Rifles that jammed!

[mattd]

I'll take an m-16 that james once every magazine that i can make hits with over the AK, which has horrible sights and trigger which i can not hit with.

Say you was in Iraq, you seen a Iraqi about to ambush you, you turn to shoot, and click, nothing happens in tell he opens fire and kills you. Would you still want a m-16 that jams every mag?

Anyone happen to know the number of m-16 jams per 10,000 rounds of ammo? Compared to the ak-47?

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

that's not a stoppage that's likely to happen because i'd have already chambered a round.


i'd take an enfield over an ak because i hate the sights so much.

 

[amprecon]

The M-16 is no doubt a polarizing topic. I have never operated an M-16, so therefore I am not "qualified" to commend or condemn it. My impressions of it come from what I've read about it and from those who have experience with it.

The first bad impression I got of it was when I learned of its developmental history, when politicians got involved and pushed it.
The second, as an aircraft mechanic and admirer of many different mechanical designs, gun and non-gun, I have seen better designs.
The third impression is in the caliber, as a shooter and hunter, I know what is effective on 200lb size animals and at what ranges they are effective at.

On the contrary, I have never been in the infantry nor have I ever used one in combat. It might very well be that the rifle is a blessing to carry when compared to a Garand.
It might be that its a natural pointer when a quick accurate point-and-shoot might be the difference between life and death.
It might be that it just plain looks cooler than any other service rifle we've ever had and its futuristic space-age looking silhouette just scares the enemy into surrendering lest they get "stunned" by it.

I don't know, but I know this, I don't have one, and it's because of my personal preferences and the knowledge that there are many more rifles to choose from that meet "my personal" criteria. Those which I deem are better and more useful to me.

 

[Jim K]

I have long considered the M16 a poor choice in dusty or sandy areas, mainly because of the close fitting of the barrel and bolt head, the bolt head to the carrier and the carrier to the receiver. The close tolerances involved are just not conducive to best performance in dirty or dusty areas. As for the dust covers, the idea of keeping dirt out of a rifle in a sandstorm is a pipe dream, no matter how many covers it has.

I have no doubt that the M16 will function adequately if given continual care and cleaning. I am also well aware that soldiers do tend to "goof off" in rifle cleaning, especially support troops who have jobs other than fighting and to whom the rifle is more of a nuisance than a vital tool.

Still, I detect a strong odor of coverup in blaming weapons failure on the troops. That was done in VN, and there was a lot of truth in it. But it was not until later that the Army admitted that much of the problem was due to the way the powder was manufactured, something over which the troops had no control.

Jim

 

[goon]

that said, the-16 is probably a better weapon for the envrionment than the ak, since it has a dustcover.


I doubt that. The AK doesn't need a dustcover.
The M-16 does work, but you need to stay on it.
I know that they will work with a handful of sand, but that was an M-16 that had been about half worn out by previous recruits. It had more play in it than it really should have, but it did work.
The thing that makes an AK work is the combination of alot of gas being directed in such a way that it smacks the hell out of the action and the loose tolerances of the gun. You can hold a new milled AK and shake the charging handle around with the gun locked in battery. A little slop can be a good thing.
An M-16 will usually outshoot an AK, but if I had to choose between the two in general, the AK gets the nod for reliability.
My only jams with the M-16's that I had were with blanks or because of a weak extractor spring.
The weak spring caused the empty to not be ejected, but the next round would still try to chamber. This resulted in the bolt riding over the empty casing and stopping the gun cold. It was a b*tch to clear at first, but I soon learned to drop the mag and yank HARD on the charging handle. This would eject the empty and the live round out the mag well. I would then put the mag back in the rifle, chamber and fire a few more rounds.
Jam.
Clear.
Jam.
Empty mag with about a dozen loaded rounds on the ground (sand) and still about eight targets to hit.
Grab a round.
Chamber.
Fire.
Repeat.
This went on until I found the spring the day before qualification in BCT. My drill sergeant replaced the weak spring with one from a spare rifle. I shot the next day with no CLP (praying all the while). Not a single jam.
Any gun will fail if is broken, and enough fine powdery dirt will screw anything short of a knife or a claw hammer up. Keep the dirt cleaned out and do good PM and you will be good to go.
It comes down to the mindset.
Your weapon is your life.
But I would still choose an AK design if I had the choice.

 

[OEF_VET]

I see an awful lot of rhetoric here parroting what folks have read. I don't see much being said from anyone that has used either an AK or an AR in a combat situation in a dessert setting.

Well, I guess it's time for me to chime in then. But I actually used it in a desert setting. I've never shot a strawberry shortcake with one though.

The M-16 / M-4 is a good weapon, if maintained properly! The Afghan sand (and sandstorms) is very fine, and gets into everything. As long as you clean the weapon frequently and take as many precautions as situationally feasible. Things like covering your weapon with a poncho during a sandstorm, or actually using the little black muzzle caps from the arms room will go far towards keeping the weapon operational. If I were to be recalled today and told I'd be going back to the Middle East, I'd feel confident carrying my old M-4 (s/n W016312). As it is, I carried that same weapon for over 4 years, from Kosovo to Afghanistan, and always had faith in Nora Jean (yes, she had a name).

Frank

 

[Byron Quick]

Yep, the AK47 is an absolute unstoppable wizard. Only rifle I've ever fired that I needed my safety glasses. Probably a good thing it was stolen. Wonder if the poor fool was wearing safety glasses when he fired it?

 

[BDM]

All I have to say is any one with AOL read the news today about what the army has found out so far,not only were M16s jammed so did the M249 they had with them wich some peoplw will still say thats prone to jamming but they also said a .50 cal browing"Ma Deuce"also was jammed so that tells me bad maintence caused people their lives so lets stop flaming the M16,it was also said they were told to clean their weapons evry day,The .50 cal has been around 80 years and used everywhere,so it just wasnt M16s it was all the weapons they had,whats that tell ya,it tells me know the stregnths and weaknesse of your weapon,if it were me knowing what I know in that environment,Id be checking my weapon a few times aday,I dont know if any of you watch mail call on history channel but the new episode last sunday showed soldiers in a chow line sand blowing every where and no muzzle caps on the rifles some had a mag in others did not,and no one else including specops are complaining,why?because they take care of the weapons they stake their lives on,the israelis dont have problems and they live in the desert,The only countrys using AKs are the ones that cant afford M16s.

 

[RKCheung]

I see an awful lot of rhetoric here parroting what folks have read. I don't see much being said from anyone that has used either an AK or an AR in a combat situation in a dessert setting.

I carried the M16A2 during the war in Iraq. Does that count? My comments are already posted above.

 

[JShirley]

Jeff,

"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...(hyperbole)"

I don't like the M16 family. I have no problem with the cartridge, I freely admit that the ergonomics are superior, and despite the old and poor design I have no doubt that, failing breakthroughs in shoulder arms technology, it could serve our forces fairly well for the next twenty years.

As I mentioned, my M16 worked just fine, until the first time I IMT'd. Sand it liked not. I use an M4 now, and it's a handy little arm. I feel well armed enough with it, but I don't trust it as well as I'd like...but I trust it enough.

Thanks for telling me how I feel, though.

John

 

[Sunray]

"...No one elses weapon seemed to jam..." Did you not see the reports about the Brit rifle? Jamamatic and worse. These pop guns are just not made for desert conditions. They'e too finely engineered. Too tight tolerances. Mind you, so will any rifle when a bazllion pounds of fine sand is blown into it over several hours or more.
The 16 was made for use by the little fellows in SEA, then modified for use in Europe. Sand storms of biblical proportions were never imagined, never mind planned for.

 

[Jeff White]

John,
If the shoe fits Seriously, I'm sure you know the type I'm referring to.

Have you replicated your IMT/sand experience with any other weapon? I promise you that you can get enough sand and crud into any weapon to jam it. This goes for the AK, the M1, the FN-FAL, M14 etc.

No doubt about it, get enough sand in the locking lugs and you'll jam your M16. But, if you get enough sand in the locking lugs of any rifle and it'll jam.

Do the NCOs in your unit allow their soldiers to run around with mud and grime caking their weapons? If you were the small arms product manager for the army and could pick any rifle you wanted, would you want the NCOs to let the men run around with their weapons caked in mud and grime (or sand if they were in the desert) and still expect the rifle of your choice to function when the soldiers needed it to?

You've been in the army for what, about two years? I'm sure you've seen how soldiers in some units treat their weapons. Kicked around on the floors of 5 tons....dragged through the mud by broken slings...kicked around in the dirt and sand in the bottom of foxholes.....etc. ad infinatum.

Now tell me what rifle you'd recommend that you are sure could take that kind of treatment in the dirty, dusty, wet, cold, hot dry environments that the US Army is expected to operate in and function with 100% reliability with no preventative maintenance, even having the crud wiped off.

I honestly believe that no small arms anyone here could name would have changed what happened to the 507th Maintenance Company. They could have had Militech, Drislide or any other lube you can name on those weapons and it wouldn't have changed what happened. From everything I have read and heard, from both official and unofficial sources, including a report from an officer I know online who was with one of the Marine units that was involved I can only conclude that this was a leadership failure.

It's always easier for everyone involved to blame the weather, blame the equipment, blame the fog of war. But we shouldn't take the easy way. We need to look hard at what happened and make changes to see that it doesn't happen again. Changing the rifle we issued to those soldiers would have made no difference. Even an AK won't function in those conditions without some basic maintenance.

Go over to TASC (or ask your training NCO or Bn S3 shop, whoever has the account) Audiovisual and see if you can check out a copy of The Late Company B. It's another WWII vintage training film that does an outstanding job of showing who ignoring the basic soldiering tasks in a lot of little ways (and sometimes for very good reasons) can all add up and cause a unit to be destroyed in combat. If they were to update that film, it would probably be the story of the 507th.

Yet to many posters here, on other sites and on firearms related mailing lists, the only lesson they will draw is that we need to replace the M16. Why do they conclude this when the M16 had no bearing on what happened? I can only conclude that they have only one agenda, to replace the M16.

Jeff

 

[JShirley]

Jeff,

I do agree that it does the job. I have often called for replacement, but that's mostly because I feel a cartridge can be found that would be superior (streamlining both the TOE mix and ammo supply), not because of my distrust for the platform.

I have fired other weapons in sandy conditions (as a civilian), but somehow didn't really roll around in and low crawl through sand with them. I do plan on doing this with my G1 after I get out. Maybe I'll try it with my M1 Carbine, too, just as a reference. Perhaps also with a good bolt action, like one of my 1917's.

Drill Sgts are most certainly not the font of all that is true, but I recall one saying when teaching SPORTS: "This is what you should do when your rifle jams. And it will jam." Unfortunately, as I mentioned, I have no good basis for comparison under adverse conditions, as I've tried to take decent care of my arms while out shooting before I enlisted. When not in sand, I don't remember having any malfs except when firing blanks.

I propose to do an in-depth comparison at a later date (after ETS), and I'll report results.

John

 

[Solinvictus70]

Don't discount a poor armorer as well. In my reserve unit, our armorer was a perpetually drunk 15 year Spec 4. At one point on annual qualification, an M16 was assembled incorrectly out of the rack and it locked up to the point that a hammer and punch was needed to pop the bolt group out of the receiver.

 

[duckfoot]

I have to agree with the mind set remark when dealing with weapons the you may have to use to defend (self, country, family, etc...) with.

 

[Byron]

Infantryman clean their weapons not becuase the SGT orders but because they want to stay alive. I was a 20 year old infantryman in 1968 with D Co., 3/8th INF, 4th INF DIV. (oct 68-69). We operated in the Central Highlands. I cleaned it often as did all those in other wars that came before me. The 16 is a good weapon. The AK is a good weapon. It can fail too.Picking up a AK instead of a 16 is a good way to draw friendly fire. Maintainence is the only answer. Military epquipment is pushed to extremes in combat. My 16 never failed me.

 

[OEF_VET]

Byron,

I served in D-3/8 Inf. as well. Except for me it was 1991, and 3/8 was part of 8th ID by then, in Mainz, Germany. I know, OT, but figured I'd say hi just the same.

Frank

 

[Byron]

Frank, The last we knew of the 3/8th was it stood down from the 4th after Nam. Send me a separate e-mail and I would like to share the heratage of D Co. D Co from Nam got together a few years ago. Byron
[email protected]

 

[Jim K]

FWIW, I think the AR-18 was superior to either the AR-15/M16 or the AK-47. Any thing short of a truck load of dirt simply does not bother it. Too bad the army didn't hang loose for a while until the "better mousetrap" came along.

I agree with a lot of what has been said about the need for first echelon maintenance and any rifle jamming if it picks up enough crud. Still, it is odd that those who used it and defend it seem to be saying that the M16/M4 has to be cleaned on an almost continual basis, 24x7. Is the enemy always going to be cooperative enough to take a "time out" to allow U.S. troops to clean their rifles?

Jim

 

[Art Eatman]

I went through Basic at Fort Bliss at El Paso. 1954; Garands. I discovered during the later stages of a firing exercise that I had the only rifle of 40 that was still shooting. The Field First Sgt. wandered over to see why this was. Simple: I had one of those GI squirt cans of gun-cleaner. When the action got dirty from powder residue and blowing dust/sand, I just squirted some cleaner into the receiver and kept on shooting. No biggie, I thought.

The Field First and I had all the guys waiting around while we took turns shooting up all the "leftover" ammo.

The only near-problem I had was the FF didn't really believe the trigger on my Garand was "as-issue". Sometimes it's best to be able to fib just a little, with a straight face.

Art

 

[zxc]

excellent posts!
if the issue is to minimize recurrence: alt design/
rifle platform ie the AK has been presented, human
factor has been explored and environmental situations
has been acknowledged.
Everybody can see that as a
whole the Defense Dept will choose to look at overall
result and stay the line.
Lessons will be learned, yada.
Unfortunately, expecting to see this again in my lifetime.
Will be writing my elected officials meantime will
be standing behind the troops.
God bless.
What a way to go...
lucky PvtLynch.

 

[Jeff White]

Jim,
You don't need to clean the M16 continuously. In most environments once a day or even every other day is sufficient. As Art just posted, squirt a little CLP in the action and she'll keep on running. Don't let it get covered in mud or dirt, keep it wiped off and you'll be fine.

The desert with it's blowing sand and talcum powder dust is a different story. The best bet is to keep it covered until needed. Wet lube will attract the dust and sand like a super magnet so use it very sparingly.

From what I know about how many CS and CSS units maintain their small arms, is that they don't. That's not what they fight with. In my minds eye, I see the 507th moving up the MSR with weapons that were so covered in dust that they were tan colored and not black like they should have been. I have seen soldiers in these types of units run chains through the carry handles and padlock their rifles into their vehicles. From the information I've received, they moved up the MSR with no security with their headlights blazing. Cnavas was all tied down on their vehicles, no air guards or soldiers ridign with weapons trained outboard.

This is a leadership problem, not an equipment problem. Now I want to ask one question. What is the difference between those who seek to use the blood of the soldiers of the 507th to sell the Army and new rifle and new lubricant and the Brady Bunch using the blood of the victims of the latest mass shooting to sell more gun control?

Jeff

 

[BDM]

no difference at all Jeff. these two groups will use these unfortunate incidents caused by an individual or group of individuals to demonize the object or issue to further their agenda,they just publicize the incident and misinform to gain support for problems that do not exist,in the armys case simple,"clean your weapons" maybe better leadership in rear area operations .the antgunners issue of using the shooting to say we shouldnt own guns,the fix"every law abiding citizen should be able to have a weapon at their side at work or not"if the man who tried to wrestle the shotgun away from that madman had a gun he could have ended the problem real quick while avoiding injury to himself and death and injury to others.If common sense in these issues prevailed we would be in better shape as a nation....dave

 

[Destructo6]

Now I want to ask one question. What is the difference between those who seek to use the blood of the soldiers of the 507th to sell the Army and new rifle and new lubricant and the Brady Bunch using the blood of the victims of the latest mass shooting to sell more gun control?

That's easy, those here want the troops equipped with a better weapon, so they'll never be defenseless again. Brady ain't like that at all.

 

[BDM]

The point is a new weapon is not needed like gun control is not needed but the army and brady will use these incidents to further their goals,For the military a new probably hastily put into service weapon system for brady more gun control,2 different situations but the same in the respect they are willing to use misfortune and misinformation to acieve their goals example:just because some soldiers who didnt maintain 3 varieties of weapons experienced malfunctions wich led to some being killed dosent mean we get rid of the M249,and the browning.50 even though everyone points to the M16 as needing replacement when all 3 failed. just because some nut case kills 5 people dosent mean we make the hundreds of thousands of law abiding americans give up their guns,2 different situations but the same basis of justification to satisfy their goals wich is misinformation and lies,the M16 is not problamatic if maintained on a basic level and ordinary citizens arent running around shooting inocent people everyday,thats the point.