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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did something about it. -1

Listen hotrod, I wasnt referring to you, I was referring to those that are criticizing the guys over there for what their doing, or not doing. People died for some to make a point the young guys there arnt metallurgists. This isnt something to Monday morning QB especially if you arnt there or have your feet in the game. So if someone knows allot better than the guys there that are dying and want to criticize because their a badass they should join up, support the country and have a legit reason to bitch, and possibly make a difference with their grand knowledge of metallurgy and combat. So go ahead, neg rep me I know reputation to many people on here is very important, I dont care. The fact of the matter is sitting at a computer, bitching isnt making a difference. If you dont like what I have to say thats fine. Dont cry about it, Im not a metallurgist either.
 
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.

Shitty gun work by whoever made them, shitty ammo, and end users were the issues. It wasn't the platform.
 
I'll take an M4 to combat over an AK any day of the week. In my opinion, anyone who says otherwise is either under trained or under experienced.
 
Shitty gun work by whoever made them, shitty ammo, and end users were the issues. It wasn't the platform.

Hey, you're comparing apples to apples:

My AK was built-up/modified by me (shitty gunsmith), was firing Wolf 7.62x39 (shitty ammo) and I was the end user (shitty shooter).

Regardless of the causes, the $1500(+) technological marvels stopped shooting and the $300 ugly, antique, piece-of-shit-built-by-a-Russian-tanker kept shooting.

*
 
I often wonder what would happen if our guys were all shooting AK's, would we still be hearing about failures?

I think we would, machine failures are going to happen, especially in an environment like Afghanistan or Iraq, things break, moving parts fail, no matter how well kept.

Are AK's that good? We never hear the other side complaining about failures, so maybe they are, or maybe it's because the dead tell no tales.
 
I'll take an M4 to combat over an AK any day of the week. In my opinion, anyone who says otherwise is either under trained or under experienced.

All I will add is: I know and or have spoken with guys from the various Tip O the spear groups who have had more "real world" experience in a day with the platform then most do in a life time, and to a man, they were happy with it's performance overall.
 
Hey, you're comparing apples to apples:

My AK was built-up/modified by me (shitty gunsmith), was firing Wolf 7.62x39 (shitty ammo) and I was the end user (shitty shooter).

Regardless of the causes, the $1500(+) technological marvels stopped shooting and the $300 ugly, antique, piece-of-shit-built-by-a-Russian-tanker kept shooting.

*

That's because the AK was designed for someone like you: shitty armorer, shitty ammo, shitty shooter.

Lack of malfunctions doesn't make it a better weapon. I don't think I've ever cleaned my AK, and have few mals. My M4 I baby, and I've still had mals. Most easily corrected in less time than a mag change. It's a versatile precision tool.

The M4 is designed for trained, practiced, professionals. The AK is designed for the gun and go masses. Therefore, in my experience, the trained, experienced professionals prefer the M4, and the gun and go masses prefer the AK.
 
Hey, you're comparing apples to apples:

My AK was built-up/modified by me (shitty gunsmith), was firing Wolf 7.62x39 (shitty ammo) and I was the end user (shitty shooter).

Regardless of the causes, the $1500(+) technological marvels stopped shooting and the $300 ugly, antique, piece-of-shit-built-by-a-Russian-tanker kept shooting.

*
Russian military kit has always been famous for ruggedness and reliability. In the 1980s, when Iran and Iraq were engaged in their famous punch-up, American-made F-14s used by the Iranians spent much of their time on the ground undergoing repairs while the less-sophisticated Russian-made MiGs used by the Iraqis were conducting airstrikes against Iranian positions.
 
Russian military kit has always been famous for ruggedness and reliability. In the 1980s, when Iran and Iraq were engaged in their famous punch-up, American-made F-14s used by the Iranians spent much of their time on the ground undergoing repairs while the less-sophisticated Russian-made MiGs used by the Iraqis were conducting airstrikes against Iranian positions.

[thinking][hmmm]

The Tomcats spent a lot of time on the ground because all of the parts they needed to maintain them were unavailable because they were under embargo.
 
[thinking][hmmm]

The Tomcats spent a lot of time on the ground because all of the parts they needed to maintain them were unavailable because they were under embargo.

There were rumors that they were sabotaged, too, by american engineers that prepped them to go over. If I remember correctly (which I probably don't, so don't quote me lol) sh*t hit the fan between us and Iran as the order was being fulfilled, and the planes were rumored to be faulty upon delivery.
 
I'm not hearing anyone talking about the facts here. First of all, if the weapons got hot due to too much firing that has little to nothing to do with the gas system, and everything to do with the environment's temp, the steel barrel, and the ability of heat to go through the handguard. Any barrel will overheat when too many rounds are put through it. Are you saying that an AK has superior steel or shape characteristics that make it capable of firing more rounds than an M4 before getting hot? I doubt an AK design keeps the barrel any cooler than the M4 design, unless it has some kind of fins or a cooling system I don't know about. Something else not mentioned here is how an AK would perform under similar running conditions. I'll assume no one here has fired an AK enough to lock it up from overheating.

