| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
Disturbing and disgusting. The M16 should have gone the way of the dinosaur years ago. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091011/D9B8SUPO0 .html | ||
| Bishopjb1124 |
Poor weapons maintenance is the main reason for the weapons failure. I used and abused my weapon in Afghanistan and never did it fail. You look at 99% of weapons failure and they are filthy, yes it sucks these service members lost their lives, but the M16 and all variants are a proven weapon system since Vietnam. I have worked with numerous Army units and thier (not all of them) state of weapons maintenance is piss poor at best. I am not going to turn this into a my service is better than your service but me and my Marines have never had an issue utilizing the M16, when it comes to priorities my boys know that it is weapon, gear and then self for maintenance. If that weapon fails them then situations like this story happen. Jimmy | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Amen Jimmy. Here are a few of my "words to live by" for any serviceman and many civilians:} GOD GAVE YOU A SOUL. YOUR PARENTS A BODY. YOUR COUNTRY A RIFLE. KEEP THEM ALL CLEAN. | ||
| Jstfrfun |
+1 on the clean M16. When I was in service the rule was "clean after use", it is a sensitive but high performance weapon, "protect your weapon, and it will protect you". | ||
| Oddball |
Some of the description in that article sounds like they were practically melting those rifles down . If they had the barrels glowing as much as claimed the poor gas tubes could have ruptured. Looks like it's even claimed they burned up a M249. Guess no spare barrels or time to change them? If all that is correct they were in it deep and exceeded the capabilities of the weapons. I think I saw one of the fathers on the news complaining about it the other day. Their eye in the sky was pulled for another mission and when it hit the fan it took a while for close air to arrive. It also appeared like their forward base was in a valley with mountains all around them. Sounds almost Dien Bien Phu. | ||
| Slaughter |
Yeah - I was reading like a dozen mags at full auto in defending their position. The gas tube venting into the upper receiver can truly gunk it a bit but the SOB is about melting by the time that 360 rounds have gone down range. NO WEAPON is immune to failure and yeah, there will be investigations into this in after-action reviews but it's too easy to just blame the hardware. FAWCK - they were being over-run and overwhelmed. Doubt very much that there was any time to let the weapons cool. | ||
| Brumbear |
The old M16 we used were ok but they did jam alot but were usually just a remidial clear and ok I always liked the M14 that was a serious weapon heavybut I would take it over an M16 never had an M 4 though I was a 203 guy most of the time anyway | ||
| Spank |
One of my good friends is over in Afghanistan as we speak. When he was home for the birth of his son he had told me about the issues with the M4. I just found this quite ironic...horrible, but ironic. | ||
| Rainman |
My brother is there now, 53, retired LE now three months past his scheduled retirement from the Navy Reserve and attached to the 82nd Airborne. He's a crack shot, trained police sniper, etc, even had a street combat kill as a beat cop, but I worry. This just makes me worry more. | ||
| Fast1075 |
Sounds to be like they just melted them down...no air cooled weapon can be fired nonstop at that kind of cyclic rate without eventually giving up.. | ||
| Just_ziptab |
Hmmm.........."spray and pray".Not real good tactics.....but if that is all you can do at the time before you get support,that's what you have to do I guess. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Sorry guys, I can't agree with you all on the weapons maint or otherwise. There have been better weapons developed and proven. The military just doesn't want to spend the money. I find it piss poor that when we have much better weapons than the gas powered M16/M4 that we continue to use them. It'd time to put the Vietnam stuff to rest. | ||
| Aesquire |
The military just doesn't want to spend the money. Not sure whether to agree or not on that one. It would be cheaper to buy Ak-47's, right? Except that it uses ammo we don't stock. It would cost a bit more than a fortune to change calibers. So, you can bitch about the cartridge, or the rifle. The M-4 gives up ballistics & some reliability to be shorter & easier to use in tight spaces. It is not clear to me that the rifle itself is the issue here. If you started off the battle with a good working rifle, it probably doesn't matter which system is in use until you clean it later. Go to one of the many carbines that are nearly identical, except for having a piston instead of a gas tube, Red hot barrels would cook off no matter what's under the hand guard. Since we went to the .223, people have bitched about it's lack of penetration, ( very justified ) stopping power ( depending on bullet, justified ) and praised it for accuracy, ( blame that on the m-16, the Ak sprays ) it certainly weighs less than the old ( 1900-1960's 30-06 variant ) guns & ammo. | ||
| Nik |
} Not sure whether to agree or not on that one. It would be cheaper to buy Ak-47's, right? Except that it uses ammo we don't stock. It would cost a bit more than a fortune to change calibers. There are AK type rifles available off the shelf chambered in 5.56 and 7.62 Nato (and 12GA...  ) from the original Russian factory. There's plenty of reasons not to switch to an AK, but ammo isn't one of them.  | ||
| Oddball |
Not enough detail to say it was spray and pray ziptab. But well out numbered with the indians on the high ground they may have fought like hell for some fire superiority. Not a time or place to be short of air support. | ||
| Just_ziptab |
Not a time or place to be short of air support. Exactly! | ||
| Cityxslicker |
the only thing I really want pray and spray from is the AC130 or the A10, everything else should be well placed, well fired shots. especially if you dont know when the hell you are getting resupplied And shiat comes to shove, I will pick up that AK and run through all the rounds left in the magazine after johnny jihad gets a couple centered on him. The M-4 chambered with 308 is a nice sweet alternative with some nice stopping power, but I only had range time on that one. | ||
| Xb9er |
AK's are not accurate. The M16/4 is very accurate. Just ask the ISF. | ||
| Jelomadnes |
At this stage of the game(story), I wouldn't be questioning the reliability of the weapon systems the troops were using. I would be more inclined to investigate the leadership on the ground, as well as the reporting of this story. I'm seeing alot of holes here. A 44 yr old SSG? Either this guy sucks at his job, or it's a guard or reserve type unit, and more probable, support unit of some sort, not combat arms. Nope, I want to know more before trash talking a proven weapon like the 16 or 249. | ||
| Court |
Seems like the United States of America could do better. . . . if this claim is based in fact. | ||
| Xb9er |
I used to hear "HEY NCO'S MAKE SURE YOUR DOING PCC'S AND PCI'S" | ||
| Dfishman |
Instead of messing with the Olympics Committee,Obama should have give our comanders what they asked for.Our men would have been protected & the war would have a chance of ending sooner. | ||
| Jlnance |
I want to know more before trash talking a proven weapon like the 16 The M16 has always been a controversial weapon hasn't it? I know soldiers in Viet Nam complained that it jammed frequently, and would sometimes use captured AK-47s instead. Of course it's been updated since Viet Nam, but I don't think it has the same reputation for indestructibility as the AK-47 has. | ||
| Brumbear |
Looks like today's military might agree with me to some level  | ||
| Patrickmitchell |
Guys don't believe everything that you read. I spent four years in First Marines, and the three subsequent years as an instructor at the School or Infantry; all after my own training as an infantry officer. I've also served as a Battalion ordnance officer (this gives you access to service and maintenance records). Weapons require maintenance and can not be used beyond their limits. The M16 A2 (and the M4) are great rifles, particularly when compared to their Soviet Bloc counter parts. The M249 SAW is a great weapon as well, but does need to be clean and well lubed to work. There is no question that US weapons systems require more maintenance. The up side is accuracy and range. Our stuff is designed to be used by well trained and well disciplined troops. The AKs are designed to be used by anyone. I've taken a complete Soviet Bloc weapons course. I've fired everything from small caliber pistols through heavy crew served weapons. I can say, without hesitation, that US weapons are superior. Unfortunately, bad things happen in fire fights. That does not mean that the gear is bad or caused someones death. | ||
| Aesquire |
Early m16's were sent to the field without cleaning kits, and no way to push the bolt forward in case the chamber was dirty. The Army went from a clean burning powder, as designed, to a dirty powder that had a different burn rate, so the M16 got dirty fast & ran funky. ( think wrong octane, cheap surplus gas ) I don't remember when they fixed the powder issue. The "can't chamber a round in my dirty rifle issue" was "corrected" by adding a forward assist. ( the bolt handle is, IMHO the only real stupid part of the AR family. too complicated & lets hot gas hit you in the face. ) By the time the M-16m2 came around, it's pretty darn reliable, but still has flaws. It is, especially when you free float the barrel, damned accurate. ( and you can do that with aftermarket parts & still look stock. See national match handguards in you toy catalog. Or put on a freefloat rail handguard, and bolt on everything up to a cup holder ) The AK-series is usually not that accurate, but it is not a main battle rifle, ( nor is the m-16 ) but an actual assault rifle designed for urban & mounted combat. Slow motion films of both show the M-16 recoiling in straight lines, steady & stiff, while the AK47 wriggles like a whipping hose, spraying bullets in a pattern, not a group. We'll be due a new rifle soon, but most committees keep trying to add a supercomputer, guided missile launcher, and other buck rogers parts on until you can't carry the darn thing or the batteries needed to power it. But, if I was looking, I'd look at the new Ruger. | ||
