View Full Version : M-4 Unreliable Issues Hit The Sunday News
ChadAmberg
10-11-2009, 08:07
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563883,00.html
In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.
When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.
Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?
Since it hit the news this morning, lets open up the age old debate.
Is the AR-15 platform inherently unreliable, only unreliable with no maintenance, or perfectly reliable? Or somewhere in between, pretty darn reliable just like everything else, but possibly not quite reliable enough for heavy usage in one of the worst environments possible on this planet?
kidicarus13
10-12-2009, 01:21
From what I've experienced over the years it wouldn't be my choice for an assault rifle if I could only have one.
Colorado Osprey
10-12-2009, 07:15
But the replacement, the FN SCAR has a reliability rating 1.3% better....isn't that why they are replacing the M4?
Sorry, but the weapon platform is as reliable as you maintain or use it as designed including rounds per minute.
Can you still get failures.... you bet.
Is it the M4 the most advanced reliable weapon platform issued to troops anywhere?
Well, as to reliability maybe not compared to an AK, but hey, at least we can actually hit where we are aiming. As far as advanced, there is no doubt.
Bailey Guns
10-13-2009, 20:51
In the chaos and confusion of a firefight as intense and long as that one, it doesn't surprise me there were some weapon failures.
We really won't ever know what went wrong and it's unfortunate so many Americans were killed and injured.
Frankly, I wouldn't rush to any conclusions about the unreliability of the M4 system. Now, I've never been in that kind of fight or subjected my guns to that kind of necessary abuse. But I've used my guns in some fairly intense training with a lot of rounds fired. Mine have always worked well.
My son is an AF JTAC and is on his 5th tour over there...twice to Afghan-land and 3 times to Iraq. He's seem some fairly heavy combat (he was awarded a Bronze Star with Valor for fighting in Fallujah in 11/04) and he's also attached to an Army unit. He, and from what he says the Army guys he's served with, have nothing but praise for the M4.
I'm not saying we, as a country, shouldn't look for, or consider, an updated battle rifle/carbine. I just don't think I'd trash the M4 without a well thought out and tested replacement.
SA Friday
10-13-2009, 21:18
Ya, JTAC see a butt load of action. I worked with SF pretty regular and they all had either an AF JTAC or TACP assigned to them. Who ever says AF guys don't see combat were smokin dope... Some of us do and did. That's a tough gig.
I never had issues with my M-4, M-16A2, GUU, or GAU over the years. My last tour, we did some pretty heavy training while in Iraq and shot a serious amount of rounds to stay sharp and test the equipment. We did have M-4's fail. Every time it was the operator's shitty mx. It didn't matter what M4 we gave them, it failed during training. "Some people you just can't reach."
One of the things we changed that helped (aside from babysitting the retards) was getting rid of the CLP and using Tetra gun oil and 30 wt motor oil as lube. Then we had to reprogram some of the brighter NCO's about leaving them dry. You have to use lube even in dusty conditions, you have to clean more too. Once we got that straight (and babysitting the retards) guns ran smooth. I put over 2000 rounds through my M4 in one training session in about an hour. It was crazy hot, but still ran like it was new. Ditch the CLP and go to something that works, clean it like your life depends on it, and the M4 will run like a raped ape.
You want something that runs as reliably as an AK, be prepared to sacrific the accuracy. Much of the reliability comes with much looser tolerances. That costs.
The question, "do our troops have the best gun money can buy" is a loaded question. Of course they don't... At face value, one gun, there are much better out there IMO. In the MASS quantities that we use in the military? That's a crap load of guns and ammo... M4's pretty cost effective. The difference between Direct impingment and say a 416 upper or 556 upper piston driven gun might show an improvement in reliability, but you do lose a bit of accuracy. You still have to clean and lube as much as an M4 or have issues. Not really the best solution.
I doubt you will see the military go away from the M4 for quite some time, and it will take a leap in technology to move to the change. Caseless ammo that's reliable would be the one that comes to mind, but we are far from that yet.
