M-4's Jamming in the 'Stan

[Joe Demko]

My, it's amazing how fast you found and read Blount's book. He details failures and problems not only with the Garand but with all kinds of US, Allied, and Axis weapons. I guess if you, personally, are unaware ofit, then it never happened. You have a good day now.

 

[HorseSoldier]

As the period involved, World War II, if the Garand had been subject to the failures you wish to impugn on it. We would have heard of them. That would have been called history.

The M1 Garand had its share of issues. It escaped having its reputation in combat tarnished mainly because its use in ground combat during the war kicked off late enough that they were identified and fixed.

Had we been involved in major ground combat operations in 1939 or even 1941, with troops being issued the Garand, it's possible the Garand would be regarded more like the SVT-38/40 (or possibly even the Vietnam era M16s). The gas system was not entirely perfected until 39 (or was it 40?), and the issue with Garands jamming in heavy rain was not identified and corrected until 1942. Even then it was not a mechanical fix, but just a change in the lubricant used.

There is no history of the Garand jamming in combat and becoming an issue with the troops. Not like the M16/M4.

Perhaps not in World War 2, but there are probably some Korean War veterans who might beg to differ with you when their rifles froze solid due to the lubricant used and they were overrun by the Chinese while trying to break the actions loose.

 

[JShirley]

There is no way NO how your weapon is going to fail you (from dirt/grime) if you brush it off just once in a 24hr period.

I think making issues over the M16 family is kinda pointless, and think in general it has become a fairly effective weapons system.

HOWEVER, it really doesn't seem good form- or logical- to generalize that one's individual experience holds true for everyone. Anecdotes, yes, but since they happened to me, I know they're true:

Item 1: ITB movement range, 2002. My M16A4 gets a small quantity of Georgia sand in the receiver while crawling on the range. It malfunctions repeatedly afterward.

Item 2: Camp Shelby, 2006. My cleaned and lubed M4 begins having serious FTL and FTE malfunctions, to the point of an actual "jam" that will require tools to clear. I call for an RSO, and believe I will have to leave the line.

The RSO pulls out an enormous bottle of CLP, and sprays my weapon until CLP drenches the weapon and runs everywhere (probably about THREE OUNCES OF CLP!!!!!!). I am then able to extract the jammed round, and have no further malfs on the range that day, but am splattered with oil every time I shoot.

The RSO indicates what has just transpired is common. "More CLP", he says. I guess.

Now, my point being, do people with too much free time sit around finding stupid things to carp about? Yes. Does that mean it's a good idea to generalize about what has "never" happened?

Eh?

Now, did I have issues with my M4 malfing in the 'Stan? No, but I only fired my carbine at paper targets. All my fights, I was on a gun system.

Now, for Pete's sake, can we stop quoting articles from Stategy Page? Wikipedia's not a reliable source, and it's still a million times more accurate.

 

[MrAcheson]

And lastly the problem with the M16/M4 is the principle to which 5.56 ammo is based, "wound one guy so two others have to help him" the current insurgents we are dealing with could care less about a wounded buddy and would just keep fighting.

You know, I've heard that bit about wounding a lot. But I do weapons analysis for the Army and I've never heard it from someone who actually did any sort of small arms analysis. In fact, Army analysis doesn't even include those sorts of mechanics. So I'm calling BS.

From my work, it seems like the soldiers are pretty satisfied with the M4/M16. It does its job if you do yours and doesn't seem to malfunction more than anything else. When they talk about improvements they generally give you a list of their 12 impossible things before breakfast. I want gun that fires bigger deadlier bullets, but is smaller, lighter, has the same magazine capacity, and doesn't recoil any more. They rarely mention accuracy, range, or reliability in their list of improvements. They say the same stuff about the M9 too.

One the other hand a lot of people really hate the SAW. At the beginning of the war, they were literally falling apart in combat. I've seen pictures of guns held together with 100 mile an hour tape and zip-ties. I think we've refurbished or replaced a lot of SAWs, so the complaints have dropped, but I doubt anyone would miss it if we switched to a competing system.

 

[GunTech]

Roswell 1847

The Garand also has a problem with the bolt seizing when very wet, also addressed by lube. But that was only meant to be a temporary fix. The long term fixed planned was to have a roller lug, a feature incorporated on the M15, and meant for the Garand had the war lasted longer.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

So I'm calling BS

I just started a caliber war didn't I

Well I just keep hearing this over and over from reputable firearms experts at that so someone needs to go on TV and prove or disprove it.

Nobody hit me up on the youtube test either.

 

[Slamfire]

Whatever dude. that's why the DOD is paying $2000 less for each M240 than they were 20 years ago.

an M16A4 is under $400. doesn't sound like maximum cash flow to me.

On the first one, I don't know. One the second, I don't know the total contract cost so I don't know about that number. For how long as Colt had the M16 contract? There was a one time period FN won the bid, but since then, it has been Colt all the way.

At the time, (pre 86) an ordnance friend was telling me of his total disgust with the situation. He knew the Colt Government contract prices were 25% higher (or more) than what you could buy a full auto Colt from a dealer. FN apparently tossed in a bid number at the last moment, which was still above dealer price, and Won!. Surprised them, and surprised Colt.

But, why did the Army give Colt a monopoly of supply on the M4's? I recall reading in the Bushmaster lawsuit a section that describes how the Army gave Colt sole source on the M4. I do not remember when that period ends, but it is somewhere around 2010.

When a contractor is given sole source the profits really accumulate.

 

[Slamfire]

Kind of like when Colt was blamed for problems in the AR and Colt blamed the ammo? The culprit there was a government decision to change the ammuntion the system was designed for so that 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammunition would have the same powder.

Contractors aren't perfect but they aren't always lying.

You have forgotten that the AR system was sold as “fully” developed (and self cleaning!). Once Colt got the Army a little "pregnant" with the AR, the Army was stuck with it. My recollection, from the Book “The Black Rifle”, the propellant that Colt used became unavailable. And the powder requirements, derived from the operating characteristics of the Colt weapon system, were such that powder manufacturers refused to bid on the contract. Apparently the AR required powder to be held to tolerances greater than state of the art.

There is a section in the book on this. The Army was either going to issue water ballons to the troops, or give the ammunition manufacturers the relaxation in requirements they wanted. The relaxation in the powder requirements did cause jams. And the Army got the blame for it.

For a Contractor, it is still, all about the profits.

 

[HorseSoldier]

On the first one, I don't know. One the second, I don't know the total contract cost so I don't know about that number. For how long as Colt had the M16 contract? There was a one time period FN won the bid, but since then, it has been Colt all the way.

You're mistaken. Colt lost the M16 contract and did not get it back. FN is still making full-sized M16s.

Colt apparently got tossed the M4 contract as a consolation prize. At the time they got it, it was not the major weapon system it is today. Colt has basically gotten lucky that the GWOT has led to massively increased issue of the M4.

My recollection, from the Book “The Black Rifle”, the propellant that Colt used became unavailable.

The Army opted to change it to have commonality with other small arms calibers and big picture economy-of-scale kind of reasons.

Apparently the AR required powder to be held to tolerances greater than state of the art.

Worked fine with the original powder, which was commercially available in bulk and so not what I'd call surpassing the state of the art.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

But, why did the Army give Colt a monopoly of supply on the M4's? I recall reading in the Bushmaster lawsuit a section that describes how the Army gave Colt sole source on the M4. I do not remember when that period ends, but it is somewhere around 2010.

Colt won a sole source contract on the M4 because the Army improperly released the TDP that Colt had developed for the M4 to other manufacturers. The Army claimed that it was covered under the deal for the M16 TDP which had expired. Colt argued this was a new product and the Army had breached terms of the agreement. Colt won. As part of the settlement agreement, the Army agreed to a sole source contract for the M4.

To the best of my knowledge, FN has had the main contract for M16s for some time now. This was one of the reasons Colt fought so hard on the M4 TDP issue.

 

[Oohrah]

Been off this thread for a few days, but Fred (Chieftain) totally bond with
your thoughts. Trained with WW2 and Korea weapons with a new issue
Garand in June of 58. M 14s were sighted on the trip over and M16s were
the replacement of the day! Like you, don't have a dog in THIS fight, with
some loving the new modification rifle, and some still wouldn't bet the farm
on it. Everyone needs to read the Culver's Shooting Page that you submitted
with response #101 of this thread. My rememberance of 62 to 65 also. I
would have a hard time to develop trust in this system even thought I bought
the latest Bushy LEO version recently because I could. Would still choose a
30 caliber for a go for it!
Pony Soldier, don't really care what your beliefs are, you are entitled to them
Those four ARs had shooters who were being instructed with, minimal training.
Two separate families, that one had a straight from the factory Bushys (2)
and the other family, both ARs were builds. I really think that extreame wet
was the problem no matter who was running the rifles. Never studied the
causes, but at least one appeared on the edge of slam fires. Primers backed
out some what to one leaving the primer pocket. Tapper taken out of
the case body indicating it fired before fully chambered. Failures to feed
and extract. Chamber cleaning and a bolt wipe down restored them for
awhile. Total cleaning and firing without the wet, pretty well restored the
running at a latter date. I don't think experience was an option under
the circumstances. THEY DO NOT LIKE WET and probably powder build ups.
I'm sure that wear could also maybe a factor in the love/hate, work and fail.
No clue other than having those you know loose life due any kind a weapon
failure causes one to look at things suspect.