We’re still finding out more details on the report that weapons failures plagued the Soldiers defending positions in the battle of Wanat.
I wanted to pass along some thoughts from a very tapped in source of ours who warned me that A) The final report has not been released and that I am basing my take on the “draft” version and B) don’t confuse jams due to recirculated gas with malfunctions resulting from high rates of fire.
My source said that he suspects the NCOs interviewed in the report are probably being “taken to task by their peers” for not enforcing fire discipline. He said this issue could be more of a training and leadership problem rather than a weapons one and added that despite its current unpopularity in the face of new Gucci guns, the M16 family of weapons has served the U.S. military very well “longer than any other rifle.”
Absolutely agree 100 percent.
I’m cautious about blaming the preliminary findings on the M4s operating system and can understand how, like Cole Trickle in Days of Thunder, you can “do it deliberate” by running the gun so hard it can’t take anymore. But another source who was in on the political side of the debate early on last year told me there is a problem with the M4’s system that when it’s operated under high rates of fire, it melts the gas tube, where as the short stroke gas-piston design can run longer on high rates of fire without degrading.
Again, this is a debate with many facets. I’m hoping to talk to an Army small arms official very soon who can help provide the service’s perspective on what might be going on here.
On another note, my tapped in source said that the SCAR has been received with limited enthusiasm by special operators in the field. He says that the SCAR, to him, is a step backward. He’s freaked out by the reciprocating bolt and other features that make it “just nuts, ergonomically.” He did say however that his gouge says that the Mk17 7.62 is a “tack driver” in the precision gas gun role and that the Mk16 is only being used in special circumstances and not as a general patrol rifle.
…his $.02 that I thought I’d pass along.
More TK…
– Christian
{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }
The problem with the M-4 is its barrel length. As I have discussed on my blog, the 14.5″ barrel and below are too short for the 5.56mm cartridge case. The extraction cycle starts way too soon, before the brass case has relaxed and shrunk back. Thus, the brass case tends to stick to the chamber walls during the extraction cycle. Colt has tried to tune the gas system, but there is only so much you can do against the physics of the system.
This is a problem inherent with 5.56mm and the short barrels. A straight up gas piston system, like the ones on the market right now, does not really fix the problem. Short barrel 5.56s will work initially, but after some volume firing will start having failures to extract.
http://americanmohist.blogspot.com/2009/05/modifications-to-improve-reliability-of.html
he M16 family of weapons has served the U.S. military very well “longer than any other rifle.”"
That is complete B.S. Soldiers have been complaining about the M-16 since its beginning. In my personal opinion the m-14 has served longer and more reliably. My father ditched his m-16 in vietnam for an m-14. This is and always has been about keeping colt our supplier. Sorry the Complete gas operation system is junk. The soldiers are in a desert, it fouls everything else up, why would we not expect it to foul up a rifle. Furthermore, if we have known the gas operation is known to jam why are we still dealing with it 40 years later. They jammed in the 60′s and the jam now, nothing has changed, the design is flawed. Politics always seem to come first in this country, over common sense in almost all cases.
Can anyone find out why the XM-8 was canceled in the first place? The weapon seemed to be doing well from the reports I had heard coming back from soldiers in Iraq testing it. As I recall, it performed better in most of the tests than any other rifle in the competition. It had also already fired over 10k rounds as compared to the M4 in the test which was factory fresh.
I also would like to know whether or not they have even looked at the 6.8 upper receiver that Barrett Arms had developed.
Greg,
Here is one issue with the venerable M-14 rifle. The weight of the weapon itself. That included with having less ammo when going into an engagement are factors to consider. I can hear the counter argument of so it weighs more than the M-4 or the M-16, its the better weapon. That may be so if you don’t have to worry about hauling the weapon all over the place, especially with the weight of all the gear our troops currently carry.
The XM-8, yes I am bringing it up again, was lighter than the M-4 by at least a pound. So we get a more reliable rifle and lighter weight as well? Didn’t I recall that one reason stated by Pentagon officials was there wasn’t enough advancement in the rifles available to replace the M-4/M-16?
As far as the jamming and fouling problem, didn’t they say chroming the barrel would have helped if it had been done for the M-16s in Vietnam and Mcnamara shot the idea down then? Can chroming the barrels help in any of the situations with the stoppages? Or does chroming the barrels create a whole other list of problems?
Ref: “source said that the SCAR has been received with limited enthusiasm by special operators in the field.”
But was it not the Spec Ops community that actually ran the competition and selected the SCAR ? Did they really just want the long barreled 7.62mm version but grudgingly accepted the 5.56 (in long or short barrel) ???