| Bishopjb1124 |
Trust me air support would have helped immensely but I do not agree with the A10. Lest we as Marines forget what happened in Iraq thanks to them. The A10 is a pretty good CAS platform but they tend to be cowboys and not listen to their FAC/JTAC on the ground. The commanders need to realize what supporting arms bring to the fight and stop restricting their use, we are at war and yes we need to reduce collateral damage a much as possible. We spend thousands of dollars and time training FACs/JTACs and then tie their hands when it comes time to use them. | ||
| P_squared |
…when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur. This has been tested, repeatedly. It’s a true statement. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute. This is possible (3 round burst for M16/M4, full auto for SAW - guess the writer isn't aware of the difference?). When you are using the maximum rate of fire for extended periods, instead of the sustained rate of fire, you can get into trouble after a while. Tap, rack bang boys. …fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon. If that statement is true, then there is something wrong with that SAW. I’ve repeatedly put thousands of rounds through at a time with no issues on that system. Only problems I’ve ever had with it is the boxes falling off or the belt getting kinked. It sounds to me, after reading that article, that it was a sustained FPF rate of fire, putting as much lead downrange as possible, as long as possible. I’ve also heard just about every complaint there is against the M-16/A2, M4, and SAW. Ranging from the bullet is too small, they’re prone to jam, gas tubes rupture, carbon buildup, etc., etc. The reality is that yes, these weapons are more susceptible to being negatively impacted by improper cleaning & maintenance. If you keep it clean & in working order, it works though. If you try firing an FPF rate of fire for 30+ minutes though, you’re asking a whole heck of a lot out of that system, and I’m not aware of any systems available in a large enough quantity to meet a demand like that. That includes AK’s. As for the bullet itself, it doesn’t have the knockdown of a .308/7.62 NATO, true. Still doesn’t mean I want to be on the receiving end of it though. It’s still a lethal round in the right hands. Folks always bring up the weapon system(s) of the SOC/SOG operators as a “replacement” for the line units. The system(s) are different because the requirements are different. A SCAR isn’t the “silver bullet” to all of the “woes” of the M16/M4 though. You have to maintain & clean it just the same for it to work. The difference is in the capabilities it brings to the users (different upper receivers, accessories, etc.) which aren’t supportable at a line unit level. So what does that leave us with? Either design a new weapons system that continues to use the 5.56, because replacing the ammo is more expensive than replacing the weapon, or design an entirely new system from the ground up, including ammo. After that’s done, then it’s time to test them. I’ve heard folks bitch that the testing at Aberdeen isn’t sufficient, done correctly, meet the needs, etc. If that’s the case, then what commander in the field wants to be the guinea pig? I know I sure as hell wouldn’t. I’m all for putting better weapons in the hands of our warfighters. The problem is that there isn’t a “better weapon” that meets all the needs/requirements currently available in a quantity needed. The real problem here was a lack of supporting combined arms. Air & Artillery are your friends. If they’re not available when you need them, then you’re already up the creek without a paddle. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I was out playing on Saturday... Only two guns with me didn't misfire. The .22 revolver (sold by an auto parts store to great grandpa) and the 7.62x25 CZ 52 (Chech standard carry from the 50's, available for $129 with two magazines in the surplus market). The 10/22 and the 1911 both jammed at least once, as did the short barrel 1944 Mosin Nagant bolt action (that bolt was probably machined with a ball peen hammer). Though in fairness, the CZ 52 hasn't had very many rounds through it, while the 1911 has sent many thousands down range... the barrell / spring / bushing are probably all beyond their intended service life. Likewise the 10/22, that thing has probably put 10,000+ rounds down range, and when cleaning it I found a burr that needed filing down that I think was causing the problem. I'm glad the most threatening thing I was facing was a 2 liter bottle of grape soda, which my 9 year old turned into a purple sphere from 25 yards with his 3rd shot from a 1911.  | ||
| Cityxslicker |
We should let the Russians have it back, now that we are not supporting the rebels with stingers, I am sure they are itching to get the Hinds in the air and get their fly boys some trigger time. (I wonder how many of those Mi-24s are left airworthy) We can go in for clean up and divide the country up when we are done. Hell use the left over bricks from the Berlin wall to build a fence. |
