Iraq/Afghan vets, report on the M16/M4.

How did your rifle perform

  • Very well, never had a problem

    Votes: 72 50.3%
  • Good, had some minor issues

    Votes: 54 37.8%
  • Bad, had some big issues

    Votes: 12 8.4%
  • Horrible, it nearly got me killed

    Votes: 5 3.5%

  • Total voters
    143
Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't vote, but here's my experience from my tour in Iraq:

I was never in a firefight, but I did go to the range a couple times. My weapon was fairly clean and functioned without much issue. However, my friends M4 was also clean and his went down a few times at the RANGE! :what: I did personally see two M2 .50 caliber vehicle mounted weapons on one of my patrols entirely fail to function. :what: Completely inoperable!

The sand and grit there requires a religious regiment of cleaning. There is a layer of dust on everything, all of the time! It was nearly impossible to keep anything 'clean.' Therefore it would be imperitive to have a weapon that works in the harshest of circumstances.

I have enough experience with the standard AR15 to know that it would probably not be my go-to weapon of choice in harsh environments, but it depends on a lot of factors. I would probably chose something more reliable.

But there are pluses and minuses. After carrying all of that gear, you definately appreciate how relatively light the weapon and ammo are. Every pound of weight counts and larger calibers require bigger magazines, heavier bullets, and typically heavier guns. Even adding 10 pounds to your gear could be a dealbreaker for those already carrying 50-60-70 lbs for any duration.

I do like the platform of the M4 series, but would like to see more reliability based on the accounts of others. If the pistol uppers work, then I suggest implementing those.
 
I wish to thank all of you veterans for serving, and helping to preserve my freedoms. At 34, that is one thing I wish I had done differently, I wish I had served in the armed forces. I currently serve all of you domestically as a fireman, and I am proud to do so.

I'm new to the military-type weapons world. I cut my teeth on a 1911, and that is my very good friend. I'm own a bushmaster, and I have a flat-top 16" bbl on the way. (drive faster FEDEX!) It seems to me the common concept is they will work well, for long periods, as long as you are very careful about keeping them clean. That is good to know, and thanks for sharing. I can't help but wonder if it is good common sense to ask a military to take a primary weapon into combat that requires constant attention to keep it running. I respect the platform, and even like it. It just seems to be a bit contrary to common sense since hot-zone conditions are not maintenance or repair friendly to anything.

Thanks again to all of you who have served.
 
I delt with the m16a2 from 98 to 02 with 3/5 kilo then went to brc and got and m4 for iraq. I had the same serial number rifle the whole time in 3/5 then a couple diff m4's they were mostly trouble free. my only complaint is penetration of walls in mout situations in theater. accuracy/reliability were grade a.
scott
 
If you have heard me here and on several other gun Forums in the last 10 years, I AM NOT A FAN OF THE AR15/M16-4 FAMILY of weapons for our troops.

I no longer march to the guns. I now fight the VA not the NVA.

I did carry a M14 and was there when the XM-16E1's were issued. Men I knew died and were hurt because of that rifle. I was one of the few of my era that wound up fighting in built up areas or what you guys call MOUT, in Hue. I still had my M14 but most of the guys with me had M15's. The 20 round magazines only handled 15-16 rounds reliably. When I was literally forced to use an M16 I had to carry a pair of slip joint pliers to bend the magazines square, often. Cleaning was never enough.

The M14 was heavy, and could carry about one third less ammo. But it was not as sensitive to dirt/sand/carbon. The cartridge worked very well almost all the time, not every time, but nothing works 100%. A lot higher percentage than the mouse round. And of course it was a fairly accurate rifle too. But most of all it was stone reliable. I don't remember seeing any one stop working and a jam was extremely rare. IN my two 13 month tours my M14 NEVER jammed even when I used it fully automatic which was rare. I kept my M14 very clean and lubed too. Changed my springs etc. regularly on both the M14 and later when the M16 was forced on me too.

The magazines were a major issue 42 years ago. One repeated theme is they still are. How long will it take?

Not enough rifle, again a repeated theme. Need for a more powerful cartridge is no longer a question of why, but when?

All weapons need to be cleaned. Some need it more than others. The Mattey Mattel family need it more than most. Why not choose one that needs less, or at least not more cleaning?

Col. Culver tells our story much better than I can. He has a lot more facts than I do. I was not in the Col's outfit, but our experiences were similar. I was attached to 3rd Herd at the same time he was there but different Battalions and companies.

Part I
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html

Part II
http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html

I have no doubts about you fellows. You guys have done a fine job. Some of us "old timers" bitch about the new troops. I don't. I think you have done as well if not better than we ever could have. Thank you.

God Bless

Fred
 
If veterans can somehow exclude issues of patriotism regarding American-made rifles, would any of you guys now prefer an AK or derivitive to be deployed in places where the dust is like talcum powder etc?

From only a perspective of machine functionality, which type can you bet your life on, if you had to lived in foxholes etc, as in some WW2 campaigns (i.e. the 101st/82nd at Bastogne)?
 
No I wouldn't want an AK over an AR in the conditions I was in, I'll take the increased hit potential and overall effectiveness as an acceptable trade off with increased need for cleaning.
 
I lived in foxholes pretty much my entire first tour during the invasion. Sometimes we would hold up in a house, but most nights it was in the dirt.