I can't speak to this with the experience as most of you, but I wonder what "machine gun” the soldier switched to, as it failed too. That is some terrible luck, and it makes me wonder if the problem was more than just a crappy M4, instead it may be an issue the two guns share. Maybe lube, or ammo in the case of a M249. If it was an M249 I wonder if it was one of the models that can take M16 mags, in which case that could be an issue. Perhaps conditions of the area(fine sand), maintenance/cleaning schedule, or age condition of the firearms.
Thanks to all you guys who served.
instead it may be an issue the two guns share.
Perhaps the issue that both guns shared was the operator, like SA Friday talked about.
SA Friday
10-14-2009, 14:03
I can't speak to this with the experience as most of you, but I wonder what "machine gun” the soldier switched to, as it failed too. That is some terrible luck, and it makes me wonder if the problem was more than just a crappy M4, instead it may be an issue the two guns share. Maybe lube, or ammo in the case of a M249. If it was an M249 I wonder if it was one of the models that can take M16 mags, in which case that could be an issue. Perhaps conditions of the area(fine sand), maintenance/cleaning schedule, or age condition of the firearms.
Thanks to all you guys who served.
The M249 is most commonly called a SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon), and made by FN. It can take belt 5.56 or mag fed 5.56 from M4/M16 mags. It's very much like the FN made M240 7.62 belt fet machine gun, the replacement of the M60. But, the M249 has a locking bolt where the M240 is a slam fire weapon and the bolt doesn't lock into the chamber when fired. The most common terminal failure from an M249 is case head separation. This essentially leaves the case fused to the chamber wall and the back of the case has been ripped off. They make a case remover tool for this, but it takes at least 10 to 15 minutes to extract the case. The M249 comes with two barrels so it can be swapped if one becomes too hot. Based on the limited info in the article, the second barrel was either not available, not used and the gun severely overheated to failure, or the operator didn't know how to swap the barrel. The cyclic rate on an M249 is extremely fast for a belt fed. In the heat of an intense battle, I can easily see an operator failing to control bursts and not swapping a barrel to the point where the SAW was literally toast.
SA Friday
10-18-2009, 20:57
For your viewing pleasure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dipghcp929I
This is a 3 gun shooter that got tired of the whole unreliable thing. So, he videoed this test.
He uses CLP and Rem oil and runs it wet.
Bailey Guns
10-19-2009, 07:40
Fun video! LWRC has one on their website that shows a guy pouring dirt into the railed forearm while a second guy is firing the gun.
A wet AR is a happy AR.
Daniel_187
10-19-2009, 12:14
I have never really had problems with dirt, it was more Wolf ammo the anything else. I use to shot the green coated stuff then I tried the plain steal case and about after 200 rounds I would get a case stuck in the chamber. I have not had it happen when I use brass. just my .02 I don't know if it matters but it was an upper from Galati International with a ER Shaw Barrel. don't know if that was the issuse or not
Bailey Guns
10-19-2009, 16:31
10/13/09: Sabre Defence M4 cleaned and lubed.
10/14/09: 250 rounds Wolf Polymer 55gr fired. 0 malfunctions. No cleaning, no lubrication after firing.
10/15/09: 900 rounds Wolf Polymer 55gr fired. 0 malfunctions. No cleaning, no lubrication.
10/19/09: 150 rounds Wolf Polymer 55gr fired. 0 malfunctions. Cleaned it. Liberally lubed it. What a PITA! Yes, it was VERY dirty. But it works with Wolf. Always.
ColoEnthusiast
10-20-2009, 08:34
Never thought that the wolf .223 was that consistent. What kind of groups can you attain with it??
Bailey Guns
10-20-2009, 09:37
MOT = Minute of Torso
I don't shoot it for precision. I shoot it for practice. It's plenty accurate for that.
But, I was easily hitting a 12"x10" steel plate at 250 yds last Thurs with open sights and/or an EoTech. That's accurate enough for me. I can't see any better than that.
