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

[bpm990d]

Unfortunately, when soldiers are forced to switch their M4 systems role from rifleman tasks to that of a light/medium machine gun, they are going to run into some problems after a while.

Exactly correct.

B

 

[Spanz]

The current AR platform, even in it's "enhanced" configuration, has shown problems when subjected to extended burst and automatic fire. These guys were in a protracted engagement and did NOT have the option of disengaging the enemy and performing "proper maintanence and lubrication" as required. The opposition forces pressing them were armed with weapons that do not require such attention. If a weapon is issued to troops going into a combat theater the thing should be expected to perform without calling for "time out" so you can service your rifle. My Metalurgy 101 always taught me that quenching hot steel in water leads to cracking & deformation. Not two things I'd want to introduce into something my life was dependent on. Having spent several years responsible for the care & feeding of Vulcans and minis that was something we specificly did not do. But that was 30+ years ago, maybe the laws of physics have been amended since my day. I have taken two 100 rd drums and a dozen or so 40 rd mags and bump fired a Yugo M70 thru every one of them in an extremely short period and the gun never jammed, failed to fire/feed/eject or in any way malfunction. The rifle could not be held with out a mechanics hot glove and even that was getting uncomfortable. Try as I might, I was also unable to get the wood hand guard to ignite as I've seen a few other do.

Yes, sudden quenching (like dunking it into a barrel of water) when it is white hot would change the metallurgy and make it very brittle. But a little cooling, like a wet rag put on the barrel BEFORE it gets that hot will cool it more slowly, and willl cool it before it gets to the temperature that the metallurgy can change. It has been a while, but I think the steel has to get to a "straw" color before it starts changing composition. The point? Isn't there any training today for these troops on how to handle overheating barrels? Seems like a fairly common occurance in a war.

 

[Spanz]

If it were you? If you know better than the guys there why dont you join them.

Am dying to hear of your solution to the overheating!

 

[TheWookie]

Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s

Slow news day, and poorly written article.

I hate to Monday night QB the firefight, but -- SAWs don't jam at 600 rounds, not unless they are dirty. I was a SAW gunner at one point. And if the commander on the ground knew what coordinated controlled fire was the guns wouldn't get the chance to heat up like they did. IMHO

 

[P2A]

Am dying to hear of your solution to the overheating!

Following the prescribed rates of fire for the weapon, talking guns, and cleaning the weapons especially the chambers and using a good lube. The issue with all of this is more of improper maintenance in my opinion, they weren't sending enough rounds downrange to turn their M4s white. But since you seem to know more than the guys over there and want to criticize them do something about it, www.goarmy.com

 

[TheWookie]

Am dying to hear of your solution to the overheating!

Coordinated controlled fire.

 

[pdm]

Coordinated controlled fire.

And here I was expecting you, due to your nick, to say something like "rip their arms off".

 

[terraformer]

Coordinated controlled fire.

I think dench hit the nail on the head. These guys were being over run and needed more than what they had. ie; more men, more rifles, more ammo, etc; We all hear about the squad (or battalion/company in previous wars) who are able to repel a force size 2x or 3x and it makes sense. Well trained and well supplied is the std of the day for US troops and they can do more with fewer men. But at some point, if the battle runs long enough or the supplies get low enough or the opposing force's size is large enough, even if no one breaks discipline and continues to stick to their training, they will be overrun eventually.

The article gives the numbers. A platoon (with a complement of local fighters) was out manned by 200. So a ratio of ~250:~50 or 5:1. If it is to be believed, the only story here is how a complement of 50 brave men were able to hold their position against vastly superior numbers long enough to not get completely overrun while only suffering casualties of 9 dead, 27 wounded. Holding that position came at a high cost.

This story is only coming up because a few weeks back there was a remote base attacked which was very near wanat and it was also a situation of vastly superior numbers looking to overrun the base. That failed too, but not without costly casualties.

 

[P-14]

If I'm not mistaken, SS does not dissipate heat as fast as the chrome moly barrels now in use.

But they should be able to take more heat before becoming unfunctional.

 

[PatMcD]

If everybody is waiting for "The perfect rifle" solution to come along, don't hold your breath. Every series of rifle will be a compromise.

Something like this article will always grab headlines, or at least the attention and scrutiny of people with interest in guns.