The only way to improve the amount of shots you can put through a barrel is to improve cooling. This would not be done through the internals but externally. Cooling fins, a way to move air over them, or perhaps a moving water coolant system would be some ways. Obviously none of those are very practical.

Also with respect to being able to fire an AK "until it catches fire", that is most likely because the handguards are wood, whereas AR handguards are not. This isn't much of an argument.
 
There were rumors that they were sabotaged, too, by american engineers that prepped them to go over. If I remember correctly (which I probably don't, so don't quote me lol) sh*t hit the fan between us and Iran as the order was being fulfilled, and the planes were rumored to be faulty upon delivery.

No, they were already there. We had sold them to the shah but when he was overthrown, it was american CONTRACTORS who scuttled them and destroyed a few wear item parts* and made sure there were no replacements. They left them for the most part intact, but unflyable as everyone believed that they would be back soon. They remain in Iran some of the oldest and yet low hours F-14s in the world. They have not been intentionally harmed by the Ayatollah but I doubt they are air worthy at this point with a lack of maintenance for so long.


* The F14 apparently has some wear item parts that are not easily recreated (so they must have embedded micros in them) but that need to be replaced commonly. Without a steady and reliable supply of these, the planes are useless. I have no idea what the part was.
 
I'm not hearing anyone talking about the facts here. First of all, if the weapons got hot due to too much firing that has little to nothing to do with the gas system, and everything to do with the environment's temp, the steel barrel, and the ability of heat to go through the handguard. Any barrel will overheat when too many rounds are put through it.

Nah, I said that ages ago, any barrel's going to melt if you put enough rounds through it in as little time possible. Dench said it best, M4s and M16s shouldn't be used as SAW's, that's not what they were designed for.
 
[thinking][hmmm]

The Tomcats spent a lot of time on the ground because all of the parts they needed to maintain them were unavailable because they were under embargo.

Why this went to jets I have no idea, but getting closer to apples to apples, first time we went to Iraq they were flying Migs (and I believe the top end Migs) and they got their asses handed to them so bad, the few that could still fly turned tail and headed for their ex enemy Iran.

Thus, American gear flown by Americans maintained by Americans will kick the crap out of "rugged" Russian gear flown by sub par pilots maintained by sub par people, and so on.
 
That's because the AK was designed for someone like you: shitty armorer, shitty ammo, shitty shooter.

Lack of malfunctions doesn't make it a better weapon. I don't think I've ever cleaned my AK, and have few mals. My M4 I baby, and I've still had mals. Most easily corrected in less time than a mag change. It's a versatile precision tool.

The M4 is designed for trained, practiced, professionals. The AK is designed for the gun and go masses. Therefore, in my experience, the trained, experienced professionals prefer the M4, and the gun and go masses prefer the AK.

This guy is spot on people. AKs like any other weapon or machine are not impervious to malfunctions. They still need maintenance and will have issues from time to time. That being said the M4 is infinitely more accurate weapon, and superior in my opinion. But in my "Extensive experience using both guns in combat" I take an M4, both guns have malfunctions, both guns hold 30 rounds, but I know Im going hit what Im shooting at with the M4, and know its going to run. The AK, its a crap shoot. But in combat I like to hit what Im shooting at. Ive taught both weapon systems, the M4 is where its at, if you know what your doing with it. I love it, I take care of mine and it takes care of me. Preventative maintenance, good ammo, cleaning and most importantly proper lubrication. But like it was said AKs are for amateur hour. If you dont believe me, compare weapons of SOF from around the world.
 
Nah, I said that ages ago, any barrel's going to melt if you put enough rounds through it in as little time possible. Dench said it best, M4s and M16s shouldn't be used as SAW's, that's not what they were designed for.

We are in perfect agreement then! [grin] I was just noting that people are turning this into a gas impingement vs piston argument as well as some other irrelevant arguments such comparing some other weapons on the market. It's all in the barrel!!! You could argue that the M4 barrel should be re-designed to cool off more efficiently but that's about it. [laugh] (I'm a mechanical engineer and have studied heat transfer and fluid dynamics enough to know something about it.)

Also, what's with all the "you're not experienced under fire" bull going on here? Also irrelevant. I can go to the range tonight and run my AR (colt made to same material specs the soldiers would have) until it's barrel gets too hot as to cause some kind of problem. I don't need to be in the sandbox to see the same issues or to test them. Being under fire doesn't make the thing heat up any faster. Stop with the macho stuff.
 
Last edited:
We are in perfect agreement then! [grin] I was just noting that people are turning this into a gas impingement vs piston argument as well as some other irrelevant arguments such comparing some other weapons on the market. It's all in the barrel!!! You could argue that the M4 barrel should be re-designed to cool off more efficiently but that's about it. [laugh]

exact-o-mundo.

