M-4's Jamming in the 'Stan

[chieftain]

Soliders wrote letters complaining about their rifles? No way!

Considering I'm a "user" of the said weapon over here in Iraq why am I not complaining? Probably because it's not an issue? While you are home on the internet arguing about how well my weapon works or "doesn't" work why don't you listen to the servicemen(women) who are over here AND USING THEM with no issues.

I only had one weapon malf in my tour. The selector switch on m M4 broke as I was clearing a house. I cursed the M4 for all it was worth for a long time and started carrying that big, heavy, cumbersome M21 and leaving the M4 locked up. Bottom line is that the M21 just wasn't versatile enough. I realized that a malf can occur in any design and carried a new M4 for the next 7 months without another problem. I kept my weapon as clean as humanly possible. Guys who didn't clean theirs had jams. It was a pretty straight forward observation.

FACTS, THE ANTIDOTE FOR THE INTERNET.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/#more

Above is a very good article on the whole controversy. Unlike some folks here, some troops did have problems.

Hey Chief, They had problems before and after chrome in Nam.
Like fine sand, they hate damp.

I am not going to argue the Vietnam issue here. If you want some FACTS about what we went through with the M16’s read this. It is part I and Part II. I didn’t know Col Colver myself. But we were over there about the same time plus and minus. He has a lot more follow up and knew a lot more than I did about the details. I just knew the dramatic stuff, because I lived through it.

FACTS, THE ANTIDOTE FOR THE INTERNET

PartI
Http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html

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

m4s ok but prefer the SA80a2
its more reliable more accurate does'nt feel as plastic

When I was attached to 42 Commando They didn't have SA80a2's yet. FN's and Sterlings. Were the primary weapons, of course that was in 1973.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[alsaqr]

i just love these M16 rifle jamming letters. If M-4 and M-16 rifles are jamming it is because of a failure to properly care for the weapon. It is also a failure of command for not assuring that the troop properly cares for his weapon.

There is no sinsiter flaw in the M-16 rifle that causes it to jam. This was debunked 40 years ago.

 

[inherentical]

You have any FACTS!

You are accusing someone of some pretty heavy stuff. Or is this just the classic internet, because I think so, it is. SHEESH!

I don't know why Coburn is pushing for the test, but asking questions never hurts. Could be that someone is recommending to him that this be done and he cares about what happens with the troop's weapons.

As far as facts go, I asked some questions. Do you know why the XM8 is being dragged back into the fight? Someone put a whole lot of money into developing it, that's why. If it's not Senator Coburn, and I agree with Roberts that he's been principled as a senator, then whom? He's the one pushing for it, but who would benefit most from it?

Not the troops, that's for sure.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The fact is the 20 barrel version has issue’s too. Not as many as the M4, which is essentially an out of spec M3. Glad you agree.

The M4 is an out of spec Grease Gun? That thing's really out of spec, then . . .

Actually these troops had no choice in the weapons they had with them. As to the guns, I bet they had not been trained on them

Support units are trained to employ their organic weapon systems -- or at least are supposed to. Failure to properly train troops to use their issued weapons again speaks to really shoddy NCO and officer leadership, if that was the case.

Doesn’t change the fact that their personal weapons failed at the most dangerous time. In the face of the enemy. I never heard that happening in Vietnam, either before or after the change over.

As I noted, there were lots of units in the same campaign, in combat at the same time (on the exact same day), where this did not happen. Whatever problems were involved were related to the failings of personnel in Lynch's unit.

More than a dozen shooters at
a weekend Appleseed shoot with rain before and during caused all
four that were there, to stop running starting the first afternoon.
The other three had feeding and extraction problems one by one.
All four chrome bored.

Who made the ARs in question? Were the shooters competent with their weapons? I've regularly shot a whole lot more rounds per day through both my issue M4A1 and my personal AR (LMT) than an Appleseed shoot involves, and not had reliability issues crop up at all.

Got an Email from a friend who has a son with two tours with
the Marines who sent things that worked thumbs up, and that that did
not work so great. Comment on calibers was .223 and 9mm were
not reliable put down calibers. The two weapons with function
problems were the M16 family including the A4 modifications. Also
the SAWs that were bad as jams created partial disasembly to clear.
Any of the 30 calibers were praised along with 50 caliber stuff. Some
14s have trickle in and are guarded like gold

Yeah, I think we've all seen that email from a guy's "son serving in the marines" by now, it's been floating around since shortly after OIF kicked off.

It's also a forgery. The main clue to that being that the original has a Marine talking about the performance of the M24 sniper rifle, with nary a single mention of the M40. The pretty incompetent description of the M249 (including referring to it as the "M243" if I recall correctly) is another.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The fact is the 20 barrel version has issue’s too.

Really, that is news to me and I tend to follow AR stuff fairly closely. Do you have a source for that?

As to the bolt, in the M4 micro-cracking occurs around the 6,000 round mark with a moderate firing schedule. Once cracks develop, the bolt may develop a larger crack and break or continue to function indefinitely. Barrels in the same M4s are reported as shot-out around the 10,000 round mark. (Source - starting page 43) So since you will be replacing the bolt when you replace the barrel in any case for headspace reasons, any improved bolt must either be very cheap or be part of a new barrel with extended service life to justify the cost.

Likewise with the extractor. You agree with me that new extractor designs don't do anything that isn't already being done by a heavier spring and an O-ring, so what is the point in redesigning the bolt to take a spiffy new extractor when you can get the same effect for <$1 worth of parts?

Let me put it another way, at what point would you say "That improvement isn't worth the money involved to implement it"? Are you willing to fund any improvement, no matter how small or dubious on the principle that we should always give our infantry nothing less than the absolute best in a rifle? Sounds great in principle; but probably better for U.S. manufacturers than our infantry.

 

[PPGMD]

Most of the wonder-rifles currently recommended (HK 416, XM8, etc) have never been tested in a combat environment. Their reputation rests mostly on marketing collateral.

From the first page, but what the heck. The Hk 416 has been in combat, it has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It's done quite well from what I hear, but I doubt it did much better then a M-4 in the same role, because even Hk suggests that you lube the 416.

IMO 14.5" + DI works just fine with proper up keep. Below 14.5" it's probably best to go with a piston rifle, particularly when they are suppressed.

 

[HorseSoldier]

FACTS, THE ANTIDOTE FOR THE INTERNET.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...sy-03289/#more

Above is a very good article on the whole controversy. Unlike some folks here, some troops did have problems.

While facts may be an antidote for the internet, an article on the internet that quotes tabloid journalism outlets such as the Army Times, may or may not exactly meet many definitions of "factual." I can vaguely remember a time when the Times was something like legitimate news, but that was a while before the service newspapers were acquired by USA Today's parent company. Now they're 90% crap and 10% HK marketing any time they discuss weapons or kit.

I like how the article in question also splashes any negative comment they could find about the M4 out there, and them mumbles something about "The M4 is the highest-rated weapon by Soldiers in combat." That sentiment tends to be what I personally see and hear daily, in uniform.

Mileage on the internet may vary.

 

[Chindo18Z]

chieftain:

All I know is that good troops died in Vietnam because of this rifle, I know I bagged and tagged some of those Marines.

The first sentence is an historical and documented fact.

The second sentence I'll take at face value. Were you a Navy Corpsman or a Marine?

When read together the implication is that you 1) personally observed the weapon/s fail, then 2) were present for the fight and treated casualties whose M16/s had jammed.

Is that what you are saying?

BTW: I'm asking 'cause I'm interested in the history and performance of the early M16 variants. I've read Colver's website before (also Hallahan's and Ezell's books); interested in any other detail.

Thank You for your Service to the Nation.

 

[JHansenAK47]

I just can't help but draw the paradox between the Tokarev rifle and the M16 family of rifles. Soviet infantry of WW2 turned the Tokarev rifle into a fiasco. However Finns and Nazis loved it. Funny how troops who were educated enough to care for the Tokarev found it an excellent rifle while the soviet army conscripts had trouble with the same gun they manufactured.

 

[C-grunt]

Considering I'm a "user" of the said weapon over here in Iraq why am I not complaining? Probably because it's not an issue? While you are home on the internet arguing about how well my weapon works or "doesn't" work why don't you listen to the servicemen(women) who are over here AND USING THEM with no issues.

Amen Brother...Fellow vet here with many many good things to say about the M16/M4 rifles. I said it here a few times that I was one of the M16/5.56 doubters before I joined the Army. Then Iraq kicked off and I got my feet wet. First person I saw popped by an M16 I was A 5.56 did that!!..pretty gruesome. Now Im a proud M16/5.56 KOOLAID drinker because they have served me well through my two tours. Well I should say it served me well in one firefight, all the others I had a SAW or the M240.

I have seen M16's fail in a firefight. But only from some support troops who had visibly dirty weapons. These are the same guys, who in the middle of a small skirmish when we were escorting them, were on a mounted .50 and yelled to us "Hey, I see a couple of them over there running around with AKs. What should I do?" Me: "Uuuuhhhhh....Shoot them maybe?"

