There’s been an interesting discussion going on having to do with the reliability and suitability of the M4 Carbine in Afghanistan, one that I’m ill qualified to formulate an opinion over but am watching with polite naval interest.
During the Battle of Wanat, when an Army platoon was nearly overrun by a numerically superior force, multiple rifles failed the soldiers shooting them. Although I have not myself read cover to cover, a pair of Army historians have apparently circulated a draft report (large pdf) that documents M4 carbine and M249 light machine gun failures – some on the first round.
For front line infantry soldiers, this sort of thing is decidedly unsettling, and controversy has swirled ever since the draft report hit the web. Some have blamed fire discipline – the tendency of troopers to let go at high cyclic rates and melting their barrels without hitting much of anything – while others have blamed poor maintenance practice on what is admittedly a high maintenance weapons system.
Others have argued with equal passion that those who speak of “fire discipline” while being overrun by a merciless foe are theorizing about things they have no personal knowledge of and that they lack imagination. Still others aver that a weapon that cannot be maintained in a dusty environment – especially a carbine that may be ill-suited to both the long range requirement of dealing with Pathan tribesman harassing from the hills and the close-in fight that may occasionally result is not the weapon of choice for our front line infantrymen.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Army colonel in charge of the M4 weapons program insists that he has heard no complaints. The comments in response to that post are interesting and passionate, to say the least.
As I said, I am not qualified to formulate an opinion, but am watching the debate unfold with interest, as well as noting that among the weapons recently evaluated by the Army in adverse conditions the M4 had the highest number of stoppages.
I’m not a small arms expert, but I have been using M4′s and M16′s since the first Pres Bush was in office.
The basic problem with both the M4 and M16 (same basic design of the important parts inside) is that they directly use the explosive gases created when a round is fired to cycle the bolt, eject the spent round, and move a new round into the chamber. The gases (and the unburned carbon that comes with it) are blown into the lower receiver where all of the moving parts are. Excess carbon will cause a jam if left untreated.
The usual solution to excess carbon is oil/lubricant. It postpones the carbon buildup and lets you put more rounds down range, but oil also acts like a magnet for dirt and sand. Thus, all of the reliability problems you have heard about the last few years relate directly to where we are fighting-Iraq and Afghanistan.
The simple solution is to change the way the weapon uses the explosive gases to cycle the action. H&K makes a very similar rifle that has a piston rod attached to the barrel that cycles the bolt. The explosive gases are still used, but they travel up the barrel rather than back into the chamber.
SF units are currently using alternate weapons in Afghanistan, so the after action reports from them should be the key information on if we need a new weapon in theater.
Jeez, where to begin? Ye olde Black Stick has always had a history, fussy creature that it is about being clean. The newer short stroke piston systems alleviate much of the fouled gas problems that have always plagued the M16/M4, but then we move on to the inadequacy of the 5.56 caliber.
Moving to the 6.5 Grendel (my first choice after considerable research) would do much to improve the rifleman’s ability to kill with a first shot, having superior ballistics to the 7.62 without the weight penalty, and being easily adapted to the M4 system. The 6.8 SPC would be second choice, but loses energy quickly past 400 yards to be of much good in longer engagements; good for CQB and deer hunting.
My preferred system for the better part of 30 years has been a Galil in 7.62, and it has never failed me. Not once. Ever. I point. I shoot. It fires. Things fall over. Game over.
That said, we’re too deeply imbued with the M4 system to offload it now for another. We NEED to get the piston uppers out in the field. Yesterday. We need to change calibers. Yesterday. Production numbers are rising for 6.5 Grendel, and troops in the field would call us blessed for sending it to them.
Rant over…
When I was in Kuwait, the exchange sold unlubricated condoms – even though there wasn’t anywhere legal to use them.
Turns out if you put one over the end of the barrel and keep it in place with a rubber band your M4/16 will stay much cleaner.
Unfortunately the other end with all the moving parts still got pretty dirty.
Mongo
The 6.5 is making moves, even into SF as they’ve fallen in/out of love with the 6.8x43mm. Production delays, etc. My .223 ain’t bad for plinking but I wouldn’t want to bet my life on it in a dusty environ. Those troubles date back to an earlier war where the M-16 failure resulted in needless deaths. My dad’s battalion had some blue on blue because troopers would switch to an AK-47 from a VC after their M-16 jammed, and then draw fire from other troopers firing at the distinct sound. Lack of fire discipline for sure.
