Major AR Fail

[VincentYGB 0]

This is a travesty of such epic proportion I'm too enraged to even comment. Give 'em AK's:

 

Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

By Richard Lardner

The Associated Press

Published: 10.11.2009

 

WASHINGTON – 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?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any assumptions regarding what did or didn't work correctly," he said.

Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.

The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

"The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.

Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.

Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.

The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., hasn't been publicly released. Copies of the study have been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.

Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.

On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.

Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

Bogar was killed during the firefight, but no one saw how he died, according to the report.

Edited October 11, 2009 by VincentYGB

[bigcec1 72]

Um I'm interested to hear

[Bayoupiper 738]

i thought the AR platform problems had been addressed years ago.

At least that is what we were told.

 

Wonder how this was received on arfcom?

[DogMan 2,343]

i thought the AR platform problems had been addressed years ago.

At least that is what we were told.

 

Wonder how this was received on arfcom?

 

The problems have been addressed, just not by the military. IMHO the Robinson XCR has the best of both worlds between the AR15 or M4 and an AK. Other weapons are superior, too. This is really a shame.

Edited October 11, 2009 by DogMan

[Nailbomb 10,221]

IMHO the standard M-16 A2-A4 is a better weapon than the carbine version. The .223 round relies on high FPS to reach its terminal effects properly.

 

aside from that fact the current issue weapons are fine, though you do have tio clean them. I've seen myself that troops can become complacent and not properly maintain many things not just thier weapons.

 

Out of respect for the dead i hate to chalk this up to something like complacentcy, and failure to PM, but i fear that is the case.

 

In the dust like desert of iraq you have to clean your weapon every day. I also prefered to keep my M-16 wet, and not use dry lube. CLP all the way for me. My machine guns i used arctic lube(its like a white grease) whenever available, for some reason they liked it much more than the clp.

 

SAW's are too hyper in my opinion, I would rather drag around the extra weight of a 240G, and if its mounted its M-2 untill i'm forced to choose something else.

 

 

 

then again, maybe the next choice would make me rethink my entire opinion, But i would have to see it first.

[Paulry 50]

The AR is the ONLY semi auto that will fire without the bolt closed. I've seen it and it is catastrophic. AR's are accurate toys. Even Eugene Stoner knew better and came up with the AR18. This is much closer to the AK than the AR. The AR18 went on to become the basis of the British bull pup rifle via the Sterling Arms. How the US army got stuck with the AR, it's a four letter word [[[[[[[[ COLT. It's all who you know and who you blow! Frigging political. Armalite sold the AR15/16 to Colt. It's all smoking mirrors.

[shades_of_grey 1,092]

You have a lot more pertinent experience with these weapons when it really matters, Nailbomb, I readily acknowledge that.

 

However... it seems to me that our troops should be using a battle rifle that doesn't require cleaning every day in order to function reliably. I don't think that's reasonable when in the field. Regular cleaning is best, but it shouldn't be absolutely necessary to avoid weapon malfunctions at potentially critical moments.

[DogMan 2,343]

To the extent that heat plays a role in weapons malfunctions there is no question that this is where the AK has the advantage.

 

Don't try this with a M4

 

[Twinsen 86]

I don't know what the deal is with the AR-15, to be honest. The design has come far since the first generation. The AR-18 has been mentioned in this thread already. I'll go ahead and mention it again.

 

AR-18.

[Stansplace 414]

I have never fired any AR platform rifle, but I have been beside MANY at my MANY range trips while shooting my AK. My rifle works and works and works.................. no problems. I have yet seen ANYONE with an AR platform at a range trip that hasn't had to perform some sort of maintenance/jam removal/teardown. You know something other than shooting and loading the damn thing.

 

I have seen the argument a thousand times between the two platforms, but I have decided not to buy one because of the problems I have personally witnessed. I agree that they are more accurate, however I do not want a rifle that doesn't do what a rifle is supposed to do. ALL my firearms are based on 100% reliability. I work on them until they do that, if they can't do that, then they must go.... And get replaced with something that will.

[Paulry 50]

You know, I even begin to question the accuracy issue. I know the AR is good, but, if you rig a AK-100 series in .223 with the same ammo and optics as an M4, I'll bet it's not that great a difference! But, you damn sure will see better function and with the folding stock on the AK-100 series and slightly longer barrel it will be lighter and hit harder.

 

OK that's it, I would love to see a full blown head to head of a M4 to a AK-100 in .223 and I'm talking all respects, including the mud and water tests!

 

I think I know the answer! Do you?

 

Comrade Frosty

[loki0629 55]

I agree with Nailbomb that the full length M16A4 is preferable to the M4 carbine. The .223 round really does prefer a longer barrel to reach it's potential.

 

That being said, I've run into troops at remote posts and regardless of branch, they all cleaned their weapons with religious fervor. The smarter ones kept an AK handy.

[BpS12 512]

I grow up listening to the Viet Vets bitch about the M16 and how they kept their issued weapons for inspections and carried AKs in battle/on patrol. My first M16 was actually stamped "Matel"(sp). So were my G.I. Joes as a kid, lol. That pretty much killed any enthusiasum I ever had to the M16/4 platform. I qualified Expert with everything I shot/handled while I was in Service, except the M16. I did finally make Sharpeshooter(2nd level?) with one that had an M203 on it. Maybe it was my own psych issue about the thing, I did LOVE the 203, lol.

 

I agree that it IS a finely tuned target rifle. But if I were in a day/week long running battle, I would toss it for an AK in heartbeat. Stopping to clean your weapon every hour or 2 could get you killed. And that seems to have been part of the problem for our troops from the get go. Let's see, Clean weapon or Eat, Sleep, Patrol, Stand Guard, Etc? Sorry I'll go with the AK platform everytime.

 

LRoDV,

Mikel

[Nailbomb 10,221]

I agree with Nailbomb that the full length M16A4 is preferable to the M4 carbine. The .223 round really does prefer a longer barrel to reach it's potential.

 

That being said, I've run into troops at remote posts and regardless of branch, they all cleaned their weapons with religious fervor. The smarter ones kept an AK handy.

And whats your opinion of the current array of crew served weapons? that was mentioned in the article also...

 

My least favorite was the mark 19, and i only ever saw it in training environments(thank god). It was the most jam happy craptastic POS i've ever lain my hands upon. This was based on several expiriences mind you, but I would like to hear from anyone else with expirience with them.

[Krom 36]

I agree with Nailbomb that the full length M16A4 is preferable to the M4 carbine. The .223 round really does prefer a longer barrel to reach it's potential.

 

That being said, I've run into troops at remote posts and regardless of branch, they all cleaned their weapons with religious fervor. The smarter ones kept an AK handy.

And whats your opinion of the current array of crew served weapons? that was mentioned in the article also...

 

My least favorite was the mark 19, and i only ever saw it in training environments(thank god). It was the most jam happy craptastic POS i've ever lain my hands upon. This was based on several expiriences mind you, but I would like to hear from anyone else with expirience with them.

 

 

I agree, the mark 19 is a jamtastic mother-f*cker!! I too only used it in training but I saw enough to know it's not up to par on reliability.

 

I don't have enough experience to comment on the m249 personally, but I've heard alot more negative than positive. My M16A2 didn't have many problems but man I kept that thing spotless and oiled ever few hours. M16's/M4's shine in high speed tactical SWAT type stuff, but fall short in battle field conditions and sustained combat(my 2cents).

[Paulry 50]

I was going to say the same about the SWAT application. It fits the police role so much better that the battle field. SWAT normally don't do constant mag dumps! With a mass attack you must dump all you can or not survive.

[loki0629 55]

My experience is that the SAW, the 240 golf, and the mk19 can be made to work. A good gunner can keep it running. A mediocre one will do things that can cause it to jam and things can quickly snowball from bad to worse when the person behind the trigger doesn't know what to do next. This can only be compounded when the situation is a firefight and there is no support. Of the three, the M240G wins hands down for reliability from a purely mechanical point of view. I've used the M4 and my weapon has never jammed. I even carried a non-issue carbine with a really short barrel for a little while. But in the back of my head there was always that little voice wondering if today was going to be the day that my primary weapon crapped out on me. I kept the M1014 handy and when I could, an AK.

 

Now speaking of support, there are some details in the story that don't make sense. If the soldiers were in fact part of a remote garrison, why didn't they have indirect fire support? Air, arty, naval gunfire, AC130...something? Why weren't they conserving ammo? Why would a soldier get so pissed at his weapon that he got mad and threw it down? What did he think his other option was? I have a hard time picturing a platoon of soldiers with so little fire discipline and lack of situational awareness that they'd burn through enough ammo in half an hour to turn their barrels white hot. The pair popping up from the crows nest? It sounds like they kept popping up at the same exact location they went down, which is a big mistake.

 

So having thought about it a little more, maybe it was a maintenance issue.

[VanKiller 322]

Now don't start calling me "Grandpa" , But back in my day, any spec war troops that could find an excuse or some justification for it, would draw M-14s.

 

The M-14 or maybe the BM-59 were some of the most reliable and all around GI friendly rifles ever built.

 

Based on the Garand action, you could basically treat it like an AK and keep on shooting, just farther, with more energy and better accuracy.

 

But someone was sold on the idea that troops could carry three times as much ammo for the 223 with the same amount of weight as the 7.62 Nato. The math never worked out for me, as you had to shoot the somebitches four or five times with the 22 cal round to get the same result as one 30 cal round. (Now if we loaded Sierra HP ammo, in the 223 it was a different story) That transfer of energy thing gets real interesting.

 

Here's an idea, lets bring back a bunch of the good shit that worked, M-14s, HP ammo, napalm, FAE bombs, that old WW 2 flame-thrower should work in those Afgan caves same as they did on the Jap islands.

 

Stomp there asses and tell'em if they don't behave we'll come back and do it again.

 

Ohhhhh sorry, all those DR Spock babies are running the govt now, we can't spank the bad countries anymore, we need to show them affection..........

 

I'm goin back to fill more sandbags for my bunker, and dig out a copy of "Napalm sticks to little children" and relax for awhile.......in the dark.............

[Wolverine 10,360]

Now don't start calling me "Grandpa" , But back in my day, any spec war troops that could find an excuse or some justification for it, would draw M-14s.

 

The M-14 or maybe the BM-59 were some of the most reliable and all around GI friendly rifles ever built.

 

Based on the Garand action, you could basically treat it like an AK and keep on shooting, just farther, with more energy and better accuracy.

 

But someone was sold on the idea that troops could carry three times as much ammo for the 223 with the same amount of weight as the 7.62 Nato. The math never worked out for me, as you had to shoot the somebitches four or five times with the 22 cal round to get the same result as one 30 cal round. (Now if we loaded Sierra HP ammo, in the 223 it was a different story) That transfer of energy thing gets real interesting.

 

Here's an idea, lets bring back a bunch of the good shit that worked, M-14s, HP ammo, napalm, FAE bombs, that old WW 2 flame-thrower should work in those Afgan caves same as they did on the Jap islands.

 

Stomp there asses and tell'em if they don't behave we'll come back and do it again.

 

Ohhhhh sorry, all those DR Spock babies are running the govt now, we can't spank the bad countries anymore, we need to show them affection..........

 

I'm goin back to fill more sandbags for my bunker, and dig out a copy of "Napalm sticks to little children" and relax for awhile.......in the dark.............

 

 

I'm with you. The M-14 is a little heavy but it is a far superior battle rifle and round to the whole M-16, AR, M-4 .223 bunch,

[Paulry 50]

Van, I used to load Nosler Solid Base Ballistic Tips 62 gr. in 22-250 for Antelope and wow you talk about expansion and accuracy! Yet that damn solid copper base would go through bone like butter. A very good killer! A waste in a auto weapon.