What's not reported is how many lives are saved every day with the M4. Shots that couldn't be made with the vaunted AK47. The extra ammo that is used that couldn't have been carried with a larger caliber.
What's also not reported is weapons malfunctions that happen with the AK-series. Please don't try to tell us it doesn't happen. From the beginning, Soviet propaganda would not allow any criticism of it's technology, and it has just been carried forward as gospel.


As it is, in my opinion, the M16-series of rifles are the best compromise for the U.S. military. It looks like the A2 is the more reliable rifle and should remain with front-line US troops.

 

[PatMcD]

If it is to be believed, the only story here is how a complement of 50 brave men were able to hold their position against vastly superior numbers long enough to not get completely overrun while only suffering casualties of 9 dead, 27 wounded. Holding that position came at a high cost.

That to me is the story. Brave men doing dangerous things for us.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

The M4 weapons system is popular among 90% of the soldiers that used it, according to the last article i saw about this carbine, which was today.

Unfortunately, when soldiers are forced to switch their M4 systems role from rifleman tasks to that of a light/medium machine gun, they are going to run into some problems after a while.
I just wish the soldiers getting overran had more M240B's. Those are excellent weapons and very popular among soldiers.

Yeah son loves it.

 

[TheWookie]

The article gives the numbers.

Don't always believe everything that you read.

I won't get into splitting hairs, here, on this one. I'm saddened by the loss of our troops. Nuff said.

 

[jasons]

If everybody is waiting for "The perfect rifle" solution to come along, don't hold your breath. Every series of rifle will be a compromise.

Right, but the compromise in the case of the M16 was better accuracy and lighter weight over reliability and rate of fire. The AK is less accurate but more reliable and can put more lead down range in a given amount of time. It seems to me that most battles these days are shorter range, high volume engagements where the compromises of the AK are a better fit.

Maybe one guy in the fire-team should be a "designated marksman" with an accurate rifle like the M16 and the rest should get something with looser tolerances for this sort of short range, high volume engagement.

Then again maybe better marksmanship training would get the rate of fire down. We always went by the "one shot, one kill" mantra. Not sure if that's the case in the Army.

 

[jasons]

I'm saddened by the loss of our troops. Nuff said.

That goes without saying. (But I'm glad you said it.)

 

[PaulD]

Right, but the compromise in the case of the M16 was better accuracy and lighter weight over reliability and rate of fire. The AK is less accurate but more reliable and can put more lead down range in a given amount of time. It seems to me that most battles these days are shorter range, high volume engagements where the compromises of the AK are a better fit.

Maybe one guy in the fire-team should be a "designated marksman" with an accurate rifle like the M16 and the rest should get something with looser tolerances for this sort of short range, high volume engagement.

Then again maybe better marksmanship training would get the rate of fire down. We always went by the "one shot, one kill" mantra. Not sure if that's the case in the Army.

Pardon my noobish question but wouldn't something like an HK416 be the best of both worlds? And, if so, why isn't the army implementing them?

 

[DevX]

Pardon my noobish question but wouldn't something like an HK416 be the best of both worlds? And, if so, why isn't the army implementing them?

Because they have problems too?


And why would anyone want to replace a pos (as some here like to think of the M4) with a bigger pos (AK)?

 

[flintoid]

But they should be able to take more heat before becoming unfunctional.

http://www.suppliersonline.com/propertypages/4130.asp

4130 chromium alloy steel

http://www.efunda.com/materials/all...=AISI_4130&show_prop=all&Page_Title=AISI 4130

has a thermal conductivity of 42.7 W/m K so it can dissipate heat faster than me dissipating urine after a 30 pack natty light challenge. It also absorbs energy from the rounds at a faster rate, too. It starts to change structural properties around 750C-850C. It needs to get pretty toasty.


316L Stainless Steel

http://www.efunda.com/materials/all...pe_316&show_prop=all&Page_Title=AISI Type 316

has a thermal conductivity of 16.2 W/m K. Not good at cooling down between shots. This also works in the inverse: it doesn't absorb nearly as much heat as your chromium alloy. Although it's not listed -the temperature at which you can anneal sheets of it- I know it's not superb or the end all, be all. It's annealing temperature is lower than that of 4130. SS is your pick if you don't want it to get as hot as fast. this is why it's specific heat is higher than that of 4130: it requires more energy to raise the temperature of a given unit of mass of the material. They're reltively close, though.

So you have to weigh it out: do you want it to dissipate the heat quicker? Or do you want it to absorb it 'slightly' slower?

The reason why you would pick a SS barrel over a chromium alloy barrel does not necessarily fall under the heat/energy category. SS is a harder material. You can be clumsy with it, like drop it on a rock kind of clumsy, and it won't deform. That's why you want it.