“there is a problem with the M4′s system that when it’s operated under high rates of fire, it melts the gas tube”
Hey- its a carbine, not a machine gun.
Anyway, the main problem area in the M4 (shared by ALL of the supposedly superior Piston derivatives) is TIGHT TOLERANCES IN THE RECIEVER AREA.
“I’m hoping to talk to an Army small arms official very soon”
Please ask him to confirm that both Delta and DEVGRU have withdrawn the HK 416 due to “structural isseus”.
“Can anyone find out why the XM-8 was canceled in the first place?”
The polymer recievers (in the Trunnion area) on the XM8 melted during high rate of fire tests.
Christain,
More and more im hearing the same thing. Why would anyone be suprised that the weapons over heated. If you fire that much that fast its just gonna happen which makes sence.
Do i think the short stroke gas-piston design should be put into place yes think of it as a upgrade. Or upgrade the materials the gas tube is constructed out of.
I have also heard that alot of the soldiers are just not taught really all the ways NOT to clean it.
And yes ive also heard there seemed to be poor fire discipline. While i cant really blame the soldiers i do understand there points.
————————
As for the M249 ive heard alot of people talk about there doubts in the weapon ive also heard a few people think the M60 should be brought back.
People talk about the AK47 all the time like its a wonder weapon. In some ways it is.
But the AK’s strength is its simple and easy to manufacture. It doesnt jam or fail alot because a a proven design and a very lose construction it doesnt have to be really acuratly constructed.
However. It is also heavy. And usually very inaccurate. It also doesnt have near the range of a M16.
The M4 is a compremise. Its got good intermediate range but not long. Great for troops that could go from fighting in close quarters indoors to medium range on roof tops or neighborhood streets. Your average AK is pretty dang big. And as a i mentioned before has many limitations.
Anyways id take a M16 over either id just fix the jas operating system.
Oh yes and before someone starts with the you dont know what your talking about. I get my info from guys in the military in astan or iraq who have been in for awhile so yea.
Good Morning Folks,
Well here we go again, it’s the GI’s fault. Bullsh**. I’ve been through the problems on the other post and I won’t repeat myself. It’s not the cal. of the round, it’s not the length of the barrel, it a fault of the R operating system and the vanity of generations of military leaders who won’t address that issue.
It’s not the fault of NCO’s, I doubt if there is an NCO with a combat unit in Afghanistan that doesn’t do weapons check several times a day, it’s his/her job, nor is there a a platoon leader or Psg. that doesn’t follow up and check their squad leaders on this issue. As for training the United States does marksmanship better then any other Army in the world and the Marines better the Army.
The fix is cheap, thanks in no small part to the small and highy dedicated civilian assault rifle community, an underground operation during the misguided Clinton ban on the sale of these weapons, a great deal of technology has went into assault rifles and the current short stroke gas piston offered by nearly all civilian suppliers of assault rifles and carbines is vastly superior to the military/Colt AR system.
This has been shown in test after test conducted by the military, manufactures (FN has a video where 100 rounds were put through a Mark. 14 on full “rock and roll” with out a stoppage and the upper receiver was cool to the touch. To prove there demo, the did it again with the same weapon), and even the media covered test in 07. Colt a year ago offered the short stroke upper receiver in it’s line, what more does the military need?
Our troops need the best weapons that can be obtained, the country owes them that. This whole issue stinks of corruption at the highest level in the Pentagon, it’s time for Congress to get off their corrupt collective butts and look into this murder of American Soldiers and marines and do something about it.
Where is Congressman John “I’m a Marine Colonel” Murtha on this issue, on his way to a Colt ATM machine? Where are the new Iraqi war Congressmen who were going to look out after their buddies, waiting in line behind Murtha I guess.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
The Swiss didn’t see the M16 and AK47 as irreconcialible designs. Actually they mixed the best of both in their SIG550, that everybody reports as very reliable and also very accurate, and off course the swiss crafmanship helps a lot.
But since the SCAR ergonomics is not being well received, why not the HK416? The same ergonomics of the M4. And funny how the SCAR is getting bashed now, since it was the SOCOMs themselves who chosed it over the Robison XCR, a gun that is quite similar in concept to the swiss Sig, mixing AK with AR.
I agree that the M-4 is flawed, and the whole system has been flawed for a long time. And why are we using a varmint round to kill humans? If I was hunting deer in Afghanistan, there is no way I would be using a .223 (5.56) to do such a thing. Especially when guys in Afghanistan are having to engage the enemy across canyons? I would use the AR carbine to hunt rabbits and coyotes, but give me a .308 (7.62) or .30-06 for taking down a deer (humans) at distance.
