The M-4 a POS and Widow Maker?

[ZA_Survivalist]

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

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

I suppose with that logic you call magazines, "clips"?


Calling a firearm a "platform" isnt a neologism, rather a synonym.

However, I can understand the logic in the aversion of the pejorative term: "gun", rather than saying, "rifle" or "pistol" since its non-definitive.

 

[Trailboss]

In re-reading the report and article that started this thread a number of things stand out:

-All of the nine deaths in the attack on Wanat occurred in at the small observation post "TOPSIDE" nestled among rocks under a tree just 50 to 70 meters outside of the main base.

-Some of the deaths were solders attempting to resupply the small observation post.

-The position was defended primarily by United States Army soldiers of the 2nd Platoon, Chosen Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd
Infantry Regiment (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

-All of the rifle failures were attributed to bolt failure, not barrel meltdown.

-A total NATO force of 48 plus 28 Afghanistan troops repelled a larger force estimated to be 100-450 in number.

-The battle lasted approximately 30 minutes.

-Approximately 30 Taliban were killed.

I'm not convinced that the M4 was a good choice for the solders at this forward observation post considering that they were able to be attacked by over whelming numbers (100-450) at the same time. We don't know how many rounds they fired but we do know that the M4 is rated for approximately 1350 rounds of continuous fire before the barrel melts. The barrels did not fail in this attack, rather the bolts did. These men were fighting for their lives and their weapons failed.

 

[simon99]

In re-reading the report and article that started this thread a number of things stand out:

-All of the nine deaths in the attack on Wanat occurred in at the small observation post "TOPSIDE" nestled among rocks under a tree just 50 to 70 meters outside of the main base.

-Some of the deaths were solders attempting to resupply the small observation post.

-The position was defended primarily by United States Army soldiers of the 2nd Platoon, Chosen Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd
Infantry Regiment (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

-All of the rifle failures were attributed to bolt failure, not barrel meltdown.

-A total NATO force of 48 plus 28 Afghanistan troops repelled a larger force estimated to be 100-450 in number.

-The battle lasted approximately 30 minutes.

-Approximately 30 Taliban were killed.

I'm not convinced that the M4 was a good choice for the solders at this forward observation post considering that they were able to be attacked by over whelming numbers (100-450) at the same time. We don't know how many rounds they fired but we do know that the M4 is rated for approximately 1350 rounds of continuous fire before the barrel melts. The barrels did not fail in this attack, rather the bolts did. These men were fighting for their lives and their weapons failed.

Trailboss,

I appreciate your passion for this subject. I mean zero disrespect when I ask this question, but have you ever carried an M4 in a combat situation?
Any combat situation sucks, and sometimes things go horribly wrong. Ask any soldier that served in a combat zone and they'll agree....

 

[Trailboss]

MTpockets, no worries here, your writing is fine and I appreciate you bringing up this topic. I find that I'm quite passionate about our servicemen and women and would do anything in my power to protect them. I completely agree with you about there being other deficiencies that are more probably the primary cause. Thanks for the additional link, I'm interested to read it.

Simon99, I appreciate your passion on the topic as well and no disrespect taken nor intended. I predate the M4's development and so can't speak personally of their reliability in combat. I total agree, combat sucks and is unpredictable. I wish that our leaders had more respect and care for our men and women that are training for and sent into harms way. I wish the tools that our servicemen relied on weren't always made by the lowest bidder.

tb

 

[AMProducts]

I'm not really seeing anything "new" in this "report" it seems to be a lot of the same "that mouse gun and it's little cartridge..." stuff that's been around since the 60's when the AR-15 and it's variant the M16 came into widespread use by the US military.

First, firing any gun on full auto for an extended period is not a problem of design, it's a problem of thermodynamics, the few guns that are capable of extended full automatic fire weigh about 80 lbs and are water-cooled. Yet I havn't seen the same impetus to replace every other air cooled machinegun employed by the US military. There are things that can be done to improve the full automatic facility of guns, such as firing from an open bolt, however this creates other issues, namely FOD problems.

