U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

[joe817]

It seems history is repeating itself, with respect to the main U.S. battle rifle. When the M16 was introduced news just like the one's posted were rampant. Massive failures which caused many American troops' lives. It was determined that the malfunctions were due to improper maintained rifles, fully automatic rifles, and problems with the barrel itself.

It was corrected by issuing cleaning kits and instructions to the troops for regular maintenance , chrome lining the barrel, and limiting the fully auto M16 to only a 3 round burst, and semi-auto of course. I can't comment on the M4 because I know nothing about it, other than the reports like this. But I can see where continuous high rates of fire can cause malfunctions and jams, combined with a dusty environment.

Is the M4 fully automatic, or is limited to 3 round bursts?
If fully auto, what is the cyclic rate of fire?
What is the "average"(if there's any such thing) distance of target acquisition and engagement in rural areas?
Is the M4 adequate for long distance shooting?

The M16 replaced the M14 because of the environment of Viet Nam. It was lighter, and more suited to jungle fighting environments. Afghanistan isn't Viet Nam because it has open terrain, just to mention one.

Different environmental factors may justify the rethinking of the requirements of a battle rifle for Afghanistan perhaps better suited to open terrain, dry and a dusty environment.

Unfortunately, I cannot offer a solution, other than to issue proven battle rifles like the M14 to counter malfunction issues. And I'm not sure that would be suitable for the troopies because the M14 weighs 9.5 pounds(or close to it) and the M4 weighs considerably less(the M16 weighed 6.5lbs).

But what I can say is that if the malfunction problems persist, there is no better demoralizing factor than a jammed gun in the middle of a firefight. God Bless our American Troops.

[Purplehood]

I think that the real issue wasn't the weapons. I think it was the fact that American and Afghan servicemembers were put in a position where they had to do a replay of "The Alamo" against overwhelming odds. My gut-feeling is that any weapon system would have performed similarly when the users felt compelled to fire 12 mags+ of ammo at full-automatic. They weren't aiming, they were praying if they had to do that.

[longhorn_92]

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.

Is this what you're talking about?....

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or this?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is the H&K 416.

(From Wikipedia)...

"The HK416 is an assault rifle designed and manufactured by Heckler & Koch. It is an improved version of the M4 carbine with many changes, most notably a new style gas system borrowed from the HK G36. It is available as a complete firearm or as an upper receiver kit that fits on any AR-15 type lower receiver."

"In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon was fired for 60,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4. The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds, the FN SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages."

I believe that they are about to introduce a civilian version (H&K MR556) - not sure when they will introduce it to the public. It does look mighty fine!

What are your opinions of the H&K 416?

[bdickens]

The M-16 series has had problems with jamming since coming in service. I hated carrying it in Vietnam. Gave it up for a M-79 Thumper and a 45. I'm amazed a General is unaware for the problem. When that young female was captured and rescued she said her weapon and her Sargent's weapon jammed and could not be cleared. Overheating can be a problem with any automatic weapon. The 2nd version of the M-16 had a selector switch for single or three shot burst. They removed the option of full automatic because too many troops would not use trigetr control and either overheated the barrel or ran out of ammo in the middle of a firefight. Everyone should know that it is impossible to maintain a weapon in the middle of a firefight, no matter how clean it was when you started. I don't remember any malfuncations with the M-60 machine gun, but wasn't round one much. We NEED a service rifle that will not fail when it is most needed.

I just don't get how after 40 years this myth is still going around that the M-16 platform is unreliable.

[KD5NRH]

I just don't get how after 40 years this myth is still going around that the M-16 platform is unreliable.

Name another platform for which very nearly every tactical instructor recommends you pull the mag back out and make sure a round chambered.

Name another platform for which very nearly every tactical instructor recommends that you short-load the mags by at least two rounds.

[Purplehood]

I just don't get how after 40 years this myth is still going around that the M-16 platform is unreliable.

Name another platform for which very nearly every tactical instructor recommends you pull the mag back out and make sure a round chambered.

Name another platform for which very nearly every tactical instructor recommends that you short-load the mags by at least two rounds.

I have never heard either of those statements from a Military instructor (PMI, Coach, whatever). That is only my own personal experience. In fact, I have never experienced a round not chambering. I have heard rumors about short-loading mags, but hey, a cheap mag is a cheap mag.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[Purplehood]

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.

