colt kool aid

Nestor said:
...and who and under what circumstances would keep firing ANY carbine for over 6 minutes straight? Go get some life.
Click to expand...

in the link i posted, US soldiers had to fight for 2 days against taliban, after 30 minutes many threw their colts down because their barrels couldnt take it. Alot of soldiers fight for a few hours or more.
 
0aa4a60b3a3aa4f80e14c5ba62390364fcdfd622b94211dda023de51e9f31689.jpg
 
The whole "Wanat proved M4s are awful" meme was pushed by an ex-general (artillery, not even infantry) who not coincidentally is a lobbyist for several defense firms. The guy behind the WeaponsMan blog, ex-SPFOR with some small experience, thoroughly debunked the general's contention that the Americans killed at Wanat was the result of their M4s. You can read his thoughts here:

http://weaponsman.com/?p=20023

http://weaponsman.com/?p=20047

http://weaponsman.com/?p=20161

Excellent stuff and the first link is probably the most in-depth look at the incident.

Like I said earlier, I don't know of any rifle or carbine that can fire at that sustained rate and survive past a few minutes. They aren't built for it and soldiers are told not to do it...unless they want to use their rifle as an unwieldy club for the rest of the battle.
 
GunsNotPuns said:
The whole "Wanat proved M4s are awful" meme was pushed by an ex-general (artillery, not even infantry) who not coincidentally is a lobbyist for several defense firms. The guy behind the WeaponsMan blog, ex-SPFOR with some small experience, thoroughly debunked the general's contention that the Americans killed at Wanat was the result of their M4s. You can read his thoughts here:

http://weaponsman.com/?p=20023

http://weaponsman.com/?p=20047

http://weaponsman.com/?p=20161

Excellent stuff and the first link is probably the most in-depth look at the incident.

Like I said earlier, I don't know of any rifle or carbine that can fire at that sustained rate and survive past a few minutes. They aren't built for it and soldiers are told not to do it...unless they want to use their rifle as an unwieldy club for the rest of the battle.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. Lots of info there!
 
Im not sure what the op is especting, a rifle is not an lmg. Thats it. Any rifle used as an lmg will fail even hk. Thats why lmg exist.
 
mikethebike said:
Im not sure what the op is especting, a rifle is not an lmg. Thats it. Any rifle used as an lmg will fail even hk. Thats why lmg exist.
Click to expand...

Even LMGs have issues with extended periods of high rates of fire. As Wanat showed, one soldier fired his M249 SAW until the bolt welded itself into place.

I have to object to the OP's contention that Colt "admitted" their rifles fail under sustained cyclic fire considering that the company itself said as much back in the 1990s...and said not to do it.
 
well 40 defendants, heavy weapons debillated, defenses insufficient or non existing, no mortars, no cas, 200 determined fanatic assaulters, all im saying this could have been much much worse.

they kept making references to khesanh, khesanh was saved by b52 airstrikes used as cas!

no rifle would have made a difference, without arclight it would have been a massacre

maybe they should stop blaming the rifle and start blaming command and start respecting a determined tough ennemy that has been at war for the past 30 years.
 
http://www.combatreform.org/CALL-Wanat-Final-Report.pdf

The "everybody died cuz weapons failed" myth was debunked years ago.

"a more systematic analysis of weapons usage shows that almost all of the weapons that failed did so after firing a high volume of rounds in a short period. While about a fifth of the weapons failed sometime during the action, all but one of these cases occurred after the weapons were fired at a high rate for a number of minutes."

"A detailed analysis of these assertions shows that weapons did not fail and that problems with logistical support, while possibly hindering the creation of an impregnable defense, did not hinder the creation of an adequate defense"

"No M240s failed in the action and the SAWs that jammed, did so after firing a great number of rounds. As noted above, these jams were fixed when the operators changed barrels. In fact, most of the weapons that jammed at Wanat were M4 carbines. The M4 was the basic individual weapon carried by US Soldiers in Afghanistan and was not designed to fire at the maximum or cyclic rate for extended periods."

CMV 4150 steel has a fairly good temperature tolerance http://www.steelforge.com/alloy-steel4150/ but as anyone who has ever conducted small arms testing knows, it is not difficult to achieve very high temperature through high rate firing. Once you reach transformation temperature all bets are off and you have effectively un-heat treated your barrel.

There is a reason why rates of fire are published and taught to soldiers. Using any equipment beyond its design parameter will achieve unsatisfactory results.
 
mikethebike said:
well 40 defendants, heavy weapons debillated, defenses insufficient or non existing, no mortars, no cas, 200 determined fanatic assaulters, all im saying this could have been much much worse.

they kept making references to khesanh, khesanh was saved by b52 airstrikes used as cas!

no rifle would have made a difference, without arclight it would have been a massacre

maybe they should stop blaming the rifle and start blaming command and start respecting a determined tough ennemy that has been at war for the past 30 years.
Click to expand...

I don't recal what book it was (perhaps on combat) the author writes about fighting for your land vs fighting over someone else's. Something along the lines of you would fight harder and longer at worse odds defending your land then you would invading someone else's. It also takes into account defensive postures. Generally speaking an offensive using the Cold War doctrine books attacks should happen with a 6:1 ratio because the defenders are already prepped to fight, dug in, arcs set etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom