M4 Reliability: Not were is ought to be...

[Worn_Holster 2]

I just read this article in the Washington Times that describes a history of failure with the M4 the the govt has refused to do anything about...

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/19/troop-left-to-fend-for-themselves-after-army-was-w/?page=1

[High Exposure 5,673]

There is so much wrong with that article I don't know where to start. The author, and some of his "experts" have no idea what they are talking about. You have a General that still can't get past his Vietnam era experiences with an M16 calling an M4 a "gas-piston" gun and saying the HKG36 is the way to go , a "Green Beret" (who calls them Green Berets anymore anyway?) stating that he has to swap triggers to make it reliable, and an engineer using a rifle like a machine gun and wondering why that doesn't work so well. That's like using a car for a boat and wondering why it sinks.

 

Clownshoes for everyone. I award them no points and may God have mercy on their souls.

[usnmars 136]

Ooh, ooh its used in call of duty and socom so its the best! You cant dispute the statistics in the article. It just goes along with what ive seen first hand, its a POS

[locochinoloco 0]

Interesting read.... some inconsistency but still something to think about.

 

While I may never get a chance to fire full auto nor in extreme conditions, so that may reduce the chance of me ever seeing a failure...

 

the issues seems to be with extractor spring, ejector spring, gas tube, gas plug, recoil buffer, trigger assembly, barrel camber, magazine and bolt.

 

I wonder if the part we buy now as civilians are "better" then those issued to the US military?

[Shocker 151]

There's no shortage of people "in the government" that want to change things, whether by life cycle improvements or wholesale replacement. But if congress won't pay the bill it's not going to happen.

 

Can't get blood from a stone.

 

EDIT: Amusing light reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Carbine

[Shane45 807]

Funny how the trigger pullers in all branches I talk to wont give up their AR due to its proven reliability. But hey this country is now run by all the SME's in the rear with the gear or behind desks isn't it. Some of you sound like you have an issue because its black!!!!

[RUTGERS95 890]

There is so much wrong with that article I don't know where to start. The author, and some of his "experts" have no idea what they are talking about. You have a General that still can't get past his Vietnam era experiences with an M16 calling an M4 a "gas-piston" gun and saying the HKG36 is the way to go , a "Green Beret" (who calls them Green Berets anymore anyway?) stating that he has to swap triggers to make it reliable, and an engineer using a rifle like a machine gun and wondering why that doesn't work so well. That's like using a car for a boat and wondering why it sinks.

 

Clownshoes for everyone. I award them no points and may God have mercy on their souls.

slowdown, while in principal I agree with you  but the reality of this weapons system has been anything but stellar in our most recent theaters of operation.  The m4 does have it's issues and does suffer from reliability if not CONSTANTLY maintained in the Iraq and areas of the stan.  That fine dust really does create issues

[Shane45 807]

Funny, the Isreali's by in large chose to keep their AR's over probably the best AK ever made, the Galil. Must be because it was so bad in that environment.....

 

G36, there's a great choice! Id love to have a rifle that turns into a banana if leaned up against something after heavy fire.

 

I'll take an improved rifle. Signe me up! What is it? About the only rifle I would trust as much as my AR's would be a SCAR.

[High Exposure 5,673]

Ooh, ooh its used in call of duty and socom so its the best! You cant dispute the statistics in the article. It just goes along with what ive seen first hand, its a POS

Call of Duty? WTF are you talking about? I carry an M4 at work every day and I train with it a lot. My opinion is not based on XBox or PS nonsense.

 

What statistics are you talking about? There are none in that article. It's a one sided editorial with little to no substance past the wringing if hands and gnashing if teeth about their opinion and what they "think" should be done. Fact of the matter is the M16 FoW has killed more people than cancer and continues to so to this very day by Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen - as well as their SF units - all across the globe.

 

The article repeatedly refers to the "commando version" as having a heavier barrel... WTF are they talking about? The Commando has a shorter barrel at 11.5" instead of the 14.5" of the M4/M4A1.

 

They test this carbine in a full auto role firing over a thousand rounds as fast as they can and feel vindicated when it fails? News flash - it is a carbine, not a machine gun. And, when machine guns are firing that much, they swap barrels. Also, 1000 rounds would be one soldier firing the complete load out of 4 or 5 guys - depending on how heavily they are rolling.

 

Not all soldiers are gun guys. Not all SF/SOCOM/JSOC/DeltaSEaLRangerPJs are gun guys. The guys in those units that I do know that are gun guys unanimously declare that the M16 FoW - the M4 in particular - is good to go as long as, and here is the important part, the shooter does his part. That means maintenance (both preventative and repair), marksmanship, and using the the weapon within it's intended envelope of capabilities - sometimes called using the right tool for the right job.

 

According to them, soldiers that burn through 500 rounds on FA in a gunfight and have their weapon breakdown was a failure of their leadership, not the weapon system. They used their weapon counter to everything they should have been taught about using a carbine. Their officers and non-coms should have been directing their training better before the incident and commanding their troops more effectively during the battle. Keep in mind, these are not my words or opinions but those of dudes that walk the walk. I also happen to agree with them.

 

I am not saying the M4 is the perfect weapon, I know it has shortcomings, I am just saying that for its role, it is just the best of what is currently available.

[jrfly3006 42]

 

I love how Gen Scales complains the M4a1 lacks penetration power against bunkers and vehicles really..what rifle other than a .50 is purposed to penetrate vehicles and bunkers

[High Exposure 5,673]

Funny, the Isreali's by in large chose to keep their AR's over probably the best AK ever made, the Galil. Must be because it was so bad in that environment.....

 

G36, there's a great choice! Id love to have a rifle that turns into a banana if leaned up against something after heavy fire.

 

I'll take an improved rifle. Signe me up! What is it? About the only rifle I would trust as much as my AR's would be a SCAR.

