Comments on: …Or is it Bad Fire Discipline and Leadership?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:06:05 +0000

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.

By: Fred Walker

Fred Walker — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:14:04 +0000

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.

By: Aardvark

Aardvark — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:24:50 +0000

I too was wondering what the BFA was doing on the front of the weapon. I guess it was a training exercise.

By: edree1

edree1 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:42:56 +0000

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.

By: Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:36:13 +0000

>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.

By: Bill Babbitt

Bill Babbitt — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:21:21 +0000

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.

By: MarksWF

MarksWF — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:27:05 +0000

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.”

By: Spc.Poole

Spc.Poole — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:21:23 +0000

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.

By: NeoConVet

NeoConVet — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:41:25 +0000

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.

By: Hotgun

Hotgun — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:31:41 +0000

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), © 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.