19 high-impact stoppages over a firing schedule of 60,000 rounds—the other weapons experienced significantly fewer stoppages"
I'm sure most of us remember this test and the numbers reported from this link:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
A very concerning test, and the results were certainly very peculiar to all of us. Everything else in the test performed phenomenally, yet our beloved M4 shit the bed. However, looking into this Wanat article, I've found it stated that:
"M4 performance . . . was significantly different than in the previous extreme dust test in which it participated,"
Odd, right? Well, not so odd when you look into the article more.
"In the test, where ten sample M4s drawn from Army inventory competed against ten samples each of Heckler & Koch's HK416 and XM8 and Fabrique National's Mk16 SCAR,"
"six of the ten M4s drawn for the test did not meet the minimum rate of fire of 700 rounds-per-minute mandated under Mil-Spec IAW Mil-C-70599A(AR) [...] ATEC's testers were unfamiliar with the M4s' 3-round burst configuration which, depending on the position of the cam, will sometimes fire 1 round or a 2-round burst before firing a 3-round burst. This unfamiliarity, said Colt, led to single rounds and 2-round bursts being counted as stoppages."
I'm getting highly suspicious here. The numbers didn't make sense in the first place, but now we start to see why. Not only was the Army putting old guns up against brand new factory models, but they were using ones that were more or less broken and improperly working. Uneven, fixed, and outright fraudulent testing, anyone?
Well, it just gets better:
"Colt contracted a DOD-certified testing agency, Stork East-West Technology Corporation in Jupiter, Florida, to conduct its own dust test according to mil-spec guidelines. In this test of ten M4 carbines, which was conducted under a protocol identical to that used in Extreme Dust Test 3, only 111 stoppages were reported."
So now, under fair and equivalent conditions, subjected to the same testing the other rifles originally were, conducted by an unbiased agency outside of Colt, we see a number that ultimately comes out even LOWER than the others. And yet, we never even hear of this happening?
What this says to me is that no replacement, be it an AK, a SCAR, or a pixie wand that shoots magic gum drops, is going to make a difference in reliability. What it's coming down to is beat up weapons that are long past the service life of ANY weapon and are out of spec, using improperly matched parts, and are improperly maintained by armorers and the individual. That will kill ANY gun's reliability. If we were to switch to ANY gun right now, it would work for a few years, yes, but within a decade or two, we'll be in the exact same position experiencing problems. Why? Because the apparent problem is that we're using weapons past their service life, and more than that they're being improperly maintained.
This whole thing sounds like a smear campaign to me, conducted by corrupt brass and by a couple of fat cats rolling in government contracts and backroom lobbying so they can more comfortably line their pockets.
Larry Vickers once said in an interview that many major parts of the M4/M4A1 including the barrel need to be replaced every ~5000 rounds in his experience. He was a consultant for the 416 and said in real world testing that delta did that the 416 could go 10-15k with less maintaining.
That is the dust test #3 bro!
The Army has now done 3 dust tests. In the late 2006/Jan 2007 report “Baseline Reliability and Dust Assessment for the M4, M16, and M249,” the M4 jammed 9,836 times – 1 jam every 6 rounds. In a May 2007 “Extreme Dust Test II”, with no competitors, the M4 had 1 jam every 88 rounds, using heavy lubrication.
I would love to read the first dust test... Explain that one.
Apparently the 416 in dust test 3 used the same mags as the M4 did too afik, but the G36 did not. I guess someone could have informed me incorrectly on that one though:rolleyes:
Did you read what the weapons were given for lubrication in that final dust test that you claim was rigged? It was crazy.
Go tell US Army Ranger Capt. Nate Self that the M4 is reliable enough and you feel that your years of experience playing call of duty enables you to make that decision. Or how about Patrick Miller? Go ask him!
Nate Self for lazy people:
Once behind cover, Self tried to fire again,
but his weapon jammed.”“I pulled my
charging handle back, and there was a
round stuck in the chamber.”Like the rest
of his men, Self always carried a cleaning rod zip tied to the side
of his weapon in case it failed to extract a round from the
Chamber.”“I started to knock the round out by pushing the rod
down the barrel, and it broke off. There was nothing I could with
it after that.”
Poor bastard even had a cleaning rod...
This is what the armytimes said for those lazy people on Patrick Miller:
What’s not so well known is how then-Pfc. Patrick Miller earned a Silver Star for keeping his M16 from jamming long enough to take out an enemy mortar position.
“We were taking fire from everywhere,” Sgt. Miller recalled in a recent Army Times interview.
Enemy fire had knocked out his five-ton truck, forcing him to fight on foot.
He dove for cover behind a dirt berm and spotted an Iraqi soldier manning a mortar position across the road.
“It looked like he was trying to drop the shell in the tube. That is when I fired the first shot and the guy went down.”
When he pulled the trigger again, nothing happened.
“After the first shot, the round ejected. When the next round went to go in, it froze up,” he said. “It didn’t feed all the way into the chamber.”
Miller pounded on the forward assist, a tiny plunger on the M16’s receiver designed to manually push the weapon’s bolt into the chamber.
He fired his rifle once more, and it jammed again. Miller tried the immediate action drill he learned in Basic Combat Training — he slapped the bottom of the magazine to reseat it, pulled the charging handle back to look into the chamber. When he released, the bolt wouldn’t chamber the next round.
Changing magazines didn’t work either.
“After the third magazine I decided it took longer to change mags than to beat on the forward assist,” he said.
That worked, but his weapon would only fire a single shot and jam again.
“I was beating that thing with the palm of my hand four or five times for each round,” he recalled.
Miller managed to fire about eight times using this frantic sequence under enemy fire.
It was a valiant, but futile, effort. His fellow soldiers were trying to fight, but their weapons failed them as well.
Miller turned around and shot at a target behind him.
“When I turned there were about 40 Iraqis that had moved up on the road” approaching his position, he said. “At that time there was not much else I could have done.”
Miller put down his rifle and surrendered.
Apparently he killed up to 9 people this way too!
Why don't we stop bickering here and wait a few years for the new M4 carbine competition to finish! Then all of these opinions about how the tests were handled and the quality of our service carbine will be over and we can have a real discussion.
Larry Vickers once said in an interview that many major parts of the M4/M4A1 including the barrel need to be replaced every ~5000 rounds in his experience. He was a consultant for the 416 and said in real world testing that delta did that the 416 could go 10-15k with less maintaining.
That is the dust test #3 bro!
I'm not your bro.
I would love to read the first dust test... Explain that one.
Apparently the 416 in dust test 3 used the same mags as the M4 did too afik, but the G36 did not. I guess someone could have informed me incorrectly on that one though:rolleyes:
Did you read what the weapons were given for lubrication in that final dust test that you claim was rigged? It was crazy.
Go tell US Army Ranger Capt. Nate Self that the M4 is reliable enough and you feel that your years of experience playing call of duty enables you to make that decision. Or how about Patrick Miller? Go ask him!
Nate Self for lazy people:
Poor bastard even had a cleaning rod...
This is what the armytimes said for those lazy people on Patrick Miller:
Apparently he killed up to 9 people this way too!
Why don't we stop bickering here and wait a few years for the new M4 carbine competition to finish! Then all of these opinions about how the tests were handled and the quality of our service carbine will be over and we can have a real discussion.
Not a Call of Duty player, just someone who has drug both M4 and AK-style weapons around battlefields for a few years.
Borrowing someone else's heroism, combined with broke dick weapon, whether user or maintenance failure doesn't reinforce your point.
On dry lubes: If your "dry lube" includes graphite, you need to be shot in the head; graphite is corrosive to aluminum, and you are major league ****ing your buddy by using it.
Funny thing; I've had weapons failures with both AKs and ARs under "extreme" conditions, but I truly cannot determine which is most reliable. But I'd damned sure rather have an AR for the ergos, 10 out of 10 times.
I'm not your bro.
Not a Call of Duty player, just someone who has drug both M4 and AK-style weapons around battlefields for a few years.
Borrowing someone else's heroism, combined with broke dick weapon, whether user or maintenance failure doesn't reinforce your point.
On dry lubes: If your "dry lube" includes graphite, you need to be shot in the head; graphite is corrosive to aluminum, and you are major league ****ing your buddy by using it.
Funny thing; I've had weapons failures with both AKs and ARs under "extreme" conditions, but I truly cannot determine which is most reliable. But I'd damned sure rather have an AR for the ergos, 10 out of 10 times.
I have had an AK kaboom on me and it was not a fun experience, but the error was due to a builder who was retarded and not the design. I think it is safe to say that any weapon that is built by retards or with sub standard parts can and will have real big issues.
My eye protection saved my eyes. :eek:
Oh and it has to be a user error or maintenance error. Funny.
Failure2Stop
12-24-10, 02:14
This has spiraled out of control, so before infractions have to be handed out, I'm shutting it down.
The points have been addressed and discussed.
If anyone has anything new to add, let me or another mod know and we might reopen it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.