SA Friday
10-20-2009, 17:56
And he just continues to abuse that poor thing. More vid of the abuse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o
SA Friday
10-20-2009, 18:03
Now he's abusing a poor innocent AK!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5WhVvtYak
Bailey Guns
10-20-2009, 19:49
But...but...that can't possibly happen. Everyone knows AKs can survive a nuclear explosion at ground-zero and still function. Everyone also knows that an AR must be kept and shot in a totally sterile, dust-free environment, meticulously maintained and lubricated and blessed by several holy men in order to work at even a mediocre level of reliability.
Oh...and the AR platform has to be an HK 416 to really work...any internet operator can tell you that.
Daniel_187
10-21-2009, 09:51
LMAO. HAHAHA. I wonder if it would have be diffrent if he use a 7.62x39 ak Just wondering. might be the same results.
The last time I took a new shooter out, I handed him my AR, at which point he asks "So, this is an AK-47"
I say "nope that's an AR-15...like an M-16, basically"
he says "Oh, Don't they break a lot?"
"No, that's not really a problem"
off topic but-
-little while later-
I say "do you know how to work an AR?"
response "oh yeah"
I sit back and enjoy watching him fumble with trying to drop the bolt for a moment, then came the education you can't get on the History Chanel or an Xbox.
I may be a bad person, true, but these guns sure do have a reputation with people who don't know much about guns. Or those who pretend to know a lot about guns. I have read more than one book on firearms that mentions how unreliable the AR is.
SA Friday
10-21-2009, 11:07
They got the reputation for unreliability in Viet Nam, the first gen guns weren't really tested as well as they should have been. After many years of testing and redesign, they're pretty much a sewing machine.
One of my friends in the Air Force said that it is not uncommon for guys to confiscate AK's, send them to the armorer for clean up (and to tighten the head space), then use the AK's while out there, then just leave them for the next batch of new troops. I feel kind of stupid verbalizing this, but I HAVE seen more than a few pictures of troops carrying around nice AK's.
Bailey Guns
10-21-2009, 12:10
One of my friends in the Air Force said that it is not uncommon for guys to confiscate AK's, send them to the armorer for clean up (and to tighten the head space), then use the AK's while out there, then just leave them for the next batch of new troops. I feel kind of stupid verbalizing this, but I HAVE seen more than a few pictures of troops carrying around nice AK's.
I don't mean to rag on your friend...but that's highly unlikely. I can tell you from having been an Air Force Red Hat (Combat Arms Instructor, Armorer, etc...) that they (the armorers) will almost certainly not "clean up and tighten the headspace" and then return the rifle to a troop. Not only do AF regs prohibit using non-issue weapons generally, but most Red Hats wouldn't have a clue how to "tighten the headspace" on an AK. Not only would they almost certainly not know how to do that, unless they stumbled across the headspace gauges they wouldn't have those, either.
My son (an Air Force JTAC) has captured/picked up several enemy weapons. With the exception of one (an AK which is hanging over the shop entrace at the 9th Air Support Operations Group at Ft Hood, TX) he was required to immediately surrender the guns to security forces personnel for disposal.
Here are a couple of photos. It's one thing to capture the gun and get a few minutes for a photo op...it's another to actually "carry" it in place of your M4/M16:
Fallujah, 11/04
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt337/baileyguns/PB130038.jpg
The captured AK (looks a lot like a Yugo!) now residing at the 9th ASOS
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt337/baileyguns/PC090052.jpg
Kyle w/said captured AK before turning it in (post Battle of Fallujah...he hadn't slept for about 72 hrs)
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt337/baileyguns/PC090056.jpg
What the rules say is supposed to happen, and what actually happens are two different things though.
SA Friday
10-21-2009, 12:37
I served one tour in Desert Shield/Storm and two tours in OIF. NOBODY in the US military is carrying AKs over there. Due to the job I did in OIF, we confiscated hundreds of thousands of munitions and weapons in Iraq. Cache identification and confiscation and SAM buy-back programs were a huge part of our mission. We kept samples of various types of firearms and hand-held weapons, and we used them for training new agents and our SFS security teams on the various weapons being used over there. EOD did this also when it came to the plethora of IED's etc being used over there. Nobody was carrying any of that junk.
The combat arms guys (CATM) I was with over there weren't trained on the M2, much less an AK. There is no way that they are rebuilding AK's for use. I have seen what CATM had available at 4 locations in Iraq for maintaining firearms and I can tell you they didn't have the right tools, and almost all wouldn't know how to fix the headspacing on an AK. I had to rebuild 2 M2s and fix one non functioning M249 while over there because the CATM guys didn't have the tools, parts, or training to do it. Thank god we had Army and KBR contractors over there with the parts and know-how.
I will say, at the beginning of the war, there was a real problem getting M4's to some of the AF troops. The AF receives weapons after all three other branches. It caused some problems for the few career fields that acutually go off base. But going off into a combat zone with a weapon that would identify you as something other than a US combatant would be a really bad idea.
SA Friday
10-21-2009, 12:45
Bailey, it might be a Tabuk. The Iraqis and Iranians were very good at reverse engineering guns. I found some very interesting stuff over there.
One of my friends in the Air Force said that it is not uncommon for guys to confiscate AK's, send them to the armorer for clean up (and to tighten the head space), then use the AK's while out there, then just leave them for the next batch of new troops.
Funniest thing I have read on this forum in ages.
Bailey Guns
10-21-2009, 12:47
OK...sure.
Despite the obvious issues regarding the logistics of ammo, magazines, parts, repairs...all of which are not available to the average AF guy for supporting carry of a captured AK, there's also the issue of Article 15s or other UCMJ punishment for violation of AF Regs.
Not to mention no NCO or officer in their right mind is going to allow the average AF person to knowingly violate numerous AF Regs and carry captured enemy weapons of dubious quality.
It's might be a romantic notion, and it might make for good war stories, to tell people, "Oh, yeah. We picked up battlefield AKs and carried them in combat because our M4s sucked." But, I'm telling you...it doesn't happen on a widespread basis or even as a matter of routine for the average AF person.
Can some get away with it in the heat of an engagement? Sure. But other than that, I'll still maintain with virtual certainty it's not something that's widespread and happens often.
Ditto what SA Friday said...
Bailey Guns
10-21-2009, 12:53
Bailey, it might be a Tabuk. The Iraqis and Iranians were very good at reverse engineering guns. I found some very interesting stuff over there.
I believe it is a Tabuk, SA. I have a closeup of the markings somewhere and I believe that's what it was. Good call.
Bailey Guns
10-21-2009, 12:54
Funniest thing I have read on this forum in ages.
Yeah...when I went through CATM training I must've missed the classes on AK maintenance.
Funniest thing I have read on this forum in ages.
Believe me, I feel dumb repeating it, me not being in the services at all....
EDIT: I'd like to bring up one other issue as well. Any time I watch a modern war movie, I notice that the bad guys always have the most beautifully finished AK's ever. I always think, "yeah right, I've seen the shit they use over there, and it doesn't look like that." I've seen lots and lots of pictures of interesting weapons that people have found over there, and it is always some chopped up rifle action with a towel wrapped around it or something. For the record, I've seen many more pictures of junk guns pieced together than of troops carrying AK's.
OgenRwot
10-21-2009, 16:04
This has been discussed at length on several forums. These guys were under supplied in an undermanned FOB in a really crappy location (in a small valley) and were heavily out numbered. The malfunctions came from extreme bbl temperatures. Soldiers died because of bad planning, not because of the M4.
One thing I noticed in my time in the military (AF): preventative maintenance other than cleaning seems to be non-existent. Weapons and mags tend to be used until something fails, then they are replaced or repaired. These weapons are supposed to be serviced and parts replaced according to a maintenance schedule. If that was actually followed I imagine many of these failures could be prevented. I had an M16 issued to me once with a bolt catch so worn the slightest bump to the weapon would allow the bolt to release. And any weapon with a glowing barrel has been pushed to its limit and will fail, I don't care how well maintained it is. As OgenRwot said, those guys died because someone in charge fucked up.
The biggest POS in the US arsenal right now is the M249 SAW. Damn that thing damn it to hell.
reddevil1111
02-21-2010, 00:49
When I was in the Marines we had some early versions of the m-60 still. The trigger group was held on with two pins. They fell out quite often and depending on how you were humping those pigs the trigger group would fall off unnoticed. To operate the weapon we just slam fired it and twisted the ammo belt to jam the runaway to stop shooting.
I also carried early versions of the SAW M-249. I kept it as clean as I could and it still had lots of issues. I am sure most have been worked out but they were wide ranging. Falure to feed from m-16 mags. torn cases jamming the weapon, the feed tray would jam often, links would fail to clear the ejection port and would cause failure to feed.
Both the 60 and 249 if shot to cherry red would fuse the barrel to the reciver if you didnt remove the barrel while it was still cherry red. we used and sometimes had to abuse our weapons. I remember once I needed an m-60 to remain running so we were squirting clp onto the ammo belt hoping it would help to provide some lube to the weapon as it got super hot. I know/knew it was not smart but it was what we did.
The m-16 A3's some of us were issued were so bad that they rattled (huge gaps between the upper and lower recivers) They were junk rifles. Still I managed to shoot expert with one. We learned to make due with little. The guys serving now have it so much better.
We did see improvments during shield/storm. Mostly from the Army stuff we stole to replace our junk. (thanks Army!) I think the m-4 is a good weapon. I would like to see a return to a 308 for the service rifle. I doubt it will ever happen.
Another concern I have is all the optics now being used. I wonder how many weapons using optics are battle zeroed on the iron sights?
Here's some second hand info. A friend of mine from high school and still is a friend joined the army and has been to Iraq twice.
He said that the Special Forces guys carry whatever they want. He seen them regularly with AKs. He also said that they were allowed to leave base whenever they wanted. Wore those man dresses that the Iraq civilians wore and grew beards.
Sounded to me like they probably wanted to blend in more than they found the AK more reliable than the M4.
My buddy was a mechanic and had an AK stripped and stashed away in different tool boxes. They threatened them enough before coming back about bringing things back that he thought better and got rid of it. I did get some Iraq money from him with Husseien face on it...pretty cool to have. Also gave my wife some pressed flowers from one of his palaces.
clworth22
07-02-2010, 09:26
I'm gonna come off as extremely baised towards the Marines, so no offense to the Army guys. I served in the infantry in the Marines and did two tours in Iraq. A couple points why I think the M4 and M-249SAW failed in the Said name firefight we are talking about. Iraq and Afghanistan both have extreme weather conditions that blow sand and grit into weapons on a daily basis. That is why you give each weapon a brush off everyday and oil and lube the weapon everytime you leave the wire. Another factor with the M4 would be the magizines the same issues occur with sand buildup. We were told on a regular basis to remove the rounds from our magizines and clean the mags then put them back into the mags to ensure the magizines were clean and could be trusted in the event of a firefight. I don't know if this technique was followed or not, It makes me lean towards not. Comparing the Army's gear to the Marines gear was laughable because they always had better gear and guns than us. I believe the failure on the M4, and SAW was operator error and now a manufacturer flaw in weaponery. In my experience both weapons mentioned work great if oiled and lubed correctly, with the exception of an occasional jam with the SAW wich can be cleared easily with a trained operator. Just my two cents. Casey USMC 02-06
NOBODY in the US military is carrying AKs over there.
Not true. During the pre-invasion, AK's were encouraged in USASOC as the M4 is a tell tale sign of US or Isralei forces. For handguns, we were issued.40 High Powers or 9 mm CZ 75's. Then again, that was USASOC, not regular army. They are still allowed the choice of firearms provided that you remain proficient with it and the armoror signs off on it.
To fix the problems with the M4, you are 100% correct. It is the loose nut behind the handle (the operator). Oil, especially CLP, cooks off when the gun heats up, leaving it dry. You have to use a thicker oil or grease to keep the gun running. Larry Vickers gave me a tube of MillComm TW 25-B and that stuff is amazing. He got it approved for all of us in USASOC. It doesn't cook off, and it doesn't collect dirt. I've used it ever since. The gun doesn't need to be fully cleaned every day, just properly lubed. As Larry Vickers is known for saying, "your gun will run clean and wet, and dirty and wet, but will eventually fail if dry (clean or dirty)."
An AR is better oiled. I think the gas system is the weak point of it and the piston conversions are the answer.
SA Friday
07-02-2010, 15:22
Not true. During the pre-invasion, AK's were encouraged in USASOC as the M4 is a tell tale sign of US or Isralei forces. For handguns, we were issued.40 High Powers or 9 mm CZ 75's. Then again, that was USASOC, not regular army. They are still allowed the choice of firearms provided that you remain proficient with it and the armoror signs off on it.
OK, you got me there. SOCOM did/does allow a lot of latitude in weapons selection to match the mission. I would counter the reason for the weapons change for SOCOM personnel isn't the reason of this discussion and therefore not really relevant. The SOCOM weapons change is/was to reduce/negate the tactics, techniques, and practices (TTPs) signature of it's personnel, and has nothing to do with mechanical difficulties. I will also state this practice essentially disappeared and was unauthorized (unless prior approval from the OIF SOF commander based on mission requirements was granted) after the first 18 months of the war. For the most part, the majority of SOF I worked with were carrying M-4's. There was a ton of modification allowed on their weapons, but I would figure 80-90% of them started out with with the current issued versions of the M-4/M-16 platforms. The mass majority of weapon change to AK's and the various pistols stemmed from SOF counterintelligence gathering missions.
The counterintelligence (CI) structure was a total F'ed up mess in the beginning of the war. Most of the CI info the SOF was using to target bad-guys with was being self-gathered. The CI mission finally got on track, and the necessity for the SOF units to be self-reliant in this area drastically disappeared. There were/are still times when this mission is being handled by SOF (operations in the Fallujah area come to mind) , but more and more they have learned it's adventageous to pull in trained CI gatherers (and train them as part of the SOF team) adding them to the team instead of training one of their own. Ironically, this philosophy led SOCOM to request CI support from the mainstream troops. SOCOM, being a joint command and could request this support from any of the four branches, requested the CI agents from the USAF.
Oops, I'm rambling... I have more info on this. Let me know if you want to hear any more as I've gone completely 'left turn' from the topic. I lived this stuff from the CI side.
No info needed, I was there (the USASOC side).
mikedubs
07-03-2010, 07:39
I just watched those videos posted by SA Friday, and I gotta wave the BS flag.
He runs the AR wet, plus he dumps the crap out of the chamber before he fires.
He apparently runs the AK dry and leaves the crap in the receiver...no effin s*** your weapon will fail to work with rocks in the FCG, recoil spring, and blocking the bolt, that's no kind of test. Try maybe locking the AR bolt, filling with dirt, and releasing on a filled chamber to see how well it works.
Plus, I would not be surprised if .223 doesn't have the oomph to work that heavy BCG in a filthy weapon...he kind of takes pleasure in pointing out how fail the AK was...but maybe that's just a 3-gun shooter mentality (no offense to other 3-gun guys).
That said, it's gratifying to know that a properly maintained AR will work in a filthy environment
Rant over[Bang]
In the July issue of SWAT magazine, their is an article about a Colt LE6940 that finally went KABOOM after 17,600 rounds. The rifle was lubed generously with SLIP2000 EWL. At approx. 15,600 rounds, the rifle started malfunctioning. The culprit was an extractor and spring. At this point the part was replaced, the rifle was cleaned and returned to service. The author says they mainly used Black Hills ammo but would also use whatever they could get a hold of except steel case and reloads. The rifle was sent back to Colt after the KB but no response as of yet from them. I don't know about others saying the AR platform is unreliable, but this article proves it is a reliable weapon when properly lubed and maintained. I personally have a Rock River lower/ DPMS upper AR that I have never cleaned. It gets lubed with Gunzilla after a good range session or when it starts getting a little dry. Not one malfunction to date. I have about 600 rounds down the pipe so far.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.