M4 and M249 failure during sustained firefight

[Hozer]

I'm sure there's a lot more to the story. Still, I wish there were some M2's at this FOB that might've made a difference.

I recall the M60 was temperamental after a thousand rounds or so in a short period of time, but I flew with at least two spare barrels. I get pissed at the range when I get a heat-related malfunction. I can't imagine that in a firefight.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091011/D9B8SUPO0.html

Edit: I see it's already back up in miscellaneous, mod's merge at your discretion.

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13843

 

[Jim123]

Still, I wish there were some M2's at this FOB that might've made a difference.

I'll bet there were and they did. Our guys killed a whole lot of theirs.

Edit: I see it's already back up in miscellaneous, mod's merge at your discretion.

I'll just cut-and-paste my remarks here
//

Here is the latest in the M-16 family/keep it clean in the field saga. Never mind 5.56 vs 7.62 (separate issue). The M-249 doesn't come out sounding too good in this article either:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/...apons_failures


So what gives? On one hand you have a General with significant credibility--high up in the food chain at RDECOM (think NAVAIR but for Army gear)--saying that he is surprised by this. At the other end you have quite a few vocal opponents who despise specific features and characteristics of the rifle along with a handful of people who probably have an, uh, financial interest in seeing the military adopt an all-new service rifle.

I'm somewhere in the middle- up front I have a problem with blaming dead people from an all-volunteer force for weapon failures. I dislike the phrase "soldier proof" since even the dumbest kid doesn't deliberately try to break his own stuff. Now I've seen good and bad examples of what our soldiers (God bless 'em) do that passes for equipment "maintenance," but it seems to me that at a remote outpost in the 'stan, it's a safe bet that guys put 110% effort into weapons maintenance- self-preservation and all that.

So I'm back to "Is it reliable or not?" Fifty year old design that's been refined and refined again. I thought we were way past proper clean&lube, chromed bolt/forward assist, etc. so what gives?

 

[usmarinemike]

Hmmmm...I don't know where blame should be placed in this story. I don't believe the weapons are good enough, but I also don't think 300 rounds in a half hour would be that difficult for a well maintained rifle. Most weapon failures come from improper maintenance. I'm not judging...just saying.

 

[mmx1]

What an idiot (Mr. Lardner, that is)

There was so much more wrong with Wanat than that the weapons overheated. That was a symptom, not the cause of the many problems that lead to the attack. To come away from the report with the conclusion that we need better guns is remarkably dense. He cites weapons overheating, but that is not so much a reliability issue as as a design issue. The M4 is not built for sustained fire - it's not supposed to be and making it so would make it heavier....and not a carbine. If the conclusion is that they should have been better defended, then the answer is to assign crew-served weapons, not to make a carbine into a machine gun. There were indeed heavy weapons at the base - to include M2's, Mk19's, and M240's and a TOW truck, but the crew-served weapons were targeted first.

 

[invertedflyer]

Put 12 mags through most rifles and carbines out there and you could have a weapon over-heat. Hence the often reiterated philosophy of "well-placed shots". However, I wasn't there, and it sounds like the soldiers were in a situation in which their position was being overwhelmed by a numerically superior foe. There a number of versions of the M4 out there, the ones we had at my old unit firied semi and burst only, no auto.

In my mind there are a few key points, some of which have already been discusssed.

1. Large quantities of ammunition fired in a short time by a light carbine.
2. Dusty and inhospitable working environments. Regardless of levels of maintenance, long hours on watch may lead to one just closing their ejection port cover and holding off on cleaning.
3. A situation that, as mentioned, needed the support of crew-served weapons. However, I wasn't there, perhaps they were out of commission, if I was being rushed by a few dozen enemy I'd probably flip it on auto too.

I'm still a proponent of the M1A SOCOM II/16 series of weapons. Heavier barrell, heavier punch, more accurate, better penetration through vehicles/walls. The question is, does less maintenance, more reliability, and its other attributes counter-weigh its shortcomings in ammunition capacity and weight?

 

[Hozer]

The M4 is not built for sustained fire - it's not supposed to be and making it so would make it heavier....and not a carbine. If the conclusion is that they should have been better defended, then the answer is to assign crew-served weapons, not to make a carbine into a machine gun. There were indeed heavy weapons at the base - to include M2's, Mk19's, and M240's and a TOW truck, but the crew-served weapons were targeted first.

Regarding the design, agreed. 60 minutes just did a fair piece on the challenges faced by the grunts in the 'Stan and revealed some interesting counter-IED stuff.

 

[C420sailor]

I'm still a proponent of the M1A SOCOM II/16 series of weapons. Heavier barrell, heavier punch, more accurate, better penetration through vehicles/walls.

A 16" barrel is a waste of that cartridge, IMO. And it would create an assload of muzzle flash at night.

They make some modular stocks that turn a 22" M14 receiver/barrel into a bullpup that is about the length of an M4---that would be one hell of a great weapon.

 

[Jim123]

Regarding the design, agreed. 60 minutes just did a fair piece on the challenges faced by the grunts in the 'Stan and revealed some interesting counter-IED stuff.

You're talking about "Golf Company," right? (Serious question) I don't usually watch 60 Minutes but I think I found the piece online:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5377315n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

 

[invertedflyer]

A 16" barrel is a waste of that cartridge, IMO. And it would create an assload of muzzle flash at night.

They make some modular stocks that turn a 22" M14 receiver/barrel into a bullpup that is about the length of an M4---that would be one hell of a great weapon.

the enemy can't see muzzle flashes if they're dead ... although its a 16" barrell its nearly as accurate as its 22" counterparts. You can still hit something with it at 800 + yards. In my book thats an important capability in a place like afghanistan where you are often dealing with wide open terrain, opposing ridgelines, and distant rocky crags. I think the bullpup idea is a good one however.

 

[Bevo16]

the enemy can't see muzzle flashes if they're dead ... although its a 16" barrell its nearly as accurate as its 22" counterparts. You can still hit something with it at 800 + yards.

800 yards for a 16 inch SOCOMII?? No fucking way. (and I mean that in the nicest, fellow gun nut kind of way) I researched the shit out of these things about 7 months ago when I was trying to decide what .308 rifle I wanted, and the accuracy in the SOCOM just wasn't there.

You can find several reviews on line, but this guy's results are pretty typical:

SOCOMII Review

Keep in mind that those 1.2-3.0 inch groups were at FIFTY yards. Nobody worth taking seriously claims better than 1.5 MOA with this thing. That's not bad for what it is, and I am certainly not calling it junk. It's cool rifle for sure, and I am sure that it is right in the wheelhouse for what the Army guys are using it for. Hitting targets at half a mile with that stick (talking more than 70 inches of bullet drop at that range)....that is outside the capability of that rifle and 99% of the shooters in the world.

 

[GO_AV8_DevilDog]

A 16" barrel is a waste of that cartridge, IMO. And it would create an assload of muzzle flash at night.

They make some modular stocks that turn a 22" M14 receiver/barrel into a bullpup that is about the length of an M4---that would be one hell of a great weapon.

you mean these?: http://www.shortrifles.com
they do infact look awesome.

 

[ryan1234]

The short direct impingement system makes for a high cyclic rate on the M4.... my limited understanding is that with most types of gas systems, a low cyclic rate is better for cooling. I think the M4 cyclic rate is around 800, whereas the AK (long stroke piston) is around 600. Give the AK a heavy barrel and you get the RPK.

Personally, the HK416 and HK417 would be great choices to bridge the gap.

 

[sodajones]

I support going back to the 22 inch M14. After carrying the M240B around everywhere the M14 feels light.

I think the M14 does just fine to 600 yards and maybe 7-800 if touched up by the boys in Quantico but the 16 inch is only good to 300 tops realistically.

We all know that the M249s suck now because they're all old and beat up. They use to be good weapons but they need to be repaired or replaced...at least the Marine Corps'.

 

[invertedflyer]

800 yards for a 16 inch SOCOMII?? No fucking way. (and I mean that in the nicest, fellow gun nut kind of way) I researched the shit out of these things about 7 months ago when I was trying to decide what .308 rifle I wanted, and the accuracy in the SOCOM just wasn't there.

You can find several reviews on line, but this guy's results are pretty typical:

SOCOMII Review

Keep in mind that those 1.2-3.0 inch groups were at FIFTY yards. Nobody worth taking seriously claims better than 1.5 MOA with this thing. That's not bad for what it is, and I am certainly not calling it junk. It's cool rifle for sure, and I am sure that it is right in the wheelhouse for what the Army guys are using it for. Hitting targets at half a mile with that stick (talking more than 70 inches of bullet drop at that range)....that is outside the capability of that rifle and 99% of the shooters in the world.

Hmmm I'll have to do a little more research on this... the info I was giving you wasn't from personal experience. If I can hit something routinely at 500 yards with an M4 (14.5" barrell length) it seems that the socom could go out further and the "effective range" of 3-400 yds in the article would be incorrect, however the 1:11 twist rate is the same as the 22" barrell so I'm sure there is degredation of accuracy at some level. I'll have to read a few reviews. Personally the socom II is a bit muzzle-heavy with all the rails... the socom 16 only has the one rail. If I had to go to the stan tomorrow though I'd want a standard or a scout.

@sodajones. Regarding the M14, it depends on the shooter. Carlos Hathcock's spotter nailed 3 viet cong at 1000 yds with his M14, iron sights. Many other shooters routinely use M14s and M1As in national match shooting at 1000 yds. you stated 300 yds for the socom II.. that can't be right.. you can hit something with a 7.62X39 at that range. I'd put the 16 at at least 600, perhaps 800 is a little far fetched, but thats just my swag. I feel you though, it'd be great to go back to the M14.

EDIT: this sprinfield-armory article states the following. "Getting grief from 600 yards away? Teamed with a Burris scope and an M1907 sling, this SOCOM will easily nail a man-sized target at 600 yards."

http://springfield-armory.primediaoutdoors.com/SPstory24.php

 

[Bevo16]

EDIT: this sprinfield-armory article states the following. "Getting grief from 600 yards away? Teamed with a Burris scope and an M1907 sling, this SOCOM will easily nail a man-sized target at 600 yards."

With Hornady TAP they claim a 1.0 MOA group, with a factory employed professional shooter, from a bench rest. Subtract the uber-fine ammo, add government ball ammo, add combat conditions, and army shooters (not a slam, just not as good as the factory guys)....I am just not buying it. Even at 600 yards. For that test they also put (probably) at least a 10 power scope on that rifle, obviously not an optimal set up for field conditions for a service rifle.

I LOVE my M1A. LOVE IT. I got the loaded model and they advertised .5 MOA accuracy with it. I have not been able to get that out of it yet, but I am getting there and having fun with it. I am sure that the rifle is doing it's part, I just have to do mine (still shooting mostly 20 year old surplus ammo at this point too).

The M-14 is still in service to some degree, so it's utility is still appreciated by the folks who make such decisions. I know that special ops guys (like SEALS) get some flexibility in what weapons they carry, and how they set them up. I wonder what the results would be if troops had the option to carry the M-14 instead of the M-4.