But I've probably made an assumption that is incorrect, and one of you will correct me on this. Like the assumption that military grade barrels are not made with 4130 steel, and that it's actually a steel that is chromium plated.


Regardless of the alloy, steel will expand quite a bit under high temperature loads. This is when your high tolerance tight fitting rifle will shit bricks on you when it gets hot. You're talking about thermal expansion on a heavy load part mating up to other steel/composite parts that have air/contact barriers... they'll all heat up at different rates. All it takes is for a part to bind up on another and you'll be at risk for some malfunction.

I'm sure a mechanical engineer has had to think about these issues a few times over.

 

[maee]

Pardon my noobish question but wouldn't something like an HK416 be the best of both worlds? And, if so, why isn't the army implementing them?

Somebody earlier was saying that the HK416 weighs more. Its also more expensive. Plus, any replacement for the M4/M16 must demonstrate that it is significantly better, not just a minor improvement. Its possible the HK416 isn't that much more reliable for typical Army usage, despite its advertised ability to be shot after being submersed in water or buried in sand. I imagine the typical soldier tries to keep their weapon reasonably clean, and in that scenario, perhaps the 416 just isn't really that much more reliable.

 

[pdm]

Does a piston even help with heat dissipation? After all, that's what the problem was in A-stan, right?

 

[flintoid]

Does a piston even help with heat dissipation? After all, that's what the problem was in A-stan, right?

that's a good question. The article listed heat and 'glowing white hot barrels' as the problem, but as others have posted, who knows the veracity of such claims.

I've always assumed the loosey goosey build of AKs helped with the heat and dirt. If you have a rifle that can fire with such large gaps for part tolerance variation, it allows for successful operation with more variables such as heat expansion, sand, mud, all that fun stuff.

 

[aklaft]

that's a good question. The article listed heat and 'glowing white hot barrels' as the problem, but as others have posted, who knows the veracity of such claims.

I've always assumed the loosey goosey build of AKs helped with the heat and dirt. If you have a rifle that can fire with such large gaps for part tolerance variation, it allows for successful operation with more variables such as heat expansion, sand, mud, all that fun stuff.

AKs can be shot until they light on fire, so that is true at least.

I have a piston AR and I can testify that the barrel gets just as hot as any other AR. Its the bolt carrier group that stays cool, and I imagine that would enhance reliability greatly.

I'm not about to shoot all my rifles until they glow to prove it though.

 

[Fixxah]

Following the prescribed rates of fire for the weapon, talking guns, and cleaning the weapons especially the chambers and using a good lube. The issue with all of this is more of improper maintenance in my opinion, they weren't sending enough rounds downrange to turn their M4s white. But since you seem to know more than the guys over there and want to criticize them do something about it, www.goarmy.com

I did something about it. -1

 

[KDK]

I'll chip in what I know for those that care.

First off, I served in the IDF infantry for a couple of years. Now I shoot for fun. It is unfair and not relevant to compare the AR or any other weapons in our safes to the duty weapons that are used in a warzone. Our weapons were always exposed to dust, dirt, mud, sand, moisture, breakfast gruel etc. So for all those that say "I've never had a problem with such and such" or "I never clean my rifle" You are comparing apples and oranges.

So here I go with my experience.

Galil: Never shot one much because they were a tankers weapon. When I did I had a fun time running them in Full auto with the stock folded! Never jammed. Tankers love them. The infantry looked down their noses at them. They were a gun that we brought to the range to shoot for fun.

Uzi: An obsolete weapon in the IDF. Girls would be issued them. Never had any respect for them. Often they would jam and have problems with "runaway uzi" i.e. finger off the trigger and still firing. A problem with open bolt guns. Also, a novelty gun at the range.

M16s I have seen some that no matter what are jamomatics and some are %100. Each one has it's personality and that is problematic from a tactical standpoint. They are especially problematic in full auto. The weapon is simply not designed for sustained full auto firing.

M4: I am surprised that they are having problems with them in Iraq. Truthfully though I only had an M4 for about a year because the IDF was just transitioning from M16/car15s during my service. So I had a brand new one and didn't have any problems with it at all. My M4 ate a lot of mud and deisa (breakfast gruel) and still ran. The weapon that really scares me, I will expound upon next.