Martlett V USMA [popcorn]
 
So which is it? Are you under-experienced, or under-trained?

*

Sorry. Didn't submit my resume for your approval. The general consensus here from myself and others who have used either/or in combat is you don't know what you're talking about.

You admitted you're a crappy gunsmith, use crappy ammo, and are a crappy shooter. I'm none of those.

Also, what's with all the "you're not experienced under fire" bull going on here? Also irrelevant. I can go to the range tonight and run my AR (colt made to same material specs the soldiers would have) until it's barrel gets too hot as to cause some kind of problem. I don't need to be in the sandbox to see the same issues or to test them. Being under fire doesn't make the thing heat up any faster. Stop with the macho stuff.

I agree, but only to a point. Combat situations bring variables that are hard to duplicate, most of which have to do with the operator. Stress, patrol schedules, climate, and the like all contribute to maintenance, accuracy, and performance.
 
Last edited:
You mean all the ones using German guns instead of M4's?

Listen chief, you dont know what your talking about. I dont know your resume or what you have, or more importantly haven't done. How many SOF forces have you worked with? Their rockin AKs huh? Your right, allot of German weapons are in use, surprisingly to you, is the M4 variant is in use by many SOF units through out the world. Now we can compare and contrast different units MTOE, but the AK isnt part of them. Thats the point of this. Now you already pointed out that your basically worthless. I agree. Unless you have current, real world experience I really dont care what you have to say. Being a mechanical engineer isnt the same as being one that uses a weapon to protect their lives and goes to combat with it. Laboratory tests etc, your not doing it. And reading Armchair General Quarterly isnt the same has having been there and done it. The folklore of the AK is wonderful, but those on here that have been in combat that have spoken on this board all agree the M4 is superior to your beloved AK. I think its just that, folklore. It doesnt matter how great a weapon is if you cant hit what your shooting at, you cant miss fast enough. In comparison to you, Martlet is much better trained, he is an active duty non commissioned officer in the Army. The guy is technically and technically proficient, he may not be a metallurgist, or mechanical engineer but knows what the f--k hes talking about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love NES pissing contests! I just wish Chuck Norris was online to put you all in your place! That man is the final authority. [wink]
 
Just spit-ballin' here, but does anyone think that a fluted or semi-fluted bolt carrier may help the AR platform to run a little better? Do folks here think it may help with heat dissipation & freedom of movement (act as channels for carrying lube), or will it just be channels for grit & junk to stick into? I'm sure much smarter gun-smithing minds probably have thought of this, so probably the latter....? I do remember something about a company that was developing a sniper rifle that had a fluted bolt action so that it would help to prevent freezing/locking up in extreme arctic conditions. I don't know if something similar applied to an AR's bolt carrier would transition into this type of problem though?
 
Wow..I passed over this thread, but decided last second to give it a read. It's a heated and spirited debate to be sure and I wish I could send out rep points en masse. I'm rarely riveted by a thread, but I read every word.

I have nothing to add really of much value - I am not, nor have I been in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have however been behind both the AK and the M4 and cannot imagine having to take an AK into combat. If any of you are around a campfire with me one day, we'll have a beer and I'll get into details about some AK experiences...If one looks at a slow motion film of the AK while firing, there's an extraordinary amount of flex in the entire system - which likely gives it a lot of it's notorious accuracy problems. Even if the 7.62x39 round is the best military cartridge on the planet, it won't do you much good if you can't hit anything with it.

FWIW, I was at an NES shoot watching near constant failures by two separate AK shooters on either side of me...I have it on video. It was like "dueling malfunctions" - would be cool to set it to music. Granted, there are likely a lot of bones in the dirt at the hands of an AK, but I think the argument of the M-16 platform as being unreliable are an old and not so accurate argument....

I think Wookie, Martlet and P2A, (among others) have some excessively valid points...

To those of you who have served there, (and elsewhere), my eternal thanks go to you and to those 50 brave men who put it all on the line against overwhelming odds, you have my deepest gratitude and respect...
 
Last edited:
Just spit-ballin' here, but does anyone think that a fluted or semi-fluted bolt carrier may help the AR platform to run a little better? Do folks here think it may help with heat dissipation & freedom of movement (act as channels for carrying lube), or will it just be channels for grit & junk to stick into? I'm sure much smarter gun-smithing minds probably have thought of this, so probably the latter....? I do remember something about a company that was developing a sniper rifle that had a fluted bolt action so that it would help to prevent freezing/locking up in extreme arctic conditions. I don't know if something similar applied to an AR's bolt carrier would transition into this type of problem though?

There were variants of the FAL with 'sand cuts' in the bolt carrier, but I don't recall ever seeing any study of how effective they were - although I'm sure it's out there somewhere. DSA sells this copy of one:
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Sand cut FAL Carrier.jpg
    Sand cut FAL Carrier.jpg
    17.9 KB · Views: 85
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom