Rifles that jammed!

Status
Not open for further replies.

telewinz

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,305
Location
Ohio
I am interested on comments about the official Army report that states their rifles (M16's) jamming is one of the main factors on why so many members of the Army maintainance group (Jessica) were KIA in an ambush that occurred during operation Iraqi Freedom. I should think this would result into a serious re-examination of our current issue rifle. "Human error" (maintainence)will not be an acceptable explanation to me, we have had 40 years to iron-out (if any) design problems. Better a reliable Mini-14 or AK74 than an unreliable M16! Maybe this war IS turning into another Vietnam!:uhoh:
 
You won't accept human error???

Any piece of machinery will fail if not taken care of. Sorry, if the weapons jammed......it was because of poor maintainence.......human error if you will. They were in a war.........hell, I'd be making sure I did PM on my weapon(s) every chance I got. There are no design problems.......keep your damn weapon clean. These were not infantry...they were motor-T...I'd be very suprised if they wiped down their weapons once a week.

No one elses weapon seemed to jam..........so just the M16's that were on this convoy would lead to all of them being replaced?

Just heard on a morning tv show that the major factors were fatigue and a series of wrong turns.
 
... the "Official Report", which isn't even out yet (although an early draft is in today's news) sites poor maintenance by the 507th as the cause of the "failures".

Guns not properly maintained, particularly in a harsh environment WILL fail ... is that surprising? Is that a design flaw?

I'd be more interested in learning more about how they performed in FRONT LINE units.

You typically wouldn't hear much about Iraqi AK's failing, because the "owners" either pitched them and ran or wound up as cannon fodder.

Rusty

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-10-lynch-report_x.htm
 
IMHO, any person who doesn't give a crap about their life enough to maintain their weapon deserves what they get.


that said, the-16 is probably a better weapon for the envrionment than the ak, since it has a dustcover.
 
Hey there Steve, we meet again.

“You won't accept human error???â€

Seems to me he is saying that it is preferable that their rifles worked, whether or not they had green followers, certain brand of mags and lube, been wiped down every 30 minutes, and stored in a plastic bag. Would have proven a great advantage in this situation.

â€hell, I'd be making sure I did PM on my weapon(s) every chance I got.
If carrying a M16 (or most any other service rifle) in a Gulf sand storm that is a very good idea.

â€No one elses weapon seemed to jam..........â€

“Seemed†is the operative word here.

Rusty

“Guns not properly maintained, particularly in a harsh environment WILL fail ... is that surprising? Is that a design flaw? “

No, but some rifles require more maintenance then others. The M16 requires more maintenance then was given them by the 507th. So the real question is, what required level of maintenance is acceptable in an infantry rifle. What level of maintenance required is acceptable is obviously arguable, and I can make a good guess at were the members of the 507th “stand†on this issue (those still alive that is).

â€I'd be more interested in learning more about how they performed in FRONT LINE units.â€

Me too.

â€You typically wouldn't hear much about Iraqi AK's failing, because the "owners" either pitched them and ran or wound up as cannon fodder.â€

True, but another reason is that a AK requires very little maintenance. IZHMASH does suggest that the rifle be cleaned, to extent service life.

Andrew

“IMHO, any person who doesn't give a crap about their life enough to maintain their weapon deserves what they get.â€

Your lack of respect for US Service men and women killed in combat is deplorable.
 
You might as well put the Apache helicopters in there. Both are high maintenace weapons that didn't do too well in sand storms.

But what doesn't?

The Israeli's are right next door and they still use the M16.
 
"You might as well put the Apache helicopters in there. Both are high maintenace weapons that didn't do too well in sand storms."

Attack choppers are a bit more complicated then infantry rifles.

"The Israeli's are right next door and they still use the M16."

Yes, the required maintenance for the M16 has proven quite acceptable for IDF purposes. Hmm, that brings up a good point, do note that the Galil is commonly issued to REMF types.

Do they have large sand storms in Israel?
 
As a battle rifle, the M-16 is a disaster, and it seems that some of our soldiers have lost their lives because of it. I have had M-16's jam on me far too often to accept the "you just need to maintain it" line. A battle rifle should be able to function when you don't have time to maintain it - like when you've just low crawled through sand or mud for example.

The best way to kill someone with a dusty M-16 is to beat them over the head with it.

It's not that I don't like this "black rifle" - I have several AR's myself. But It's no good as a battle rifle. As a police or civilian defense weapon where it can get regular cleaning, it's fine.
 
Your lack of respect for US Service men and women killed in combat is deplorable.


I have an immense respect for US servicemen and women.


I just don't think very highly of people who don't care enough about the tools of their trade to take care of them properly.
 
Facts:

The sandstorms occuring in Iraq at that time were comprised of extrafine sand -it was likened to powdered sugar.

US Army doctrine in this Theater was to clean firearms a least TWICE per day.

There were no reports of mass-weapons failure by front-line troops using M16/M4 weapons.

The ambushed group were rear-echelon support personell and did not follow proper proceedure in maintenance (nor map-reading).

Iraqi soldiers also had to rigorously maintain their AK weapons.

No catastrophic failures were reported by US troops during the 1st Gulf War.

Complaints about original M16A1 failures in Vietnam ceased after troops were issued cleaning kits and taught proper maintenance, plus changing of ball propellant back to original design specs.

Let's wait for the report to come out before another condemnation by people who have never carried one in battle.
 
Infantry units tend to maintain their weapons because their sergeants make sure they do, as the M-16 (or whatever) is the primary tool of their trade to accomplish their mission. That isn't the case with transport, artillery, clerks, whatever. Their sergeants are ensuring that trucks, tubes, computers, whatever, are maintained as they are the primary tools of that trade. Any extra time they can use to work on their personal gear (M-16), or, possibly, sleep. If they'd put their own weapons before the mission, they'd have some pointed words directed at them.

We're focused on the rifles because of our interest in the general subject. I suspect the run of the mill infantry guy isn't particularly, much less the support folk. The military, as a whole, is even less so. Infantry invests territory, preferably without fighting for it, after it's been engaged with artillery, armor, and air power. The military puts its money there.

M-16s are more than defensive weapons, but not much more; it's the difference between being "engaged," and "closely engaged." The folk at the sharp end need something that will go "bang" when they need it to. We owe them that, even if they were too tired to clean it properly.

Jaywalker
 
Is it my imagination, or has virtually EVERY report of a weapon jamming come from this particular unit?

What are the odds of EVERY bad M-16, M2, and M249 being issued to THIS unit and this unit alone, out of the many hundreds of thousands that are in service today?

My gut feeling is that this was NOT primarily a mechanical problem.


As for the M-16 being a "disaster," please provide factual information to back that up, Mark.

What constitutes a "disaster?" This incident?

Then were are the supporting weapons failures from other units at the same time?

There are hardly any.

Here's another nasty fact.

The M1 Garand, one of the most venerated combat rifles of all time, WAS NOT immune to environmental-related failures, ESPECIALLY in North Africa.
 
My M16A4 worked fine during Basic (ITB OSUT)...except when I had to crawl in sand. Malf city after that...

John
 
I have no doubt that it was sand in the weapons that caused the jams. Whether proper cleaning and lubrication was done by those ill-fated individuals is unclear since they are not here to tell us.

Regardless, during the road march in the initial days of the war, the route consisted of hauling @$$ through the middle of the desert until almost to An Nasiriyah where it transferred to hard-ball. During this road march hundred of vehicles in numerous convoys traveled the same path, grinded the desert sand into a very very fine particulate dust which was inevitably churned up by the HMMWV tires and ended up caking the inside of said vehicle in several inches of dust. Even if you had cleaned and lubed your rifle, these conditions would certainly cause it to jam. Also, one would be hesitant to start field stripping the weapon while snaking through enemy territory.

I found that the ideal PM routine involved cleaning off any dust and sand in the areas where there were moving parts (bolt, chamber, charging handle, trigger housing, etc.) and to use a fair amount of CLP to coat those surfaces (especially the bolt). Unfortunately, CLP also acts as a magnet for dust and sand thus will actually make the weapon more difficult to clean. Of course, more frequent cleaning is preferable to not lubing at all and certain jamming.

As to whether front-line units weapons jammed, yes they did. Not to the same degree, but it still happened. M-16s do require a large degree of TLC to operate effectively in a desert environment. I would not trade it for an AK-47 either. The ones I saw in Iraq (that were not totally destroyed) were not in good shape and were also coated in some heavy lubricant. Apparently, that Iraqi's knew that even AK-47s are not immune to the unforgiving sands of the desert.
 
As stated.......this unit seems to be the only unit that reported weapons failure..........no one needs to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Better abandon the Apache and the M1 tank........sand plays havoc with them too.

Guess we'll stick to rocks and clubs.

:rolleyes:
 
Malf(unction): weapon fails to load, fire, or eject
Jam: weapon is inoperable, and requires 20-level intervention (IE, tools required to restore)

Q- What is a malfunction?
A- The weapon ceasing to fire due to a stoppage resulting from mechanical failure of the weapon, magazine or ammo.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/m16/studyguide.htm
 
The m16s main problem is that the gas system is way underpowered. The gas piston design is way better, if not the best.
 
Better dump the Browning M2 .50 caliber MG and the M249 SAW too, because according to the report, they also failed.

For those of you who don't like the M16, no amount of evidence will ever change your mind and you will hang on every anecdotal and documented report of a malfunction as proof positive that the US military has made a 40 year mistake and we will lose our freedom and be over run by the enemy de jour if we don't immediately scrap the M16 for the AK, Mini 14, Brown Bess Musket or Hi Pointe Carbine.....So this post isn't directed to you. It is impossible to change your opinions with the facts. It's directed at those who have little or no experience with military small arms who want to know the truth.

The truth is that any weapon would have failed in the conditions that the 507th faced. Even the mighty M1 jams when full of sand and crud. I am in possession of a videotape copy of a WWII training film. In in an actor portraying a seriously wounded soldier is telling his younger brother in a letter how his failure to maintain his M1 caused him to end up severly wounded. He also recounts how other soldiers have been killed or wounded because they neglected to maintain their weapons and they failed them when they shouldn't have.

The M16 had it's teething problems, but it has been a very reliable weapon in the 29 years I have carried one through service in the regular Army, the Army Reserve and the National Guard. Yes you have to keep it clean, but you have to keep any semi-automatic or automatic weapon clean if you expect it to continue to function. In 29 years in combat arms (Infantry and Artillery) I have seen almost every kind of malfunction and jam you can imagine. Almost all of them were be attributed to operator error or bad magazines. In 1990 I was on a deployment for training in Honduras. We provided training for members of the Sixth Battalion, 110th Brigade of the Honduran Army. They were armed with the oldest most beat up M16A1s I had ever seen. Finish was gone in many cases. Dust covers were missing or flapping in the breeze because the springs were broken. Protective ears on the front and rear sights were bent. Furniture was held together with 100 mph tape. But guess what? They were clean, and they fired every time they pressed the trigger. We used every spare part we brought for our weapons to repair theirs. Before we left, we stripped parts off our rifles to fix theirs. Yet these brave young men who daily patrolled the Nicaraguan border never complained. They knew their rifles would shoot when they needed them to. When we left they were prettier and more accurate, but they functioned just as well.

Remember one thing. The world wide special forces community, those soldiers who can have any rifle they want, overwhelmingly choose the M16/M4. Let the M16 haters rant and rave. You can't change their minds...But don't ever fear being sent into combat with an M16 series weapon. Take care of it and it will take care of you.

Jeff
 
Being "soldier proof" is a long time design requirement for a military weapon. We should demand nothing less for our troops! The AK47 is a legend in this area, why isn't the M16 after 40 YEARS of developement! A working AK or other design is better than an iffy M16.:uhoh:
 
I carried an M-16 for 15 years in the Army, and still have one in the Reserves. I served in the First Gulf War. Carried an M-16 there. It got cleaned before every convoy, (I was a truckdriver, what some would call a REMF) and was wiped down during any rest stops made. My platoon would all do the same thing. However we staggered the wipe downs so that a minimum amount of weapons were out of action for cleaning. Never had any problems with it. And had I been called to go this time I would have no qualms about carring an M-16/M-4 in Iraq, again.

Bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top