Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suputin said:
Not a single person bashing the M4 here has noted that the rifles in question were fired until they became white hot. That the problems were caused by overheating.

AK's suffer from overheating as well. Who hasn't seen the video where the guy fires an AK until the handguards burst into flames? Does anyone want to argue that this is superior to an AR/M4?

If you have 200 enemy attack 20 guys, their weapons are going to overheat and fail no matter what rifle they are using.

I have done some durability testing and we found two things. First, the rifle becomes so hot it is impossible to manipulate without burning your hands. Second, a severely overheated barrel causes the bullet's to fall apart from jacket separation. So even if the rifle keeps operating, it becomes fairly useless cause the operator can't touch it and the bullets are coming out the muzzle in pieces.
Click to expand...

BUT, it kept on firing.
Burned hands are much less of a problem than... being dead. Burns heal, gaping holes that cause you to loose most of your blood, do not.

SOLDIER, not "operator", FFS. Stop with this BS mall ninja crap.
 
Not to knock anyone, but it seems the indiscriminant use of fully automatic fire plays a huge role in the issues we are seeing here. If you aren't hitting with one, you sure as hell aren't hitting with six. The difference being that full auto bursts in the general direction will heat up any rifle and consistently missing on full auto will render any rifle unserviceable, while single shots will not. During an early test of the FN L1 that my father was involved in for the British Army, the rifle was fired full auto until it could no longer be handled, when it was leaned against a bench to cool, the barrel actually bent. The enemy here seems to be the joy buzzer - which most high speed types avoid from the start. Full auto generally means missing at a higher rate of fire.
 
dingus said:
You would think wide open places like Iraq and Afganastan a M14 would be better. 308 Nato has more stopping power.

I have seen pictures in Iraq of guys useing M14s
I never understood why they went with the 223.
Click to expand...

Before the Vietnam War the Americans determined that 7.62 rounds were too heavy to get into the type of warfare that they'd encounter in Vietnam. The patrols would be longer, and soldiers would need to be more manueverable in the environment. And the weight of 7.62 rounds was too much. This is why they developed the M16 style weapon with a 5.56 round.

7.62 rounds
- 8 mags (240 rounds) = 13lbs
- 10 mags (300 rounds) = 16lbs
- 12 mags (360 rounds) = 20lbs

5.56
- 8 mags (240 rounds) = 6lbs
- 10 mags (300 rounds) = 7lbs
- 12 mags (360 rounds) = 8lbs
 
The good ole days

Suputin said:
Not a single person bashing the M4 here has noted that the rifles in question were fired until they became white hot. That the problems were caused by overheating.

AK's suffer from overheating as well. Who hasn't seen the video where the guy fires an AK until the handguards burst into flames? Does anyone want to argue that this is superior to an AR/M4?

If you have 200 enemy attack 20 guys, their weapons are going to overheat and fail no matter what rifle they are using.

I have done some durability testing and we found two things. First, the rifle becomes so hot it is impossible to manipulate without burning your hands. Second, a severely overheated barrel causes the bullet's to fall apart from jacket separation. So even if the rifle keeps operating, it becomes fairly useless cause the operator can't touch it and the bullets are coming out the muzzle in pieces.
Click to expand...

Did the troopies forget how to piss on their barrels ?
 
I think AR is the superior platform, however, piston systems are more reliable and less maintenance...

The solutions are already being made :Masada, Tavor (?!?) and other platforms all operate on the M$ platform but with the more reliable piston system...

Contractors may do good by designing piston operated uppers (not the Piston kits which seem to be a failure) to sell to the US Army. The operating costs by swapping only half of their rifle inventory would be fiscally savvy.

I know I'm just beating a dead horse...
 
Interesting article.

My concern is how old their firearms were and the last time they were serviced (parts replacement). Supposedly many of the weapons in the U.S. inventory are over due for servicing and replacement. I heard a story that one unit used extra funds to replace all their old springs and magazines before returning to the front lines and experienced fewer problems than their last tour of duty.

A couple of interesting articles I've found as well about AR15 reliability:
http://www.defensereview.com/are-the-fn-scar-weapons-mk16-and-mk17-necessary-and-do-we-really-need-to-replace-the-colt-m4m4a1-carbine/
http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-why-they-occur-and-why-theyre-our-fault/
http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-part-ii-diagnosing-the-root-cause/
 
I agree with the points made here about the M4 overheating with extended full auto. I disagree with the points being made about replacing the M4 and M249 as the standard issue weapons for TIC's at the section/platoon level.

Instead, the article should be focus on why the troops don't have enough heavier and more coordinated weapons with or supporting them - like more 20mm turrets on LAVs (as we have), .50 cal machine guns on humvees, tanks, close air support, or artillery.

Man for man, I'd be willing to guess one insurgent with an AK is an approximate equal to an infantryman with an M4. Armor and heavy weapons are a greater force multiplier than infantry. Logistically, the cost of replacing and retraining for a new service weapon is likely to be more expensive and put the troops at greater risk than to roll in heavier weapons and armoured vehicles.
 
What I don't understand is,why such heavy f/a on only 200 goons.
it's not like starship trooper where the bugs are coming at you in waves.
Also why didn't the guy with the C9 change to his second barrel if the
one he was using was to hot?I feel the soldiers defeated themselves.:(


I found that I had issues with carbon fouling on the bolt carrier after
70rnds on semi,no auto fire was used.This was on the range,not in
the field but only with that one gun,never had it with others.
 
Give em surplus SKS rifles and vz58s.

Not to knock anyone, but it seems the indiscriminant use of fully automatic fire plays a huge role in the issues we are seeing here. If you aren't hitting with one, you sure as hell aren't hitting with six.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine it'd be a lot easier to suppress the enemy with full auto fire then single shots.
 
Good point harbl, I'm wondering why they were unable to call in artillery/air support. You would think they would have the area surrounding the base mapped out, so once they knew where the enemy fire was coming from, it'd be nighty-night for the insurgents.

Or maybe I've watched too many movies :D
 
Any gun that has a forward assist is an automatic design flaw.
Direct gas impingment is ####in retarded.

I see AR's go down all the time. One of the worst assault rifles in the world. Poor magazine design.

Good AK's, VZ's, 5.56 Fal's, Swiss rifles are all inherently better FIGHTING rifles.
 
"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."
Click to expand...

i have never been a soldier
i have never been trained to fight with a rifle.
the following is just the rambling of an uninformed (ignorant) person.

that is 360 rounds in 30 minutes. they were being over run by just 200. did he even aim? were they ALL running at him? it seems as if his happy switch was just stuck in the ON position
 
P0WERWAGON said:
i have never been a soldier
i have never been trained to fight with a rifle.
the following is just the rambling of an uninformed (ignorant) person.

that is 360 rounds in 30 minutes. they were being over run by just 200. did he even aim? were they ALL running at him? it seems as if his happy switch was just stuck in the ON position
Click to expand...

My guess is when bullets are flying at you you would spend less time behind your rifle and more time under or beside it. Just blind firing to keep anybody from overrunning you is better then sitting there getting shot at, or I would think anyways.
 
P0WERWAGON said:
i have never been a soldier
i have never been trained to fight with a rifle.
the following is just the rambling of an uninformed (ignorant) person.

that is 360 rounds in 30 minutes. they were being over run by just 200. did he even aim? were they ALL running at him? it seems as if his happy switch was just stuck in the ON position
Click to expand...

i said the ame thing to my dad when he pointed out this article to me. Probably got nervous and just let er rip. 60 rounds on target are more effective then 360 hitting dirt.
 
I think that for those of us who haven't been there to second guess the actions of the guys who were, is insulting. We should do a bit less armchair quarterbacking and leave it to those who have the qualifications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom