M16/M4 Holding Up in the Desert?

[USMC Tanker]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm speaking from a serviceman's point of view, not the recreational shooter who can choose his every desire. I'm simply saying that any and all weapons can, and will fail due to excessive environmental conditions (sand, powder, dirt, mud, water).

Everything has it's weak point. What this means to the combat Marine/Soldier, is to maintain your rifle, pistol, vehicle, system, etc to the best of your abilities and keep it running.

If that means rigging up an improvised mag-well cover, muzzle cap, etc, then so be it! Combat servicemen don't have the luxury of selecting their weapon of choice and simply make do with what they have.

The combat Marines/Soldiers know the operational limits of their weapons and should maintain them to operate in those limits.

I know that if dust/sand gets inside my reciever, mag well, trigger group, bore, and bolt then my rifle will not function as is intended. Does that mean that we should radically change our weapons system or adopt a new one because this platform doesn't perform exceptionally in this one environment? Eventually sure, but for now, for the Marine/Soldier on the ground will just have to use an AP brush and live with it.

I'm not debating at all whether or not we should change platforms, and like I said, that's not my job nor choice. I'm all for improvement, advancement, and modernization. But until that takes place, the M16/M4 platform will be slung over my shoulder because I know that it will operate within the parameters of which it was was designed and I will maintain it accordingly.

 

[Number 6]

So you're saying that because nothing is perfect we should stick with our current weapons system and caliber? Wouldn't that thinking have kept us using spears... or Krags?

That is not what he is saying, and you are setting up a strawman argument by paraphrasing him that way. The M16/M4 system has deficiencies, all weapons do. Unless these deficiencies prove to be a systemic problem and an alternative that is significantly better exist, then why pay the tremendous cost of switching systems for a system that has its own deficiencies? Whether the M16/M4 system has such systemic deficiencies is debatable as one can see by the existence of these types of threads.

One of the major problems with the M16/M4 system are the logical claims made about them, and how those are applied to the whole. One person might have a bad experience with a particular M16, and the attribute that to the design. The reality is that the problem might be magazine related, due to the age of the weapon, poor maintenance, ammo related, user failure, etc, etc. Any number of reasons can exist for a failure. The problem is that at times people can exaggerate, and that they can logically only speak about that one particular weapon. Take such an argument from the reverse perspective. If a WWI vet was issued a Chauchat that worked splendidly, and then claimed that the Chauchat was a great weapon system because the one he was issued functioned flawlessly, then we would think that to an unreasonable statement.

Other kinds of statements speak to the design of the M16 and the mechanical problems that the design will in theory have. The M16 through its operation will get dirtier than an AK. In theory the AK, G36, AR18, and other systems will be more reliable. This does not however transfer into the M16 being an unreliable weapon. There are ways to ameliorate this design deficiency through regular cleaning and upkeep. If the design deficiency was such that there was no reasonable or simple method of ameliorating the deficiency then the weapon system would then have a systemic and debilitating problem. The magazine design for the Chauchat would be such a design problem that proved debilitating.

A claim that would hold the most sway would be one where a scientific study is conducted on a large sample of M16s in a variety of settings to determine if there is a systemic problem that cannot be overcome through a reasonable amount of upkeep. Bartholomew Roberts already pointed to such a study which provides some excellent information. I would take the study a step further and do similar tests against other weapon systems to see if the M16 is more prone to failure.

 

[JShirley]

Unfortunately, Joe doesn't know much more about his weapons than what basic & MOS training taught him followed by varying levels of fine tuning by his NCOs and Platoon level officers.

Yeah...but I remember hearing some total baloney about small arms from my (Infantry) drill sergeants, such as: "AKs can fire .308 (Winchester/7.62x51mm). I've done it."

John, 11C

 

[USMC Tanker]

Thank you Number 6.

 

[Chindo18Z]

JShirly: Exactly one of my points. There is a lot of stuff passed around as fact (even by military instructors who should know better).

I long ago lost count of all the NCOs I've met who would swear on their lives that THEY were taught that the "Z" marking on the M16A2 windage drum was specifically designed as the initial setting for zero procedures. :banghead:

Ultimately, a lot of servicemembers are like the majority of police officers with regards to weapons. They carry them and use them, but aren't really "gun people" or afficiondos.

There is a hell of a lot of expertise among civilian shooters who post on forums like this one. It's the main reason I lurk these forums.

But for some topics near and dear to my heart (like military M16/M4 performance), I maintain a very tight BS screen...

 

[Onmilo]

All I am saying is that the M16 has been around for forty years and most of the free world uses them at the very least in limited applications.
Even British SAS prefer the M16 to their domestic design.

The weapon isn't perfect but it isn't near as bad as some folks would try to make one believe that it is.

Oh yeah, the M14 has been around for over fifty years, hasn't been built in fifty years and is issued in far more limited numbers.
It is a specialist weapon and even the specialists, i.e. S.E.A.L.S., don't choose them all that often even in their current 'modern' form.

 

[JShirley]

Chindo18Z:

If you don't mind, drop me an email at your leisure.

Regards,

John

 

[eab]

"Hey, the FN FAL seems to have done pretty well for itself man."

Ghost Squire, thats I guess why the Israelis are still using the FAL.... O wait a second.....

 

[Thin Black Line]

The Israelis fielded full-size FALs in 7.62N. The major complaint was
size/weight.

How about FAL short bbl paras in 243win?

 

[eab]

Also the fact that they collected sand, so switched to the Galil, which ended up also being heavy and also expensive. So they now use M16s, and M4s, just like us.

 

[Ivy Mike]

What always seems to confuse folks in these kinds of threads is the difference between NEEDED maintenance and PERFORMED maintenance. What 11BangBang was trying to indicate is that, regardless of NEEDED maintenance, he had his soldiers PERFORM maintenance as a normal part of their daily routine. Make something second nature and you never have to worry about having forgotten it when it turns out to have been needed.

No, I got the point. What was said is that the weapon NEEDED a cleaning PERFORMED three times a day to ensure proper function.
While I understand its become routine to have to clean a rifle thee times a day to keep it running, that doesn't mean that its a rugged, reliable system.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Clean97GTI:

While I understand its become routine to have to clean a rifle thee times a day to keep it running, that doesn't mean that its a rugged, reliable system.

It IS unusual to need to clean your rifle three times a day. That doesn't change the fact that in certain environments (such as deep snow/ice, surf zone, swamp, mud, or flour powder dust) you will need to do just that. For all weapons (including Kalashnikovs), not just the '16.

Add in having just expended your personal UBL and you will quickly get with the requirement or somebody will own you in the afterlife.

I understand the point you are making. It's just that there is no such animal as rugged and reliable under extreme conditions.

Stoner designed weapons were never self-cleaning. AKs are not magically immune to malfunction. Garand operating systems can freeze shut or be jammed by sand and dust. Machineguns choke. Launchers misfire. Frags fail to detonate. Parts break, snap, and bend. Weapons are just wood, plastic, and metal tools...eventually everything craps out.

Show me a troop who performs weapon maintenance three times a day and I'll show you someone who values his and his buddies continued existence. Someone who had good NCOs when he was learning his trade. And someone who has lived in a hard field environment with bullets cracking over his head.

It has little to do with which bullet launcher you are carrying.

PS: JShirley, check your e-mail.

 

[Lebben-B]

What was said is that the weapon NEEDED a cleaning PERFORMED three times a day to ensure proper function.

What I said was I MADE them clean their weapons three times a day. It wasn't a matter of HAVING to clean it three times a day. It was just my way of ensuring that the weapons were kept in good working order. A quick wipe down of bolt and chamber/bore prior to going to chow takes but a few minutes. We did scheduled maintenance on our weapons once a week and detailed maintenance as part of our post-mission recovery. Would our weapons have worked without a thrice daily wipe-down? Probably. But relying on "Probably" in a firefight is like betting the pot on a pair of twos.

Mike

 

[Chindo18Z]

Hey Lebben-B...even cannon cockers need a pet V. If you were or are still assigned, you have my sympathy...

Class 7-78 (the last easy cycle)

 

[AndyC]

FWIW, I cleaned my AK47 over there any number of times per day; if I felt uncomfortable with its state, I cleaned it (which could be anything from a few simple external wipes to a field-strip cleaning).

Don't know if it ever needed it, but it never jammed on me - guess the only way we find out if something needed cleaning is the time it jams

 

[Lebben-B]

even cannon cockers need a pet V

I think the army must want me out there to raise Ft Sill's APFT average.

 

[tanksoldier]

You're missing the point. The qualifier is "IN THAT ENVIRONMENT".

If you take any weapon into an ARCTIC environment you will absolutely have to clean it several times per day. Why? When you bring a cold weapon indoors, condensation forms on the weapon. If you take the weapon back outside the water will freeze and jam the weapon. Even an AK.

Does this mean that every single weapon used in an arctic environment is crap? Nope. It means that you maintain the weapon in accordance with it's operating environment.

Likewise you clean a weapon after every firing. Will most weapons continue to function after a single firefight or trip to the range? Yes, but you clean them anyway.

Most weapons would also function after several patrols in a dusty desert environment, but you clean them after every patrol because you don't know if TODAY is the one day when that ONE piece of sand got in JUST the wrong place.

Clean97GTINo, I got the point. What was said is that the weapon NEEDED a cleaning PERFORMED three times a day to ensure proper function.

 

[possum]

Ultimately, a lot of servicemembers are like the majority of police officers with regards to weapons. They carry them and use them, but aren't really "gun people" or afficiondos.

Ain't that the truth. I was so suprised when i first got to my unit of all the people that weren't "gun people" they just look at it like part of the job, which might be normal in the non combat mos but in the Infantry? I am still shocked at the number of people that aren't gun people but are Infantry men that can't shoot, and i personally think that the way we do it in the Army (weapons qual) is garbage, never once in Iraq was i in a fox hole and patroling the city streets there aren't many chances to get in the prone and be able to effectivly engage the target. I think we should model our marksmanship after the USMC and we would be alot more proffecient. I just think about all these new privates that can't even hit 25 targets that are standing still and are at known distance before they come up, i am kinda nervous about them going to combat. It also dosen't help that there isn't much trigger time either. Plus most of them can't get the whole idea of trajectory. Just my thoughts but I bet others will agree.

 

[rero360]

you want to talk about trajectory, I almost sh*t a brick last weekend, we had drill and one of the SGTs, a former 11C, now 31B, was giving a class on BRM, we're going to camp smith next month to qual and perform SRC, second time in 6 months (hmm... seems odd to me) anyways this SGT. starts talking about how the bullet fired from an M16 doesn't rise or fall, the trajectory of the round has to do with the curvature of the barrel. I was dumbfounded, you know, never mind the difference between the barrel and the sights, the rifling and ah, gravity, I wanted to shout *** to him, but he makes more than me and I really didn't want to rock the boat, that paticular NCO doesn't seem to like me anyways, I couldn't believe that someone who has served their entire military carreer in combat MOSs and seems to be LEO oof some sort on the outside would be that ignorent.

on the other hand he did say that they were trained at SARMAC school when zeroing and qualing at the 25 meter range to go four clicks up from 3/8 instead of one, this way with the new ammo you;re hitting POA pretty much all the way out to 300 meters. I don't know about this, its new to me, if anyone who has more insight could shed some light on this little tid bit I would appreciate it.

 

[DR9983M4]

I understand that you do what you gotta do to keep it running, but three times a day? If I owned a gun that required 3 cleanings a day to ensure reliability, I'd have sent that piece of garbage back a long time ago.

Well then use a bow and arrow. I don't get what the problem is with complaining about cleaning a gun when it gets dirty. If it gets filthy, dirty, and covered in gunk, you clean it to ensure it will function properly. Kinda like when the oil in a car engine gets filthy, dirty, and full of metal shavings and ash. The more often it gets dirty, the more often it needs to be cleaned. The same people complaining about the M16 system and how unreliable it is, are the same people who never bother to do simple maintenance to their autos like changing the oil or replacing worn out parts as indicated, then whining when it breaks down on them "prematurely" and of course, they call the car junk instead of calling themselves negligent. It should be expected, with any mechanical device: gun, auto, printing press or otherwise, if you don't maintain it, it will fail on you. Part of the M16 problem was the flat-out lying done by the folks getting it adopted as a "self-cleaning wonder rifle". This lead to poor maintenance or lack of it, and coupled with horrendously dirty ammo, a self-induced reputation for failure developed. Go figure those with the much nicer M14s scrupulously cleaned them and there were few problems experienced. Part of this is improper education of and from weapons instructors who still fail to get this point across. For all the complaints about the M16 system, it is still used by special forces worldwide, and still killing terrorists worldwide. The only legitimate complaint in my opinion, which is being addressed, is the lack of power of the 5.56 NATO. Fortunately they make AR10s in large enough volume to solve the problem. AR10s and 1911s with skilled, better trained troops, would make a battlefield even more dangerous than it is now for terrorists and other assorted thugs and their com-bloc guns

You should. They're the people who have to carry them and use them. Whose opinion is more valuable? Some dweeb sitting behind a desk whose primary concern is how much they cost?

If that dweeb behind a desk has more firearms experience than that private (and there is a fairly good chance he might), then his opinion is far more important, unless of course, its hindered by red tape and bureacracy. I'd say someone who has a clue about weapons would be a good place to start looking for opinions that matter, 18 year old privates fresh out of high school holding a gun for the first time are the farthest thing from a gun expert, no matter how much counterstrike they've played. You own a computer, but unless you are skilled and qualified in computer science or general computer troubleshooting, I'm not going to ask you a damned thing if my computer crashes because any speculations and nonsense I come up with is just as good as yours.

 

[Lebben-B]

I think we should model our marksmanship after the USMC and we would be alot more proffecient.

I disagree. If anything, Marine Corps rifle qual is more sterile than Army rifle qual. Yes, they fire from more positions than we do, but they also fire it using a KD range and a bullseye target. A civilian shooter at the Camp Perry matches would feel right at home on a USMC qual range. To it's credit, The Marine Corps system produces a more technically sound shooter than does the Army. But their small-unit leaders face the same training challenges as we do - trying to get enough quality trigger time, Soldiers/Marines that view the weapon as merely another tool, and the list goes on.

I just think about all these new privates that can't even hit 25 targets that are standing still and are at known distance before they come up, i am kinda nervous about them going to combat. It also dosen't help that there isn't much trigger time either. Plus most of them can't get the whole idea of trajectory.

And what have you done to correct these issues? How many of these problem Soldiers have you pulled aside and given a quick class to? How many times in the course of an average duty day did you hang out in the barracks, sitting on your 4th point of contact playing X-Box? (And shame on your SL/PSG for letting that happen). There's time to train and teach each and everyday. You have POWs. How many of these problem Soldiers have you taken to the POW range to shoot on the weekend? My first PSG was a guy named SFC Ron West (USA, Ret) and he was fond of saying, "A good leader is quick to identify problems. A great leader sees the problem and fixes it."

Mike

 

[Thin Black Line]

i am kinda nervous about them going to combat. It also dosen't help that there isn't much trigger time either.

Sadly, very true. I was given an M9 and walked the usual pop-up qual
as my entire pre-deployment small-arms training. Don't even get me started
on the LACK of convoy training. They did this for everyone no matter
what their MOS was, not just the medical folks like me.

I complained and was told I wouldn't be on any convoys and, therefore,
wouldn't need anything more than a pistol and xx rds of ammo during the
course of my year-long deployment to FOBbitville.

I ended up doing convoys all over the Sunni triangle and I quickly picked
up a shotgun and qualified on it IN THEATER. I carried a lot of 00 shells
and also acquired around 8? mags for my M9. I would've had the M4 if
one had been available. My unit had extra M16s there, but it was just too
big to really use well through that big flip window they have in the older
uparmored doors. A pistol gripped shotgun was perfect for that. Also, if
we got out of a vehicle it was usually in a town or by reed-filled canals
and the shotgun seemed to me to be just as suitable for that kind
of environment as anything else....if it was far away I'd be more than
happy to let the 50 take care it anyway....turret gunners rule!

BTW, the flip window hinges would rust shut so we had to OIL them from
time to time to make sure we could still open them. We kept our hinges
working, but I noticed that ppl who didn't go outside the wire had theirs
rust to the point where motor pool had to crack them open.

Again, I think this illustrates the maintanance that's needed so stuff
will "hold up in the desert" --or the jungle or whatever!

 

[IV Troop]

USMC Tanker hit the nail pretty well.

Here is the readers digest condensed version:

I am currently employed by a private special operations company that primarily does PSD work for the U.S. Gov in various hostile locations around the globe.

I am writing this from the sandbox.

We are issued M4s, along with m249s, m240s, SR25's etc etc

Our shooters are all either former military special ops folks of the highest order or LEO's with special backgrounds. In short, the varsity team.

That being said. M4s work fine when guys who know how to maintain weapons properly are doing the maintenance on them. Our guys shoot them and deploy with them on a regular, daily basis. Nothing is perfect but the M4 is a fine weapon. It is very reliable when properly maintained. A standard M4 with a decent optic, flashlight and proper sling is a hard combo to beat.

 

[possum]

And what have you done to correct these issues? How many of these problem Soldiers have you pulled aside and given a quick class to? How many times in the course of an average duty day did you hang out in the barracks, sitting on your 4th point of contact playing X-Box? (And shame on your SL/PSG for letting that happen). There's time to train and teach each and everyday. You have POWs. How many of these problem Soldiers have you taken to the POW range to shoot on the weekend? My first PSG was a guy named SFC Ron West (USA, Ret) and he was fond of saying, "A good leader is quick to identify problems. A great leader sees the problem and fixes it."

as a matter of fact i give a small class everytime we are the range to anyone that wants it and even those that don't, that aren't first time goes. speaking of which we recently were qualifiying for eib and i took many by the hand and they qualified expert. I will teach and share my knowledge with anyone who is willing to listen. I am in HQ platoon so i don't get a real squad or fire team, and really don't get to do the things that the platoons do so i am rarely around to help them out because of other taskings through out the battalion, but i help when i can.

Lebben,
why the hostility? i got it i got it i promise!

 

[possum]

BTW, the flip window hinges would rust shut so we had to OIL them from
time to time to make sure we could still open them. We kept our hinges
working, but I noticed that ppl who didn't go outside the wire had theirs
rust to the point where motor pool had to crack them open.

Yeah and the new uparmored truck doors will slam down a break a finger if you ain't careful!