Search found 7 matches

by The Annoyed Man
Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:41 am
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
Replies: 43
Views: 4054

Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

longhorn_92 wrote:
surprise_i'm_armed wrote:On page 1 of this thread, TAM had posted a longish piece which contained this:

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

Does anyone know what rifle this is?

**************************************************

SIA
My guess would be either the H&K 416 or the FN SCAR.... not sure?...
I'm pretty sure it's the HK416, which Delta Force has been using in limited numbers for a few years now. I don't think the SCAR has reached field use yet.
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:30 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
Replies: 43
Views: 4054

Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

casingpoint wrote:How did the Germans handle this problem in WWII?
I think it was the MG42 that came with rapidly and easily changeable barrels because their rate of fire would burn barrels out fairly quickly...

...that, and they used bolt action rifles. :mrgreen:
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:06 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
Replies: 43
Views: 4054

Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

FWIW, I don't buy into the much maligned reliability of the M4/M16. Is it the most reliable rifle out there? Probably not... but then I've read accounts of M1 Garands jamming in WW2, and a former roommate of mine who carried an M14 in Vietnam (Marine Corps, prior to Tet) said that his jammed once. I think the bottom line is that rifles, particularly rifles with a full auto capability, get abused when the fighting gets bad enough, and the abuse can lead to failures. It's a machine, and machines can break. FWIW, neither do I buy into the much vaunted reliability of the AK47. They aren't perfect or magically jam free either.

It sounds to me like the soldiers in this fight were faced with insufficient numbers and support against a numerically superior enemy, and they had to fight to the point of equipment failure. It's a sad fact, but it happens. A small number of good guys against a large number of bad guys means that the good guys need to individually fire more rounds than do the individual bad guys in order to achieve parity in the fight, and even more rounds than that to achieve supremacy in the fight. It would seem to me that there is a point at which the good guys just can't get enough rounds down range without hammering their equipment.

Longhorn_92, I think you're right... ...it's the HK416 I'm thinking of.
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:52 am
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
Replies: 43
Views: 4054

Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

KD5NRH wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:The article mentions "white hot" barrels. I assume that if a barrel glows white hot, the properties of the metal are changed, bore diameters are affected one way or the other, etc., etc.
I'm not entirely sure that gunpowder could actually get a barrel white hot. I've done some blacksmithing, and there's a huge range of red/orange/yellow hot temperatures before white. Then there's the fact that orange hot metal within a foot of your face will get very painful very quickly.
but it's not just gun powder involved. There is friction too, between the bullet and the bore. Operating at full auto, that part of the barrel temperature which is due to friction can add up quite a bit.

I recall an episode of Future Weapons in which Mac tests some variant of an M16 platform in which the rifle fires from a closed bolt under semi-auto, and from an open bolt on full-auto. He pulled the gun out of a bucket of water and it fired without failure. He buried it in sand, pulled it out and fired it without failure. And after emptying a 30 round mag on full auto, the receiver was cool to the touch. I don't remember who the manufacturer of the rifle was, but it seemed like a good idea on the surface of it.
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:27 am
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
Replies: 43
Views: 4054

Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

Purplehood wrote:In my experience, E. Afghanistan was fairly moderate for highs and lows of temperature. It reminded me of the Western Slope in Colorado where I grew up. I was right on the Pakistan border and visited some of the outposts. I doubt ambient temperature was the culprit. My guess is that it was simply barrels that could not take the extreme demands for Rate of Fire.
I meant barrel temperature, not ambient temperature. Sorry about the confusion. The article mentions "white hot" barrels. I assume that if a barrel glows white hot, the properties of the metal are changed, bore diameters are affected one way or the other, etc., etc.
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:48 am
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
Replies: 43
Views: 4054

Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

Purplehood wrote:My guess is that the nasty dust in E. Afghanistan does a number on an M4. If you averaged out the number of times I carried my M4 outside the wire, it would come down to about twice a week for the whole time I was there (all day missions). The grunts in the outposts use their weapon daily, hence the requirement for more maintenance (defined as cleaning). I could get away with cleaning my weapon after each mission and not suffer any ill-effects.
BTW, the dust in E. Afghanistan is quite pervasive.
In the article, it appears that the rate of fire and number of rounds fired in a given time may also have had something to do with it. I have no experience with such things myself, but it seems to me that descriptions of barrels glowing white hot can't be good if they are true. Couldn't the high heat have anything to do with the jamming/malfunctions too?
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:43 am
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
Replies: 43
Views: 4054

Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

I saw the same story in a different article yesterday:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091011/D9B8SUPO0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oct 11, 8:28 AM (ET)

By RICHARD LARDNER

WASHINGTON (AP) - In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any assumptions regarding what did or didn't work correctly," he said.

Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.

The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

"The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.

Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.

Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.

The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., hasn't been publicly released. Copies of the study have been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.

Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.
The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.

On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "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."

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.

Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

Bogar was killed during the firefight, but no one saw how he died, according to the report.

Return to “U. S. military weapons fail in battle?”