When I tell people I had a SF team on my FOB with me in 05 and they used M4's and Berettas 92s (not necessarily M9s) they look almost shocked. I mean dont all "Operators" use custom 1911s and the latest cool looking rifles? When I asked a couple one night on gaurd duty they said they used the M4s because they are accurate, deadly, and very portable. They used the Berettas because they were accurate, had good penetration, and put the BGs down with good shot placement....the same thing needed with any round.

You can point out the flaws in every weapon the Military has, but that doesnt make it a bad weapon. Myself as a veteran with a bit of trigger time under his belt, would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather see a good replacement for the SAW over the M16/M4.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

C grunt you are right about support troops but you are looking at one support to took a boot to ones a double ss If that weapon was dirty. I personally took the time to train troops by the hundreds. To shoot, To navigate terrain in the day and at night. I personally ran ranges and made sure those weapons were serviceable.
I got very pissed off at some of those Sergeants Major who didn't put training on the priority list.
I shot expert with everything I ever laid my hands on and expected all of my troops to do the same.

 

[C-grunt]

^^^^I wasnt trying to bash on support troops. Most of them are great soldiers, I was just talking about a select few that I had the priviledge to work with. I was trying to make a point about how you have to maintain your weapons if you want them to work.

 

[Slamfire]

I have a shooting bud who works on the rebuild line at Anniston Army Depot. After rebuilding a batch of M16's, they randomly pull one out and give it a 6000 round endurance test.

From his description a rifle is mounted in a cradle. The rifle is fired full auto and the magazine changed. Either every magazine change, or every 100 rounds (I forget) compressed air is blown down the barrel to cool the weapon as the magazine is loaded. I suspect it is every magazine.

There is no cleaning and lubrication during the test. Just 6000 rounds through the rifle. And what he told me was basically nothing fails. I don't remember if he said no rifle ever failed, but that was my basic impression. And I assume M4’s pass the same test without problems.

What this tells me is that the rifle has been developed to highly reliable system under these conditions.

But what I also have heard, from people that have been deployed, is that the rifle is dust sensitive and requires constant maintenance. This is a characteristic that cannot be designed or developed away.

On my priority of weapon characteristics, I think a weapon needs to be reliable and easy to maintain. If the system is maintenance heavy, I don’t think that is a desirable characteristic as that takes time from other activities. There are a hundred other problems that are jockeying to be “the most important thing”, and I think there are other weapon platforms that are less maintenance intensive and equally reliable.

So I am not a fan of the Stoner system.

But it does make for a fantastic target rifle.

 

[chieftain]

The first sentence is an historical and documented fact.

The second sentence I'll take at face value. Were you a Navy Corpsman or a Marine?

When read together the implication is that you 1) personally observed the weapon/s fail, then 2) were present for the fight and treated casualties whose M16/s had jammed.

Is that what you are saying?

Yup!

We bagged and tagged the KIA Marines, because 'Doc' was usually up to his ass in gators trying to help the Wounded.

Let me tell you about an extreme sport. Called "fire fight with the NVA". First you give the NVA a rifle that rarely ever jams. Then you give them a reliable 30 round magazine.

Now your guys get a rifle, that jams and breaks regularly. Need a 22 cal ramrod to clean and knock the last case out of the chamber. Next only give enough ramrods for about 1 in 10 guys. Most troops use tape and tape their cleaning rods to the rifle. So that it is ready to be used in the next firefight. Then you give our guys a 20 round magazine that you really can't put more than 15 or 16 rounds in it to MAYBE function at all. Then carry a pair of slip joint pliers so as to 'bend' the magazine square if it should have been dropped or sat on during your using/carrying it. Just adds to the fun.

Now take your platoon, usually about 25 guys, and get in a fire fight. about 1/2 the rifles fire one round then jam (some don't fired at all). The only things still working are the pig, the bloopers, and My M14, and hopefully a few other Matty Mattel's Many of the guys with handguns used them And a couple of times I tossed my revolver to another trooper.. Just take my word for it. It is extreme, and an Adrenalin rush. Kind of rough on health record books though.

(side note: Those rifles were cleaned AT LEAST twice a day)

WERE? No I am a Marine. Just now I fight the VA not the NVA.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[C-grunt]

Slamfire1:

On my priority of weapon characteristics, I think a weapon needs to be reliable and easy to maintain. If the system is maintenance heavy, I don’t think that is a desirable characteristic as that takes time from other activities. There are a hundred other problems that are jockeying to be “the most important thing”, and I think there are other weapon platforms that are less maintenance intensive and equally reliable.

When we talk about cleaning the rifles, that usually amounts to taking out the bolt carrier and wiping it off and the upper reciever out. I did that every day and once a week it got a good scrubbing. Using this cleaning regimine that cost me maybe 5 minutes a day, my rifle and everybody else's rifles in my platoon worked without a hitch.

Chieftain....Experiences like yours are the reason why soldiers on these websites dont want a new rifle. Combat is not the place to work out the bugs in the design. Vietnam showed us that. We went in with a good rifle and switched to the hot new item that didnt work very well. Now the hot new item is all grown up and works very well. Now we went into Iraq with a good rifle and no soldier or marine I have ever met wants to switch to an unproven design.

 

[Slamfire]

Chieftain....Experiences like yours are the reason why soldiers on these websites dont want a new rifle. Combat is not the place to work out the bugs in the design. Vietnam showed us that. We went in with a good rifle and switched to the hot new item that didnt work very well. Now the hot new item is all grown up and works very well. Now we went into Iraq with a good rifle and no soldier or marine I have ever met wants to switch to an unproven design.

As conservative as Soldiers are, so is the Military Procurement system. The Procurement system has two goals: maximize the cash flow to the contractor and avoid scandals. Diverting the money flow from one contractor to another creates trouble: fielding questions from Congressional Staffers, budget threats from the effected Congressman, angry Congressmen holding up promotions of Generals. A new system always has problems, that means scandals, especially as the old Contractor will be throwing rocks to get the cash back in his shop.

Small arms technology has not changed significantly since WWII, the AR platform is not the worst ever, the trouble of introducing something new will not be offset by a revolutionary performance increase. Change causes a lot of trouble, and that is why they will stay with same old, same old.

 

[Chindo18Z]

chieftain: Thanks for the details.

Extreme sport? Roger that. Same circus, different clowns.

 

[everallm]

@Slamfire 1

From his description a rifle is mounted in a cradle. The rifle is fired full auto and the magazine changed. Either every magazine change, or every 100 rounds (I forget) compressed air is blown down the barrel to cool the weapon as the magazine is loaded. I suspect it is every magazine.

There is no cleaning and lubrication during the test. Just 6000 rounds through the rifle. And what he told me was basically nothing fails. I don't remember if he said no rifle ever failed, but that was my basic impression. And I assume M4’s pass the same test without problems.

Blowing out the barrel and chamber with high pressure air, straight after every 20 rounds is going to keep that puppy both very cool and very clean and is nowhere near a comparative test.

To test in more real situations would be heavy bursts over several consecutive mags, wait for the barrel and chamber to cool naturally, repeat several cycles, then rough clean the barrel and chamber. Chuck in small amount of fine grit and spray lightly with lube every 500 to 1K rounds. Don't forget to test with issue and well used magazines as well.

As a matter of interest does anyone have an idea of what the official procurement MTBF is for the M16 ?

 

[HorseSoldier]

As a matter of interest does anyone have an idea of what the official procurement MTBF is for the M16 ?

Recent Army tests put it at over 5000 rounds for both the 16 and M4. Testing was without cleaning, but I'm not sure on other specifics like how hot they got the weapons, how fast ammo was fired, etc.

 

[chieftain]

C-Grunt:

Chieftain....Experiences like yours are the reason why soldiers on these websites dont want a new rifle. Combat is not the place to work out the bugs in the design. Vietnam showed us that. We went in with a good rifle and switched to the hot new item that didn't work very well. Now the hot new item is all grown up and works very well. Now we went into Iraq with a good rifle and no soldier or marine I have ever met wants to switch to an unproven design

In WW II the Marine corps replaced the 03' Springfield with the M1 Garand after Guadalcanal. In fact the 1st Marine Division, troops didn't know about the M1 Garand until relieved by the Army. I Know some guys did, but the troops had no problems to speak of with the Garand. In fact they got pretty pissed when they found out that it would have been possible to get them to them before the landing or during the fight which took several months.

That is what is happens when the new rifle would get MORE guys home alive, rather than less, like what happened to us.

If the development is done properly the Debacle that is the M16 doesn't have to happen. The M16 is an example of how NOT TO RUN A WEAPONS PROGRAM.

I am going to ask a rhetorical question. Please no answer is needed or wanted. Just think about this.

How many guys of your unit need to be killed or wounded, before you would not trust the weapons system that got them that way, again?

Some guys will not buy a product from a company because of bad service.

by the way, the obvious answer of "if it saves just one life" is a ridiculous answer. If you have faced the elephant, you should understand exactly what I am saying.

Some folks would not buy a product or from a Company that has given them bad customer service. They rant and rave all day on the internet. Want to see it in action, bring up the name Wally-World.

My point is that rifle got a bunch of folks dead and hurt, and the company gave us bad service. I was there, no stories, although we knew other units were having the same problems. We used to ask other outfits if they had figured out any new solutions. But this was all first hand.

Myself and most guys I know that went through that will not trust that rifle. Blood don't lie. And as such I will always be prejudiced.

On the other side, if we are in fact having stoppages in the 10-20 percent area, that is to much. Even 10%. That is what several of these reports have stated.

I think that is worth spending some money on. If 10% of our aircraft went down during actual combat, you can bet DOD or the service involved would make sure they solved that problem.

I am not familiar with all your new weapons. The M16 family I have unfortunately had a familiarity with in combat.

I support replacing as many of the grunts front line weapons as needs replacement. That includes buy some new versions of stuff that works well too. If there is nothing that exists that can accomplish the mission, let's go spend some of that money. Buy one less F-22 and fix the small arms problems. For both the Army and the Corps. NOW!

Good luck.

Fred

 

[Roswell 1847]

Major problem I can see with the entire M-16/Ar-15 platform is that the gas system is not really suited to any cartridge that generates more than 45K PSI.

PS
My only experiance with the AR rifles is civilian and LEO AR entry weapons. Testing the Nam era Cartridge I've found that the bullet will shed its core when penetrating even two inches of the corner of a treestump, the silhouette target behind the stump showed that the lead had basically vaporized and struck as droplets with less penetration than a .22 ratshot. The now empty jacket struck sideways and barely penetrated the cardboard backing of the target. Even a field jacket would have defeated the round at that point.
People don't stand around like silhouette targets they use available cover. If a round won't even defeat a door frame without losing lethal effect its less effective than a subgun.

In several after action reports made public, Jihadis were able to pour fire on our troops from cover that they could fire through using 7.62X54 and 7.62X39 weapons, but the 5.56 could not defeat even using the latest cartridges with steel penetrators.

 

[Joe Demko]

In WW II the Marine corps replaced the 03' Springfield with the M1 Garand after Guadalcanal. In fact the 1st Marine Division, troops didn't know about the M1 Garand until relieved by the Army. I Know some guys did, but the troops had no problems to speak of with the Garand.

Except for the malfunctions due to volcanic dust and sand in the South Pacific campaign and the malfunctions due to desert dust and sand in the North African campaign. There were also malfunctions noted due to extreme cold in Korea. These problems were attributed to improper cleaning and maintenance of the weapons for use in those conditions. Where have we heard something very similar more recently?

 

[PPGMD]

On the other side, if we are in fact having stoppages in the 10-20 percent area, that is to much. Even 10%. That is what several of these reports have stated.

Some how I doubt the numbers are that high, under the sand testing done by the Aberdeen Proving Grounds the M-4 stoppage rate using light lubrication was 16%, but it went down to 1.1% with the heavy lubrication that I see suggested most often.

The M-16A4 was 3.5% with light lubrication and 0.8% with heavy lube.

Those were combined percentages using 10 of each gun, and firing 6,000 rounds through each gun.

The test conditions replicated was that of a sand storm, so probably the worst conditions that you can put a rifle through. The tests involved putting the rifle in patrol ready (loaded, with magazine, and cover closed), putting it in the sand chamber for 30 minutes, firing 120 rounds. Every 5 times it was wiped down and relubed, and every 10 times it was given a full cleaning.

 

[Roswell 1847]

There were also malfunctions noted due to extreme cold in Korea. These problems were attributed to improper cleaning and maintenance of the weapons for use in those conditions. Where have we heard something very similar more recently?

The cold weather problem was taken care of with a dab of lubriplate on the track the op rod traveled in.
Cold weather lubricants were in their infancy. It wasn't a design flaw but rather a problem of finding the proper lube.

Volcanic dust and sand can jamm a bolt action.
US Rifles used .004 as minumum headspace because that was the average size of a grain of sand in our southwestern desserts. The British used .006 as the minumum headspace because beach sand on European coastlines averages slightly larger. The Brits later chose .009 as the minimum headspace because desert sand in North Africa was that much coarser than European sand.

 

[buzz_knox]

Except for the malfunctions due to volcanic dust and sand in the South Pacific campaign and the malfunctions due to desert dust and sand in the North African campaign. There were also malfunctions noted due to extreme cold in Korea.

Those are myths, just like the myths of FALs and AKs jamming in desert sand, as the Israelis discovered.