Did Weapons Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault?

[Danimal16]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

I've never served in combat but I must ask seriously... is a white hot barrel actually possible? Even red hot?

Yep, happens everyday when you fire them at max rate. That is why during training you do not use your best barrels until later in the exercise. When shooting blanks for other exercises you use the worn barrels to keep the combat ready stuff, well, ready.

[Danimal16]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Interesting tactic. I'm no military tactician and, again, have never been in a fire fight, but - it seems to me it would be far more effective to hold fire until you can actually hit someone or something. Especially in situations like this, with a finite number of men, rifles, and therefor sustained firepower. I would think it would be better to try to make every round count under these conditions.

It is how your set up your fields of fire and specifically your Final Defensive Fire. Yes things can go to hell in short order. Also, you want to engage with all weapons at the maximum EFFECTIVE range. Keep them away from you as long as you can. Secondary positions and indirect fire help with both at range and close in.

[jyl]

I suppose you can't handle a firefight as if you were deer hunting.

But suppose you handled a deer hunt as if you were in a firefight?

Spot possible deer, let 'er loose - suppressive fire, crew-served fire, indirect fire, air support - would it work? What would be the ratio of rounds fired to deer taken?

[austin552]

Army rifle under fire // Current

[john70t]

On suppresive fire, I can't image what those soldiers were going through but once learned a humiliating lesson in suppressive fire during a h.s. paintball game.

Near the end of the day an "enemy" was walking across an open field 75yrds away. I plinked at him but the paintballs would curve a foot after 10 yards.
Useless.
He noticed, did a slow jog away, and I chased him into a shack where I took cover behind a tree 50yrs away overlooking it.
After an exchange, he let loose a fusillade that splattered the side of the tree in one foot groupings several times a second.
After 3-4 seconds it stopped, I peeked my head out, and he came around the back of my tree! I was dead/captured. He had exited the shack and somehow ran the distance uphill while laying down accurate fire. Impressive.

[john70t]

The H&K416 w/piston looks to be a better varient than the Colt:

Discovery Channel testing: YouTube - Heckler & Koch - HK416
History Channel testing: YouTube - The awesomeness that is the Heckler and Koch 416
Another: YouTube - Future Weapons Season 2 Episode 6(First Strike): The HK 416
There's a video where a guy runs clip after clip after clip through it on full auto, then switches to 100rd drums and the thing just keeps going.

[m21sniper]

Weapons with pistons give up a lot of accuracy. IMO the M4 or it's operating system is not an issue. To the best of my knowledge simply using a piston does not increase the sustained rate of fire of a weapon in any case. The HK 416 was evaluated by the US military and found not to be a worthwhile upgrade.

In this case the M-4, a weapon with an over 90% satisfaction rating with the troops, is simply being used as a scape goat.

[nostatic]

The guys I know swear by their M-4s, they don't swear at them.

[m21sniper]

I bought a civilian version of the M-4 as my own personal rifle. That about says it all wrt my opinion of the weapon.

In one part of the article the soldier says his M-4 overheated after he'd fired a dozen magazines. Well that is almost double the normal combat load out of 7 magazines.

If you're in a firefight where your M-240 medium machine guns or M-249 SAW'sare overheating to the point of becoming non-functional- purpuse built weapons designed for a high sustained rate of fire- it's simply ridiculous to assume that an M-4 carbine that's fired upwards of 400rds in a short time span should fare any better.

By that point a US infantry unit should expect support systems to be doing the real damage.

The battle of Mogadishu and the battles for the Interchanges of Baghdad during the initial invasion of Iraq were both protracted hours long firefights of extremely high intensity where the M-16/M-4 proved entirely capable of doing the job.

That being said the M-4 or any of the standard US small arms in use today could be made to have a much greater sustained ROF with quite doable modifications. Things like full profile heavy fluted and lined composite or exotic metal barrels or hi tech thermal coatings/finishes could probably increase the typical small arm's useful sustained ROF by about 10-15%, but it would cost quite a few bucks. Likewise high tech shell casings and/or propellents could improve sustained fire performance as well. Just a matter of spending the money.

By the way it's probably important to point out that the US forces won the battle. They were not over-run, they held their lines, their time proven weapons and their fighting spirit won the day yet again.

[HardDrive]

So you guys are seriously going to argue that in a close range firefight, an M4 is a superior weapons to an AK-47?



How many freaking report need to come back from the battle field? I mean, its a story that had been reported over and over again.

Advancing army, long range engagements, less intensity = M4 is superior weapon by a mile.

Schit hits the fan defensive battle, close range, lot of full auto fire = AK platform is superior.

The M4 platform is what it is. Much lighter bolt carrier throwing less mass around makes for WAY less vibration and flex in the system, and thus a far more accurate rifle. But blasting hot exhaust gasses into the breach comes with an obvious price.

AKs wiggle like a noodle when you fire them from that huge chunk of metal smashing back and forth, and are not accurate. But accuracy is not the primary issue when its 106 degrees, dusty, and there is a guy spraying you with 7.62 rounds from 40 meters away.

I find the army's dogged defense of the M4 platform disturbing.

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

By the way it's probably important to point out that the US forces won the battle. They were not over-run, they held their lines, their time proven weapons and their fighting spirit won the day yet again.

BS.

After 40 minutes of getting their a55es chewed to pieces, air support arrived and saved their tailsides. Gee, good thing the Taliban don't have fleets of Apaches on call.....

[MFAFF]

[QUOTE=m21sniper;4948778]
The HK 416 was evaluated by the US military and found not to be a worthwhile upgrade.
QUOTE]

The US Army did try to replace the M16/M4 range.. ending up with the XM-8....but that was shelved for a number reasons.. possibly technical.. but politcial reasons seem to be the greatest ones so far.

Its been 5 years since that programme was shelved...

The main reason was to 'eliminate' the reliability problems associated with direct impingement gas actuation.

The M16/ M4 is a 'good' weapon.. but certainly not the 'best' there is at the moment...

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

So you guys are seriously going to argue that in a close range firefight, an M4 is a superior weapons to an AK-47?

The 5.56mm projectile (be it M193, M855 or Mk262) creates a far more devastating wound than 7.62x39mm 139gr FMJ, yes. Especially at close range. 5.56mm FMJ potentially also creates a significantly more devastating wound tract than FMJ 7.62x51mm NATO as well.

The 5.56mm rounds fragment violently on impact. The 7.62mm caliber rounds do not, they simply lack the velocity.

Originally Posted by HardDrive

How many freaking report need to come back from the battle field? I mean, its a story that had been reported over and over again.

The M4 has an over 90% satisfaction rating among US troops.

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Schit hits the fan defensive battle, close range, lot of full auto fire = AK platform is superior.

No offense, but full auto fire sucks dick (the M16A1 was full auto, the 3rd burst of the M-16A2+ is considered an upgrade in the Army's eyes), and an AK will overheat even faster than an AR due to the larger propellant load in each cartridge. The problem is not exhaust gas blowing into the bolt area, the problem is the actual firing of round after round after round in the chamber in a compressed time frame. This causes the chamber walls to heat to the point of cook-off. As far as i know that has nothing to do with the M-16's direct gas operation system.

That being said, the M-4A1 (SOCOM model) is full auto.

Originally Posted by HardDrive

AKs wiggle like a noodle when you fire them from that huge chunk of metal smashing back and forth, and are not accurate. But accuracy is not the primary issue when its 106 degrees, dusty, and there is a guy spraying you with 7.62 rounds from 40 meters away.

I find the army's dogged defense of the M4 platform disturbing.

Have you ever carried an M-4? If you had, you'd probably have a different opinion.

90+% of US troops love them.

In actual battle i'd probably rather have an M-16A4 because it's more powerful, but for actual every day use an M-4 is pretty close to the perfect military rifle IMO.

Originally Posted by MFAFF

The US Army did try to replace the M16/M4 range.. ending up with the XM-8....but that was shelved for a number reasons.. possibly technical.. but politcial reasons seem to be the greatest ones so far.

Its been 5 years since that programme was shelved...

The main reason was to 'eliminate' the reliability problems associated with direct impingement gas actuation.

The M16/ M4 is a 'good' weapon.. but certainly not the 'best' there is at the moment...

The XM-8 was a totally unneccesary "upgrade", that's why it was shelved. In the end it just didn't offer enough(if anything) over the M-4 to warrant such a drastic change and such a large expenditure of $.

[m21sniper]

The truth behind the recent M4 controversy | The Firearm Blog

"The truth behind the recent M4 controversy

Yesterday I blogged about the M4 reliability controversy story that was originally reported by the Associated Press. At best the writer of the AP article exaggerated many the points. The leaked draft of the of the analysis of the Battle of Wanat reads quite differently.

The AP infers that the barrels of many of the weapons were getting white hot. From the AP article:

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.

There is only one reference to a gun getting white hot in the draft report, and it is a SAW not a M4 Carbine"

--------------

Some actual fact From the Ground Precautionary Message:

(B) FIRING 140 ROUNDS, RAPIDLY AND CONTINUOUSLY, WILL RAISE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE BARREL TO THE COOK-OFF POINT. AT THIS TEMPERATURE, ANY LIVE ROUND REMAINING IN THE CHAMBER FOR ANY REASON MAY COOK-OFF (DETONATE) IN AS SHORT A PERIOD AS 10 SECONDS.

...
(D) SUSTAINED RATE OF FIRE FOR THE M16 SERIES RIFLES AND M4 SERIES CARBINES IS 12-15 ROUNDS PER MINUTE. THIS IS THE ACTUAL RATE OF FIRE THAT A WEAPON CAN CONTINUE TO BE FIRED FOR AN Indefinite LENGTH OF TIME WITHOUT SERIOUS OVERHEATING.

Back to the AP Article we read:

"My weapon was overheating. 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.”

And the blogger responds:

"I sympathize with the solider and would not dare to presume to question his actions in combat. He did what he had to do in the heat of the moment, but I cannot think of any current weapon in the M4 class that can sustain continuous fire. To make such a weapon it would need to have a heavy quick change barrel and maybe also include a heat sink. I doubt any soldiers will want to trade in their M4 for a heavy automatic rifle."

-------------

This story about the M-4 is a total non-issue. The real story is that a platoon sized element of US troops and their M-4s and M-249s held off 200 enemy fighters and won the battle.

The enemy forces using AK's, and outnumbering US forces almost 3:1 LOST the battle.

Quite a feat for our guys IMO.

Here's the AR-15.com thread on this story:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=939798

[jyl]

I wonder if firearms makers are feeding info to reporters? Several companies would love for the M16/M4 to be replaced, it would be a huge contract for whoever gets it.

[m21sniper]

The USMC wants to replace some M-16A4's with some new fangled squad automatic rifle that will automatically switch to open bolt operation when it heats up, so that they can increase the volume of fire of their units.

There are things that can be done to improve the M-4s ROF significantly, but they would cost quite a lot of money. Conversion to open bolt firing and the adoption of a thermally coated fluted heavy exotic material barrel would be the most impactful, but it would probably add about 30-40% to the cost of every rifle.

Another thing that would improve sustained ROF is simply switching back to the full length M-16A4. That would also increase range and hitting power, but the Army performed in the field tests of the M4 and the troops overwhelmingly favored the carbine over the full length M-16, that's why the M-4 was adopted to begin with.

Any weapon is a design compromise, the M-4 is no different. It is good at some things, and is not at all optomized for others.

[johnnywishbone]

"That said, WTF?? 12 magazines - 360 rounds fired in half an hour from the M4? Plus 600 more from the M-249? This is just one of each weapon. Can we assume the other soldiers were firing their weapons at approximately the same rate? That puts thousands of rounds downrange in half an hour, against what - 200 some insurgents? How many of them did they actually hit?"

300 AND 600 ROUNDS IN A "HALF AN HOUR". NO. MORE LIKELY 5 MINUTES. firefights have nothing to do with reality or reason. i am not a john wayne, just a saigon 68 guy.

[m21sniper]

After reviewing the incident I found it encouraging that ours guys seemed to all be firing back. In many past wars the US has had large problems with only a small fraction of the men in each unit actually fighting.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

The Soviet Union replaced the AK-47 in front line service over 30 years ago.

...With the AK-74; a weapon that uses the exact same design as the AK-47 - but with a smaller round.

The smaller round gives better accuracy, lower chamber pressures and temps, and better wound characteristics. However after over 60 years of deployment, they still feel that their simple piston blowback operation is better for their harsh operating environments and the under trained soldiers that many of their arms buyers use.

I'm not trying to knock your love for the M4, but don't knock the AK.

[m21sniper]

IOW the Soviets copied the US philosophy of a small medium powered round that creates a large temporary wound cavity.

Our own critics were bemoaning the "underpowered" 5.56mm at the same time the Soviets were copying it. Funny, innit? High powered 5.56mm rounds hit 1400fpe of energy(more than a .44 mag) and violently fragment on impact. IMO the 5.56mm round is a great military round, and almost ideal for APERS use.

I knock the AK because IMO it is useless as a real world precision fire weapon once the range exceeds about 100 meters(AK47) to 200 meters (Ak74).

Our troops in A-stan have made verified first round kills at 500 meters with their M-4s.

The AK is a good weapon for untrained peasants that cannot be counted on to keep their weapons properly clean. For a trained professional soldier the M-4 is clearly superior. Of course that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by flatbutt

I've never served in combat but I must ask seriously... is a white hot barrel actually possible? Even red hot?

Apparently according to one site i linked to it is not possible for a m4 barrel to be shot white hot. A dull red glowing hot, yes. Not white.

Edit: The AR-15.com thread is pretty interesting. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=939798