My thoughts on the matter are, for a base defense, you must have enough ammo and weapon parts (bolts, spare barrels, etc.) to last several days of this kind of an attack. That ammo should be all the same too. 7.62 would be my choice, so the M-240′s and the personal weapons (whatever the industry best rifle in that caliber is) have a common round to use. The defense should also depend less on CAS, and more on just solid concepts of the defense. Bring out the claymores again, set up the aiming stakes, set up sufficient fields of fire, etc. etc. This is nothing new, but it takes good leaders to make sure it all happens.
The defense is never finished either. You can always make it better, and the plan should always reflect the worst case scenario and evolve over time. Everyone should be drilled on it as well.
Another suggestion. These COP’s should have AK 47′s posted at all the fighting positions as back up. If the enemy gets that close, which they will do to render CAS ineffective, there will come a point where using the enemies ammo could be the deal. So if guys had AK’s that were accurate and set up to their preference, then we are giving our troops just one more tool for the defense. I would even set up RPG’s, to back up all the AT-4′s or Javelins or whatever systems we use now. Because we know the enemy will be humping RPG’s to the fight.
As to a possible cure to the current problem? How about we just purchase 7.62 chambered AR uppers, and get those things set up with piston systems. Units can direct purchase those things, and unit armorers could put it together. Hell, even soldiers could put it together, and an armorer could come through and give the blessing on the combination.
When these AR systems are fielded, the soldiers can give feedback on to how it is working, the unit commanders can change up the configurations, and start assembling a weapon that the troops want based on their suggestions. The firearms owning public does this with their personal AR platforms all the time, and our military could be doing the same thing. With the AR, there is an upgrade and modification for every part of that weapon. It is like an open source weapon system. Our problem, is we don’t allow our guys treat it like a open source weapon, and force them to use less optimum AR platforms.
Another idea, is start issuing multiple uppers to the troops. For the base defense, use a longer more robust weapon that would be certainly more heavy. For patrol, allow troops to carry the lighter upper? Allow guys to play around with calibers too, and put all of that freedom and flexibility into the hands of field commanders and the troops. Why some bean counter REMF is dictating what guys use is stupid.
Which brings up another point. Direct purchase for gear, should include weapon parts and upgrades. A field commander should be able to buy whatever they want for the AR’s in the field. It sounds like we are close to that level of freedom, with gear purchases. Let’s just take it up a notch, and allow them to have the same freedoms to buy whatever they want for their troop’s weapons. Give a field commander a credit card, and purchase authority, and if there is a better part for a mod for the AR, then let him buy it for the troops and get that shipped pronto. Hell, buying direct, might actually save the government money, and simplify the supply system even more. Get the middle man out of the way, and give these guys more flexibility to get what they need. So all that is left, is just getting that package in country and to the troops when they need it. Or if they had this tool before deployment, then weapon mods could be reworked before they even get up into the hills. That is my point. And judging by the performance of the issued weapons, there are definitely upgrades to the ‘open source’ weapon called the AR that will allow it to be more dependable and lethal.
Finally, Col. John Boyd was famous for his work on developing the jet fighter called the F-16. This aircraft was revolutionary at the time, and it was purpose built to meet the requirements of actual air combat. It wasn’t an aircraft that was modified from something less-than. It was the plane we wanted, not the plane was ten percent better or whatever. A big reason why we got the plane we wanted at the time, was because of the common sense and persistent assault on the status quo by none other than John Boyd. He was a reformer in the defense industry, and he told generals and the like, where to stick it. He was awesome, and because of his common sense and scientific approach towards the building of a fighter ‘we wanted’, and because he didn’t back down or compromise because he knew he was right on the matter, we got a fighter that was the best.
In essence, we need some more Col. Boyds in the military and defense industry, to hammer home the weapon we want for today’s wars. And who knows, Boyd might have said ‘just upgrade the thing’ or ‘he might have said ‘just start over and build it from the ground up’. Who knows, but either way, the proof is in the pudding. Does the weapon in the hands of our warfighters, have the reliability and lethality necessary for the fight? Does our weapon either meet or exceed the lethality of our enemy’s weapons? And do we want separate calibers on the battlefield, and especially when resupply and cost become factors in this war? Some things to think about….
Also, before I forget. How are we to keep up with the Taliban, when we are wearing so much crap? Let the troops free themselves of this stuff, if they think it will help them to hunt down the Taliban up in the hills. Yet again, our combat loads should either match or be less than our enemy’s combat loads, if we want to be hunters out there. Or we can walk around wearing lead suits, screwing up these kid’s backs, and making their lives even more miserable in that combat environment. If they want to wear a plate carrier, so be it, but if they want to hunt and go after these guys, then give them the freedom to do so. I suspect this is happening in some cases, but unless it is overtly accepted and implemented as tactically sound, then it will always be some kind of stigma to take your armor off. We might lose more guys with this policy, but I guarantee we will kill more bad guys, and put the heat on these window lickers. Take that crap off, and give the troops a killing weapon!
“the M16 family of weapons has served the U.S. military very well “longer than any other rifle.”
Just because the rifle has been around forever doesn’t mean its any good. It just means the DoD hasn’t tried to replace it.
Enchilada,
No, I haven’t read the entire report, though I’m getting through it when I have a window (it’s 123 pages of very small type and I have a beast to feed, if you know what I mean)…
Please do not presume to know who my sources are…I would absolutely NOT use their perspective unless I was confident in the ligitimacy of them and their input…and I surely wouldn’t sell you or other DT members short by using retards.
You have an incredibly good comment on there and as I speak with other experts (and I’m not talking dudes who read shit, I’m talking dudes who DO shit) they’re calling a lot of issues into question — including caliber, technology, training, leadership, defensive planning, overall doctrine, etc. This is quickly becoming more of an overall debate about the tactical differences of Afghanistan and Iraq than of finite training/leadership/technology problems.
Thanks for your input..
The comparison to ‘Cole Trickle’ in ‘Days of Thunder’ was accurate. There are probably some WWII/Korea veterans who suggest reissuing the M1 Garand or the M14 updated to the conditions. There are many instances of GIs and marines in Vietnam of picking up AK-47s off dead VC/NVA troops.
The smoke, as it always does, is beginning to clear, and it seems as though some of the more unpopular posters here, i.e. Jones, and Zandor seem to be much more correct than some other posters give them credit for.
Peace!
I suppose the current military’s procurement policy is akin to sticking with the Ford Model T until hovercars come out.
How much will the enemy learn if draft studies about lessons learned begin trickling onto the internet? On some level a perceptive enemy will have learned what they need to learn long before the report comes out, but even so…
X8 & G36 here we are again at US army politics ,where they wanted rifles to be transformers loaded with gizmos and someone even pushed for electronic ammo counter on the X-8 ,But the thing is the guns army buys are replaced every few years its not like they have them for decades, replacing them is no real issue and in comparison to any weapons program that is quite cheap.
When comparing Ak to M16 you are always comparing a 1947 rifle to a modern one,design was strongly influenced by streetfighting in WW2 and 7.62×39 is supperior to 5.56 in that kind of enviroment,AK also has modern derivatives and clones that are still as or more reliable but much more accurate and made in more modern calibres,a Serbian made M21 a modern day AK is quite popular among hired guns in Iraq and Afganistan and these guys buy what works.
OOO found this thanks to baen bar.
http://iwoe.org/bbforum/viewtopic.php?t=8828&sid=8f4092aff832af40fbef19b63a6ffac1
Here is a clip
The specifications of the Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) have finally been published. Bushmaster and Magpul are both still very much involved in the development of the rifle although I can see very little that has changed since the original Magpul Masada was unveiled.
If heat is the problem, build a weapon able to withstand it. If fast rate of fire melts or burns up weapon, slow it down. If maintenance is a problem, fix it.
Let the soldiers do what they can, make a weapon that is forgiving. And above all, make one that will give tons of firepower without overheating for a time. If we have to go to liquid cooling, so be it.
Having spent my military career (vietnam era) in clean Helos with HC-7 combat SAR where our M-16s were kept spotless i admit i am no expert but i agree with those that say why a carbine in a desert they need long range weapons with enough accuracy and knock down power to put them down for keeps at ranges out to at least 300 yds. And who gives a darn how good the M-16 has been. my old lady was good for many years but she needs replacing just like this old tired carbine.
What about a bullpup rifle? The Brits, Austrians, Australians, Chinese, and Israelis already have them. They could be made as short as an M4 but with a barrel closer to M16 length.
Speaking of the Israelis, they have the AK-type Galil, which is basically a high-quality AK derivative firing NATO ammunition.
at least the camo works in that pic.
You can’t blame the rifle, because that would imply that you are blaming the generals, and everyone in the military knows the generals like the freaking pope, they are infallible. So if it’s a piece of shit rifle that don’t work when needed, than it must be the common soldier’s fault, because soldiers are stupid, not all knowing like the generals.
“If heat is the problem, build a weapon able to withstand it. If fast rate of fire melts or burns up weapon, slow it down. If maintenance is a problem, fix it.”
@HungrySeagull: You forget, we live in America. The land of the cheap and the home of the broken. Used to be products were made well, in order that they would last, so you could use the same weapon for years with no problems. Nowadays, companies can’t afford to keep giving their CEOs 7 figures unless they build to break. Your brand new 2009 whatever-you-bought will not last half as long as the guy next door with a ’99 of the same model. If this is true of cars, dishwashers, and kids toys, it will be true of Colt’s firearms. I bet you the last 10 years worth of M-16a2′s made did not last as long as the first M16a2′s made in Vietnam era. Would it help to buy from another company? Sure. But how many AMERICAN firearms manufacturers can/will produce the amount of weapons the DoD requires at the quality standard needed? Is S&W gonna do it? Ruger? Remington? Probably not. Although, if ever I had a favorite gun, it was my Remington 870 express.
Did anyone else notice the soldier posing in the picture has his M-4 set up for blanks? Exercise, anyone?
Ammo thought that was kinda obvious considering the buildings are all made of cinderblock and very clean. no windows trash extera.
@AMMO Point taken. Thank you Sir!
I own a Remington 870 Marine Magnum and it is a very well made weapon. Possibly one of the very best I will ever see out of modern weapons. I understand the Marine Corps likes the weapon as well. Good for personal defense or door breaching among other things.
I made the mistake of thinking somehow, Military Infantry weapons may have enjoyed the same quality. Maybe they have. Just thinking that we fought human wave attacks before and will again someday.
If the enemy ever gets close… say 30 yards, I would not mind learning what a few 3 inch magnum rounds will do to good effect.
Heat did not bother the weapon too much, it’s me that had to adjust after 100 rounds. Cleaning took a few minutes with a bit of fluids, cotton and a rod.
Thank you to all who have served. We appreciate your service “Over there” so we can be Free “Over here”
The M16 family is perfect for what it was originally meant to be — a replacement for the M2 and M3 carbines carried by USAF base security types.
As a battle rifle, it met the military goal at the time — lighten the MINIMUM load of the draftee infantry ‘rifleman’.
From Day One it has been recognized that the gas operating system is inherently flawed and that the rifle required far more maintenance than any other battle rifle of the 20th century.
The 5.56mm round has long been recognized as superb in sterile test environments and questionable at best in most real world battle zones.
When first introduced, in the brush and jungles of Vietnam, Soldiers immediately discovered that the M16 couldn’t hit anything when fired through light brush. 99% of the Soldiers didn’t understand the ballistics of WHY, but they quickly found the solution, pust push the selector switch one position farther and the problem was fixed.
But all that was four decades ago — today we have basically the same rifle (with the same recirculated gas problems and same tight tolerances) firing basically the same round — but after 40 years the answer cannot be JUST to continue to blame the rifle.
We have had several generations of new Soldiers since the introduction of the M16. There are no Active Duty Soldiers left who ever carried a battle rifle that could be expected to fire your entire basic load without a stoppage, to shoot through light cover, or to work reliably two days in a row without detailed stripping and cleaning at least once or twice every day.
Today’s Soldiers have never seen anything but the M16, so they have no excuse for not knowing its limitations right to the depths of their souls. Any time you are not shooting the M16, you’d better be cleaning it – or it’s not going to shoot the next time you try.
Great works you bring to the troops.
John
Lets see only two states allow the .223 as a deer weapon but we continue to use it in battle. Way too many failure to stop incidents with this round. We need to bring back at least the .308 of course procurement would’nt get the nice executive jobs after they retire if we did.
A few points to add:
- The M4′s gas tube will not melt under sustained fire.
- The M4 is capable of 3-round bursts, limiting it’s maximum rate of fire.
- The direct gas system helps distribute heat into other parts of the weapon and away from the barrel, assists in cooling, preventing catastrophic failure of the barrel.
- All lightweight weapons have limitations due to trade-offs that must be made. Only water-cooled machineguns from WWI era are capable of running non-stop, all day long.
Lets see, you are in the desert in the middle of nowhere a large number of bad guys are coming at you trying to kill you. So you start shooting back, oh but wait you cant shoot too much or your gun will overheat and fail. That is just plain ludicrous and sets us up for failure, which in this case means dead soldiers. We need a replacement and we need it now.
Does this sound like another problem the m-16 had and no noe did anything until a whole squad was found dead with the rifle torn down trying to get it to work in combat.
Give it up, Hotgun. Logic has no place on the internets, especially when talking about guns, and the M-16 in particular.
Ignore the fact that this weapon and its round has killed literally hundreds of thousands of enemies over a forty year span.
Because “everyone knows” that the M-16 was made by Mattel, the M-14 was WAY BETTER, and the puny 5.56 is only fit to execute poodles at close range. Hairy chested men need a archaic ten-pound rifle made of iron and wood that can hit a (stationary) target at (a known distance) 800 yards (even though 90% of combat occurs at or below 300 yards, and you only have a 10% chance of even SEEING a man-sized figure above 300 yards), and forget about the fact that 7.62 weighs twice as much…the troops just need to man-up and go lift weights, if they are that weak.
BAR’s anyone???
Having read the entire “draft” report, weapon malfunctions were a minor contributing problem compared to the series of bad/poor/no decision incidents that put those soldiers in that position. I am not standing up for the M4 or the M249; not getting into the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate; not going to participate in the various gas piston vs direct gas arguements. I will share that not patrolling the area, sending too few troops to set up a FOB, not providing Command and Control, not providing adequate fire support or Fire Support personnel, not providing sufficient lift or attack aircraft, crappy OPSEC, and an obvious focus on handing off the mission in preparation for departure all contributed more to the troops deaths than the handfull of stoppages referenced in the report from a few soldiers.
This was a screwup nearly from the start of the 173rd receiving the change of mission. It was made worse by ignoring the work of the previous unit and still worse by a “cowboy” attitude towards the local population. If 200 bad guys can infiltrate within 150 yards of 49 US soldiers, spend two days marking critical sites (TOW, 120mm Mortar, and CP), and stockpile RPGs and medium and heavy machineguns without knowing about what is going on, it wouldn’t matter if every GI had a 7.62 minigun and a CONEX of ammo.
Gee do they weigh too much – or do you want to live and slaughter everyone out to 200/300 yards.
Right on the money Dennis – no amount of weapons can make up for the lack area intel.
This argument has likely been going on since at least David slew Goliath with a sling – fast projectile brings down heavily armored adversary – so nobody’s going to bring it to a conclusion any time soon.
I’m a 2-tour ‘Nam vet -’66 and ’70 – and went through Basic with an M-1, went to Germany where we had M-14′s, to ‘Nam where we started with M-14′s and transitioned to M-16′s, and sometimes carried a .45 and M-79 when on tunnel destruction missions.
I know all the arguments. Weight vs basic load. Ease of training with light weapons vs being able to put a round on target at 1000 meters. It all comes down to what the conditions are in a given situation. The soviets went into Afghanistan with AK’s and the Mujahadeens sniped them from 700 meters with .303 British Enfields from WWI & II.
The bean counters said the Sheridan “tank” was the best thing since sliced bread, but the Cong and NVA killed it with RPG’s because it was made out of f…..g aluminum. Ditto the M-113, and a 7.62×45 round would go through both (armored) sides.
The best a grunt can hope for is that he’s carrying something appropriate to the situation, and the other guy isn’t. Unfortunately, from the little I’ve seen of the terrain in Afghanistan – open, mountainous, heavily built mud forts – the bean counters have gotten it wrong once again. And it’s the grunt who dies in the mud, not the bean counter.
19 years in service and yes i like the m-4. but it is time to update our weapon systems. we replaced th m-60 and i lived that gun.but the m -240 is a great machine gun and a great replacement. the gas tube is a thing of the past it foul , bends, and overheats. it is time for something new . eugene stoner was ahead of his time but now his time has passed. beurocrats need to stop being so damn cheap and decide on something new.we are the ones paying the ultimate price not them
People act like the XM8 furniture problem is the end of the world.. So, just slap some better furniture on it..
sheesh we’ve been working bugs out of the M16 platform for forty years, and one solvable problem on a platform that offers big advantages in just about ever other respect… and we’re ready to give up.. doesn’t make sense
an AK at less than 50 yards is devastating, the tally are bringing you more ammo, and if opsec, air/artillery support and field intel are non existant then you’re @ucked anyway, regardless of what products colt have conned the military into ordering.
”The direct gas system helps distribute heat into other parts of the weapon and away from the barrel, assists in cooling, preventing catastrophic failure of the barrel”,this is a good one ,the barrel is the only part that is meant to ever heat up ,heat in the system is disaster in hapening ,that is why you used to have water cooled barrels and not water cooled systems and those guns could fire tens of thousands of round per day,at the end of the day barrel might be smooth bore but lead is still spited out to a deadly effect.
You people should read the draft report on the battle of Wanat as it sheds some light on things.
Leaked copy of the PDF report is here:
http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/resources/wanatop.pdf
If defensetech.org is rigid about external links, go to google and drop this exact line into information, INCLUDING the quotes around it.
“Wanat OP- REVISED DRAFT 25 June 2009″
Searching that will find you the pdf copy of the DRAFT (not final) report that was leaked.
Searching for:
“Download the 249-page draft by military historian Douglas R. Cubbison on the military mission in Wanat, Afghanistan”
Will find you the St Louis Times story/page that this report was posted to.
Read the whole 240+ pages then come back and rethink your comments.
~DA
Like various people have commented the whole situation is of a command and control issue from the strategic issue of who decided to put the outpost there too direct NCO support channel on the ground. From doing whatever was on their commands “to do list” of establishing their foot hold, too leadership on the spot conducting reconnaissance patrols at a minimum outside of the op…at a minimum to determine the enemy situation in the area let alone their whole mission essential tasks.
Weapons debate galore!! Love it or hate it the M16 family of weapons systems is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future, unfortunately. The last time….XM8…was fielded/tested, soldiers were allowed to test fire it at the Infantry convention circa 2004 I think, can’t remember and we even shot it some when I was stationed in Germany.
Then word got around that funding wasn’t being appropriated correctly..i.e. through the General good ‘ole boy network, but rather an alternate means, the General who was actually trying to do something outstanding for soldiers on the ground, was quickly shuffled out of his position and at best is working in a closet somewhere maybe.
And Colt still continues to receive countless amounts of dollars for new rifles every year when each unit is refit for another deployment somewhere.
I do love the M14 personally; I even have a match grade civilian M1A1 model.
However it is an 8MOA rifle, meaning stock it will consistently hit the side of a large truck or whatever at long distances. And only with expensive and costly tuning it can be corrected to a much more accurate minute of angle rifle. There are even awesome, effective modular stock systems out currently for it.
Same problem with the xm110 rifle, after the first magazine is fired from a cold bore status, it is no more accurate than a traditional M16 family rifle, and it was “designed” to replace the venerable M21 Remington model 700 family bolt action rifle that is a text book 800m/1000m shooter dependent consistent weapon.
Like various people have commented the whole situation is of a command and control issue from the strategic issue of who decided to put the outpost there too direct NCO support channel on the ground. From doing whatever was on their commands “to do list” of establishing their foot hold, too leadership on the spot conducting reconnaissance patrols at a minimum outside of the op…at a minimum to determine the enemy situation in the area let alone their whole mission essential tasks.
Weapons debate galore!! Love it or hate it the M16 family of weapons systems is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future, unfortunately. The last time….XM8…was fielded/tested, soldiers were allowed to test fire it at the Infantry convention circa 2004 I think, can’t remember and we even shot it some when I was stationed in Germany.
Then word got around that funding wasn’t being appropriated correctly..i.e. through the General good ‘ole boy network, but rather an alternate means, the General who was actually trying to do something outstanding for soldiers on the ground, was quickly shuffled out of his position and at best is working in a closet somewhere maybe.
And Colt still continues to receive countless amounts of dollars for new rifles every year when each unit is refit for another deployment somewhere.
I do love the M14 personally; I even have a match grade civilian M1A1 model.
However it is an 8MOA rifle, meaning stock it will consistently hit the side of a large truck or whatever at long distances. And only with expensive and costly tuning it can be corrected to a much more accurate minute of angle rifle. There are even awesome, effective modular stock systems out currently for it.
Same problem with the xm110 rifle, after the first magazine is fired from a cold bore status, it is no more accurate than a traditional M16 family rifle, and it was “designed” to replace the venerable M21 Remington model 700 family bolt action rifle that is a text book 800m/1000m shooter dependent consistent weapon.
With any assault rifle present or past, there will be a maximum rate of fire that can be sustained. After that, you’ll get one of the following: (a) cookoff with closed bolt (not a big deal), (b) cookoff while you are attempting to clear a stoppage (probably disable the weapon & possibly the user), (c) burst barrel.
Personally, I’d prefer barrel heat to migrate into the aluminum receiver and adapter rail (handguard), rather than experience events A, B, or C above.
I realize 90% of the comments here do not involve science or in some cases logic. Unfortunately all REAL weapons have to operate with these limiting factors.
Lets see some data on barrel temps for gas piston guns…..y’all know the piston is attached to the barrel. They’re subject to all of the above, too. Even seen them with burst barrel.
This argument surrounding the M-16 and M-4 variant is very old news. Seems that it has never ended…in the mean-time I am sure our enemies will permit a “timeout” at failure.