I’ve got a retired SEAL buddy that I plink with and he is a class 3. He favors the 6.5. Also has a Galil. Warns every swinging __ to stay away from any Inter Ord, Norinco, and the Bulgarian AKs.
The report is also troubling in the lack of overhead support, intel, etc. Got to be helpless feeling knowing you are being hung out to dry and that people will die from the CoC apathy.
The original Stoner design of the AR-15 required the use of IMR powders. The burn very clean, but they also burn very hot. The military uses ball powders specifically because they burn cooler and will allow the throat of an Auto weapon to last longer. Every design is a compromise of factors, but the use of ball powders in the AR-15 was a very bad move.
Jamming was endemic in Vietnam. The Marines came to call it “the Mattel Toy” for its appearance, and hated the piece. Inadequate distribution of cleaning gear and the use of LSA, which was a dirt magnet, didn’t help.
I own a Daewoo DR-200 which fires the same round, and uses the same mags as the AR-15/M-16. It has the AR-15 lock up and the AK gas system. Kimber used to distribute them in this country, but quit for some reason. I love the weapon and it has never, never failed me. The AR-15 action, using direct gas venting is a foolish way of doing things in a piece that absolutely has to work.
The Colonel in charge of the M-4 program is lying.
When in Iraq, my son used black baloons in place of condoms. No need for rubber bands to hold them either. They stretch over the flash suppressor and fit tightly.
The Remington 6.8 was rejected because of severe peening by the bolt. The 6.5 Grendel is an excellent choice. If a piston system were fielded with the 6.5 Grendel, the M-4 could be rescued, with modifications. failing that, get what the ROK Army is issuing. that’s all a DR-200 is.
QM/
LOL. I’d totally forgotten the “Mattel” bit–you’re SO right. Not only did the Marines hate it, but half their people & units continued to field the M-14 anyway–never did totally do away with it (M-14) in Vietnam.
QM/
LOL. I’d totally forgotten the “Mattel” bit–you’re SO right. Not only did the Marines hate it, but half their people & units continued to field the M-14 anyway–never did totally do away with it (M-14) in Vietnam.
The M14 was such a fine rifle that you can’t buy one anymore. Part of making the M16 a success involved destroying all M14s.
Heard that from an old diesel boat sailor and hunter. We were swapping sea stories, him and his old boat having some rifles that nobody at all knew about and me having a muslin bag full of .45s that nobody knew about.
Strangely enough, in both our cases we gave those guns to the legitimate authorities. We still feel pretty stupid about it. John’s a lot older than me which means I still have 20 years of regret before I get to his age.
Sweet guns.
We can trace all these troubles back to several factors. One was the desire to field a weapon our allies–mainly 3rd-world types of small stature-could easily handle from a size/wt standpoint. The M-16 seemed to fit that bill as compared to the much, much heavier/larger M-14. And the Abn folks liked it because one could carry so many more rounds for a given weight. But then the NIH syndrome raised its head as the AR was originally developed for the god-forsaken Air Force of all people as a lt-wt survival rifle (AR-15) which horrified the Armys’ Springfield armory ord. types, so they modified it almost beyond original recog. Then throw in the philosophical divide between the hi-cyclic-rate crowd v. “aimed-fire” rifle-centric crowd and logical, rational approaches to the problems we still have with us have been hard to come by. And looks like they ain’t gonna be solved any time soon…its only been 40+ years.
Any weapon that fails to fire on the first round is almost certainly a failure to clean the weapon. The M249 is a fussy weapon as well, but you don’t hear a lot of cries to replace it.
And the failures from overheating aren’t so much an issue of the direct gas system as simple physics. You make a lightweight weapon, it is going to overheat if you fire several hundred rounds through it rapidly. That’s the price you pay for a lightweight weapon. That’s not an issue of carbon buildup, that’s not an issue of dust, or lube, or the 5.56mm round. Weapons get hot, weapons jam. Indeed, the overheating issue would almost certainly be worse with the 6.5mm.
I’m all in favor of replacing the M4 with the HK416 or the FN SCAR. And I’m tepidly in favor of replacing the 5.56mm with an intermediate round, such as the 6.5mm.
But no matter what, if you have a lightweight weapon, you are going to have issues when you crank through 12 mags in 30 minutes. Maybe you have no choice but to do so, I understand that.
But until someone invents a railgun that weighs 8 pounds, overheating is going to be an issue in small arms.
XBrad/
Boy, you’re so right. Everything in life is a trade-off, a double edged sword, and this problem, dilemma–call it what you will, perfectly spotlights that.