The Negev which is comparable to a M249 or a minimi. A friggin liability. I've had a perfectly clean and prepped Negev jam right when I needed a good burst. Scary as hell. They can also be a bitch to clear a jam. Sometimes you have to slam the damn thing on the ground while holding the charging handle. I trained with a russian spetznaz guy contracted to the Israelis and he said the whole class of light machine guns are trash; a bad compromise. He knew what he was talking about believe you me. Most proficient warrior I have ever met. Despite all its supposedly superior features: Light, fold able, rails galore, ability to take M4 or Galil magazines, sharing the same ammo etc. I will always prefer any day of the week my Mag.

Mag 58 the original M240: My personal weapon. I loved the gun! I could pour a bucket of sand in the action and it would fire. Even if the rounds were knocked out of place in the links (a common jamming reason for the negev the links don't hold the round tight and they often get knocked out and this results in a stoppage of fire very very bad) the Mag shot all day. It shot with a red hot barrel it shot in the rain, in the snow it shot after being left outdoors in the dust storms for days on end.

That's my two cents.

 

[Gammon]

Does a piston even help with heat dissipation? After all, that's what the problem was in A-stan, right?

The piston system keeps a lot of heat out of the receiver as it vents the barrel gasses into the atmosphere rather than the reciever. Neither system does anything to enhance barrel cooling. Heavier or more complex barrels with cooling fins might be a solution. The other option is a quick change barrel system whiich might work, but could prove to be a logistical nightmare.

 

[bpm990d]

Fire to Destruction Test of 5.56mm M4A1 Carbine and M-16A2 Rifle Barrels conducted by Rock Island in 1996.

Conclusion - It took them 2 minutes and 49 seconds to destroy an M-16A2 and 3:00 ~ 3:33 to destroy two of the M4s.

B

 

[jasons]

Fire to Destruction Test of 5.56mm M4A1 Carbine and M-16A2 Rifle Barrels conducted by Rock Island in 1996.

Conclusion - It took them 2 minutes and 49 seconds to destroy an M-16A2 and 3:00 ~ 3:33 to destroy two of the M4s.

B

Your tax dollars at work.

 

[TheWookie]

Fire to Destruction Test of 5.56mm M4A1 Carbine and M-16A2 Rifle Barrels conducted by Rock Island in 1996.

Conclusion - It took them 2 minutes and 49 seconds to destroy an M-16A2 and 3:00 ~ 3:33 to destroy two of the M4s.

B

Good link.

Another reason why fire discipline is important. Any equipment can fail, especially under the worst circumstances.

Overall, that report says to me that after almost 600 rounds and 3 minutes of sustained fire, the guns tested failed. Doesn't surprise me, that's putting some lead down range.

Page 10, conclusion - 6.1 - is fair and honest.

Page 40 - I'd like to see what other weapons those units had trouble with during that same time period -- back in 1995,, the M4's were in their "infancy". I know this because I was involved in field testing the M4's in 1998 for the USMC.

 

[Fixxah]

It is nice to know who gave neg rep. Thanks for putting a name on there.

 

[USMA-82]

What's not reported is how many lives are saved every day with the M4. Shots that couldn't be made with the vaunted AK47. The extra ammo that is used that couldn't have been carried with a larger caliber.
What's also not reported is weapons malfunctions that happen with the AK-series. Please don't try to tell us it doesn't happen. From the beginning, Soviet propaganda would not allow any criticism of it's technology, and it has just been carried forward as gospel.

Well, I understand the argument, but I wouldn't go quite that far. I can only report on what I've seen, and that was in a peace-time, training environment a couple of years ago.

When "Super Dave" Harrington ran his tactical carbine class in Worcester, we all ran through about 1200 rounds of ammo over the weekend. There were 14 M-16/M-4 models in that class, and every one of them experienced some sort of malfunction / stoppage during the training. The sole AK-47 in the group (MINE!) went the weekend without one hiccup. The damn thing is ugly as sin and can't hit much beyond 300 yards, but it always goes BANG when I want it to.

The M-16 series of rifle is terrific in many ways. But I've always had the feeling it has been around this long because military brass doesn't like to see changes, or admit mistakes. I look back at the beginning of the 20th century when, after WWI, the military had the choice between the 1903 Springfield and the Model 1917 (Enfield) rifle. The 1917 was a better "battle" rifle, but the 1903 was a better "target" rifle - so the post-war army pushed for the 1903.

I think the M-16 is becoming the Model 1903 of this era. There are gas-piston firearms out there now (preferably in the 6.8 SPC caliber) that would much better serve our military.