Ace of Spades HQ

February 25, 2014

Horrible: US Troops Forced to Modify Their M4's Themselves, To Avoid Jams and Other Failures, Despite a Well-Documented History of the Weapon's Flaws
— Ace

Andy says that problems with the M4/M16, specifically those regarding the need for cleaning, have been well known since... Vietnam.

But more recent reports have faulted the weapon's performance as well.

Documents obtained by The Washington Times show the Pentagon was warned before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that the iterations of the M4 carbine were flawed and might jam or fail, especially in the harsh desert conditions that both wars inflicted.
U.S. Special Operations Command in 2001 issued a damning private report that said the M4A1 was fundamentally flawed because the gun failed when called on to unleash rapid firing.
In 2002, an internal report from the ArmyÂ’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey said the M4A1 was prone to overheating and "catastrophic barrel failure," according to a copy obtained by The Times.

The linked Washington Times article quotes troops buying their own trigger mechanisms and own magazines in order to decrease the chances of failure.

Â“Realistically speaking, thereÂ’s been loss of life that is unneeded because there was a dumbing-down of the weapon system,Â” said Scott Traudt, who advised the Army on how to improve the M4 a decade ago.
...
In an independent overall survey of soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan, 20 percent reported that the M4 jammed during battle, and one-fifth of those said the stoppages made a Â“large impact.Â”

An Army historian alleges that reports of the M4's faulty performance in battle were covered up. That seems a bit overstated, as the argument, it seems, is about whether the weapon's "design flaws" contributed to its failure in action, or whether it due to the weapon being used for a high rate of fire (I assume for an extended period). This seems to me to be just another way of saying "design flaw," I think. Though I guess the Army can say the weapon performed as expected if they train people to not use the M4 for sustained rapid fire. But, while I realize all weapons have limitations, sustained fire during a long engagement is a common enough occurrence that the weapon should have been better designed to not have this flaw.

This story also mentions the poor magazines issued with the weapon:

"The Army never looked at the type of magazines that were used," he said. "ThatÂ’s what we found would cause a lot of failures. If you used the standard old Army tin magazines that had been used in a couple of deployments, they really wore down and would cause a lot of jams just because of failure to feed and the springs were worn out in them.
"They just donÂ’t get replaced readily, and when they do, they still get replaced by a standard-issue magazine that just isnÂ’t a very good magazine at all."
To improve the M4 on the run, Chief Warrant Officer Stafford said, "A lot of us went out and bought our own magazines. They worked far better."

Posted by: Ace at 07:27 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 534 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Yeah, this is bad.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 25, 2014 07:29 AM (IXrOn)

2 Not a good time to be in the service

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at February 25, 2014 07:29 AM (R8hU8)

3 What a horseshit article.

Posted by: Witchfinder at February 25, 2014 07:31 AM (E1Cat)

4 If I recall the Army made Colt beef up the barrels to reduce the overheating problems. The problems with the magazines is just logistical short-sightedness: better mags are out there but the Army can't be bothered to supply them.

Posted by: joncelli at February 25, 2014 07:31 AM (RD7QR)

5 Oceania didn't give a damn about its soldiers either. But the thought-police had top notch gear.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 25, 2014 07:31 AM (5PkZK)

6 I'm watching the military and its veterans being turned into second class citizens. I was just reading/watching the Rick Perry comments about what the SCOAMF is doing to the Guard. I'm at a loss for words. We are eliminating our defense system. Rick Perry: Â“I was troubled today by the tone of the presidentÂ…Â” this is scary stuff http://tinyurl.com/lfzshsd therightscoop

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 25, 2014 07:32 AM (IXrOn)

7 The M16/AR15 platform history is a lot like the Harley Davidson motorcycle one. Thousands of incremental improvements to a platform that basically sucked.

Posted by: West at February 25, 2014 07:33 AM (1Rgee)

8 I would take these reports with a large grain of salt. These articles are mostly a result of someone likely needed to fulfill a deadline, and/or someone having a axe to grind. Many of these problems have been already addressed. Also, the M4 is actually a fairly new model of rifle, the first models were used in Mogadishu I believe. They worked a lot of bugs out if it in Afghanistan, where it first saw heavy use with SOCOM. Basically all much ado about nothing.

Posted by: Jason at February 25, 2014 07:35 AM (VDvPv)

"It's okay! Since we're going to be scaling back to pre WWII levels fewer of our troops will have to deal with this. You're welcome."

- SecDef Chuck Hagel

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/b][/i] at February 25, 2014 07:36 AM (4df7R)

10 Didn't Army brass prohibit guys from bringing their own pmags?

Posted by: 2549 at February 25, 2014 07:36 AM (S/KDm)

11 I find the statement that the Army never considered the magazine issue odd. If the gun performs to specification WITH a relatively new magazine, then I don't see the problem from a design standpoint. Problems with issuing new magazines to troops fall into logistics. Those issues with continuous fire are (I think) training issues. Gates of Fire - I forget who wrote it, had some commentary on the stopping power of the weaponry.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 25, 2014 07:36 AM (4CVLy)

12 This same stupid fucking article is published every few years with the some worthless claims. It fails a basic smell test on all levels. The magazines are fine - load 28 rounds and trash them when the feed lips deform. Mags are a wear item - period. The barrel issue doesn't exist. Period. Replace after 7k+ rounds. I can also assure you that no troops are "modifying their triggers." What the hell does that even mean???

Posted by: Witchfinder at February 25, 2014 07:37 AM (E1Cat)

13 Ah stop whining, according to hegal/obama the US is never going to fight a land war again. Get with the program

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 07:38 AM (t3UFN)

14 SOLDIERS these days CARRY water in backpacks and ARE told to HYDRATE THEMSELVES so why can;t soldiers hydrate GUNS with the WATER to make them cool?

Posted by: BumperStickerPlover at February 25, 2014 07:38 AM (4CVLy)

15 for the record: Longbows don't overheat. And the stopping power is Ah-mazing.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 25, 2014 07:39 AM (4CVLy)

16 Ruh roh...latest word is that Brewer's going to cave. Brewer = another John Iscariot Roberts?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 25, 2014 07:40 AM (7ObY1)

17 This same stupid fucking article is published every few years with the some worthless claims. It fails a basic smell test on all levels. The magazines are fine - load 28 rounds and trash them when the feed lips deform. Mags are a wear item - period. The barrel issue doesn't exist. Period. Replace after 7k+ rounds. I can also assure you that no troops are "modifying their triggers." What the hell does that even mean??? SPECOPS guys were replacing the components in the trigger housing group. Not that you had to, just to decrease pull pressure. You're right. Mags are wear items and have to be replaced constantly. 90% of the problems were with the mags when I was there. Ya gotta admit though, the issue mags are shit. Civvy mags are longer wear items.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 07:40 AM (yz6yg)

18 16 Ruh roh...latest word is that Brewer's going to cave.

Brewer = another John Iscariot Roberts?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 25, 2014 11:40 AM (7ObY1)

She's facing political reality: The gay lobby has the money and clout to make your life hard if you don't toe the line.

Posted by: joncelli at February 25, 2014 07:41 AM (RD7QR)

I carried an M16A2, never the shorter barreled versions.

Frankly, I would rather carry an M16 than any other weapon if I'm going up against infantry. Put me in a firefight with fighters carrying AK-47s or whatever else, I'll kill all of them.

Posted by: BurtTC at February 25, 2014 07:41 AM (TOk1P)

20 They used to have all those problems before the started to chrome plate the barrel

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at February 25, 2014 07:41 AM (e8kgV)

21 So, you're saying that a regulation- or tax!- on firing rapidly is what's needed here? Grab my pen somebody!

Posted by: Barry O'Douche at February 25, 2014 07:42 AM (FcR7P)

22 OLDIERS these days CARRY water in backpacks and ARE told to HYDRATE THEMSELVES so why can;t soldiers hydrate GUNS with the WATER to make them cool? For roughly the same reason you don't drop a hot light bulb in water. It increases the metal fatigue over time.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 07:42 AM (yz6yg)

23 What has Obama done to assist or support the military?

I can't think of one thing. And Michelle and Dr. Jill's work doesn't count, because that is just straight-up typical Lefty military as victims in need of Dem's assistance.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 25, 2014 07:42 AM (aq/zi)

24 She's facing political reality: The gay lobby has the money and clout to make your life hard if you don't toe the line. She is a Quisling like the rest of 'em. Another fucking Vichy Republican. Sure wish we still had an opposition party in this country.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 25, 2014 07:42 AM (7ObY1)

25 Didn't Army brass prohibit guys from bringing their own pmags? Yes, and then they backed off. I'm sure there's some asshole somewhere prohibiting it though.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 07:43 AM (yz6yg)

26 First, it's always best to exercise extreme caution when reading a story detailing something internal within the military. There are always errors within such stories -- some major, some very minor -- because most reporters know astoundingly little about the military. That being said, I'm a former enlisted Marine. I had two main problems with my M4 (the same one) in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the firing pin appeared faulty. It worked fine, but when I would chamber a round, the firing pin would come forward too far and leave an indention on the back of the round. I was scared that just chambering a round would cause the weapon to fire. A trip to the armored got me a new bolt group and everything was fine. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, though, the magazines frequently gave me trouble. During my first firefight, the magazine (one I was issued) fell out of the magazine well. They frequently broke or caused jamming due to worn springs or even a little bit of dirt inside. Mags aren't treated like serialized gear by the armory, but they do want them back eventually, at least the ones you still have. Some mags may get recycled through several deployments. So I did buy my own magazines. These are just my experiences with the weapon overseas. As long as you kept the important parts clean and used better magazines than the ones you were issued, the M4 worked fine for me.

Posted by: RedStick at February 25, 2014 07:44 AM (vQTNc)

27 How can you be surprised?

Here is how the Obama VA dealt with the "backlog" of Vets medical exam requests:

VA Destroyed Vets' Medical Records to Eliminate Requests for Exams

Posted by: Jay in PA at February 25, 2014 07:44 AM (3LaGb)

28 I'm still waiting for the two washington times articles to load. Five minutes now.
and the style sheet is fubar.

Posted by: Swift Thom at February 25, 2014 07:44 AM (yDyr7)

29
I believe it was the Marines who banned the Pmag. Scuttlebutt was that it was because the early versions didn't fit the new HK automatic rifle that they're buying to replace the SAW.

If memory serves, Pmags actually have an NSN, so they're in the supply system. Budgeting for them is another matter.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 25, 2014 07:45 AM (TIIx5)

30 romesha, who I believe won a MOH, and is a source in the article that is critical of m4, also works for adcor, which has a horse in the race to sell the military a new rifle.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 25, 2014 07:45 AM (rDidD)

31
I'm out! give me another clip!

Posted by: All action movie actors at February 25, 2014 07:45 AM (n0DEs)

SPECOPS guys were replacing the components in the trigger housing group. Not that you had to, just to decrease pull pressure.

You're right. Mags are wear items and have to be replaced constantly. 90% of the problems were with the mags when I was there.

Ya gotta admit though, the issue mags are shit. Civvy mags are longer wear items.

Right. The article makes it sound like you need to replace a trigger in an m4/m16 to make it function. Total bullshit. If SpecOps dudes pop in a Geissele SSF trigger for a lighter pull, that's one thing, but it's got nothing to do with the functioning of the M4.

I've had no problems with issue mags that were maintained properly. I also use Magpul PMags and I have had no problems with them - other than they don't fit as well in some web gear.

The genesis of this article is probably some General/Colonel trying to get his favored rifle adopted - anybody remember the XM8?

Posted by: Witchfinder at February 25, 2014 07:47 AM (E1Cat)

33 For roughly the same reason you don't drop a hot light bulb in water. It increases the metal fatigue over time. Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 25, 2014 11:42 AM (yz6yg) Psssst. Check the nic. I must say, it was a very good attempt but failed because the comment still followed the conventions of normal grammar. I give it a half cluster.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 25, 2014 07:48 AM (VtjlW)

34 The magazines have been a problem since day one. Used in a range environment, They work well. Combat. Not so much.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 25, 2014 07:48 AM (L+pB7)

35 Pretty much a moot point now isn't it? We're slashing defense budget so much we're pretty much ceding superpower status to China, and we'll be stuck with this 'Nam-era weapon until 2050.

Posted by: Paul at February 25, 2014 07:49 AM (9qDRl)

36 Redstick - by the way, what you were experiencing is completely normal and not an issue. The M4/M16 will leave an indentation in the primer pocket of a chambered round. It is normal and not dangerous at all.

Posted by: Witchfinder at February 25, 2014 07:49 AM (E1Cat)

37 But, while I realize all weapons have limitations, sustained fire during a long engagement is a common enough occurrence that the weapon should have been better designed to not have this flaw. Depends on what you mean by "sustained fire" To me that's constant automatic fire. To you that might be an extended firefight. The M-4 works fins as long as you're not constantly in 3-round burst mode. Frankly, there's no reason to be unless you've providing covering fire so a fire team can move up. Then you switch to semiautomatic. No one uses 3-round burst to engage a target accurately, because the natural muzzle climb means you will NOT be accurate. You use it to throw a lot of lead at someone to keep their head down so you can maneuver.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 07:49 AM (yz6yg)

38 The magazines have been a problem since day one. Used in a range environment, They work well. Combat. Not so much. Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 25, 2014 11:48 AM (L+pB7) THIS

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 07:50 AM (yz6yg)

39 OT: the funniest photo of the day (or of the new year) linked in my sock.

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at February 25, 2014 07:50 AM (Eiwo7)

40 PRO TIP: When the rifle jams, female soldiers should urinate or vomit on themselves. Also, learning to say "I'm menstruating" in the language of the enemy can save lives.

Posted by: University of Colorado at February 25, 2014 07:50 AM (fypAL)

41 Psssst. Check the nic. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 25, 2014 11:48 AM (VtjlW) You owe me a ~~Blondie~~ Blonde.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 07:51 AM (yz6yg)

42 Of the few things that government is SUPPOSED to do, like defending the country, I think it would be a great idea if they just cut defense to the bone. Especially in light of Obama's awesome foreign which I think we can all agree, has catapulted the world into a new age of peace as clearly evidenced by state of the world at this moment.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 25, 2014 07:51 AM (BZAd3)

43 Jamming problems, eh, comrade?

Posted by: Mikhail Kalashnikov at February 25, 2014 07:51 AM (fypAL)

44 7 The M16/AR15 platform history is a lot like the Harley Davidson motorcycle one. Thousands of incremental improvements to a platform that basically sucked.

Posted by: West at February 25, 2014 11:33 AM (1Rgee)

I'm sorry you can't afford a Harley. I love mine.

Posted by: Dick (@DicksTrash) at February 25, 2014 07:52 AM (GrtrJ)

45 The M-4 works fins
The SEALs are armed with those, aren't they?

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at February 25, 2014 07:52 AM (Eiwo7)

46 Also, the article says "tin magazines" - hahaha - what the fuck? The mags are made of aluminum. Jesus. Such a fail of an article. They can't even get the basic things right.

Posted by: Witchfinder at February 25, 2014 07:52 AM (E1Cat)

47 romesha, who I believe won a MOH, and is a source in the article that is critical of m4, also works for adcor, which has a horse in the race to sell the military a new rifle. Posted by: yankeefifth at February 25, 2014 11:45 AM (rDidD) He was "Awarded" the MOH. You don't win it. Small point I know

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 07:52 AM (t3UFN)

48
I was in long enough ago that M14s were still out there....60s. Those in my small unit were allowed to choose. Most grabbed M16s cuz of the weight...but the M14 was for me.

I was the smallest guy, but we didn't hump much in the Nav. The M14 could shoot thru schools and hit like the hammer of Thor. There were still 03A3s available even. Nobody wanted one of those, tho. Damn I'm old.

Posted by: trainer's looking for a Militia to join... at February 25, 2014 07:52 AM (n4ArD)

49 She's facing political reality: The gay lobby has the money and clout to make your life hard if you don't toe the line. Christian bakers, not so much.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 25, 2014 07:52 AM (5TFvk)

50 Hey man... you need to like go into battle with the army you have or something... not like the army you might want or wish to have.

Posted by: Dr. Shatterhand at February 25, 2014 07:53 AM (n/ogz)

51 Same old shit.

The AR / M-16 platform is still, after 50 years, the best compromise of a service rifle available. This report is the biannual contractor-fueled crapfest we see so the congress will waste even more money chasing dubious improvements.

That the gummint is too cheap and stupid to keep up with wear items and preventative maintenance is the real story.

Posted by: Jaws at February 25, 2014 07:53 AM (eKZp1)

52 He was "Awarded" the MOH. You don't win it. Small point I know Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 11:52 AM (t3UFN) Thank you. That's a pet peeve of mine. Same thing with any medal from ARCOM with V device up through MOH

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 07:54 AM (yz6yg)

53 You owe me a ~~Blondie~~ Blonde. Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 25, 2014 11:51 AM (yz6yg) Fine, fine, sheesh, so demanding. http://bit.ly/1fp1KwB

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 25, 2014 07:55 AM (VtjlW)

54 36 Redstick - by the way, what you were experiencing is completely normal and not an issue. The M4/M16 will leave an indentation in the primer pocket of a chambered round. It is normal and not dangerous at all. It was a deep enough indentation to cause me some concern. Maybe the armorer just wanted something to do so he gave me some new parts.

Posted by: RedStick at February 25, 2014 07:55 AM (vQTNc)

55 http://tinyurl.com/34yopn

For the best ever AR AK Mosin comparison.

Posted by: trainer's looking for a Militia to join... at February 25, 2014 07:55 AM (n4ArD)

56 Who among us has not 'modified' their AR? Hell, I even modified my SIG556, and it was damn near perfect out of the box. I use MAGPUL mags for both.

Posted by: Erowmero at February 25, 2014 07:55 AM (OONaw)

57 Fine, fine, sheesh, so demanding. http://bit.ly/1fp1KwB Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies with whipped cream. at February 25, 2014 11:55 AM (VtjlW) If only there were some way to do scratch-and-sniff over the internet. ::: sigh :::

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 07:56 AM (yz6yg)

58 46 Also, the article says "tin magazines" - hahaha - what the fuck? The mags are made of aluminum. Jesus. Such a fail of an article. They can't evenget the basic things right. Exactly. Ace posts that Crichton passage every now and then about someone seeing their area of expertise reported on and noticing all the errors. People with military background see it all. the. time.

Posted by: RedStick at February 25, 2014 07:56 AM (vQTNc)

59 But Govmint can do healthcare good.

Posted by: obamalover at February 25, 2014 07:57 AM (yhJhK)

60 If you want a perfect assault rifle first build the perfect magazine and then design a weapon around it. Magazines are always the first reason for a failure to feed. Been that way for years. The M4 could easily be improved with the addition of a gas piston to lower its cycle of operation. Most of SpecOps guys use this configuration.

Posted by: Chaos the other dark meat at February 25, 2014 07:57 AM (oDCMR)

61 <I>27 How can you be surprised?

Here is how the Obama VA dealt with the "backlog" of Vets medical exam requests:

VA Destroyed Vets' Medical Records to Eliminate Requests for Exams

Posted by: Jay in PA at February 25, 2014 11:44 AM (3LaGb) </I>

And here's how the Air Force Reserve handled a shortage of Air Intelligence Officers back in the '80s: they sent me (an inactive reservist) a letter changing my PAFSC from Electronic Warfare Officer to Air Intelligence Officer. No training involved, no further contact from them. A while later they announced the shortage had been overcome.

DOD isn't an awfully honest place.

Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at February 25, 2014 07:57 AM (lILC0)

These don't jam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtbejMoJcp0

Posted by: Ma Ma at February 25, 2014 07:57 AM (yHo2L)

63 Exactly. Ace posts that Crichton passage every now and then about someone seeing their area of expertise reported on and noticing all the errors. People with military background see it all. the. time. Posted by: RedStick at February 25, 2014 11:56 AM (vQTNc) It's not like I've ever watched a movie or a TV show with a military angle and sworn and thrown things at the screen over all the uniform errors. Nope. Not at all. Not me. :::: shifty eyes :::

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 07:58 AM (yz6yg)

"In 2002, an internal report from the ArmyÂ’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey said the M4A1 was prone to overheating and "catastrophic barrel failure," according to a copy obtained by The Times."

It's a carbine. It's not a LMG.

The problems with the M4/M16 series in the military from what I've heard boils down the that the military, for some reason, doesn't think rifles are mechanical systems where parts, especially springs, need to be replaced at regular intervals. Same with pistols. And they don't like to lubricate guns properly.

As for the barrels overheating, yeah, if you run too many rounds down the barrel it'll overheat. You know how you fix that? You don't shoot so fast. No fancy upper, no fancy gas piston, none of that will fix barrel overheating. If you buy a brand new different type of assault rifle, guess what? Still gonna have a maximum rate of fire that will cause failures if you exceed it.

Posted by: Spade at February 25, 2014 08:00 AM (fNp/d)

65 63 It's not like I've ever watched a movie or a TV show with a military angle and sworn and thrown things at the screen over all the uniform errors. Nope. Not at all. Not me. :::: shifty eyes ::: Ha! The first thing I do is look at the ribbons to see if they even made an effort to make it realistic.

Posted by: RedStick at February 25, 2014 08:01 AM (vQTNc)

66 The M16/AR15 platform history is a lot like the Harley Davidson motorcycle one. Thousands of incremental improvements to a platform that basically sucked.

My Dad told me a story about having a couple thousand dollars burning a hole in his pocket in the early 70s. He walked into a Harley Davidson showroom and noticed something. Every single brand new bike had an oil pan laid underneath it to catch oil leakage.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:01 AM (4QSOR)

67 Rifles are rifles, not machine guns. Rifles aren't designed for prolonged automatic fire. The barrel will get red-hot and eventually fail if fired long enough and rapidly enough. Machine guns get around this by having barrels that can be quick-changed, and by being heavier and more able to absorb heat as a result of having more steel to soak it up. Making rifles like machine guns would make them too heavy.

Posted by: Ernst Blofeld at February 25, 2014 08:01 AM (aGWGv)

68 As a Navy Dentist I don't have much to add to this thread. The few times I have been allowed to touch a M9/M16 at the range I mostly concentrate on not making a fool of myself and trying to ignore all the abuse I have to take from the Enlisted and Range Master. Some of it is pretty funny I have to admit.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 08:02 AM (t3UFN)

69 OT:

This made me catch my breath:

http://tinyurl.com/lvsv37j

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 25, 2014 08:02 AM (BZAd3)

70 This same stupid fucking article is published every few years with the some worthless claims. It fails a basic smell test on all levels. The magazines are fine - load 28 rounds and trash them when the feed lips deform. Mags are a wear item - period. The barrel issue doesn't exist. Period. Replace after 7k+ rounds. I can also assure you that no troops are "modifying their triggers." What the hell does that even mean???

Posted by: Witchfinder at February 25, 2014 11:37 AM (E1Cat)

Concur with that. Speaking as someone who carried one 30 years ago, the M16/M4 is a decent weapon; you just have to keep the damn locking lugs of the bolt and chamber clean. Other than supply REMFs not replacing magazines, the article is the same old horse-crap about how awful the basic M16/M4 platform is. If the troops are spraying-n-praying, that is a training issue, not a weapons issue.

If the rifle was really that flawed, it would be history already. The M16/M4 platform is actually very accurate. My only criticism is that the cartridge is a bit anemic and I always thought a 6.5mm cartridge would be a nice upgrade of the current 5.56mm.

Posted by: Retired Buckeye Cop posting from work at February 25, 2014 08:02 AM (T6MoX)

71 I don't know if this has been said yet or not, but the article I read said the guns that had the most problems were the ones made by Colt. The ones made by the other vender seem to be doing OK.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 25, 2014 08:03 AM (T2V/1)

72 As a Navy Dentist I don't have much to add to this thread. The few times I have been allowed to touch a M9/M16 at the range I mostly concentrate on not making a fool of myself and trying to ignore all the abuse I have to take from the Enlisted and Range Master. Some of it is pretty funny I have to admit. Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 12:02 PM (t3UFN) Could I just point out that after several tours that the only negligent discharges I've ever seen have come from Naval types? Mostly officers. Jus' sayin'

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 08:03 AM (yz6yg)

73 Sgt. Bilko, the Nineties remake with Steve Martin, had everything just about perfect regarding uniforms, vehicles, procedures, etc. from the early Nineties Army. I was surprised at the end credits where they took a shot at the USArmy for not helping or cooperating in any way with filming. Must've had a good consultant.

Posted by: Lincolntf at February 25, 2014 08:04 AM (ZshNr)

74 Civvy mags are longer wear items.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 25, 2014 11:40 AM (yz6yg)

But the 30 round Bee Hive mags are heavy!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 08:04 AM (QFxY5)

Most aluminum mags can be fixed with the addition of a magpul no tilt follower. It really cuts down on jams.

Pack of 3 for $8 or so. I buy surplus aluminum mags when I can find them. Easy fix.

Posted by: Jollyroger at February 25, 2014 08:05 AM (t06LC)

76 OT: Katy Perry offends muslims with her new video.
Silly girl! The only religion you can mock is Christianity - just ask Madonna, Lady Gaga...

Posted by: Lizzy at February 25, 2014 08:05 AM (aq/zi)

77 Next year, they'll just have to pick up rocks to use as weapons. My peeps on food stamps need their Kobe beef, dammit!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at February 25, 2014 08:05 AM (tv7DV)

78 Could I just point out that after several tours that the only negligent discharges I've ever seen have come from Naval types? Mostly officers. Jus' sayin' Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 25, 2014 12:03 PM (yz6yg) Yeah you've pointed that out to me before. And that's pretty tame to the shit I take on the range

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 08:06 AM (t3UFN)

79 And here is a possible reason why our soon to be gutted military should have weapons that work:

http://tinyurl.com/lajuycf

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 25, 2014 08:06 AM (BZAd3)

This article seems on a par with the other anti-gun articles that demonize .30 caliber magazines and whatnot...an apparent lack of basic firearms knowledge.

Posted by: @JohnTant at February 25, 2014 08:06 AM (eytER)

81 Bring back the Garand. (just bought one and I'm itching to hit the range and hear the "ping" of the clip ejecting)

Posted by: Blake at February 25, 2014 08:06 AM (WuGBT)

82 There are all sorts of design tradeoffs when building full-auto weapons.

For instance, open-bolt keeps the action and barrel cooler, but who wants to have an open bolt in harsh conditions?

Heavy barrels take longer to overheat, but they are...you know...heavier.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 08:06 AM (QFxY5)

83 It's not like I've ever watched a movie or a TV show with a military angle and sworn and thrown things at the screen over all the uniform errors.

Current or historical uniforms?

My understanding is that Hollywood is required to get some things wrong so as to prevent people from copying the uniform and walking on base with one. I got this from a military guy who remembered lefties during Vietnam walking on base and impersonating officers to get access to sensitive information for their anti-war activities.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:07 AM (4QSOR)

84 But the 30 round Bee Hive mags are heavy! Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 25, 2014 12:04 PM (QFxY5) Most people here are happy with cheerleader pics or Kate Upton GIFs. But noooooooo. Not you. Here. Be happy. http://tinyurl.com/39uuo

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 08:07 AM (yz6yg)

@67

Spot on. Its not the barrel but the gas tube that's the weak link here. In the M4 test, its the first to go. The barrel will (right under the handguards, but the improved A1 barrel lasts a lot longer.

Posted by: Jollyroger at February 25, 2014 08:07 AM (t06LC)

86 Yeah you've pointed that out to me before. And that's pretty tame to the shit I take on the range Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 12:06 PM (t3UFN) I'm a caring giver. AlsoÂ…I might need some dental work someday.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 08:08 AM (yz6yg)

87 My issue M4 (brand new from Colt), which currently resides in the base armory up here in the beltway area, had a few issues. When I disassembled it for initial cleaning and inspection, I noticed that the front end of the bolt and also the gas tube opening had a few jagged machining marks on them. Looked like somebody marked them with a cutting blade on a dremel. Didn't affect function, but disappointing on such an expensive weapon. Overall, the M4 is a fine weapon, and my only complaint is that the cartridge is relatively short in effective range compared to others.

Posted by: Morseus at February 25, 2014 08:09 AM (YWZwH)

88 Funny how the AR is too perfect a killing machine to be trusted to civilian hands, but it's a worthless POS for military use.

I guess it depends on how many H&K bucks are in your reelection warchest.

Posted by: Jaws at February 25, 2014 08:10 AM (eKZp1)

89 I read that so many soldiers were buying their own Magpuls the military tried to stop it.

Posted by: pat at February 25, 2014 08:10 AM (KCg4m)

90 cleaning the m16 is why I bought a Sig 556

Posted by: 'spensive though at February 25, 2014 08:10 AM (A5W3k)

91 Penny wise and pound foolish is our DoD. As a friend of mine noted the other day, ONE fighter plane now costs $300 million. That would buy a lot of rifles and spare parts.

Posted by: toby928© at February 25, 2014 08:11 AM (QupBk)

92 AlsoÂ…I might need some dental work someday. Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 25, 2014 12:08 PM (yz6yg) yeah that's why they take me to the range with them so I will be nice to them in the chair. It's all in good fun

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 08:11 AM (t3UFN)

93 83 My understanding is that Hollywood is required to get some things wrong so as to prevent people from copying the uniform and walking on base with one. I got this from a military guy who remembered lefties during Vietnam walking on base and impersonating officers to get access to sensitive information for their anti-war activities. That sounds fishy. Phonies are pretty easy to spot.

Posted by: RedStick at February 25, 2014 08:11 AM (vQTNc)

94 If the rifle was really that flawed, it would be history already.

I agree with everything you've said but this one. There is a lot of politics involved in these things. If, for example, a French manufacturer came up with a better platform (stop laughing, it's an example), the US military would not put it into service.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:12 AM (4QSOR)

95 My basic problem with the M4 is that the 5.56 round is very effective from a 20 inch barrel but somewhat less so from a 14 inch barrel. The shorter barrel means reduced muzzle velocity. The bullet from an M4 is traveling as fast as the bullet from an M16 with a 20 inch barrel at 300 yards. Out beyond 100 yards, the bullet from an M4 has lost enough velocity that it is significantly less effective.

The M4 is significantly shorter than the old, full sized M16 because the older, longer rifle got in the way while getting in and out of vehicles and the M4 is shorter and a lot more convenient. Other nations have dealt with the issue by using bullpup designed rifles that allow a short overall length but a full size barrel so that they have the initial high muzzle velocity. Because of the original AR15 design, it is not particularly well suited to conversion to a bullpup configuration.

One other issue with the M4 is that since the barrel is significantly shorter than the original, the gas tube that transports gas directly back to the bolt carrier is shorter so the gas entering the receiver is likely to be a bit hotter and more energetic than in the longer gun. This seems unlikely to improve reliability.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at February 25, 2014 08:12 AM (BcCwi)

96 Penny wise and pound foolish is our DoD. As a friend of mine noted the other day, ONE fighter plane now costs $300 million. That would buy a lot of rifles and spare parts. Posted by: toby928Â© at February 25, 2014 12:11 PM (QupBk) Go blame Congress. First rate gear for ground troops isn't as sexy and doesn't provide as many jobs back in their districts as say an F-35 or a Littoral Combat Ship.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 25, 2014 08:12 AM (yz6yg)

97 79 And here is a possible reason why our soon to be gutted military should have weapons that work:

http://tinyurl.com/lajuycf

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 25, 2014 12:06 PM (BZAd3)

Hrm. I'd like to see something from a major news outlet but nobody around here should be surprised.

Posted by: joncelli at February 25, 2014 08:12 AM (RD7QR)

98 Remember how the network news shows - morning and night - went all-in on substandard armor for our troops? Think they'll do the same here?

Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at February 25, 2014 08:13 AM (BvTwT)

99 Bibi's finger shadow put a Hitler mustache on Angela Merkel. That picture alone will overshadow anything that came out of that meeting.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 25, 2014 08:13 AM (32Ze2)

100 Vietnam vets I knew called the M16's "Jammin' Jennies"

A lot of them bought AK's on the black market

Posted by: kbdabear at February 25, 2014 08:13 AM (aTXUx)

101

@87

True, but I still wouldn't want to get hit with 5.56 even at 500 yards. As someone put above, its all about trade offs.

The M4 is just the best compromise solution. Could we go with a .308 round? Yes, but it'll be heavy and you can carry less ammo. Could we beef up the barrel and extend it to 20" like the M16 for a little extra fragmentation range? Sure, but longer and heavier.

The only practical upgrade I can see is adopting a different intermediate round like the 6.5 or 6.8 (or 300 blackout) which I think was looked at, but would take massive amounts of money for minimal gain. A financial tradeoff as it were.

Posted by: Jollyroger at February 25, 2014 08:13 AM (t06LC)

102 76 OT: Katy Perry offends muslims with her new video. Silly girl! The only religion you can mock is Christianity - just ask Madonna, Lady Gaga... Posted by: Lizzy at February 25, 2014 12:05 PM (aq/zi) Is it purposeful or is it the perpetually aggrieved getting aggrieved? I predict an apology and the video will be pulled quickly.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 08:14 AM (T0NGe)

103

Anyone here have experience with the Smith and Wesson M and P 15 for general civilian use?

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 25, 2014 08:14 AM (f6ZLT)

104 Its not the barrel but the gas tube that's the weak link here. In the M4 test, its the first to go. That's probably a design feature. It's better for the gas tube to fail than for the barrel to blow up a few rounds later.

Posted by: Ernst Blofeld at February 25, 2014 08:14 AM (aGWGv)

105

That's a pet peeve of mine. Same thing with any medal from ARCOM with V device up through MOH

Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 25, 2014 11:54 AM (yz6yg)

I'm a pretentious bastard, so I've decided I was 'awarded' my Air Medals (one with a V). People who say I 'won' medals generally get educated pretty brusquely.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 25, 2014 08:14 AM (fwARV)

106 91 Penny wise and pound foolish is our DoD. As a friend of mine noted the other day, ONE fighter plane now costs $300 million. That would buy a lot of rifles and spare parts. Posted by: toby928Â© at February 25, 2014 12:11 PM (QupBk) Yes, but are the rifles and spare parts made by union labor? If so, has the union donated to Democrats?

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 08:15 AM (T0NGe)

107 That sounds fishy. Phonies are pretty easy to spot.

Defense in depth. Sure, they'd act wrong, but add some misplaced patches or a MoH ribbon and you've got a klaxon instead of a penny-whistle.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:15 AM (4QSOR)

108 But applying those thresholds to greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which are emitted in far greater amounts, would require the regulation of millions of sources of pollution.

The agency said Congress could not have intended such an Â“absurd result.Â” Its solution was to raise the statutory emissions threshold to 75,000 to 100,000 tons per year, thus reaching far fewer facilities. This was, Mr. Verrilli told the justices, Â“a transition, not a rewrite.Â”

He added, though, that Â“the goal of the transition is not to gradually expand the permitting requirement until theyÂ’ve got all the DunkinÂ’ Donuts in America under it.Â”

But Jonathan F. Mitchell, the solicitor general of Texas, which challenged the regulations along with other states, said a faithful interpretation of the statute would require that its permit requirements be imposed Â“on the corner deli or the Chinese restaurant or a high school building.Â”

Â“Congress does not establish round holes for square pegs,Â” he said.

Justice Breyer and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wondered if the law might reach high school football games.

Mr. Verrilli drew the line there. Â“Just an aside on the high school football game,Â” he said. Â“Human beings are actually net neutral on carbon emissions, and you will need a chemist to explain that to you.Â”

That seemed to hearten Justice Breyer. Â“This has been very helpful,Â” he said. Â“I learned IÂ’m not a net emitter of carbon dioxide. Believe me, because that means IÂ’m a part of sustainable development.Â”

Posted by: Felix Frankfurter at February 25, 2014 08:15 AM (e8kgV)

109

Anyone here have experience with the Smith and Wesson M and P 15 for general civilian use?

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 25, 2014 12:14 PM (f6ZLT)

I carry the MandP 40 and have the MandP 15T in my home. I love them both. I'm not a competitive shooter, so provided I can place (with my sidearm) 3-5 rounds in a 3-5 inch circle from 3-5 yards away within 3-5 seconds, I'm happy.

I have my rifle rigged for cqb as well. No scope, flip sights and a non-magnifying dot. No FTF or FTE, 30rd pmags.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 25, 2014 08:17 AM (fwARV)

110 This has probably already been said but I've heard stories of troops buying their own Kevlar because what was issued to them was either shoddy or nonexistent. Sad.

Posted by: DangerGirl and her Sanity Prod (tm) at February 25, 2014 08:17 AM (4+PCd)

111

During the early 80's I was serving in an infantry platoon in the 82nd Airborne. My first position was as rifleman on a fire team (two fire teams to a line squad). As soon as a slot opened up in M60 machinegun Weapons Squad, I jumped at the chance even though guys new to theWeapons Squad had to serve as ammo bearers and hump the heavy and awkward tripod before they could move up to the gunner position. Why? Because the M16A1 was crap. I didn't trust it with my life. I never trusted it. I see the M4 is carrying on that grand, craptastic tradition.

The belt-fed M60 machinegun (now no longer in service), was a dreamboat to shoot as long as you kept it reasonably clean in the field.

Posted by: troyriser at February 25, 2014 08:18 AM (gNlvW)

112 "Not a good time to be in the service"

Well, a whole bunch of people are about to get turfed OUT of the services, so at least they have that thought as consolation.

I predicted when Hagel was nominated (with only token opposition from the Republicans) that we would see absolutely frightening levels of cuts to the military on his watch, and yep, that is precisely what is being attempted by Obama and Hagel.

Smallest military since before WWII, is pretty much what it comes down to.

And, if you look at their proposals, they're just getting started. Many more cuts are in the pipeline.

Carter bequeathed Reagan a "hollow military". What Obama will bequeath his successor will be no military at all in any meaningful sense, relative to what that military is being expected to do. And it's impossible to avoid the thought that this is entirely by design.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 25, 2014 08:19 AM (gqT4g)

113 Speaking of weapon issues, I have a niggling issue with my HandK P2000. It doesn't always lock to the rear when empty. Is this a magazine issue? It's happened with more than one magazine.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:19 AM (4QSOR)

114 What's all of this silly talk about the .308?

Posted by: G.I. Jane, The "New" Army at February 25, 2014 08:19 AM (Dwehj)

115

@103

A good gun, not mil spec. My first was a M&P 15T, back when they had Troy rails. They've cheaped out on this model since.

It has always shot well, but at the price point, better weapons are available. A Colt 6920 is available at Walmart for under $1k and that's what I would recommend for a novice. The guns are modular, so you can add parts as necessary. Don't buy a bunch of crap at the outset. Most of it is junk you don't need and wont use.

If you want the best, get a Knights Armament or Noveske.

Posted by: Jollyroger at February 25, 2014 08:20 AM (t06LC)

116 From what I've read in the comments. One solution for the majority of the problem would be to give our soldiers a Mag allowance. Maybe attach an approved manufacturers list. But since the soldier has the most interest in not having crappy or worn out mags. They would be the best ones to decide which to buy and when to replace.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 25, 2014 08:20 AM (tf9Ne)

117 Ok.... so army down to 450K.... 175K of whom are Female... Females must volunteer for combat units, and the latest poll out today shows that only 8% want combat units.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2014 08:20 AM (84gbM)

118

What Obama will bequeath his successor will be no military at all in any meaningful sense, relative to what that military is being expected to do. And it's impossible to avoid the thought that this is entirely by design.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 25, 2014 12:19 PM (gqT4g)

Shrink the military to December 6, 1941 levels and you get December 7, 1941 results.

Posted by: troyriser at February 25, 2014 08:21 AM (gNlvW)

119 Females must volunteer for combat units, and the latest poll out today shows that only 8% want combat units. Equality. Good and hard.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 25, 2014 08:21 AM (T0NGe)

120 If, for example, a French manufacturer came up with a better platform (stop laughing, it's an example), the US military would not put it into service.
We are Belgian; not French.

Posted by: fabrique nationale d'armes de guerre at February 25, 2014 08:21 AM (Eiwo7)

121 Nickel boron plates bolt and carrier group, a Wilson combat trigger group and some magpul magazines would like solve all these issues. Also its important to keep the bolt carrier lubed.

Posted by: Jawknee at February 25, 2014 08:23 AM (kkxa3)

122 87 Morseus, That's just ballistics. The 5.56*45 relies on speed to get hydrostatic damage. Chop off 20% of your bore length there's less torque on the round as is approaches the client you are engaging in hard customer relations. All of this is moot, how often are the troops allowed to go weapons free now anyway? The M-4 replacing the A2 was part of Shinseki's we're all Ninjas now shit. Fuck this article in particular.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 08:23 AM (TE35l)

123

@120

True. I think FN currently has the M4 contract. I know they've been making the M16s and SAWs for years.

Posted by: Jollyroger at February 25, 2014 08:23 AM (t06LC)

124 We are Belgian; not French.

Posted by: fabrique nationale d'armes de guerre

Does anyone in the US Military carry FN weapons?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:23 AM (4QSOR)

125 Mr. Verrilli drew the line there. Â“Just an aside on the high school football game,Â” he said. Â“Human beings are actually net neutral on carbon emissions, and you will
need a chemist to explain that to you.Â”

Ignoring the buses and the lights.

Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 25, 2014 08:24 AM (ZKzrr)

126 "Penny wise and pound foolish is our DoD. As a friend of mine noted the other day, ONE fighter plane now costs $300 million."

And that "fighter plane" can't even fight yet. When it finally can, it won't deliver results commensurate with its huge price tag. It's an inherently fatally compromised design which tried to be all things to all people, which is never a recipe for success.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 25, 2014 08:24 AM (gqT4g)

127

@124

Lots.

Posted by: Jollyroger at February 25, 2014 08:24 AM (t06LC)

128 If, for example, a French manufacturer came up with a better platform (stop laughing, it's an example),>>

How about a nice new Chauchat?

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 25, 2014 08:25 AM (tf9Ne)

129 Females must volunteer for combat units, and the latest poll out today shows that only 8% want combat units.

8% is more than 0.

Posted by: HR, watching scripts run at February 25, 2014 08:25 AM (ZKzrr)

130 Well, as Milo Perrier said in "Murder by Death", "I'm a Belgie, not a Frenchie!"

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:26 AM (4QSOR)

131 A .410 over/under and a mobile front door will solve this problem.

Posted by: Slow Uncle Joe Biden at February 25, 2014 08:28 AM (Dwehj)

132 How about a nice new Chauchat?
Never fired; dropped twice, mon ami.

Posted by: fabrique nationale d'armes de guerre at February 25, 2014 08:28 AM (Eiwo7)

133 How about a nice new Chauchat?

Only if I can sell them to collectors.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:28 AM (4QSOR)

134 My Dad told me a story about having a couple thousand dollars burning a hole in his pocket in the early 70s. He walked into a Harley Davidson showroom and noticed something. Every single brand new bike had an oil pan laid underneath it to catch oil leakage.

Posted by: bonhomme at February 25, 2014 12:01 PM (4QSOR)

The harleys in those days had rear chain oilers, and even if the bike was just sitting at an idle the oiler would run. It has to go somewhere. The even older harleys pre-'65 had primary chain oilers that would oil the primary chain and the excess would literally go down a drip tube to be dropped into the street. Yeah, not the best, but great for pissing off the tree huggers.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at February 25, 2014 08:28 AM (FMbng)

135 Ok.... so army down to 450K.... 175K of whom are Female... Females must volunteer for combat units, and the latest poll out today shows that only 8% want combat units. Fuck 'em. You wanted equality sugartits, there it is. FTGOTS.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 25, 2014 08:29 AM (p9JxP)

136 Ace, she double posts on a "nood" thread after the Morning Dump style.

Posted by: fabrique nationale d'armes de guerre at February 25, 2014 08:29 AM (Eiwo7)

137 95 Obnoxious A-hole, Great minds and all that. Been pointing that out since the XM-177

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 08:30 AM (TE35l)

138 The harleys in those days had rear chain oilers, and even if the bike was just sitting at an idle the oiler would run. It has to go somewhere. The even older harleys pre-'65 had primary chain oilers that would oil the primary chain and the excess would literally go down a drip tube to be dropped into the street. Yeah, not the best, but great for pissing off the tree huggers.

These were not idling, they were turned off.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:30 AM (4QSOR)

139 XM-177

What's the frequency?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 25, 2014 08:31 AM (4QSOR)

140

Re 109.

Many thanks. I have the MandP 9 pistol, and was looking at getting the 15 for a short to medium range rifle.

Between the MandP 9, MandP 15, my Remington 770, a Marlin 22, and a Remington 870 short barrel, I think I will have the bases covered for my general needs.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 25, 2014 08:31 AM (v6cwT)

141 135 rickb223, Thanks....wife is not a NOW avenger....glad to know Hillary! gets to have a vote in wife's career.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 08:32 AM (TE35l)

142 Greetings: If I may add a bit of my own "Lessons Unlearned". back during my all expense paid trip to sunny southeast Asia the aspect of the M-16 that depressed me most was the Army's commitment to the 20-round magazine. Sure there were 30-round magazines here and there, mostly with the Special Forces, but in regular infantry units, the 20s were what there was. One of our guys had his father send us a dozen "contraband" 30-rounders so that we at least started a fight off even-steven with the bad guys. And the cherry on top of the magazine sundae was that the AK-47 with its 30-rounder had been around since the early 1950s. Other than that though, I never had a serious problem with my M-16 which I modified by swapping the usual front end with one from a damaged CARB-15. The shorted barrel was useful in the bush and we didn't do much down range shooting. I cleaned it at least once a day and paid attention to my firing rates. I was more of a three-shot burst than master blaster guy which probably helped. A quick clear here and there or a magazine swap out was all I recall needing to do. Lastly, as my favorite Platoon Sergeant was fond of saying, "Anyone can do the job with the right tools. We're going to do it with what we have."

Posted by: 11B40 at February 25, 2014 08:34 AM (tXrOq)

143 139 bonhomme, I'm on the nook or I'd walk you through the history of "chopped Stoner rifles" If you want to be really depressed understand we've basically been reinventing the M-1 carbine for ~73 years.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 08:34 AM (TE35l)

144 These were not idling, they were turned off.

Posted by: bonhomme at February 25, 2014 12:30 PM (4QSOR)

Yeah, but they had to run at some point before that, and then gravity would just take over.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at February 25, 2014 08:38 AM (FMbng)

145 If you want to be really depressed understand we've basically been reinventing the M-1 carbine for ~73 years. Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 12:34 PM (TE35l) And note.... many units are going back to the 1911 designed .45.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2014 08:39 AM (84gbM)

146 All this tech argument allows us to ignore the REAL problem anyway which is strategic vision and RoE. I am looking forward to liberals sending their voters not mine to be green blue winners. You wanted THIS America? Enjoy.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 08:40 AM (TE35l)

147 "72 As a Navy Dentist I don't have much to add to this thread. The few times I have been allowed to touch a M9/M16 at the range I mostly concentrate on not making a fool of myself and trying to ignore all the abuse I have to take from the Enlisted and Range Master. Some of it is pretty funny I have to admit.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 25, 2014 12:02 PM (t3UFN)

Could I just point out that after several tours that the only negligent discharges I've ever seen have come from Naval types?

Mostly officers.

Jus' sayin'

Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 25, 2014 12:03 PM (yz6yg)"

That reminds me of a possibly apocryphal story about the Navy and negligent discharges. It seems that some young seaman had been assigned to assist the armorer or whatever they call the guy who keeps the small arms on a ship. As people came in from guard duty, they would hand over their .45 and the armorer would pop out the magazine, pull back the slide to check that the chamber was empty and then pull the trigger to lower the hammer. He would then return the pistol to its place in the racks. While the armorer was putting a pistol back, somebody else came off guard duty so the young fellow decided to show initiative and do what he had seen the armorer do except he forgot the part where you pop out the magazine.

Well, the .45 slug bounced off the steel walls but nobody was hit. The XO and various other officers raced down to find out what had happened and once they confirmed that nobody was dead or wounded and making sure that the magazine had been removed from the pistol, they were returning to their normal duties.

That is when the young fellow noticed that the hammer was back on the pistol and pulled the trigger again. Once again, the bullet ricocheted off the walls and once again nobody was hit but an executive decision was made on the spot to reassign the young seaman to some other duty.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at February 25, 2014 08:41 AM (BcCwi)

148 145 Romeo-13, Yup, the US' problems ain't technical they are doctrinal, operational, and political. I'm glad I've accepted the American people's desire we get nuked and lose our power. I may save my heart.

Posted by: sven10077 at February 25, 2014 08:43 AM (TE35l)

149 Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at February 25, 2014 12:41 PM (BcCwi) Am not surprised by this story at all. Sailors get about 10 minutes of weapons training... 1 day in bootcamp... then a very short indoc with the weapons themselves... But are then required to carry one on watch. Even boarding teams and ships self defense forces get really limited range time... AND the Gunners Mates clean the weapons.... so even that familiarity is not there... Because the Navy brass does not consider Sailors to be gun carriers... they want them concentrating on the 5 inch guns and missiles on the ships...

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2014 08:53 AM (84gbM)

150 "That's just ballistics. The 5.56*45 relies on speed to get hydrostatic damage." No, the 5.56 relies on fragmentation of the round after impact. Bullets yaw after they strike a body. If the 5.56 is going fast enough, and is constructed in the right way, when it yaws it will fragment, which greatly increased the amount of damage it will do. The bullet has to be traveling at about 2700 fps for this to happen for most ammo. With the 14.5 inch barrel on the M4 the bullet falls below this velocity at about 50-75 meters. This isn't as big a deal as it might seem, because rifle engagements very often happen within 100m.

Posted by: Ernst Blofeld at February 25, 2014 08:57 AM (XZWie)

151 122 Sven,

Yeah, it is what it is, and the article sucks.

Besides, if we purchased/designed a new rifle/cartridge combo for more long distance engagements, the next war will require a more cqb setup. And round and round we'll go.

Posted by: Morseus at February 25, 2014 08:58 AM (YWZwH)

152 When these articles come out I have a rage stroke. I've been an infantry officer for going on 16 years with just about any kind of unit you can think of with two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan with line grunts. There is nothing wrong with the M4 weapons platform. It will do what it was designed to do. The end user has to do his part also. That means daily maintenance, not just on the weapon, but also checking the magazines for bent feed lips and split seams. If the company commander and the supply sergeant aren't proactively ordering magazines throughout the deployment then that is a problem. I have ordered the PMAGs through the Army system. They work, then again, so do the aluminum ones. I have also carried the M14 in Iraq in Afghanistan. I like it better when there might be longer engagement ranges. For riding around in vehicles and clearing buildings, you can't beat the M4. It will work if you do your part.

Posted by: Assassin6 at February 25, 2014 09:00 AM (FfukH)

153 Posted by: Morseus at February 25, 2014 12:58 PM (YWZwH) Bullpup design... Caseless ammo... Not hard engineering for the country who put a man on the moon, 45 years ago (dam, I just depressed myself).

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 25, 2014 09:03 AM (84gbM)

154 Smallest military since before WWII, is pretty much what it comes down to.

And, if you look at their proposals, they're just getting started. Many more cuts are in the pipeline.
====
Which means we will be as prepared for the next war as we were "prepared" for the Korean War. And that was bad.

Posted by: mrp at February 25, 2014 09:06 AM (JBggj)

155 Does the article mention that the union in the Colt CT factory that had the M4 contract until FN replaced them, refused to allow Colt to install CNC tooling hardware their people weren't trained on, so the M4's were being manufactured on obsolete and aging machinery, with the concomitant complications?

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at February 25, 2014 09:06 AM (XO6WW)

156

*sniff* denied the hattip for breaking this story *sniff*

M4 was also issued with a pencil barrel, prob to make it easier for women to carry

Posted by: MAx at February 25, 2014 09:16 AM (b7yum)

157 Does anyone in the US Military carry FN weapons?

Posted by: bonhomme at February 25, 2014 12:23 PM (4QSOR)

M249 is made by FN. They also make the SCAR-H, which some SF units use on occasion.

Posted by: EC at February 25, 2014 09:16 AM (GQ8sn)

158 @48 trainer's looking for a Militia to join... "There were still 03A3s available even. Nobody wanted one of those, tho. Damn I'm old." My grandfather carried one through the S. Pacific (Saipan, Okinawa). He swore by it. Said he didn't like those "thumb breaker" (M1) rifles. He also packed 2 M1911s while there, but that was just him.

Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at February 25, 2014 09:20 AM (V2T1V)

159 No disrespect intended to our armed forces serving. I'm being snarky here. With our terms/rules of engagement what difference does it make that the riffles don't work properly?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 25, 2014 09:26 AM (HVff2)

160 I have fired and/or owned'em all: M1 Garand, Springfield M1A (semi-auto only M14, basically). AR-15. Kalashnikov. They all have trade-offs. I've never had to carry a rifle in the field, so I'm not going to judge. I like to *think* that if I had to choose between these weapons I'd choose the M14 with a poly stock. Yeah, it's heavy. And, yeah, if I feed it anything but really good quality magazines it jams. But if I do use good magazines it's an amazing weapon. Very accurate, very powerful, and very reliable as long as I clean it now and again. But, no doubt, it's heavy. Then again, so is an AK... but not as heavy as the M14. M14 is 10 or 11 pounds, depending upon how you configure it, magazine size, etc. That's a lot of weight to carry all day, every day. I get it. Then again, it works every time. Frankly, the sweetest one to fire is the Garand, and that's another pound or two heavier than even the M14. But talk about a rifle that puts the bullet where you point it, and punches through... Then again, en bloc is hardly the most efficient way to reload a weapon. There's a reason it morphed into the M14. There's also a reason why WWII soldiers adored the M1 Carbine. When it's YOU in the field, weight matters - so I can't blame anyone for carrying the M4 by choice. But... the AR15 has been cursed since Stoner built the first one, and its offspring - like the M4 - have been, too. We have a receiver/barrel that works very reliably in the M14. It's heavy, but I'm guessing that it can be made lighter... but nowhere near as light as any of the M16's. It shoots a larger bullet, which is great... but the clips are heavier. Fixing the M4 is yet another chapter in the terrible story of the AR15 and its descendants. Do we really want to keep pouring money and lives down that hole, or do we ask our soldiers to carry a heavier but proven weapon?

Posted by: RobM1981 at February 25, 2014 09:31 AM (zurJC)

161 That "report" was the biggest collection of garbage I have ever seen.

It's every cliche and misnomer about the M4/M16 platform ever written and very dated.

The fact is Big Army addresses these issues once they are conformed and tested. There are also various other weapons and specialties to complement needed battle capabilities on a squad level.

And the bullshit about Wanat AFG is despicable. The platform was being used outside its intended capabilities.

Notwithstanding, you've got a general making disparaging comments about a platform he clearly knows very little about (hence the opine on how it operates) and the dated information, the M4/M16 is the best platform for the job. Period full stop.

All the WT did was pen a poorly written, poorly sources, dated tome that will worry family members who are not familiar with the situation. They should pull the article and apologize.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 25, 2014 09:34 AM (GGCsk)

162 Apparently (aside from cost) caseless has enough problems that its just not feasible for a large scale military weapon. My guess is that it doesn't stand up to filth and damp as well as a standard round.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 25, 2014 09:48 AM (zfY+H)

163 Dude, they write this article every few years. Putting aside the questionable sources and lack of firearms literacy in the article itself, the fact of the matter is that Colt, FN or whoever build the rifle that the mil. wants, based on what mil. wants to spend. This argument has been raging since the 60's. Every time we deploy troops, it comes up. FYI, it has come up in every conflict the US military has engaged in with every rifle we have ever fielded. Every. Time. The internet never shuts up about it. Are there better rifles out there? Yeah. Are they worth what they would cost? No. "But if it saves one troopers life...". STFU. Idiots. Remember when we bought all those MRAPs? The ones going to local law enforcement all over the country because uncle sugar bought them but can't use them? You're welcome. Littoral combat ship anyone? Insert high priced boondoggle here. The reality is that soldiers are equipped to a number in a budget. Every time, at any point in history. Every Army. Forever. SOCOM got the SCAR, and if it's good enough for long enough, maybe everyone else will get one too. Then they can start writing about that for the next forty years. Bitches make me miss the Krag.

Posted by: Juan Carlos at February 25, 2014 09:56 AM (wiyBj)

164 "miss the Krag..." That was awesome. Good points, too. If you ever read T. Roosevelt's book about his exploits in Cuba (and, btw, it's now free to download - public domain), he openly complains about quite a few things, and talks about how some of the wealthier officers bought their own weapons - including a machine gun. You really want to see "the number" in action, consider combat boots over the years. They're great now, but that wasn't always the case. There were many years where L.L. Bean (to pick just one name) was making a boot far better than what our troops were deployed with. But, like you say, it's about a number. It has ALWAYS been about a number. As I say above, I like the M14... but it's not just about the number involved with the weapon, it's also the number that goes with the round. 5.56 is a LOT cheaper than 7.62, especially when you're buying millions and millions of rounds... Krag... that was awesome.

Posted by: RobM1981 at February 25, 2014 10:05 AM (zurJC)

165 Its the God given right of every soldier to complain. And most of the time, their complaints are quite justified. Ideally, we'd field soldiers with the best possible equipment and support, but there's always a budget and we have to field - I know some people here hate the man, but he was right - the army we have, not the army we wish we had, as Donal Rumsfeld put it.
It sucks enough to sacrifice your time with family, your time at home, and your liberty to be a soldier and put your life on the line without crappy gear but ... in the real world, that happens. And while I hope we continue to upgrade and give them the best possible - and obviously where reasonable it should be done swiftly and efficiently - there are limits in the real world with what can be done. And I believe most soldiers, perhaps all of them, understand this.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 25, 2014 10:18 AM (zfY+H)

166 I heard one of the reasons the military didn't want PMags and other 3rd party mags were that they weren't compatible with weapons like the M27 IAR and possibly the HKs. I think the latest Gen of PMags should be compatible all the way around, but the damage was done.

Posted by: Iblis at February 25, 2014 10:32 AM (9221z)

167 I am a veteran with medals for actions taken in active combat. I served with the US Army in Middle East and was detached to the FFL, as well. Here is what I have to say about this article. Horse. Shit. I have been hearing the same refrain since I was 10 "ooooh, the M-16 was designed in a vacuum. AAAaaaah! The M-16 jams if you don't clean it! Aaaargggh! rifle overheats in the desert if you fire it on full auto for extended periods! Oh, woe! Magazine springs wear out!" No, the M-16 was a good rifle to begin with and has evolved over the last 40 years to accomidate new technology ANY gun jams if you don't clean it ANY gun overheats on full auto a LOT faster than movie teach you ALL things overheat faster in the desert ALL magazine springs wear out under actual use. I have a TON of friends and colleagues in special forces, infantry, etc. We all have a rule - if someone says 'The AK-47 is a better military rifle than the M-16' we can safely ignore that SOBs opinion about military weapons. The AK-47 is a volkswagon with an automatic, the M-16 is a 350z with a manual. More maintenance? Yup. More expensive? Yup? A lot harder to drive? Yup. And a better car, too. AK-47's are for semi-literate militias, M-16s are for trained soldiers. Are there better rifles? hell, yeah! The SCAR-H is my personal favorite. But this article is just FUD

Posted by: Deep thought at February 25, 2014 10:36 AM (BtZep)

168

Anytime a firearms manufacturer gets a big government product and mass produces them, then there are going to be some problems. Police issue Glocks and Sig Sauers probably break at a higher average than ones bought in a gun store; if one is mass produced, the quality suffers.

The M4 is an outstanding rifle, but you can't leave it lying around and expect it to work flawlessly all the time

Posted by: UGAdawg at February 25, 2014 10:42 AM (ceoOP)

169 As I understand it, AK-47s are not very accurate and are not as easy to fire (more recoil and noise) but are hardier and easier to use. Fine, like Deep Thought says, "42." No wait, sorry, wrong Deep Thought. Like he says, great for untrained and under budget thugs. But if you're a trained soldier, you need a more sophisticated weapon that is more accurate and lighter. That's what it seems to me, at least, from the outside.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 25, 2014 10:55 AM (zfY+H)

170 167 I am a veteran with medals for actions taken in active combat.
I served with the US Army in Middle East and was detached to the FFL, as well....

...ANY gun jams if you don't clean it

I think this issue is one of the reasons the M16 has a bad rep. My father was in Vietnam in 66/67. His unit went over with M14s, and transitioned over to the M16 while he was there. He said they were not issued cleaning kits, and were told it didn't need to be cleaned. I don't know if that was the official Army policy at the time, or if faulty information was passed on by someone.

During an armorers course for the AR15, one of the old timers teaching the course, who had worked for Colt early on, said that the specs provided to DOD in the early 60's included very specific types of ammunition (I think regarding the powder used in the cartridge), which would cut down om carbon build up and require fewer cleanings. This was either ignored, or misconstrued. The end result was DOD buying cheaper ammo and telling their soldier that no cleaning was required.

One of the first things most soldiers did was write home to have cleaning kits sent by their families.

Posted by: elliot at February 25, 2014 11:48 AM (j+v9A)

171 test

Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 25, 2014 12:00 PM (T2V/1)

172 There is much to be debated regarding the content of that article.
http://dennyducet.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-flaws-of-m4-carbine.html

Posted by: Denny Ducet at February 25, 2014 12:48 PM (UTXej)

173 My nephew is a Ranger and won Top Shot in Basic. He loves the M4. Maybe he has the new improved version.

Posted by: Snafu at February 25, 2014 01:09 PM (UZy8B)

174 M16 defenders are drooling idiots, as we can all observe here. The design is badly outdated. Pretty much all advanced military forces in the world have moved on from M16, or are in process of doing so. But US troops need to be stuck with it, because the all DoD contracts for a reasonable new AR failed miserably. Some of the more retarded fanboys actually claim that when a weapon jams from a little sand it's a GOOD thing, since all it needs is obsessive-compulsive cleaning 3 times a day. And the mags - well, using new ones for each drill is wonderful when you go to the range with your baby AR15, but in the military you just can't have all new mags. And any used mag with any slight deformation can get the weapon stuck. But that's just another wonderful feature than can get you killed on the field.

Posted by: Aristotle at February 25, 2014 01:12 PM (nYhK2)

175 "One of the first things most soldiers did was write home to have cleaning kits sent by their families." Posted by: elliot at February 25, 2014 03:48 PM (j+v9A) You are referring to the soldiers and Marines not found dead on the battlefield after that little fiasco, with their rifles broken open. I fired one of those shot out pieces of crap in ITR in 1971 and thank all deities I never had to go into combat with one. I don't think I ever went through a magazine without a jam. Hey, it was only training. The M-4 may be "good enough." Not if it's my life.

Posted by: MarkD at February 25, 2014 02:14 PM (06gsL)

176 Why trust an article that says the M4 has an "effective kill range of 250 yards". Then a retired General Officer complaining because the M4 doesn't penetrate bunkers. This article is full of fail.

Posted by: Mr. Feverhead at February 25, 2014 05:42 PM (6ahup)

177 I dunno I see a lot of ex military posting "this gun is fine, don't be an idiot" and a lot of armchair warriors pontificating on how awful it is.
That's no proof but I do tend to lean toward the guys with experience actually using the weapon in the field over people who read about it some time and shot one once in a target range.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 26, 2014 07:31 AM (zfY+H)

178 I'm copying over a post that Air Force vet Michael Z. Williamson made on the M4 on his publisher's forum (free registration required): http://bar.baen.com/index.php?t=msg&th=104600&start=0& Summarizing what I told someone today, since people are asking: The M4 is not a good weapon for Afghanistan. Everyone knows this. There is nothing that will change it, because the Army leadership is not interested in changing it. The 14.5" barrel was an innovation of a Middle Eastern police force for SWAT use. The Army saw Colt building it, and demanded it, but expected (against the laws of physics) that it would function like a 20" barrel, which it obviously will not. They then made it general issue, not reserving it for a carbine role. The Army is currently on a "one for everything" fetish. One camouflage for all terrain, one gun for all engagements, etc. Everyone knows this is stupid, but it won't change because Army leadership is not interested in changing it. The heavier bullet is actually LESS effective at longer engagement ranges (within the rifle's effective range). This is a fact. It has to do with complex matters of bullet construction I'm not going to go into here, but bigger is not always better, and you cannot explain that to most Infantry officers, because they lack the training and mental capacity. Yes, that's derogatory. It's also, after 70 years of this debate, obviously true. Many of the reported incidents involve troops shooting 2-3 times a basic combat load at high rates of fire. There is nothing you can do to "fix" this, anymore than you can "Fix" your boat so it will run on a gravel road. You need the right weapon for the right fight. See Point 1. If you got issued an M16 in 1970, it has very little resemblance, even cosmetically, to what's in use now. The barrel and receiver alloys have changed, there are reinforcements, the manufacturing process has changed, the internal mechanism has changed. If you got issued an M16 around 1970, you got the worst combination of teething pains and Army "fixes" that ever existed. You cannot compare your experience to now, anymore than you can compare a 1970 Mustang to a 1983 to 2010. There is nothing my readers can do to fix severe mental retardation among Army decision makers. They had problems with the Trapdoor, the Krag, the Springfield, the Garand, the M14 and the M16, and the problems were always a combination of making changes without understanding the engineering, and the wrong weapon for the role. I'm very sorry I don't have the authority to fix these problems, because I could. But: Army.

Posted by: BornLib at February 27, 2014 03:44 AM (zpNwC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

187kb generated in CPU 0.1044, elapsed 0.2666 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2365 seconds, 306 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.