[MoJo]

I just don't get how after 40 years this myth is still going around that the M-16 platform is unreliable.

Name another platform for which very nearly every tactical instructor recommends you pull the mag back out and make sure a round chambered.

Name another platform for which very nearly every tactical instructor recommends that you short-load the mags by at least two rounds.

The instructors also recommend a press check for ALL pistol platforms, does that make the 1911, Glock, H&K, Baretta, SIG, M&P, HiPower, and others unreliable? Making sure the weapon picked up a round is just good sense not a flaw.

A lot of AR/M16 mags are difficult to seat fully loaded on a closed bolt. I'd rather have 18 or 28 for sure than have the mag fall out on the first shot after a tac reload. Since the H&K carbine uses AR style mags I would think it has a similar problem.

It all boils down to there ain't no perfect weapon system. I've seen Garands, M14s, M16s, M60s, Maw Duces, Glocks, 1911s, 1903 Springfields, revolvers and more "sporting guns" than I can remember choke, puke, and fail. When you use something eventually it's going to break or quit working especially under combat conditions where maintenance is problematic.

[casingpoint]

How did the Germans handle this problem in WWII?

[Purplehood]

How did the Germans handle this problem in WWII?

They went hand-to-hand, baby!

[mbw]

I first read this article over the week end and have been giving considerable thought to what it says. I think that there may be several causes for the problems that were experienced by the M4 and also the M249.

“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.”

No way, no how. Barrels will get hot enough to burn like a branding iron and especially at night will glow a dull red, but never white.

Everyone that shoots an M4 knows about the maintenance issues that come from a direct gas system, when you shoot the M4; it gets fouled after several hundred rounds. But that does not explain why the SAW was also inoperable. The M249 SAW has a gas piston system like the Garand and M14. The SAW is also issued with 2 barrels and it takes 30 seconds to change barrels.

I had a long talk with a little buddy that lives down the street who served 2 tours in Iraq and 1tour in Afghanistan. He carried the M4 and of course his squad had a SAW. His first thought was a maintenance problem. He said that the guys that stay in one place without running patrols tend to get real sloppy with weapon maintenance. And because they were in a fixed position, there is no explanation why all SAW’s did not have the extra barrels at the ready and located with the weapons.

The other question that I have is the ammo. Current issue is the 62gr steel penetrator. I wonder if it is up to specs and who makes it. Have we outsourced ammo like we have other things or is it all still made by Lake City. The only thing that the 2 weapons in question share is the same ammo. Other than that they are entirely different weapon systems with no shared parts.

Thoughts?

[Purplehood]

I had a long talk with a little buddy that lives down the street who served 2 tours in Iraq and 1tour in Afghanistan. He carried the M4 and of course his squad had a SAW. His first thought was a maintenance problem. He said that the guys that stay in one place without running patrols tend to get real sloppy with weapon maintenance. And because they were in a fixed position, there is no explanation why all SAW’s did not have the extra barrels at the ready and located with the weapons.

My thoughts are in two parts:

He said that the guys that stay in one place without running patrols tend to get real sloppy with weapon maintenance

Along the border you didn't see instances of guys staying in one place. Those outposts are so small that they are rotated through frequently. Patrols are an integral part of just being there. I knew the guys that worked them. I am glad I didn't have to pull that duty.

And because they were in a fixed position, there is no explanation why all SAW’s did not have the extra barrels at the ready and located with the weapons

I seriously doubt that that was the case. I never saw grunts go out without extra barrels handy. My guess is that details like this are mixed-up in the reporting or lack thereof. I think the real issue was that they did go through a number of barrels, or more likely, the situation was so nasty that they didn't feel they had the time or opportunity to change them out. After all, it was bad.

BTW, I apologize for jumping all over this thread. It is just something that I feel like I can relate to.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[old farmer]

Is the discussion about failure of a machine and men? . All machines will fail with given demands of the environment and level of stress. The real question: Why is command (military and washington) placing men and arms that excessed their limits in harms way. if you believe that the news is about weopons failures then you believe thats the news tells the true. The question is about commitent of men and equipment in a war environment. What is the goals? what is needed to achieve the goals?