I’m a complete practical tyro on infantry weapons, so I’ll ask an elementary question: Why not reissue the M14? Then follow up with a field backfit kit to stabilize it at full auto, bigger magazine and lighten it up/shorten the overall profile, add modern scopes and etc?
Jest Asking.
Well, there’s a couple issues.
1. There aren’t that many M-14s left. Many have been issued for the Designated Marksman program, and are VERY popular.
2. It weighs a ton. Nothing you do will lighten it by much. And the ammo is heavy as well. 100 rds of 7.62 weighs 7.9 pounds. Troops have enough trouble humping ammo for the M240s.
3. Nothing will stabilize it at full-auto. That’s just physics again. A bigger magazine becomes awkward and bulky. 20 rds are fine. Lightening/shortening are certainly possible, but you run into issues of controlability. And adding modern optics is possible, but only by mounting them on a modified stock, which is not as optimum as mounting them on the receiver.
Let’s not forget that the service rollout of the M14 was almost as big a clusterf*ck as the M16. It had bigger teething troubles than the M16, but didn’t make a big a stink, solely because it wasn’t during war.
I say this as someone who counts the M14 as my all time favorite rifle.
Was working at SPAWARSYSCOM when OEF kicked off. Read the USMC Battle Report (it’s unclassified) and was amused to see that their investigators tracked down just why exactly the field forces were asking for M14s again.
Turns out, max effective range of bad guys shit was outside max effective range of our rifles and the field forces, being much smarter than HQ guys knew that the M14 had the range to turn the bad guys into dogmeat first.
And seriously, it’s not heavy father, it’s my rifle!
GB – It’s happening in limited numbers, more because a particular unit demands the weapon than anything else. There are also a number of accouterments available now, viz a viz the M4 rail system, which do just what you suggest.
What XBrad said: the physics and cleaning are paramount issues. A heavy firefight will cause any weapon to glow in the dark.
Lex,
It’s criminal that your spotlight on this problem is better than anything we’ve done over at B-5. Like you, I am following this with interest but a distinct lack of knowledge and experience. The bottom line appears to be a situation in which this fact got good Men killed. And that deserves more attention than we’ve given it.
I’ll try to get the guys on it.
Subsunk
As much as I like the 6.5 Grendel it isn’t going to happen in .mil volumes what with the personality and licensing craziness of the man behind it (Alexander).
Of course that hasn’t stopped me from looking at the pile of AR parts I have lying around for another build and wondering how some CA pigs would respond to a little 6.5 sectional density lovin’.
From the report:
Then Bogar’s SAW jammed. Basically it just got way overheated, because he opened the feed tray cover and I remember him trying to get it open and it just looked like the bolt had welded itself inside the chamber. His barrel was just white hot.”
As I say, most of the weapons failures aren’t inherent to the design of the M4. You can’t fire on auto all day and expect the weapons to not fail. No one is calling the SAW a POS. I personally had issues with it. The ability to fire from magazines in an emergency means the receiver has to be about twice as large as it would be in a belt-fed only gun. And when feeding from mags, it has a very high failure rate. Every time we fired from mags, there would be brass shavings all over the inside. And if you get a failure, the immediate action (cock, watch, fire) will often just compound the problem. I’ve seen where multiple rounds from the mag are mangled in the receiver. There’s nothing short of disassembly that will clear the weapon. Not usually a problem when firing from the belt.
Somewhat OT: Just shared with me, an IM between a friend and his co-worker. Moments like this, I have to take a deep breath and relax.
We spend a trillion freaking dollars on Bu!!sh!t, whilst our warfighters fork over their own duckets to make things work.
Marc says:
I would like to know what you had to buy for Michael. what basic gear? I am outraged
Madge’ says:
when they last deployed (not this time) and they were being issued gear
Madge’ says:
the brigade ran out of scopes for their rifles
Madge’ says:
they ran out of GPS
Madge’ says:
and some other more minor stuff
Madge’ says:
things are hard to come by, like repair replacement parts when you weapon breaks
Madge’ says:
all of that stuff, to get in a timely manner, or to get at all…sometimes they have to order online and pay for it themselves.
Madge’ says:
we had to fork out $1200 for a scope
Madge’ says:
and another $400 for a GPS..which took a bullet I might add
Madge’ says:
Michael went last time with 3 of his soldiers not having a scope for their rifles for almost 3 months AFTER they got to Iraq
Madge’ says:
and like now…they issued them new underarmor shirts — to try to battle the heat…
Madge’ says:
only they can’t wear them because of how you have to wear them to be useful doesn’t meet uniform standards
Madge’ says:
so it’s totally useless gear until policy changes.
Dave The basic problem with both the M4 and M16 (same basic design of the important parts inside) is that they directly use the explosive gases created when a round is fired to cycle the bolt, eject the spent round, and move a new round into the chamber. The gases (and the unburned carbon that comes with it) are blown into the lower receiver where all of the moving parts are. Excess carbon will cause a jam if left untreated.
AR-15 platform weapons don’t vent any gases or carbon into the lower receiver. At all. What little gas is bled off from the barrel (which isn’t much) comes back into the bolt carrier and out the rifle. And if you’re somehow managing to gum up the lower receiver then you’re doing something very very wrong.
The usual solution to excess carbon is oil/lubricant. It postpones the carbon buildup and lets you put more rounds down range, but oil also acts like a magnet for dirt and sand. Thus, all of the reliability problems you have heard about the last few years relate directly to where we are fighting-Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, oil acts like a magnet for dirt and sand. And the solution to that is more lube! The way the Army told people for years to lube M16s was utterly wrong. There’s a reason if you take a civilian shooting class they’ll tell you to run an M16 as wet as possible. More lube never hurt anybody. A lot of the reliability problems I’ve heard have all traced back to the DOD telling people to run their guns in entirely the wrong way.
Really?? They “don’t vent any gases or carbon into the lower receiver” at all??
Huh. I spent 6 years as an armorer, and I could’ve SWORN that when the Marines came back from the range there was all sorts of carbon build up in the…. oh!!! I get it! You said lower receiver! How clever of you. Yes, everyone knows that the gas that is tapped from the barrel goes back into the bolt carrier group, which then expels it all over the upper receiver.
No, there’s not much you can do to foul up the lower receiver, but all the carbon build-up in the upper eventually causes the bolt to fail to lock (hence the forward assist) or affects the strike of the firing pin.
Don’t know if I agree with the “more lube is better” theory (we’re still talking about guns here, right?). Too much lube in a sandy/dusty environment just turns it to mushy gunk – or am I missing something?
Not clever of me, Major. I just quoted the guy. He said lower. Not I.
And yeah, you get carbon build up in the upper. Same with most guns. Truth be told though, I get about the same build up in my AR-180 as I do with my M4 (and one has more moving parts and springs to fail and it isn’t the M4).
As for the lube, that’s what I’ve been told and read by civilian (mostly ex-mil, granted) firearms instructors like Pat Rogers and the like. Who, for better or for worse, I trust more than your average in service armorer or infantryman.
Mostly because I’ve had the most insane nonsense told to me by military folks about firearms. Everything from 5.56mm tumbling right out the barrel to AK-47s being able to shoot both 7.62×39 and 7.62mm NATO. The large number of really knowledgeable folks operating the standard M16 series rifles without problem when they have other options has lead me to believe that a fair number of failures in the field are operator error or poor maintenance often due to bad training. And I’m certainly not the only one.
I mean, hell, the one guy put 12 30 round magazines down his rifle in 30 minutes. As was pointed out on a rather good firearm’s forum: Do that with an AK and you’ll set the forearm on fire. Probably around mag 5.
Anyway, here’s an old article on the subject: http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-why-they-occur-and-why-theyre-our-fault/
You are right Spade, I meant the upper receiver. While there are moving parts in the lower, there aren’t many and they don’t usually cause the weapon to jam. Every jam I have ever had has been a problem in the bolt due to excess carbon or dirt.
And you are also right about the excess of lube. I still remember in basic training whenever you went on to the line to fire, you had to open the lower receiver so that the drill sergeant could drown your bolt with lube from a spray bottle.
Having been stationed in 29 Palms, I’d have to say that the sand and dirt…………..yeah.
I have always liked the M14; as XBradTC states, it is heavier; but not a TON, by far. Remember, some of the grunts hump MORTAR base plates and tubes, so I do not think that they will care too much about the weight, as long as it DOES the job, successfully.
I have just finished reading Operation Buffalo and The Khe Sanh Hill Fights, and in both books, references were made to the M16 out of disdain; also to the fact the Marines, who were humping the DMZ bush with the M14, hated to give it up.
Spade, I’m sorry, but anytime you use a direct impingement system like Stoner designed, you will get garbage blown into the receiver. I agree that it doesn’t get blown directly into the lower receiver, but it does get down there.
VX is right about what the Ordnance Corps did to the AR-15 to produce the M-16. The forward assist, for example, was one of those atrocities. Not supplying cleaning gear was another. Guys would send one cleaning rod, with money, so their folks could get it duplicated. This is not an urban legend, I knew one who did it.
Yeah, VX. All of my friends who were Marines in ‘nam carried M-14s. If the Marines had tried to take the M-14s from them there would have been a mutiny. They hated the “Mouse Gun” (another pejorative the Marines coined) and the reliability stank.
Weight and mass are two things the M-16 does not have. The 6.8 peened the rear of the bolt because of the lack of mass. A piston system might help. My DR-200 is quite easy on the bolt, by comparison. Brad is right about stabilizing the M-14 in full auto. Many M-14s had full auto disabled because it is too light for full auto fire. The closes comparison would the BAR which was slightly over 20 pounds loaded. The M-14 is about 11 pounds by comparison.
The M-4 is also quite vulnerable to overheating. There simply isn’t sufficient mass and the expansion ratio of the weapon is fairly low, so the round produces a fair amount of heat, which can’t be dissipated by such a small object. Yeah, 12 30 round mags in 30 minutes will not have a good ending. But then, not cleaning your weapon properly (quite frequently in the case of any M-16 or derivative, as we found in ‘nam), using lubricants improperly, or using it in ways not intended or designed will not have a good outcome either.
Frankly, I’ll keep my Daewoo, but I could live with a Galil, or FN product.
Hmmm, interesting insight Quartermaster…………………
I guess if anyone knows how to make a weapon suitable for the sand, tis be the Israelis.
The Galil is just a modified AK, chambered for either the 5.56 or 7.62 NATO rounds. Due to its weight, the IDF issues it mostly to their tankers and artillerymen. The infantry carry the M4, currently transitioning to the 5.56 indigenous Tavor bullpup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Tavor_TAR-21
Yeah, but modified to be as close to perfect as you can get.
IDI may not be doing much with it these days, but the South African R4/R5 is still around and that’s how I came to be introduced to the ‘Master Of The Desert’.
‘Johann’ (accent and all) from a certain American distributor introduced me to the in’s and out’s of the Galil, having used it…very personally…and made no bones about what was the weapon of preference in S.A.; especially in the nether regions of Rhodesia. We’re dear old friends, Kate and I, and I wouldn’t trade a Galil for anything on the planet. My heart still beats for her…
XBrad quoted 7.9lb/100rd. My standard loadout was a BAR belt (6 pouches/2 mags/20rd each) with one in the weapon, & whatever in the ruck. Add to that a wounded warfighter on my back, and I would damn sure carry a pocket full of 7.62 without complaint. Screw the weight!
OT: Bad Company in the speakers…and a bit of Powers on the brain.
Woo hoo! Gun bleat!
I liked the M14. She was a beaut! I miss it. Had a lot of fun shooting sea snakes with it.
Friend of mine said that when the miserable M16 was introduced that the Congress [or some other equally evil entity] ordered not just the disposal of the M14 but it’s total destruction so there would be no going back. Probably apocryphal what with him being a former long term civil servant working at spawarsyscen (and we all know what a pack of weasels they are). Sorry John, it’s true.
I used to cruise here and there with the M60E versions of a fully automatic weapon which, turned out in nearly every eventuality, to be just a lousy single shot weapon since the idiots that maintained the weapons didn’t know much about gas cylinders or following simple clear instructions written at the 4th grade level. Neither did the officers and NCOs that supervised them. Seriously, the M60 went 1 for 6 when push came to shoot. Lest you all get delirious with enthusiasm…that one time it rat-a-tatt-tatted….that was a negligent discharge aimed at another of our warships.
Me and my skipper were nearly killed one night in Doha by a SAW. In the hands of a highly trained marine killer it worked just fine. He pulled the trigger and the rounds came out. They all headed towards the international terminal as near as I could figure. I’d like to point out that he sure as hell wasn’t aiming at me. Whether or not he was pointing at the skipper is an exercise best left to the student. Every single solitary person in my unit wanted that guy gone but we were way to civil to point that out to him.
Thousands of my guys have been carrying the weapon described in the original post. They complain an awful lot!!!!! They’re sailors though and mostly, the only single solitary time they fire the weapon it’s into a clearing barrel and then we would get the negligent discharge report from them and, sometimes, from the Army General they work for….
Like our host, I’m going to take a pass on this one. I really think folks like XBRADTC and his peers are the best ones to speak of infantry weapons and their foibles. I only jump in from time to time because that Marine Major commanding the company that included the NCO who nearly gunned me down….he lost two guys in a bunker during ODS when a SAW was negligently discharged and he was so pissed. That was even before the Marine astronaut Major General showed up to conduct the enquiry into the ND.
Infantry weapons….why not just ask the very finest infantry in the world what is the best infantry weapon? I think we might start with 1ID, 101st, 82nd, 2ID, 3ID, 4ID, 25ID….we have one hell of a lot of experts….again. Oops, I appear to have left out some marine types. They have expert opinions that should be consulted too.
Thanks guys! Keep up the great work!
Not to worry, Bro. Even we ‘old guys’ know where you’re coming from. Even if the WH hasn’t a clue, or doesn’t give a damn..
I was issued a Garand. (A long time ago. It was my first “big” rifle). It never failed. Dirt, sand, mud, rain, snow, whatever, it always fired. It didn’t seem too heavy, (made a good club and that steel butt plate came in handy when things got close). It was a little slow reloading. (You had to have your spare clips handy). It became my best friend.
Much later I was issued an M-14, (isn’t it called an M-1a now?).
I worked well also. And, very dependable. I liked the magazine feed. They seemed better than the clips on the Garand and if you taped two or three together, you could reload pretty fast. It had a selector lever for automatic, but you never used it that way. Uncontollable unless you had a bi-pod.
Both were best with single, well-aimed shots. Slow and steady squeeze the trigger over open sights. It too would get hot, but with the vented top hand guard, it didn’t smoke and burn like my Garand’s wooden one.
Then came the “Pea shooter”. WTF.
Even at my age, if I was called again, I’d bring my Garand. Weight? Meaningless. At 9 1/2 pounds with 4 or 5 bandolers of loaded clips around your neck? Nothing to it. Remember, at 19 you can walk through walls. (Okay, I’m a little slower now. Maybe more than a little?)
Oh, and for Mark & Madge as to what to send their kid: Cookies. Lots of cookies! And don’t mix the crisp ones with the soft ones! Oh, and, maybe a salami? And advise him to pick up an abandoned AK-47 first chanch he gets. They aren’t very accurate over any kind of distance, but I’ve read on the Milblogs that it takes only one shot to drop and keep dropped a bad guy. Not 3 or 4 like with the pea-shooter.
while you’re building care packages (on original topic) throw in some Slipstream lube for the troops in the sandbox. Beats the heck out of CLP: these new fangled lubes with nano materials keep working even when dry. I sent some just last week to friend’s son at a fwd helo base in A’stan (along with surf and gun mags, gum, babywipes, tic tacs and some other snacks).
Pixelkiller
When I was young and at school and could still spell most of the time. Mr. John Hand moved into my dorm. He is a great guy. Note, haven’t seen him or talked to him in almost 30 years. He was a former Marine, just off embassy duty in Moscow. One day he discussed with me the perils of picking up enemy weapons in Vietnam. He said that they shot a different color tracer from our M16. As I’ve previously alluded, I don’t know nothing about that. He said the picked up an AK 47 after he ran out of ammo and every single one of his squad did their damnedest to kill him.
He explained that it was after dark. I posited that he had zero friends in the squad. He said it was dark. I countered with, they knew who it was because the rounds were going towards the bad guys but still, they didn’t like him much. He said BS! Very loudly. I said they only stopped shooting at him because they suddenly realized that he owed them money.
Beaks into our bears and we moved along.
God Bless the Infantry and their big brothers in the USMC.
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 shoot-off was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.[3][4]
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.
<b.The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK416
Probably some HK dude added heavily to the article but it does argue the benefits of a gas system versus direct impingement. But still, the Army’s test results mighta shoulda woulda coulda suggested to them there was a problem. Thats a stopage every 68 rounds. I hear these rumors from time to time that Delta and Seal and other special up guys pick weapons other than the M4/M16. But their just a rumor. Colt has a good lobbyist.
Military contracts is the only thing between Colt and oblivion these days.
What worries me the most is the response of the Army.
Seriously, NO weapon is perfect. Weight, accuracy, stopping power, reliability…you can’t have it all.
A good program manager would acknowledge this. Denial is bad for morale – it gives the troops the impression that the brass doesn’t give a damn.
BTW, there is a lot to be said for the AR-10 variants. 7.62×51 is great in semi-auto, and you can pick your upper to suit your tastes.
COL Tamilio, the Project Manager for Soldier Weapons, posted some reliability and upgrades data on the M4 Carbine.
check out the post at:
http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2009/10/21/m4-reliability/