Failures of the M4

L

Larry Wilkins

Guest
Maybe a good opening for Chad & others.

What do you think on the big M4 stew that the media is all up set about.

White hot barrels, jams etc.

From an old M1 guy in Korea.

Cheers
 
I think if more of the soldiers had bolt actions with scopes there would be less US kia and more taliban kia. If you are going to use a light rifle like a heavy machine gun the thing is going to get too hot to function.

Also, who puts an outpost at the base of a hill ?
 
Can't wait to read the report on this. Aluminum receivers can't hold up to high volume shoot outs.....

Sadly our boys paid the ultimate price.
 
not a huge fan of the m4/m16 rifle, but the upper and lower recievers are just along for the ride. they DO NOT wear out from firing the rifle.
 
in 1970 I put 3,000 rds through an M16 inside of two hours. Only damage was it turned the gas tube chrome to blue.
 
The biggest problem with the high reate of fire is the gas tube melting or sagging and blowing out. They said that the weapons failed after about 12 magazines of full auto, that is 360 rounds.

Bolt Actions are not the answer, but better rifles are. I was am a big fan of the M16 (2 tours VN 11B '68-'69) but they are machines that are designed with certain limitations.

Many companies are working on that now. FN still has a ways to go with their SCAR.

An all out assualt like this has been very unusual in the 40 years of service of the M16. It will become more frequent now. Having enough people to be able to stage the returning fire is one option.

Perhaps the new plunger driven systems will be better but any time you fire your weapon until the barrels are red hot you will have failures.

Then real failure in the 2 firefights that are leading these stories in command and control. Firefights like this are result poor command decisions at some level. IMHO

Lowell
 
As a vet from 70-71 I just see it as another beginning of the end as usual since Korea.Now maybe people will see that we had no business there (after hitting Al Queda which I supported) or Iraq at the calling of multi-national banks and business. We need to take care of things here. I feel for all the wasted lifes ,resources and destroyed families.I feel for all those folks who lost loved ones. Just my opinion
 
M4/m16

This is an ''elected" issue; someones congressional district. The contract for these weapons has been all over the map, thus comprising a good weapon. I used it in Nam. But I remember two things from warfare in are: when the enemy is in range, so are you and your weapon is made by the cheapest bidder. What the ordinance community needs is another Gen. Hatcher who tested all things lethal in arms, not a bunch of electeds who say build it here. V/R Greg
 
"not a huge fan of the m4/m16 rifle, but the upper and lower receivers are just along for the ride. they DO NOT wear out from firing the rifle."

I was not serious about the alum. receiver statement. But it would be interesting to see a study of what carbon build up and heat does to the M16 upper.

I remember a few weapon failures on the line during military qualification. Add in some heavy over use and sand and it's a given.
 
Make some more

M-14's or better yet, have someone go to the Cody Firearms Museum and borrow the prototype Winchester made of the M1 Carbine scaled up to shoot the .223 case, bet they wouldn't give a lot of problems and better yet, chamber it in a short 30 Cal round; the 30 BR comes to mind :). Plastic and Aluminum for battle weapons! Go figure!
 
Last edited:
I carried one of these for the better half of three years during my tenure as a blood sucking security contractor in Baghdad. I know I abused the absolute piss out of mine. I "drove" it like I stole it. I was the primary firearms instructor and range officer for the US Embassy Security Force in Baghdad. I was also the Chief Armorer for about the last year that I was there.

This is all fancy talk for "I got to basically shoot as much as I want."

So I did.

If you keep an M-4 wet it will work quite well. I shot Colts, F/N's, and Bushmasters. (M-4s, M-16A4's, and XM-15's)

What breaks?:

1. Gas tubes are a consumable when going full throttle.
2. I put close to 15K rounds through my barrel before I swapped it out.
3. Replace extractor springs and use the high durometer rubber thingy on M-4's as the gas tube length and port ID makes the gun less forgiving on brass and the timing is more "abrupt". You need the extra pressure to prevent the claw from slipping over the case rim. Especially when going full throttle.
4. Hammer springs and buffer springs both get replaced at the same time. Do this and you won't have issues. Don't and all bets are off.
5. Gas rings are a consumable when going full throttle. Best way I've found to test to see if they are good or not is to extend the bolt carrier assy fully forward (out of battery) and carefully set the assembly bolt face down on a table. The rings should support the weight of the assembly. Now make a fist and rap the table with a single firm strike using the meaty part of your hand. The bolt assy should start to rotate into battery. It should not however go fully into battery. If it does the rings are junk and should be replaced. It should be a little lazy when collapsing also. This "ultra scientific" method is basically checking the ring's diametric tension on the bore of the bolt carrier. Clean your bolt assy prior to this test as loads of gunk/funk/carbon skew the truth.

the sustained rate of fire for these buggers is 12-15 rounds per minute. They are not crew serve guns. It's an assault rifle with the capability of fully automatic fire- to be used in short controlled bursts. Do otherwise and you exceed the design parameters of the weapon system and you'll likely experience some sort of stoppage or component failure.

Ammunition.

In the "Wild West" days (04-07) of Iraq ammunition was literally what ever could be obtained. Especially for crummy scum sucking contractors because we weren't bound to Geneva convention technicalities. (that and nobody really liked us anyway cause we got paid $200K/year or more to do the job of a "Lance Criminal".

So, long story short I've shot everything from top shelf Black Hills match stuff with 80 grain Hornady A-max bullets to "Billy Bob's wholesale Wolf ammo outlet".

If you shoot Wolf you better have a sloppy wet gun and it better not be hot out. (Meaning Baghdad hot) The steel cased stuff is coated/treated with some kind of fugly lacquer finish and it begins to cook itself to chambers. Chambers get smaller and smaller until you start tearing the rims off cases and guns don't work no more. (I'm now a 4th order ninja with a cleaning rod because of this)

My thoughts:

The M-4 is a great weapon system so long as the 1st echelon preventive maintenance is performed with diligence. I don't mean scrubbing bores like its a bench gun a Division CG inspection. I mean keep the thing wet and when it loads up with gunk, just scrub most of it off and then get it wet again. Do this and it'll run like a raped ape for a very long time. It's a close tolerance firearm, so it will only put up with crap for so long. The AK will certainly put up with more crap but it also shoots like total crap. You can be reasonably confident of hitting your target with an M-4. With an AK I'm not yet convinced. (The ergonomics of the AK-47 are just horrible IMO. I shot the snot out of them as well since we had a guard cadre in Northern Kurdistan who were all local nationals.)

Regarding catastrophic failures resulting in rifles sending their operators to the Corpsman.

I was first introduced to the M-16 weapon system as a Marine in 1990. I was a PMI for four years of my enlistment and I've been a service rifle shooter since that same time. Add all the other things I've done and yada yada. In the 19 years of fiddling with these things I've seen a gun blow up three times. Once on active duty during Division Matches and twice in Iraq by another security company. All three incidents resulted in the upper receiver splitting along the forging line and ejaculating the magazine and it's contents out the bottom the rifle. In all events the shooter had to go change his panties and get a band aid. It does happen but in all cases the rifles had been very, very, very heavily used with literally tens of thousands of rounds sent down range. I'd have to question the level 2 repair/maintenance records and the LTI's performed in each event.

Nothing lasts forever. . .

Peeves:

Ever shoot/handle one of these things in a middle eastern summer? It's brutal and your face will glow in the dark at the end of the day. They get so damn miserably hot that it's almost unbearable. I got really good at sweating in Baghdad and most of it was due to a rifle that I could cook food with. This is/was regardless of whether I was shooting it or not. If it's in the sun more than ten minutes your going to be a burn victim, count on it. Now add the fact that it's a direct gas operating system and you begin to really appreciate things like pistons and cylinders up under a hand guard away from your face.

Hope this answered the OP's questions.

Cheers,

Chad

Chad Dixon
LongRifles, Inc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I Am Old

my experience with them goes back to 1965 when we ( USAF) were issued them ( AR-15's). I didn't like them then and my opinion of them hasn't changed. I see them jam and cycle three inadvertently often at our range. I kept the one I was issued in the Conex can still in it's foil wrapping, that's how much respect I had for it.

A combat rifle shouldn't have quirks, should it? Just as an aside, do the HK's suffer from the same issues ?
 
