M4 Failure makes headlines

[csmsss]

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

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

[Palmetto-Pride]

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

[greensteelforge]

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

[KShaft]

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

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

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

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

Please let us all keep our tones respectful.

Brgds,

Danny "

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

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

[emcon5]

Easy fix for sustained rate of fire issues:

[johnwilliamson062]

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

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

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

[greensteelforge]

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

Army, OIF combat veteran

[B. Lahey]

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

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

I guess all those guys had substandard equipment too.

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

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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

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

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

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

[Erik]

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

If anything failed, it was training and leadership.

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

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

[Dannyl]

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

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

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

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


Brgds,

Danny

[emcon5]

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

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

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

[tipoc]

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

The above is the point worth noting.

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

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

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

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

tipoc

[thallub]

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

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

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

+1

Excellent find.

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

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...4-controversy/

[tipoc]

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

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

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

tipoc

[TRguy]

7 pages of comments and.....



I'm just saying

[Bruegger]

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

A heavier barrel would help heat buildup somewhat, but so far as I know, all the military rifle barrels (M4 and M16 variants) have the thin section for attaching the M203. I saw that the LWRC M6A4 fires from the open bolt when in FA, and closed-bolt when in SA (and for first shot in FA). This would help a bit. But I think it's meant to fill the role of an automatic rifle (like the BAR), replacing the SAW at the fireteam level, not for issue to every rifleman. http://www.lwrci.com/Products/M6A4/t...4/Default.aspx

[HorseSoldier]

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

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

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

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

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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

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

[Crosshair]

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

As was mentioned before, they did not have enough manpower to do this to the degree they should have. Often what you SHOULD do and what you CAN do are two completely different things.

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

Apples and oranges. The M-249 is a belt fed weapon that gives it a much higher effective rate of fire.

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

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

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

[Chindo18Z]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rinse. Repeat. 10 mags in about 3 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YMMV.

[HorseSoldier]

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

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

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

[chemscout]

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

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

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

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

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

Like I said...all my opinion.


C.S.

[1goodshot]

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

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by chemscout

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

15,000 rounds through an M4 with no stoppages and how you can do it too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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