The "killing power" problem of the M-4 platform largely is the result of military bean counters choosing to follow the advice of brain trusts like Gen Scales and introduce a "heavier bullet", again, this is a physics problem, the barrel is only so long, and to use a heavier bullet you sacrifice muzzle velocity. As anyone who has taken high school physics can assert KE = 1/2Mv^2 the heavier M855 bullet (SS109) was introduced with the adoption of the FN-MINIMI aka M249 to "give area effect out to 800 meters" and at the same time, the army did not want to keep inventory of the older M193 ammunition. However the army has essentially stated that M855 ammo, is not to be belted up for use and vice versa, essentially creating two parallel supply chains for their ammunition. The SOST round adopted by the marine corps and the M855A1 (erroniously called 885A1 in the article) really do address at least some of the concerns caused by the M855, they are still what I would consider heavy for caliber bullets. The M193 loading is more than sufficient to hit point targets out to 500 meters, but will be "area effect" out to about 700 meters. It's heavier cousin the 7.62 barely stretches the engagement envelope, having a maximum effective range of about 800 meters on point targets, and area effect out to 1000 (even in the LR118 loading). Both bullets will be quite lethal at these distances. I could not say the same for the M855 loading.

The AK47, which is the dominant firearm of our adversary is area effect out to 500 meters, and is able to hit point targets within 200 meters (and not very well at that), even the AK74 with it's "mousegun caliber" loading at 5.45 was considered acceptable to Gen. Scales, which leads me to conclude he's either hyperbolic, ignorant, or bigoted. Regardless, there are very few MBR cartridges that will swiss cheese a building significantly better than any others. Certainly nothing compares to Cal 50 APIT in this regard.

The above said, what are the actual problems with the M4/A1? First, it was being made by colt, if their civilian manufactured guns is any indication of the build quality of their military firearms I am not surprised the M4 was lampooned by friend and foe alike, after spending a few minutes looking at any colt I can tell that the person who assembled and QC'ed it really didn't give two 5#!7s about the poor bastard who was going to have to carry it, I guess that's what happens when you hire a bunch of new englanders who have never seen guns to work at a company who makes them.

That said, what would improve the M4A1 weapons system?

1) Extend the barrel nut to act as a heat sink
2) Upgrade gas tube from stainless steel to inconel
3) Improve barrel profile
4) upgrade trigger pack to allow weapon to fire from open bolt when in full automatic mode (avoid colt's patent, it's junk) and closed bolt in semi-automatic mode.
4a) trigger pack would not allow FOD into trigger mechanism, regardless of environment
5) Continue Upgrade and Improvement program for ammunition

 

[Certaindeaf]

I wonder how well the 28 Afghani kept up their weapons.. before running away.

 

[Stomper]

I wonder how well the 28 Afghani kept up their weapons.. before running away.

Most likely they were like new... Never been fired, only dropped once.

 

[Lange22250]

I suppose with that logic you call magazines, "clips"?


Calling a firearm a "platform" isnt a neologism, rather a synonym.

However, I can understand the logic in the aversion of the pejorative term: "gun", rather than saying, "rifle" or "pistol" since its non-definitive.

plat·form
ˈplatfôrm/Submit
noun
noun: platform; plural noun: platforms
1.
a raised level surface on which people or things can stand.
"there are viewing platforms where visitors may gape at the chasm"
a raised floor or stage used by public speakers or performers so that they can be seen by their audience.
"earning her living on the concert platform"
synonyms: stage, dais, rostrum, podium, soapbox More
a raised structure along the side of a railroad track where passengers get on and off trains at a station.
a raised structure standing in the sea from which oil or gas wells can be drilled or regulated.
a raised structure or orbiting satellite from which rockets or missiles may be launched.
a standard for the hardware of a computer system, determining what kinds of software it can run.

Widely used in the firearm industry to refer to the AR type rifles as it is adaptable to numerous configurations around the core components. All of the manufactures representatives also refer to the "AR Platform"

 

[Stomper]

You forgot to mention certain styles of shoes from the 70's

 

[clambo]

Ok ok ok......lets call it something else. Weapon system? How about gun? Personally I like gun. It upsets more people here than it even did in the army.