Last edited:
The M4's seem worse than the M16's , shorter sight radius and different timing. The short SMG versions really tear up bolts and gas tubes due to the really short sight radius. those 7,9,12" versions would not take the abuse of the 20"

I demilled an m60 one night, turned it into scrap, it would start burping and sounding like a john deere A, spitting sparks, then the barrel would start to cool enough and it would take off and go again, like a spark shotgun at times. When we stopped firing it you could see it glowing perfectly in a no moon dark night.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Auto fire vs semi

When I was in Nam, there was a standing order to NOT shoot full auto. Reason wasthat you did not hit anything and just made a lot of noise and burned up your ammo. Aimed semi-auto fire was much more effective and conserved ammo. When the M-16 was modified to include the 3-round burst feature, I thought this was a great improvement. BUT, I understand the need at times for suppressive fires to keep heads down or stop a group of Rags from assaulting.

It seems that these incidents are just a vehicle to advance the liberal adenda to fight our efforts (and give aid and comfort to the enemy) and the press is again the politician's butt boys for their agendas - in this case getting out of the Mid East to satisfy the far left.

Am I bitter about how we were treated in Nam? - make your own guess. Do I forgive Jane Fonda - NEVER.

:mad:
George
 
Pete Wass said:
my experience with them goes back to 1965 when we ( USAF) were issued them ( AR-15's). I didn't like them then and my opinion of them hasn't changed. I see them jam and cycle three inadvertently often at our range. I kept the one I was issued in the Conex can still in it's foil wrapping, that's how much respect I had for it.

A combat rifle shouldn't have quirks, should it? Just as an aside, do the HK's suffer from the same issues ?
Click to expand...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete;
I am reluntant to enter this faray, but I am with you. Since I left the military in 1964, I have been amazed at the fanatical, religious worship, & obsession with this piece of junk. The Brownells catalog is loaded with trinkets, and the Shot Show aisles will be lined for 100s of yards with every color and configuration imaginable, in Jan. I've spent 30yrs. as an L/E, hence my exposure, and distain. Paint it "black" and call it "Tactical" and the masses will buy it. PT Barnum was right about being able to sell anything to anyone..
Stoner sure took advantage of that concept..
McNamara and his "whiz kids" forced these on the military in the early 60s with Air Force being the first and the "Corps" being the last. The Corps fought hard to keep its much beloved 308 and I don't blame them. I've talked to plenty of Nam and Gulf Vets who don't have good things to say.
Mikhail Kalisnikov, told his superiors that the new American weapon was inferior and the caliber not suited for the battlefield. Even the Russians knew better...
Jerry Keefer
 
I have yet to see

lefty o said:
the platform does however make a spectacular varmint platform!
Click to expand...

one of these pieces of crap I would call spectacular. One can build any number of GREAT custom varmint rifles that will actually WORK all the time for the cost of one of them.

All one has to do is to look at the piece the barrel HANGS on to realize what a piece of crap the thing is. How people get all hepped over them escapes me and the COST of the freaking things! If I wanted an asault weapon it would be something else, for sure. All we need to do is to have the Japanese IMPROVE on the Ak and we would be HOME. America doesn't ever seem to be able to improve on anything. Let's not get into the Beretta "BATTLE" handgun!

On secont thought, a good carbine that shot 45 ACP would be wonderful in the cities wouldn't it; 3 shot bursts and all.
 
Most of the time the AR's get a bad rap.....All small arms weapons have their issues....The AR is the gold standard for competition, so much so that the M1a/14's are all but obsolete. I know that's paper and this is about people, but the issues with the M16/4's usually are operator related.

The Special Forces seem to do what the want and they use An AR based weapon and 1911's most of the time. Chad states that the mercenaries use AR based weapons, I would think they would only use the best, as they get paid enough to buy what ever they want.

Any combat arm including the AK will fail,

Look at the revered M2-50bmg. If you lean on it hard enough it will fail, maybe even long before a M16 will.

This full auto nonsense is fine as long as the taxpayers have deep pockets.

Keep in mind we fought the great war with mostly semi autos, and that rifle, M1, was considered the best battle weapon ever devised.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I realize it wasn't a poke, but lets set the record straight on something.

Security contractors are not mercenaries.

Just as an angry lone nut in a bell tower with a scoped rifle doesn't qualify as a sniper.

A mercenary carries out the military intent of a foreign land for money. Security contractors work for the United States Government and operate in a security/defensive capacity only.

To none of the big three (Triple Canopy, DynCorps, Blackwater USA) have been used to project American foreign policy abroad. That is the job of the US military.

Hollywood does a very poor job of portraying these companies so please don't be delusional over scenes from "Shooter" or any other movie that embellishes the industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top