M-16 performance in Iraq/Afganistan ?

[Blackhawk 6]

How often is the forward assist used?

Honestly, it is dependant upon the individual. The Army teaches its use as part of malfuction clearance and that is probably when the majority of soldiers use it. I know some highly competent shooters who never touch it and others who hit it every time they manually chamber a round.

Blackhawk6, I take it that you are not a believer of M193/M855's fragmentation performance?

I have seen pictures of the gelatin blocks that have been shot and read what the experts have to say. I understand the principle and it makes sense. Never having had the opportunity to autopsy anyone I have shot, I'll take their word for it. However, the people I have spoken with regarding M-855 failures tell me it occurred most often at short range. My personal observation was that M-855 did well at ranges 200 meters and beyond. This would seem to contradict the "terminal performance is a function of fragmentation is a function of velocity" theory. If I have time I will try and dig up some accounts.

In the end, I will readily admit I am not the "go to" guy on the subject. I tend to be fairly ignorant when it comes to technical things. I am more interested that there is a picture when I turn on the TV and less interested in how it gets there.

 

[Med 10]

This thread is a good read, lots of logical and well thought out responses. I would like to add that it is possible to get good accuracy out of an AK. My VEPR K is very close to my m-4 in terms of accuracy. I have heard others say that a few of the higher end AK's have good accuracy as well.

FWIW I think the M-4 does a good job of covering all the bases. Not superb at one particular thing, but okay at many. I think the M-4 is ideal for the type of urban combat in Iraq but if I were in the mountains of Afghanistan I would probably want an M-14, but then theres the weight issue. there is really no perfect rifle for everything.

Carry on gents.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

DMK,

As promised. I hope the link works. More to follow as time allows.

http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/article.cfm?Id=1167

“When I shoot somebody who is not behind a wall, that is not wearing body armor, I expect them to go down. I do not expect the penetrators to go right through,†Schultz said. “It happened on numerous occasions. I can tell you from my own experience, if you shoot it from 150-200 meters, it works great. Anything within 50 meters, that fast round did not work.â€

 

[BeLikeTrey]

Tolerances?

From what I understood is....

If you have a pretty accurate rifle the tolerances are quite tight, thus if something gets in the action it is quite a bit more likely to jam. If you make a greater tolerance in your rifle, the accuracy suffers, but you can "throw it in the mud and stomp on it". this is the way it was explained to me. my .02$ (borrowed from another )

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Remember, before a round can fragment it first has to yaw and begin to turn sideways. If the round does not yaw while it is still inside the target there will be no fragmentation.

IIRC, In M193, up to 15% of rounds can take longer than 6" to yaw or even exit the target entirely. Some of the Sierra heavy match rounds that show good fragmentation also show no yaw in up to 7" of gelatin. On an unobstructed frontal shot, the chances are real good that this round would exit an enemy before it ever yawed.

With M855 (SS109), all the same caveats apply with the additional one of bullet construction. Because bullet construction is more complex (penetrator, lead core, jacket) and military specifications allow latitude in construction as long as it meets accuracy and reliability targets, you can have two different lots of M855 with entirely different terminal ballistics. If the jacket is thick enough, M855 may not fragment at all. Likewise, I've also seen M855 that fragmented at 1,900fps like M193 did at 2,500fps.

 

[MrMurphy]

Shooting from the prone with the sights, an AK can hit a man sized target in the chest all day long at 100-200-250 meters without much problem.

Considering the tactics shown by the Iraqi insurgents, being similar to the Palestinians (point, hose, dive for cover) I'm not surprised at their lack of accuracy. It is not, however, the fault of the rifle. It's not quite as accurate as the M16, but it's not completely inaccurate.


While not an infantryman or even in the service, i ran through Basic for ROTC and treated my M16A2 like crap. Dunked in mud, half submerged underwater going under barbed wire (the pit filled up with water....... Kentucky rains a lot), shot a lot, ground into the sand diving for cover, etc etc etc..... not nice clean range conditions.

Aside from shooting blanks (where the lack of power makes it fail to function a lot) I never had a jam. One time a empty bounced back into the action, took about 2 seconds to clear, I didn't count that. With live ammo, it was totally reliable with proper cleaning, and keeping the ejection port cover closed when not firing. This pretty much matches my dad's experience (who DOES have a lot of combat time, with all of the M16s).

 

[AhmuqGB]

How often is the forward assist used?

I am on the side of using it every time I manually chamber a round. It isn't really necessary, but I would hate to have the weapon fail to fire just because I failed to do something like tap the forward assist.

 

[AhmuqGB]

Here is the account of A 5th group operator that kind of demonstrates the weakness of 855 at closer ranges. As you can see by the account there are some shortcomings at closer ranges. Just to be clear though that's the ammunition and not the rifle.


Pryor first encountered an enemy that was charging out of the room and assisted in eliminating him. Then, without hesitation, Pryor moved ahead into the room and found himself alone with three more enemy soldiers.

According to Pryor, the next two enemies he saw were firing their weapons out of the back of the room at his men that were still outside the compound.

"I went in, and there were some windows that they were trying to get their guns out of to shoot at our guys that hadn't caught up yet," he said. "So I went from left to right, indexed down and shot those guys up. I realized that I was well into halfway through my magazine, so I started to change magazines. Then I felt something behind me, and thought it was (one of my teammates) - that's when things started going downhill."

Pryor said it was an enemy soldier, a larger-than-normal Afghan, who had snuck up on him.

"There was a guy back behind me, and he whopped me on the shoulder with something, and crumpled me down."

Pryor would later learn that he had sustained a broken clavicle and a dislocated shoulder during the attack.

"Then he jumped up on my back, broke my night-vision goggles off and starting getting his fingers in my eyeballs. I pulled him over, and when I hit down on the ground, it popped my shoulder back in."

Pryor said that after he stood up, he was face to face with his attacker. Pryor eliminated the man during their hand-to-hand struggle.

Pryor had now put down all four enemies, but the fight wasn't over yet.

"I was trying to feel around in the dark for my night-vision goggles, and that's when the guys I'd already killed decided that they weren't dead yet."

Pryor said that it was then a race to see who could get their weapons up first, and the enemy soldiers lost. He then left the room and rejoined the firefight outside. When the battle ended, 21 enemy soldiers had been killed. There were no American causalities, and Pryor had been the only soldier injured.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=1689

www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=1689

 

[Cosmoline]

Ten to twenty minuntes per day is all it takes.

I don't doubt that at all. But I still find this a per se defect. The AK-47, after all, needs to have twenty minutes of cleaning per month, if even that.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

You and I have differing opinions of what qualifies as a defect. The notion of a "maintenance free" weapon is nice, but I would still be maintain it. If I am going to trust my life to it, I am going to take care of it. That it takes 20 minutes out of my day is a small price to pay for that piece of mind.

 

[AhmuqGB]

I don't doubt that at all. But I still find this a per se defect. The AK-47, after all, needs to have twenty minutes of cleaning per month, if even that.

Cosmoline,
If you only spend 20 min a month cleaning your AK-47 I can guarantee it will fail you when you need it most, Murphy has a way of jumping into your decision cycle that way. Yes, the AK-47 is more rugged than the M-4 in terms of taking abuse, and if all you care about is a weapon that you can abuse, by all means use an AK. I've used both and can say without a doubt that all things being equal you will get a better shot group at range with an M-4. I can also say that I've seen AK-47s that were maintained to the 20min per month standards in the desert(actually they were cleaned more often that that) and the AK-47s had serious performance issues(6-10 failed to fire for various reasons). All machines need maintenance you can't consider an inherent trait as a defect. As for picking weapons by which can take the most abuse, I pick my weapons like I choose my women, not by which can take the most abuse, but by which can get the job done best Ultimately though it does boil down to shooter preference and what you want/need the weapon to do

 

[Cosmoline]

I haven't cleaned my SAR-1 in many months, and it's working fine after a good thousand rounds through it. But you're right that combat conditions in the desert require more care. Still, half an hour PER DAY is clearly excessive. You don't need to put anything like that kind of time into an AK platform. Put simply, most of the crud is blown right out of the action. Nor do you need to knock the magazine on the side of your head to ensure it will function.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Cosmoline,

In the interest of exchanging points of view, I offer this for your consideration. How do you know that if you were to pull the trigger on your SAR-1 it will fire? How do you know that the very last round that you fired on your last outing to the range did not cause something to come loose, or break a pin or spring? How do you know that after firing thousands of rounds over the past several monthes your weapon has finally become fouled to the extent that it will malfunction? The answer to all of these questions is you don't.

For you, if one of these things had happened it is an inconvenience at worst. A couple of hours of range time lost. For me it may mean my life or the life of a fellow Soldier. The ten or twenty minutes a day I spent on maintaining my rifle had nothing to do with the fact that my rifle was an M-4. It had to do with the fact that I NEEDED it to funtion when I pulled the trigger. I would have done it with an AK-47. I will do it with an M-8. It is the responsible thing to do.

In my line of work, you can do everything right and still get killed. There is no reason not to try and stack the odds in your favor. That twenty-minute nap you blow off maintenance for could earn you a permanent one.

 

[OEF_VET]

That twenty-minute nap you blow off maintenance for could earn you a permanent one.

Hear, Hear! Very well said Blackhawk6.

 

[MrMurphy]

Yeah....... Murphy's Laws of Combat..... "Anything you can do in combat, including nothing, can get you killed"

Stack the odds in your favor. If I was in daily combat or possible (in country, etc) I sure as heck would be spending at least 15 minutes a day to double check my weapon. Regardless of type, AK, Uzi, M4, M16, period.

 

[Cosmoline]

Your points are well taken. However, it seems to me the zero margin for error you face makes it all the more critical to have a weapon which does not need that much care and feeding. Maybe you'd do it anyone, but then again maybe you'd be unable to break down your firearm for days or weeks. Frankly I'd prefer it if our troops were armed with firearms which had as low a failure rate as possible, cleaned or filthy.

 

[DMK]

Thanks for the link Blackhawk6.

It apears to me that if you take it in context, the gentleman in quote you refer to is speaking of M855 fired out of an M249 SAW interestingly enough. Not that should make a lot of difference, just thought it was interesting.

While I have never had to fire a weapon in anger and my only reference to ammo performance is shooting into water or playdough on a nice, peaceful afternoon, I've never been a big fan of M855. I still don't understand how ammo with a steel penetrator core should be expected to make a good anti-personnel round. It seems to me that this round was designed to be a Jack of all trades and masters none.

 

[Das Pferd]

When reading the book Blackhawk Down, the author notes a few complaints of the troops. One that stood out is exactly what the soldier described above, the rounds pass through the BG and dont do as much damage as they shood. The BG is still able to fight without being hit multiple times.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Cosmoline,

I would agree if reliability was the only factor to be considered. It's obvious you prefer the AK. That's fine, it's a good rifle.

DMK,

AhmugGB posted the story of the 5th Group operator I was thinking of.

 

[444]

Not trying to ruffle any feathers, but I bring this up in every thread like this I read:
"Is it more prone to dirt and feeding problems then the enemies weapon? The AK/SKS action design doesn't seem to have these problems. "
"The AK-47, after all, needs to have twenty minutes of cleaning per month, if even that."

What is this based on ? How do we know how our enemies weapons are maintained ? How do we know how often an Iraqi soldier or a terrorist clean their weapons ? How do we know how often they have a stoppage ? Or...............are these statements based on stuff we have read over and over again on the internet or based on use at a civilian range ?
In every one of these threads I see the reliablility of the M16 disected from every angle. Every cleaning schedule, every lube, number of rounds fired, M4 vs M16A2............................... People demand every detail.
Then someone says the AK is more reliable and no one asks for any of the details.
I AM ASKING FOR DETAILS.
Where did you get this information ?



I realize that there certainly are people who possess this information. I realize there are people on this board that have actually carried an AK in combat and many more that have faced an AK in combat. But most of the time, I don't get the impression they are the same ones making these kind of statements.
It seems that the people that have been there and done it, advocate never finding out just how dirty you can get it.

 

[Joe Demko]

444 makes an excellent point, and one which we have discussed at some length in other threads. After action reports are available on the M-16 series, likewise test data, and so forth. Darned little except anecdotes and buddy stories seems to be available on the AK series. Despite that, I've read posts on this very board making flat statments that the Iraqis/Afghanis aren't having any trouble with their weapons.
Seems to me that it would be a good idea to have something other than buddy stories on which to base statements of relative worth.

 

[Teufelhunden]

I do not expect the penetrators to go right through,†Schultz said.

Admittedly I'm taking this quote out of context, but am I reading that Mr.Schultz is surprised that a round classified as a 'penetrator' is penetrating?

The one thing you never seem to hear about is when folks are glad for the light cover penetrating capabilities of the M855. Sure, it might zip though some folks that you might then have to address again, but you can also nullify the advantage of whatever pushcart or fruitstand they're hiding behind provides.

-Teuf

 

[mattf7184]

Well, most operators I see over there are using 5.56 ARs....must be a reason.

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm

Nothing like an AR/AK debate lol

 

[goalie]

I don't doubt that at all. But I still find this a per se defect. The AK-47, after all, needs to have twenty minutes of cleaning per month, if even that.

The guys I ran into in '91 that had those reliable AKs were not too thrilled with our accurate (and reliable due to good weapons maintenance) M16A2s that could actually hit at 4-500 yards.

Then again, I was never fighting in an urban setting, thank God.


It isn't the arrow...............

 

[AhmuqGB]

Then someone says the AK is more reliable and no one asks for any of the details.
I AM ASKING FOR DETAILS.
Where did you get this information ?
.

444,
I've used a chinese AK-47 and russian a AKSU in combat and I've seen AK74s and 47s used maintained and yes even fail in combat. I agree that we hear a lot about the M-4 and it's maintenance "issues", and how the AK-47 can be dropped in mud and picked up and fired etc. I've seen AK 47s that were cleaned about once a mnth maybe twice and they had severe performance issues. I don't think we need to break it down to which weapon can go longer without maintenance though. I will submit this generalization from my experiences for the masses. Of the M-4s and AKs I've used, The weapons that were maintained regularly(read wiped down), none of them had performance issues. Of the weapons I've seen used that were not, M-4s AND AKs they had more performance issues. That may be an over simplification, but it is the only reliable trend I've seen on their performance.