Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

[ronrog69]

Everyone in this group should find this article and issue to be of great concern. Not only for safety and protection of our troops, but for a weapon that we hold very dear to our hearts. I think this could be the start of a snow ball rolling down a very steep hill. I will be interested to see where this goes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_weapons_failures

[m24shooter]

I found some other examples as well.

Shell fire severed telephone wire; messengers dispatched from the battalion command post simply vanished. "The mud would foul your rifle after a few clips, and you'd throw it down and crawl around hollering for another rifle," Sergeant Charles C. Perry of Company C later said. There were extra rifles-by the dozens-after the first day and night...

Men lay on their backs kicking at jammed rifle bolts with their boots. "We learned in that battle that sand and oil don't mix," a lieutenant recalled.
Before I go jumping to conclusions I think some holes in the aritcle need to be filled in. The author says there is no indication of weapons failures in the more recent example, but says the circumstances are "eerily similar." If there is no evidence, why is it being thrown in the article? Because a small number of US troops faced a large number of enemies? What does that have to do with reliability?
If I remember correctly, Coburn has been involved in this argument for a while and I don't know that I trust his creds either.
The report says the weapons were meticulous, but what does that mean? That doesn't say if the actual procedures were correctly suited to the environment and conditions. They could be meticulously cleaning and maintaining them to the totally wrong standard.
There was enough firing that the barrels are reported to have turned white hot. One Soldier went through 12 mags in 30 minutes when he appears to have started having probems. If the report on the elapsed time is accurate that shouldn't be a problem. Don't know what was going on there.
The 249 has a spotty record as it is.
Like I said, there is a lot of info not in that report, and I'm not going to be throwing out all my ARs because of it.
And the examples I set off in quotes are about the Army's experience in Tunisia

[Eric]

Of interest in the article:

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.

"I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight.

[JustMatt]

I'm curiouse as to why the US Military isn't Berry Compliant. We pay alot of money to have European based company's making OUR troops weapons! As tax payers why don't we have a say in where our troops get there guns? Wouldn't it be helpful to our economy if S&W, Remington or even Noveske, Robinson or LWRC and POF made our troops primary weapons? I was never in the military so I can't speak from experience but it seems like this issue pops up often. I recently read a article where the author attended a Squad Designated Marksman course with a Noveske N4 and shot better than everyone else in the class and set a course record at 500m! Why arent our troops shooting THAT gun! And just as a side note. The whole DI vs Piston thing is a simple fix. The military is going to a piston style gun anyway so why not drop $300-500 per rifle and add pistons to our existing inventory? I'm sure ARES and Adams Arms wouldn't mind the business. Or instead of dropping $1500-2000 on a new FN SCAR for each troop i'm sure LWRC would cut the government a deal on some uppers for close to half that! I'm not bible thumping the piston thing but thats the way they want to go anyway. If they wanna do a whole new gun then whats wrong with the MagPul/Remington ACR/Masada or the Robinson XCR? both decent and in line with what they want. Flame me if i'm outa line here.

[Creeky73]

I don't have a whole lot of concern about this from a personal standpoint, as I am not in the military. I do have much respect and admiration for them, and I would prefer them to have the best equipment possible. For myself, as a home defense weapon, I doubt if my AR will ever see the kind of conditions that our military puts them through, so I have no problem trusting my life to this weapon. I will soon be acquiring an AK so that I will have a weapon that can handle the harshest conditions. But if the AR platform is found lacking in certain environments, coupled together with all the arguments that people already have against the 5.56 round, maybe it is time for the military to make a change.

[SilentType]

All firearms malfunction. All firearms have failures. The question is whether the M4 has more malfunctions/failures than other assault rifles. This question was answer some time ago in a controlled and U.S. Army conducted evaluation known as the "Dust Test." The XM8 performed best in that test followed by the FNH SCAR, the HK 416, and in dead last the Colt M4. The Colt had about 8 times more malfunctions/failures than the FNH SCAR. That means that our military is not carrying the best rifle money can buy. They are in fact carrying the best rifle the DOD's current budget structure will permit.

Now the XM8 has other weaknesses, but it's gas piston operating system is not one of them. The Remington ACR has a gas piston system that to my understanding was modeled on the XM8's. It was still to new a prototype to be included in the "Dust Test," but it could be evaluated right now. The FNH SCAR could be adopted tomorrow since their lengthy SOCOM evaluation would provide DOD with all the data they could desire. The SCAR also has its 7.62 NATO variant MK17, which mean DM rifles will share 80% parts with the MK16 5.56 NATO variant for a more streamlined logistical supply. FNH is an international company now and have been for a long time. They employ and produce here in the United States of America.

[Belloc]

Wonder if this is the answer to the M4s problems.
http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum/showthread.php?t=868

[Konrad]

Douglas Cubbison is the author of the unpublished report the news media refer to, the only title I found is "Battle of Wanat Historical Analysis" in draft form released on a web site on 30 July,

http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/

specifically the url for the report is

http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/battle-of-wanat-historical-analysis-rough-draft-release/

I'm not familiar with the site, and I'm a retired civilian educator so I can't comment on its quality of content.

Regards,
Konrad.

[federalist22]

From a cost per unit and spares standpoint, it will be at least until 2020, or possibly beyond, before we see a major shift in the standard infantry weapon system. Other non-combat arms units will probably sport a M4 or even an A2 for years after that. We had no M4s, only an A2s, in my unit and I got out in mid-2003. Look at the renewal of the M9 Beretta contract in 2006--surely our soldiers/marines would be better off with a Springfield XD or other polymer for a new pistol, which are not only cheaper, but hold up better in the sandbox. It's politics as usual that drive contract awards. I agree, the best course of action should be to retrofit pistons on the M4, a job that could be done at the unit level. I imagine that some SOF units have probably made the switchover on their own using their own budgets, but other units do not have the latitude to do so.

[Sudslinger]

Federalist, I think you hit the nail on the head. So much of what happens with regards to weapon contracts is simply political. The service pistol contract might be the best example. I can think of no less than 4 pistols that would be better suited (I'm no authority btw) but these decisions aren't made on just performance.

[DeskTopWarrior]

About the M9, if what I read about the initial adoption way back when was true, Beretta beat out Sig on the basis of lower cost, not better performance. Weather it be cost or politics, every bueracracy produces a result that is less then the best. The Government is never going to get it right simply because there are too many peple involved in the decision.

[GoG-Man]

I think it is a combinations of things.

The people who decide those weapons contacts dont "seem" to have their priorities correct. Or similar to other contracts, the guy writing it up has limited experience with what he is contracting. You think "operator level" guys write contracts? There is a huge disconnect from where the rubber meets the road and where the tires are bought. I see it every day sitting in the defac over here; watching all the gear that passes by. Someone, somewhere thought that POS, ACU holster was a good idea to buy. It was probably $5 cheaper than the Safariland. :mad:

I don't think the military should have the "very best money can buy" (we are limited by budgets), but they deserve something better. There has been many advances in small arms, and it is very feasible to move on to a better technology. BUT it must not be give and take. The XM8's gas system according to that test was shit hot. BUT it lacked the mounting options that our current weapon has. Not an acceptable trade off. Hell the AK offers comparable mounting options, and is already in service!

Training is and will be a huge issue for the military. The Army is so big that it is very hard to maintain the quality and wisdom in the force. I was not there so I don't know what happened, but the majority of weapons issues I have seen in the past have been user induced. I have shot thousands of rounds in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had minimal issues (lithium grease and militec helps I think). BUT, if they were dumping mags full auto, as fast as they could jam them in the rifle, they will reach the limit of the M4 system at that rate of fire, it was not designed to take that abuse.

and lastly as JustMatt said, we have firearms manufactures here developing all kinds of goodies, how about the GOV back them!

[tac40]

My condolences to the troops and their families. I hope the problems, if there is one will be resolved and our troops have the best weapon systems deployed. Be safe all.

[BrassSlinger]

I guess it would not be a bad idea to carry a spare upper receiver when they head out on patrols.

[5pins]

About the M9, if what I read about the initial adoption way back when was true, Beretta beat out Sig on the basis of lower cost, not better performance. Weather it be cost or politics, every bueracracy produces a result that is less then the best. The Government is never going to get it right simply because there are too many peple involved in the decision.

Yes the Sig beat out the Beretta, however both were considered acceptable. I was at Aberdeen Proving Grounds takeing the small arms repairman coarse when one of the instructors came into class and announced to the other instructors that “They picked the Sig”

However the Beretta did meet the minimum standard so it came down to price.

[rugbymike]

Isn't this the same compliant we have had about the AR15 platform ever since it started service back in Vietnam? Works great but if not clean will jam like a son of a gun. Not to talk to much inner service trash, but have you ever heard of Marines weapons failing? Or is it only the Army troops that have problems? Could it be that some troops just take better care and take weapon maintaince a little more serously? Yes I do agree that every M16 and M4 should be piston driven to take care of most of the problems troops have in the field. But the AR15 plaform has been is service for how long, with the exact same complain for just as many years, how exactly is this "news" to begin with?

[m24shooter]

The current platform is way past the problems of 40 years ago.

[federalist22]

Anytime I ever hear of weapon problems with the M4, or even the M249 as is the case in this story, it is usually Army, not Marines. I know there are more Army than Marines in the current fight, but the Marines are always in the thick of it--its what they do and they are good at it--, whereas the Army is usually not all engaged in the suck. I would expect this sort of complaint from a SOF detachment, Ranger battalion, or a major unit like the 82nd, 101st, 3rd Armor, 25th ID, 1st Cav, or 2nd ID, or some other major unit who deploys more often than most, but it it didn't come from there, nor did it come from the Marines, not even when they assaulted Fallujah--twice. I am going to take my AR to the range and put 1rd through it every 3sec for 20min (360 rds) to see if mine fails to fire and if it keeps going I am going to keep feeding it. I hate to second guess these guys, but it made me sick to read that the guy got frustrated and threw his rifle down in disgust when it would not fire--that is what I call quitting. He could have at least acted like his rifle was running--the enemy did not know. I can think of two possible ways to cool a hot barrel, but would they work?

- Will piss cool a barrel?

- Will water from a canteen cool a barrel?

I know it's easy to play armchair QB here, but I feel compelled to respond despite sensitivity on the issue--we are really here to talk about whether the weapon system worked or failed and how problems could have been mitigated, right?

[pezboy]

Anytime I ever hear of weapon problems with the M4, or even the M249 as is the case in this story, it is usually Army, not Marines. I know there are more Army than Marines in the current fight, but the Marines are always in the thick of it--its what they do and they are good at it--, whereas the Army is usually not all engaged in the suck. I would expect this sort of complaint from a SOF detachment, Ranger battalion, or a major unit like the 82nd, 101st, 3rd Armor, 25th ID, 1st Cav, or 2nd ID, or some other major unit who deploys more often than most, but it it didn't come from there, nor did it come from the Marines, not even when they assaulted Fallujah--twice. I am going to take my AR to the range and put 1rd through it every 3sec for 20min (360 rds) to see if mine fails to fire and if it keeps going I am going to keep feeding it. I hate to second guess these guys, but it made me sick to read that the guy got frustrated and threw his rifle down in disgust when it would not fire--that is what I call quitting. He could have at least acted like his rifle was running--the enemy did not know. I can think of two possible ways to cool a hot barrel, but would they work?

- Will piss cool a barrel?

- Will water from a canteen cool a barrel?

I know it's easy to play armchair QB here, but I feel compelled to respond despite sensitivity on the issue--we are really here to talk about whether the weapon system worked or failed and how problems could have been mitigated, right?

Where did the complaint come from? Just because you have never heard of the unit doesn't mean those guys aren't "in the thick of it". They could have all been pogues for all we know, but they were attacked by 200 Taliban. Sorry the Taliban didn't attack the Marines.

"He could have at least acted like his rifle was running--the enemy did not know."

Are you serious? [crazy] What was he going to do say bang bang bang and hope the enemy ran away? Have you ever been in combat? Have you ever been in a gun fight?

"- Will water from a canteen cool a barrel?"

Most every soldier doesn't carry canteens or water bottles.



I am not going to agree with everyone here and say that the Military needs a gas piston gun. I love gas piston guns, but it is a bad idea to field something that hasn't been proven. The SCAR and all piston operated ARs haven't been.

I never had a problem with my issued M16A2, M16A4, or M4. I never fired 12 mags in combat in 30 minutes, but I have fired quite a few in a short amount of time before. I have had my weapons run dry, dusty, and all. Which, don't barrels get orange after you fire a lot of rounds through them and not white? The most likely cause of the problems they experienced was lack of maintenance (for the weapons, magazines, and ammo), worn out parts on their weapons, bad magazines, and/or bad ammunition. It is no surprise the M249 malfunctioned.

The 8 soldiers that were killed a couple of weeks ago were in my old unit. I feel really bad for their families and the families of the others who were killed last year. I don't think the Military's equipment is to blame. Blame the fact that they are fighting people without uniforms, mortars and rockets, roadside bombs, whatever.

Dustin

[iamjonscranium]

How many did our boys kill on the other side? I thought it was up to 100.

There's a huge cost issue going from the m4 to scar or the like, and even piston retrofits are costly at that scale. And pistons aren't perfect either. Our guns are still way more accurate than the enemy's, and that, plus our superior soldier, is what prevented many more casualties in a fight in which they were severely outnumbered.

[federalist22]

Dustin,

I fully understand the problem our troops face in GWOT and counterinsurgency. Like I said, it's easy to play armchair QB, but talking about a topic like this is sure to offend someone and it wasn't intended to do so. I was simply asking questions about ways to cool the barrel in an emergency. On the issue of whether the rifle runs or not, some of our troops in WWII were shot by the enemy at the "pinging" sound of the clip ejecting and hitting the ground from the M1 Garand. No, I have not seen combat--that opportunity passed me by twice before I got out in 2003 after stop-loss lifted. If a rifle stopped working during the fight I would imagine that one should do what one could to get it back on line vice throwing it down. As for the soldiers who gave their lives to defend their post, their friends, and their country, well, they are heroes for certain and our country owes them for that. Talking about what went wrong and what went right is how we learn to prepare for next time. What gets me about the article posted here is that the AP author saw fit to write his OCT 2009 story, tying an attack that occurred in JUL 2008 with the recent attack in OCT 2009, drawing on the reported weapons problems, which have not been detailed in the OCT attack. I can only interpret this reporting as an opportunity someone took to push the piston agenda.

[pezboy]

Dustin,

I fully understand the problem our troops face in GWOT and counterinsurgency. Like I said, it's easy to play armchair QB, but talking about a topic like this is sure to offend someone and it wasn't intended to do so. I was simply asking questions about ways to cool the barrel in an emergency. On the issue of whether the rifle runs or not, some of our troops in WWII were shot by the enemy at the "pinging" sound of the clip ejecting and hitting the ground from the M1 Garand. No, I have not seen combat--that opportunity passed me by twice before I got out in 2003 after stop-loss lifted. If a rifle stopped working during the fight I would imagine that one should do what one could to get it back on line vice throwing it down. As for the soldiers who gave their lives to defend their post, their friends, and their country, well, they are heroes for certain and our country owes them for that. Talking about what went wrong and what went right is how we learn to prepare for next time. What gets me about the article posted here is that the AP author saw fit to write his OCT 2009 story, tying an attack that occurred in JUL 2008 with the recent attack in OCT 2009, drawing on the reported weapons problems, which have not been detailed in the OCT attack. I can only interpret this reporting as an opportunity someone took to push the piston agenda.

I completely agree that the article contained a lot of BS. It is simply a bunch of thoughts (mostly unrelated) put together. They act as though better technology will keep the barrel from overheating. I guess the Military needs frozen bullets and nitrogen cooled barrels.

I have seen a lot of failures with the M16 and M14 and I feel that all of them were from user error or damaged equipment, not poorly designed equipment. Soldiers simply do not get the proper education on how to maintain their rifles. They may know how to clean all of the carbon (and sometimes finish) off of their weapons and how to load and fire it, but that's it. What seems like common sense to us about how the weapon works is unknown to most soldiers. Dirty chambers, excessive use of CLP, dirty ammo, dinged magazines, tie downs that interfere with the operation of the weapon, etc. are very common. Weapons are literally thrown around, even when not necessary. The same soldiers that don't know how to maintain and operate their weapon become leaders who don't know how to maintain and operate their weapon and the cycle continues. If the SCAR or other weapon is fielded, there will be the same issues from neglect.

Dustin

[federalist22]

Well put on operator maintenance issues over function. This is the most likely explanation I can perceive to be the problem.