The M-4 a POS and Widow Maker?

[RicInOR]

Not the MSR -- the Army issue M-4.

Possible headline grab?


Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in M4 carbine assault rifle - Washington Times

"Army Senior Warrant Officer Russton B. Kramer, a 20-year Green Beret, has learned that if you want to improve your chances to survive, it’s best to personally make modifications to the Army’s primary rifle — the M4 carbine."

"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."

Read More

 

[simon99]

Huh?

Didn't read the article...but with standard maintenance, in my experience, the M4 works just fine in the ME.

Either misquoted or adding hype to sell papers.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Must be a commie.

 

[3MTA3]

The article is a pretty soppy "He said, She said". Everyone has an opinion, but there isn't any such thing as a perfect combat weapon.

I'll take any they don't want.

 

[erudne]

I predict thread lock-down

 

[Trailboss]

The article specifically calls out the M4 vs the M16, noting that the M16 has a better record in combat than the M4.

 

[simon99]

I predict thread lock-down

Nah....

This is firearm related. If it were "off topic" then it'd better be about rainbows or puppy dogs.

 

[Lange22250]

Another article that boils down to -
you can't use it like a machine gun or the barrel will blow
mil spec is far from the best it could be and not even close to what is bench mark in the civilian market in terms of high end rifles
the last lowest bid contractor who lost the contract (Colt) was falling short on maintaining tolerances
the m4 takes good maintenance to run reliably and they don't really teach that in the general military (white glove inspection crap)
there are better ammunition choices for small unarmored opponents
top tier units get to choose whatever they want to use and had great armorers to make them and keep them running
main line units get variable access to well trained armorers and replacement parts
whenever competitors get a chance they will pile on to try to get another chance at what could be the largest single small arms contract on the planet knowing full well that in a couple of years the same thing will be said about their product

 

[Trailboss]

Another article that boils down to -
you can't use it like a machine gun or the barrel will blow
mil spec is far from the best it could be and not even close to what is bench mark in the civilian market in terms of high end rifles
the last lowest bid contractor who lost the contract (Colt) was falling short on maintaining tolerances
the m4 takes good maintenance to run reliably and they don't really teach that in the general military (white glove inspection crap)
there are better ammunition choices for small unarmored opponents
top tier units get to choose whatever they want to use and had great armorers to make them and keep them running
main line units get variable access to well trained armorers and replacement parts
whenever competitors get a chance they will pile on to try to get another chance at what could be the largest single small arms contract on the planet knowing full well that in a couple of years the same thing will be said about their product

Well spoken and true except for the last line "whenever competitors get a chance they will pile on to try to get another chance at what could be the largest single small arms contract on the planet knowing full well that in a couple of years the same thing will be said about their product", the AK platform has been around for longer than the AR, used in greater numbers in battle conditions and has not generated the rash of failure reports spanning years. Unfortunately, this is just reality. With so much smoke, there is a fire somewhere.

 

[Trailboss]

The M4 is a very small, yet important, part of the incremental fight. A week long dust storm will reduce the reliability of just about any weapon system...just don't have your all group clean their weapons at the same time.

What ever weapon platform the other guys were using continued to run in spite of a week long dust storm as they killed our guys. Their weapons continued to fire, ours did not. Problem.

Not saying what the solution is, but saying we have a problem. Let's not ignore it if our guys are dying because of it.

 

[Lange22250]

Well spoken and true except for the last line "whenever competitors get a chance they will pile on to try to get another chance at what could be the largest single small arms contract on the planet knowing full well that in a couple of years the same thing will be said about their product", the AK platform has been around for longer than the AR, used in greater numbers in battle conditions and has not generated the rash of failure reports spanning years. Unfortunately, this is just reality. With so much smoke, there is a fire somewhere.

Considering who is using the AK platform do you really consider ANY studies of reliability and durability being generated and even if they are would anyone trust what the dear leader's designate came up with?
Find any moderately complex system handed out to humans as users and you will find failure induced by user misuse and abuse along with mechanical failure. I've watched plenty of people induce malfunction with just about every major battle rifle available in the US but have seen relatively few mechanical failures. Based on the US military tests on the M16/M4 platforms the mechanical reliability is sufficient in an issue rifle so why spend a few billion to move away from the platform when the money would be better spent on training and fixing the military culture surrounding cleaning and maintenance. If I had my way anyone inspecting a weapon with a white glove or swab would be busted back to private.

 

[Trailboss]

I don't believe the AR platform needs to be scrapped, but from numerous reports, from credible sources, it seems that the M4 platform cannot sustain rapid fire without an unacceptably high rate of failure. If this is true, then what are our options?

1. Remove the switch for full auto fire
2. Issue M16 instead of M4 as standard
3. Attempt to locate ammo that produces different results and make this standard issue
4. Redesign the M4
5. Search for an alternative weapon platform

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I would say its mostly due to the reissuing of sub par quality platforms.
Granted the armorers do a level of maintaining QC.. But overused platforms do slip through the cracks.. That and the desert and jungle climates don't play well with the M4 design.. Well any design but tight tolerances aren't helping the situation.

 

[Lange22250]

The M4 does just fine with rapid fire at rates that are compatible with a rifle. It's rated for Semiautomatic - 45 rounds per minute, Burst - 90 rounds per minute, Sustained - 12-15 rounds per minute. Again, it's not a machine gun.

The reported failures you are referring to are to people going into full cyclic mode and dumping mags as fast as they can either in semi or auto mode. The military test which many refer to as proof that the M4 blows up in auto mode emptied magazines as fast as they could be loaded into the rifle which was held in a fixture and even then IIRC the failures were coming after 15-20 mags. Despite what other manufactures claim about their products, nothing will maintain it's barrel integrate at those rates. That's why they design machine guns with "quick change" barrels.

 

[simon99]

I don't believe the AR platform needs to be scrapped, but from numerous reports, from credible sources, it seems that the M4 platform cannot sustain rapid fire without an unacceptably high rate of failure. If this is true, then what are our options?

1. Remove the switch for full auto fire
2. Issue M16 instead of M4 as standard
3. Attempt to locate ammo that produces different results and make this standard issue
4. Redesign the M4
5. Search for an alternative weapon platform

I disagree.

Many confuse the role of an M4 to a M16a1,2, or 4 model. The M4 is a reliable, all purpose weapon, completely fit for short patrols or engagements provided they are maintained. Like anything "all purpose" , it means it has its limitations. You can't compare an M4 to an M16a1.....not even close. This article is an attempt to demonize a weapon system that works just fine. I feel that the majority of failures with an M4 are more of a user issue ( lack of trigger discipline/ cleaning/maintenance) than an actual design flaw. Extended full auto is discouraged, that's why we have guys packing a SAW.

 

[simon99]

I would say its mostly due to the reissuing of sub par quality platforms.
Granted the armorers do a level of maintaining QC.. But overused platforms do slip through the cracks.. That and the desert and jungle climates don't play well with the M4 design.. Well any design but tight tolerances aren't helping the situation.

Probably NG units...ha,ha....couldn't resist!

Semper Fi!

 

[Lange22250]

Probably NG units...ha,ha....couldn't resist!

Semper Fi!

I have met a couple of people who were the designated armorers for their units in the Army who had never been to an armorers school didn't know what I was talking about when I mentioned parts of the M4.

 

[simon99]

I have met a couple of people who were the designated armorers for their units in the Army who had never been to an armorers school didn't know what I was talking about when I mentioned parts of the M4.

Doh!

 

[Lange22250]

No one likes to come out and say that the person behind the rifle is at fault for the failure but spend some time talking to the range officers from any of the branches and they will start telling you the horror stories. There will always be a percentage from any group who will just squeak by, forget everything they learned or just don't care. It's impossible to make a machine that can compensate for that.

 

[Velzey]

Nothing wrong with it if and if it is maintained...

Platform... I stood on a platform every time I paint the house..