OK If I could pick what I would take to the box with me I would take a M16/M4 type platfor. With a short strok gas piston chanbered in 6.8 SPC. Im not trying to say Im an know every thing about that round but. I know that the 7.62 NATO is a great round but I would not want to take all the wight with me out of the FOB. I know that the 5.55 NATO it light I can take a lot of ammo with me out side of the wire. And that it is a killer under 300m when your target is not useing body armor. Now I dont personly have triger time with the 6.8 SPC. What Ive heard is that it has a good balance of the 7.62 range, penatraing power and knock down power. Yet its lighter so I can take a lot of ammo with me like the 5.56 and it can be easy controled. I have some females in my unit that probly would not be able to control a wepon in 7.62 do to the recoil. But they could control the 6.8. Now as the wepon is concerned I like the way the M16 platform is. But the upper annd bolt cearryer dont take heat well. They will however take it. The problem with the gas tub is that it puts too much carbon in the working parts on the rifle. A shot strok gas piston keeps the carbon out of the upper and lower. It will also help keep every thing cooler. When metal heats up it expands. In a wepon like thM16 that can cause problems. Put some carbon super hot parts and tight talerance and your asking for stopages.
I sat in meetings at Colt on the M-16. Those of you who say the top military officers screwed up the design are right. It was explained to me why things could not be fixed: “Col. So-and-so did that change and we couldn’t get the contract if we didn’t do as he requested.”
Has anyone who is anyone ever asked why our enemies using Klashnikov class weapons would have an advantage over our troops with M16s? Is it because the AKs just always work no matter what the user does with it? As an old engineer, I can attest to the fact that the more parts anything has, the more chances for faiure. KISS works as well for weapons as with anything else.
If we could get politics and egos out of the procurement and evaluation process, we could have the worlds finest weaponry. And it would likely cost less.
>A Final Protective Fire target is intended to be
>a last ditch planned linear target for a
>critical defensive position. To be effective, it
>needs to be within Danger Close distance of the
>position and is fired continuously at the
>maximum sustained rate until the firing unit has
>expended all ammunition or the order to “Cease
>Loading” is given.
and
>In this engagement, the unit (a platoon) was not
>given an artillery FPF (with only two 155s
>firing high angle, it wouldn’t make much of a
>difference anyways).
Why weren’t there pre-surveyed 155mm Excalibur impact points dialed in for this outpost perimeter?
The M982 Excalibur is a GPS guided 155mm projectile with a 30 meter CEP.
You could have programed in air-bursts and Excalibur does not care squat about high versus low angle.
Wanat certainly justifies going for a DPICM version of the M982 shell for situations like this.
A dozen such shells from those two guns and the back of this attack would have been broken.
Every weapon introduced to soldiers in modern times has had birthing problems. With the M-16 & M-4, perhaps the problems lasted longer than they should have. At the same time, I have never believed the Army trained enough in effective marksmanship under combat conditions with this series but instead relied on having more rounds available and volume fire. Exposure to enemy fire may be a little greater but effective friendly fire would result in net lower casualties on our side. It tremendously disheartens the enemy to have their troops falling around them with compratively less fire directed toward them. I’ve been retired some years now but have always felt this way. Maybe those of you with more recent experience feel differently and I defer to younger more modern thinking.
I too was wondering what the BFA was doing on the front of the weapon. I guess it was a training exercise.
What I don’t understand is why anybody is surprised that these guns jammed (the M-4). I admit I don’t know the changes made to the M-16 after Vietnam, but I do know that after McNamaraization of the AR-15 it was basically useless as a combat weapon, and the improvements made to it absolutely did not make it a rifle any soldier in the real world should have to depend on. Further, I know there’s a movement in Congress to get the damned thing thrown in the trash where it probably belongs.
I’m sure it almost always works great in a laboratory or at a shooting range, but I’d take an AK any day over the sinkhole of lives and tax money called the M-16.
I think what happened is that a group of soldiers got lax in their preventative maintenance procedures and got caught with their pants down. I know what it's like to come back from a 12 hour patrol and not want to do anything but sleep, so I can't fault them on that. I went through Phantom Fury in 2004 and another combat deployment in 2006. My M16A4 and M4 never jammed due to something that wasn't my fault. I left the ammo in the magazine too long; I forgot to clean up a little bit after leaving my ejection port cover open; I fell into a mud pit. I've seen an M16 get too hot to fire, but only after a good bit; I've seen an M4 get too hot to fire a little faster. If you are firing that fast you need to do one of two things: slow down and aim at your targets OR re-think what it is that you're doing as a whole. The gripes and complaints about the M16 series of weapons are coming from the same people who gripe and complain about the M9. They are both wonderful weapons that have performed in an outstanding manner in my experience. Even with the small caliber vs bigger caliber debate going on, none of that matters if you can't hit what you're aiming at and even then, you need good shot placement on target. Just hitting somebody with a 7.62 or a .45 isn't going to magically knock them out of the fight, or even down. In summary, the M16 has performed well as the standard Infantry and combat arms rifle and while there are other replacements that would probably be better, the M16 set the standard.