 

[Boats]

My view of the problem is this:

1) no individual rifle was designed to be a LMG, with a high cyclic rate of fire.
2) nonetheless, the m-16/m-4 series is selective fire for those times when suppression is a required tactic.
3) the m-4 is a shortened m-16, not to increase its combat effectiveness, only to make it more handy.
4) in an air cooled select fire rifle, the smaller it is, the more prone it will be to heat related catastrophic failure.
5) the USMC is probably right in using the 20" M16A4, a better all around rifle than the m4 carbine is.

 

[RicInOR]

re: #33

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

 

[RicInOR]

Interesting article
By Tom K
"I'm a retired infantry officer, lieutenant colonel, a recovering attorney, and a science fiction and military fiction writer for Baen Publishing and Castalia House. I'm also a political refugee and defector from the People's Republic of Massachusetts."

http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/05/politics/soldiers-deserve-better-weapons/



Has some background on other development platforms which were tested to replace the M4 / M16

 

[erudne]

I'm a former 45B2H from the 1970's I never saw a broken bolt in the M-16's I serviced. I saw bent barrels, worn extractors and abused uppers but no broken bolts.
PS I have never been a fan of the M-16 family, which was designed to replace the M-1 Carbine and M-3 SMG, it is a toy that goes bang, not a true battle implement like the M-1 Rifle. An upgraded Mini-30 is a superior combat tool.

 

[Certaindeaf]

An AK must be a picture of a toy then.. bangski!

 

[gaijinsamurai]

During Operations Desert Shield/Storm, my M16A2 and those of my fellow Marines were terribly unreliable. We were working 12-16 hour days, non-stop, as Combat Engineers, living in the desert 24/7, experiencing sand storms, heavy rains, and just about every other extreme weather condition (except snow!). We simply did not have the opportunity to get to a clean environment to break them down and properly clean them, and the slightest amount of sand would wreak havoc with the actions.

When I returned in 2000 with the Oregon National Guard, again with M16A2s, we did not get the opportunity to fire them in-country, but had more opportunities to keep them clean.

The M16/M4 system is a fine weapon when "properly" maintained. Unfortunately, the troops who are most likely to have to use them may not always have the required time and conditions for that type of maintenance.

 

[jordanvraptor]

My only addition to this long standing debate is this. I was Infantry in Afghanistan for the Oregon Army National Guard. I was mainly a turret gunner and had my M4 up there as well. It got all kinds of dusty and never failed me. However, just before we came home. We had a chance to go out to the range near Kandahar to burn up the ammo that wasn't going home with us. We chose 5 or 6 M4's to be the designated mag dumping carbines. 3 round burst was used mostly just having fun. After about ten magazines through the carbines, we would begin having failures to extract. We would add CLP in large amounts but would still get the extraction problems while the carbine was still hot. Let it cool off, it's fine till it got hot again.

I'm a gun nut. I have studied this issue before as many others have as well. This is my personal experience. I believe it is a combination of the direct impingement system burning off the lubricant and fouling the bolt carrier group with carbon. This coupled with the heat of full auto fire weakening the extractor spring and the barrel heating which will actually shrink the chamber inward as the metal expands due to heat. Add a little dust and you have the perfect storm to have failure to extract problems. This is my opinion based on education and experience. If the M4 has full auto or burst capability then it should be piston driven because it will be used at the worst possible moment when it can't fail. Semi Auto carbines don't need it IMHO but my Bravo Company M4 has the upgraded extractor...

At the very least, the Army and Marines should get piston driven uppers for their combat units.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

...and the barrel heating which will actually shrink the chamber inward as the metal expands due to heat.

I agree with everything else you've said there, but when a piece of metal is heated, every distinct point on it gets further away from every other point, whether there is a hole trough it or not. This means that the chamber should actually get a bit larger.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

At the very least, the Army and Marines should get piston driven uppers for their combat units.

Makes a great deal of sense to me. For those in no-maintenance and blowing sand environments it's a great idea.

 

[Ironbar]

Everyone has an opinion, but there isn't any such thing as a perfect combat weapon.

Yes there is: