M16/M4 Holding Up in the Desert?

Status
Not open for further replies.
rbernie said:
It's funny - I recall reading how the Israelies thought that their FALs (you know the one - the 'right arm of the free world', the 'best battle rifle in the world', etc. etc. etc.) were pieces of dung in the sand and transitioned to the Galil as a result.

Sand sucks. Sand makes moving metal bits want to not move, and acts as an abrasive when they do move. There is no cure. It's sand.
Click to expand...

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm not a big AR fan. Don't own one. Don't have any plans on buying one. I'm an AK owner with a FAL on order.

But sand will foul up any machine. Firearm, vehicle, air conditioner, anything.
 
I said several different "issued weapons", meaning several different M16's over the years. In other words, my opinion is based on several different specimens, not just one. So it's not just a case of getting a 'lemon'. And I wasn't the only one with these experiences. Locations would be around the middle east, different locations in Europe, Canada, and more places than I can remember around the U.S. My opinion of the M16 is based on all these specimens, locations, and experiences, not just one situation. My other weapons were also the M203 and M60.

Soldiers complaining because they have to clean their weapons regularly?
Click to expand...
We must be thinking of different threads. I haven't seen anyone on this thread complaining about having to clean their weapon. :confused:


These threads crack me up, too. Everytime they come up, there's never a lack of people who assume that just because others had bad experiences with a weapon that worked for them, that automatically means those people were lazy, inept, prefer to play video games, don't know how to handle or care for a weapon, tried to avoid cleaning their weapon, they weren't really 'warriors' or too much of a 'Pvt. Snuffy', and other assorted attitudes. It doesn't even occur to them that in some cases, the problem wasn't lack of cleaning, but that constant cleaning wasn't always enough. It worked for them, so the guys with problems must be incompetent.

Then there are the guys that think time spent using their AR's in the civilian world, or even the veterans that trained with their M16's in Europe, equates to living in the hellish conditions of the middle east, thus their extensive knowledge of the subject.

Yeah, these threads are good for a laugh for other reasons, too. The pro-M16/AR15 bias is simply too great to allow any possible dissenting opinions.

My own problem with the situation today isn't that other people have great success with their beloved AR's, but that those same people won't allow others who have had different experiences to dislike it without considering them lazy and incompetent. As a friend of mine once put it, "If you're not like me, you fell out of the wrong tree."
 
The M-16A2's that I worked with in the Army were fine rifles. But I did have concerns that there were better options.
If I was going into combat, I'd prefer the M-14. In fact, I plan on owning a Springfield Armory M1A just to know the rifle considering that I have no experience with them.
And for any grunt, it goes without saying that you keep your weapon clean. Should be second nature.
 
I was a 20 year old infantryman in 1968 with The 4TH Div in Nam. My 16 was used under extemely harsh conditions.It always worked.I kept it clean and why not as my life depended on it.Any infantryman in any war cleans their rifle. I have talked to several returning combat troops from Iraq. To a man they say the 16/M4 worked. They cleaned their rifles. There is no fool proof rifles and that includes the AK. Doc 2005,you indicated all soldiers who carried the 16 did not like it. I beg to differ.The men of my battalion,3/8th Infantry had no problems with the 16. The rifle and the M193 round never failed me. Byron
 
Ah, Darth Ruger you mentioned
We must be thinking of different threads. I haven't seen anyone on this thread complaining about having to clean their weapon
Click to expand...
but I was referring to the original post:
A young man I know returned from his Iraq tour recently. He said that the M16/M4 series is unreliable in the sandy environment over there. When I suggested that those kinks from the Viet Nam era had been worked out he just chuckled. He said that one had to clean the weapon constantly to ensure max reliability I kinda thought that we were over all of this with previous powder changes, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not at all biased toward the M-16 platform (I actually like the M-14 a bit more) and I'd agree that the M-16/M-4 are a bit more labor-intensive as far as maintenance goes ... but yeah, I might go as far as to characterize those who complain about having to clean their issue weapons regularly as lazy.
 
Interesting thread...

I have to admit to a strong bias in favor of the m-16 / Stoner type rifle. Our shop has done a fair amount of work on them and as a matter of engineering principle, I think the design is excellent.

However, I'm also more than willing to drop my personal bias in favor of a less maintenance-intensive weapon. The people whose weapons we work on often trust their lives to their equipment, and if the m-16 is proven a hazard, then I will most definately advocate fixing it or replacing it.

However, even at that, a fix is much more probable than a replacement.
 
Clean your rifle and it will work fine in the desert.

Also, learn the proper amount of oil.

Stuff a sock in the mag well and keep a cap on the barrel.

The SF types I worked with in Iraq carried just about any weapon they wanted, and they stuck with M4s.
 
I was referring to the original post:
Click to expand...
You got me. I hadn't thought about the first post. Trick question. :D

I might go as far as to characterize those who complain about having to clean their issue weapons regularly as lazy.
Click to expand...
So would I. It's a necessary part of the job and anyone that can't grasp that shouldn't be a soldier. But that's not the point. I could keep trying to emphasize the point that not everyone that had problems was just too lazy to clean their weapon, or that continuous cleaning didn't always solve the problem, but everyone here seems to keep ignoring that so they can simply dismiss the problem as nothing more than laziness and an assumed lack of knowledge about how to keep it clean. Same situation every time this topic comes up.

Like I said, I only speak from my own experience, and I base my decisions on that. I won't extend my experiences to others and consider them incompetent or unenlightened if their decision differs from mine. Unfortunately, not everyone on both sides of the fence seem to be willing to extend the same courtesy, which is why posting a dissenting opinion on this topic is a waste of time, and I'm done wasting my time on this one.

Thanks for the debate. Interesting conversation. :D
 
I've carried the XM-177 ("CAR-15"), M16A1, M16A2, M4, and M4A1 variants for over 29 years (all time served in Ranger Bn or SF Groups; 11B, 11C, 18B, 18F, 18Z5V).

Plenty time in sand, dust, rain, snow, mud, salt water, & jungle.

No problems. No issues. It works. It kills.

Carry a shaving brush, clean ANY weapon you carry daily, and quit whining...

I don't ask Privates for their expert opinions on weapons.
 
Last edited:
The main battle rifle of Isreal is the M16. Galils were never issued en masse.

Funny how the Israeli M16s, most which were initially acquired in the 1970s are still holding up after 30 years... Maybe Isreali, Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian sand is different than Iraqi?

Something very important but little-known or discussed about the M16/M4 family of weaponry is how our insurgent enemies have a 'fear' of the 5.56 ammunition. The wound damage that the 5.56 causes when it buttonhooks and shatters is devastating to enemies who have no access to world-class medical facilities.
 
Brought a guy from work to the range with me so he could shoot my AR.

This guy on the line shooting next to us with a smile on his face asked if we wanted to shoot a real mans battle rifle. We proceded to help him burn through his ammo shooting his Garand.

My buddy from work told us how his dad was in Nam and how the M16 sucked and choked all the time. Our new friend Bob proceeded to tell us how he carried an M16 in Vietnam and neither he nor his buddies had any problems with it :what: . He speculated that because he was there in '69 that the bugs had been worked out.

I asked him if he wanted to run some rounds through my AR and he declined saying he really wasn't interested. Then as we were talking he asked about the funny looking optic on it and I let him check out the EOTech. He then decided to run through a magazine. He turned to me after he got done blasting away and proclaimed he sure wished he had one when he was in the war. He then asked if our guys had them and I told him some did in fact have that optic on their weapon.

As a side note my AR blasted through eight thirty rounders without a hiccup, it was dirty from the week before also. Our new friend disassembled and cleaned the Garand before he put it away. Bet ya I know why his M16 worked ;) .
 
Only two possibilities exist. One, failure to properly maintain/PMCS the weapon. Two, mechanical fault with the weapon. If it was properly identified, turn in to the armorer for repair. If it was not identified, see step one.

There are better choices for the conditions than the M16/M4, just as there are better tanks for the region than the M1 Abrams. The AK and the Merkava Block III spring to mind. However, for a military which may find itself fighting in any condition from the Artic tundra to the burning sands at the drop of a hat, and engaging targets from 5 feet to 500 yards there are few that perform as well under all possible circumstances.

Normally M1 airfilter pacs are blown out every few months. In Iraq it was almost every day. Maintinance changes based on the conditions. If your issue M16/M4 failed to perform adequately it is because you failed to perform adequate maintinance for the conditions. It's as simple as that.


Darth Ruger
These threads crack me up, too. Everytime they come up, there's never a lack of people who assume that just because others had bad experiences with a weapon that worked for them, that automatically means those people were lazy, inept, prefer to play video games, don't know how to handle or care for a weapon, tried to avoid cleaning their weapon, they weren't really 'warriors' or too much of a 'Pvt. Snuffy', and other assorted attitudes. It doesn't even occur to them that in some cases, the problem wasn't lack of cleaning, but that constant cleaning wasn't always enough. It worked for them, so the guys with problems must be incompetent.
Click to expand...
 
I heard Militec dry lube works wonders on AR reliability in sand. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes the militec does really good, that is what i used during the whole deployment to the desert. if you are getting ready to deploy militec will send you loads of the stuff. that is what i did, and good thing since our unit ran out in a few months. Maybe it is just me and being an Infantryman, but my weapon is my life no matter what it is M16A4, M240B or C, Saw whatever and it is what keeps me and my buddies alive. no matter how long the patrols were 12, 16 hours i always cleaned my rifle after ever patrol and every mission, i never had an issue with my M16A4, i have a lot of pride in my weapons and equipment, so maybe thats it i don't know but keeping mine clean was no problem for me!


I would venture to say that the people that complain are probally Fobitts or those who carry there rifle to the chow hall and px because they have to, and the kinda people whose rifle isn't part of there job discriptions. WOW i can't wait to make CSM, i will do my best to fix that.
 
It's funny - I recall reading how the Israelies thought that their FALs (you know the one - the 'right arm of the free world', the 'best battle rifle in the world', etc. etc. etc.) were pieces of dung in the sand and transitioned to the Galil as a result.
Click to expand...

That may actually be complete BS. That is based on one unconfirmed report about unconfirmed grumblings. You see plenty of articles about it, but then you see that they all plagarize each other! Some entire paragraphs are almost always lifted verbatim.

The FAL was a fairly expensive gun, and had more moving parts then the AK, which doesn't make it any less reliable mind you. But the Israelis may have just inferred that. Consider that they may not have had the best training in the world at that time and that their government has never been that rich...

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=68486&perpage=30&pagenumber=1
 
Competent armorers are few and far between and almost always taken for granted. Good armorers, rifles run well.

[RANT]
Bad armorers, tell you to clean the rifle when there're problems, never perform LTIs, and don't make repairs.

There's nothing like a ********** armorer telling you that a lack of CLP is causing a failure to extract. Or that the rifle that fails a function check, needs to be cleaned. Who cares if that Marine just unq'd for firing on burst. Broken Magazine catch, rifle's not clean - has to be the problem.

Top it off with NCO's and SNCO's that are too lazy, indifferent or stupid to know how the M16 work and is properly maintained, and deal with the armorers. Leadership, who'd a thunk it?
[RANT]

It's quite possible to have rifles that don't work, and it's not any individuals fault.
 
That may actually be complete BS. That is based on one unconfirmed report about unconfirmed grumblings. You see plenty of articles about it, but then you see that they all plagarize each other! Some entire paragraphs are almost always lifted verbatim.
Click to expand...
I knew the FAL comment would piss in somebodys Wheaties... ;)

I read it here and here and on Max's site. Clearly very similar wording. So who came first and is it in fact correct? I suppose we could ask Max for his sources...
 
Well, it seems that whether one likes it or not, keeping the M16 clean as a whistle is a VERY good idea under any circumstance or environment. Not to rev this up all over again, but why would this vet acquaintance I mentioned originally say that his M240 was a more reliable weapon than the M16/M4? Manufacturing tolerances? Inherently more trouble-free design? Given that any weapon can be forced to fail under some circumstances, is there any gun design that is inherenty more reliable without having to rely on sloppy tolerances for reliability? Thanks.
Ross
 
But another thing you have to consider is what uncle sam procues is always made by the lowest bidder too.
Click to expand...


Why is this argument being used repeatedly to attack the AR-15 platform? Does the government somehow go to the highest bidder for the M14? I mean, if the reason the AR was adopted was because of low-bidders, than what is the alternative?

You can argue that other rifles were made by the government. If that's the case, then if you want to know how the government runs an operation, just check out the post office. That doesn't inspire confidence if you ask me. They were made by Winchester, Springfield, and companies like IBM.

IBM made typewriters and office machines! How on Earth did they make such fine quality rifles!


Specifications.

The government has specifications that must be met. No matter how low you bid, the specs guarantee a certain degree of quality. No getting around it.


If you want to bash the AR for the specifications it has, go for it.
 
Being a lazy civilian, I want a rifle that will work reliably after sitting in a safe for years gathering dustballs. Or in the trunk of a car. I am what Kalishnikov was thinking of when he designed the AK, a poorly trained conscript serf. I love peasant weapons. Keep your magic swords.Give me a billhook and a TB infected carcass to hurl over your castle wall. HA...!
 
Tokugawa,
I suspect that your projectiles and delivery system would be pretty resistant to the elements.
Ross
 
Wanna know why we have the M-16? Follow the money trail. It'll reveal itself.
Yeah, that sucker is a cool looking rifle, space agey and all, little fast bullet, light, automatic fire capability, good sights. That's all fine and dandy. Do I think it's the best combat rifle in the world? No. But that's my opinion. Would I own one? No. If I were in a SHTF situation and that's all that was laying around would I grab one and use it? Dang right! It is what it is, some believe it's not the best option available, I happen to agree. Others believe it is the best in the world, that's their opinion, they have that right to believe it, let them. If I were to walk into an armory filled with various weapons, I don't believe I would choose it, others would. If they felt confident with it, so be it. I'll pick something I felt confident with.
As far as how it was crammed down the throat of the military I don't agree with it. As far as it's operating system, there are more reliable ones out there. If we HAVE to have the 5.56mm round, fine. Soldiers have been disabled by smaller projectiles than that, others have charged on after being hit by larger projectiles.
Having to clean a rifle is a given no matter what type of action it is, however, some will operate dirtier than others will. But like it's been said before, there are always trade-offs to a point, but ingenuity and technology is such today that we should have a more "dirt reliable" weapon with more range. If it means keeping the same platform but making it more reliable and able to use a longer range projectile, fine, lets do it. I don't care, I'm not in the military anymore, I don't have a dog in this hunt. Artillery is the main cause of battlefield injuries historically, so how much emphasis should be placed on small arms? I don't know, but if I were in a combat situation and I had a choice of which weapon to use, it would not be the M-16 in it's current production condition/configuration. I'd at least have semi-auto and shoot at least a .260 caliber bullet, but that's just me.
 
It all comes down to leadership. When I was deployed, I had my joes clean their individual weapons three times daily- even when we weren't on-mission. Not a detail, IG inspection clean, mind you. Just a quick wipe down of the bolt and chamber with a couple of patches down the bore prior to going to chow. We had very few problems with our weapons, outside of wear and tear.

Weapons inspections are part of any PCI before rolling out. And weapons maintenance is part of post-mission recovery. My SOP was nobody went anywhere until all the equipment was cleaned/serviced - weapons, radios, vehicles, individual equipment - and inspected. I'm not a super-soldier or perfect warrior by any means, but I'll be damned if I'll have some young man's blood on my hands because I didn't do my job.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

5
  • Locked
M16\M4 Performance in Iraq
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
7K
JShirley
JShirley
W
  • Locked
Is Colt taking us for a ride on M4?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
stellarpod
S
2
  • Locked
M16/AK bit
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
5K
Correia
C
D
  • Locked
ARs in the Desert
Replies
14
Views
998
Joejojoba111
J
2
  • Locked
M16/AK Bit II
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Wynterbourne
W
Back
Top