Even after we took Baghdad, my company stayed in a farm field behind some berms the engineers made us.

While I do agree the AK is a more robust rifle than the M16/M4, I have seen enough of them malfunction to know they are not the "never jams no matter what" rifle that its sometimes made out to be. Plus the sites suck for anything past 150 yards. The rifle itself is accurate enough for most engagements, but most of my fighting was at ranges over 100 meters and I did engage some insurgents at, map measured, a little over 400 one time.

I really cant think of a rifle I would rather have if I went back than a good M4. But I would load it with a heavier weight round like the M262.
 
Nothing wrong with the magazines nowadays....the problem is they wear out or they get dirty and NO ONE checks them. You wouldn't believe the looks on faces when I pull Marines mags out and inspect them and find cracks and/or dents in the feel lips....or the mag body is full of sand. Mags cost us about $6 ea. but it takes attention to detail to actually look at them and ensure they are serviceable.

I had no trouble in 14 months in Iraq with either of my M4's. One of mine I shot at least once a week for almost the whole time and never cleaned it and ran it "dry". It had about 1,000 rnds a month (maybe more) put through it with one stoppage due to a bad mag. Chucked the bad mag put a new one in and it ran like a top.

If you take care of them they will take care of you. On a side note I saw more AKs than M16s go down one day on the range...so its possible for the mighty AK to have a bad day as well.
 
Infantry basic/AIT in '76, commissioned in '83, still serving in the Infantry. M16A2 in ODS had no problems whatsoever despite eating dust and dirt every day. M16A4 first tour in OIF and M4 second tour in OIF. No problems whatsoever other than some crappy mags, just had to find the good ones and throw away the crappy ones. SLP 2000 is the best for cleaning and lube for everything in the box, and is all I use now on my stuff in the mancave.

Had an Aimpoint on my M4 along with a surefire and PEQ/2a. Aimpoint was OK but I still prefer the EOTech I have on my AR at home. The Aimpoint can give you problems setting the dials and isn't as durable as the EOTech when you are bouncing around in an HMMWV.

Having said all that, I prefer 7.62 x 51mm in an M1A platform or the new HK 417 platform. Best of both worlds!
 
I carried an M4 with M203 underslung. The thing is too heavy. The military does not yet issue a front handle for the M203 and it really needs one. SO I guess most of my complaints revolve around the M203 and not the M4. The M4 performed exactly as expected and there were no issues. It is interesting that more countries are switching to 5.56. All this apocryphal evidence that it is not effective is a bunch of nonsense. Under the right (wrong) set of circumstances any round can prove ineffective.

AKs-

We picked up tons (literally) of AKs and even shot a few of them on the range.

Junk.

I know, I know everyone on this board sings their praises like they are the second coming of JMB but they jammed plenty and and always seemed to have issues. Like any auto rifle if you don't take care of it, it won't work when you need it. Save your mud filled AK video for somebody who hasn't seen thousands of them.

I think saw just about every variant of AK there is on my last tour to include gold, chrome and silver plated ones, shortys and just about every kind of butt stock there is.

Drugunov's we had a few of those. A little better quality and much more accurate than the AK. I would not have minded bringing one home if not for the whole "breaking the law and going to prison thing".

We found lots and lots of other guns including a lot of Stens, Glocks, and dozens of types of handguns made in all the ME nations. Never used any of it on patrol, was always happy with my M4/ 203 and M9.
 
Last edited:
In 15 months I had zero issues. Magazines require attention but with TLC no issues. It performed whenever I needed it to do it's job. For the rest of my Plt members as their PLT SGT I can attest to ZERO NMC issues with M4s or our CCOs M68's not included.
 
It performed whenever I needed it to do it's job. For the rest of my Plt members as their PLT SGT I can attest to ZERO NMC issues with M4s or our CCOs M68's not included.

This is a confusing sentence, for me. What exactly was not included, the CCO's M68's? Please excuse my ignorance but what does "NMC" mean, what is the acronym for.

Thank you.

Fred
 
M16A2, M4A1. No issues. Ever. They run if lubed wet, whether clean or dirty. Clean's better, of course, and I cleaned it, depending on the situation, every day. Constantly wiping dust away from it. Part of what you have to deal with in some conditions, no matter the weapon. Bought a handful of .50 muzzlecovers, and always had one on the rifle.
 
I'm trying to figure out how the heck I can tell an actual veteran from an AR-15 fanatic.

All I know is that Cody H. hasn't been to pleased with his. Until he gets back, I guess I won't know why.
 
Again, I wasn't in the Sandbox in the latest unpleasantness, but I did carry an Romy AK in Somalia. It looked a lot like the first one, barrel up in LongRiflesInc's pic. According to the ToE, as a Radio Operator riding around w/ our PltSgt, I only rated a M9. Thankfully our Armorer liked me and got me the AK, and Mags. I stretched a ChiCom SportsBra to take 2 mags per pocket, and got a rigger to sew the straps so I could carry it around one shoulder.
 
I deployed in April 03 to Iraq just in time for the sand storms. As one of the previous posters stated, a quick wipe down shotgun-break-action style did wonders.

Supply lines were not set up so we used 90 weight gear oil on all our guns. It worked great in the heat. The only problem was that it collected dirt. We had to wipe them down daily anyway.

I still use an M-16 on the civilian side and still trust my life to it. A little PM goes a long way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top