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
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.