 

Seriously! A bunch of agencies around our nation's capital just shitcanned their G36s because they would lose zero when the rifle got hot - in semi auto in less than a magazine, not 1000 rounds in full auto - and lose zero when all that polymer softened.

 

I love how Gen Scales complains the M4a1 lacks penetration power against bunkers and vehicles really..what rifle other than a .50 is purposed to penetrate vehicles and bunkers

From the RVN era Artillery Officer who is now a General "its 5.56-caliber bullet is too small and the gas-piston firing system is prone to stoppage. He said better weapons — the German Heckler-Koch G36 and Russian AK-74 (a version of the venerable AK-47) — use superior firing systems."

 

 

I like how the M4 is now gas piston operated and as an alternative weapon to the puny 5.56 he recommends the G36 - which fires the same 5.56 round, and the AK74 which had its rounds developed to mimic the 5.56.....

 

On don't forget the "special consultant" from a company trying to squeeze Colt out of the way that says "The rifle would would be fine if the Army would just buy my companies reliability kit!" Real impartial judge of what works and what doesn't there....

[fumanchu182 23]

Nothing wrong with the M4a1 maybe the military should stop buying shit parts:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCBcV2Nb2Wo

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1kX0nCEh5E

[magnawing 5]

When I went for door gunner training in 1991, we used the MP5 as a backup to the M60...good weapon as long as you only needed the rounds in your two mags.   When I got to the ship and actually started flying, I opted for an M14 as a backup to my M60...I had plenty of ammo that way.  And, our armorers loaded our M60 belts specifically for the multitude of targets we may encounter in the Pre-Desert Shield/Storm PG.  They were loaded in this order  FMJ-AP-HE-INC-Tracer...I really liked our Armorers.

[Heavyopp 167]

  They were loaded in this order  FMJ-AP-HE-INC-Tracer...I really liked our Armorers.

 

What is HE and INC ??  

[magnawing 5]

High Explosive and Incendiary...the fun stuff. Not really very high explosive though since it's only 7.62, and the incendiaries were white phosphorous.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shane45 807]

HE in 7.62?

[magnawing 5]

that's what the armory guys called it...I'm not a 7.62 expert by any means...I just know it made a bigger hole than the rest when it hit.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shane45 807]

Ahh forgot Roufoss...

[raz-0 1,259]

There is so much wrong with that article I don't know where to start. The author, and some of his "experts" have no idea what they are talking about. You have a General that still can't get past his Vietnam era experiences with an M16 calling an M4 a "gas-piston" gun and saying the HKG36 is the way to go , a "Green Beret" (who calls them Green Berets anymore anyway?) stating that he has to swap triggers to make it reliable, and an engineer using a rifle like a machine gun and wondering why that doesn't work so well. That's like using a car for a boat and wondering why it sinks.

 

Clownshoes for everyone. I award them no points and may God have mercy on their souls.

 

 

I smell senators.... yup there he is at the end of the article. The guy need to change that appointment on his calendar from repeat every two years. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

When I went for door gunner training in 1991, we used the MP5 as a backup to the M60...good weapon as long as you only needed the rounds in your two mags.   When I got to the ship and actually started flying, I opted for an M14 as a backup to my M60...I had plenty of ammo that way.  And, our armorers loaded our M60 belts specifically for the multitude of targets we may encounter in the Pre-Desert Shield/Storm PG.  They were loaded in this order  FMJ-AP-HE-INC-Tracer...I really liked our Armorers.

 

 

High Explosive and Incendiary...the fun stuff. Not really very high explosive though since it's only 7.62, and the incendiaries were white phosphorous. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Given the choice of a MP5 and 2 magazines or a M14 with plenty of ammo I'd probably coose the M14 too.  When I flew as aircrew I had a 38 or M9 backed up with an M16 or M4.  If we had M60s on the aircraft the battle plan was for the gunners to take the M60s off and give their M16 to the pilot and copilot (if there was one). 

 

You admit you are no 7.62 NATO expert and neither am I.  I started shooting 7.62 NATO in M14s at Ft Dix in 1967 and retired from the Army Reserve in 2009.  I spent all my time in Infantry, Artillery, or Aviation units.  I have never seen or heard of 7.62 NATO made by anyone in HE or incendinary.  Not enough room to make HE worthwhile.  Yes they have made incendinary 30 cal bullets in the past.  WWI saw white phosphorus used but the problem was the WP would burn out in 3 or 400 yards.  A nitrocellulose compund was used in incendinary ammo since WWII. 

 

Back to the M4/M16/AR platform.  This comes up periodically.  I'll repeat what I have in the past.  I wasn't in Special Operations.  I didn't fight the Battle of Saigon, Hue, or stand the siege at Khe Sahn.  I have used the M16/M4/AR in more than a few social situations since 1968 in the military and as a LEO.  I did what they told me to do in Vietnam (which includes running the bolt wet, that's not a new concept to me) and it always worked fine.  What I really question is the claim about the "magic moon dust" or Iraq and Afghanistan being the reason for problems with the M4 platform.  I've used them in very dusty environments on several continents and had no problem as long as they were maintained properly.   

 

I would pick a M16/M4/AR as my go to rifle for a fight.  IMO the M14 is too heavy, not as accurate, and no more reliable than a properly maintained M16/M4/AR.

 

One thing I will agree with the article is the 3 rd burst trigger sucks compared to a FA trigger.  A FA trigger would be my choice although I could make do with a 3 rd burst.  The 3 rd burst trigger was adopted as it was easier to do that than spend extra money for training with a FA.  However, even going back to Vietnam I knew infantry commanders that would threaten discipline on anyone other than the designated automatic rifleman were caught firing FA.  When I first got to Vietnam I had a M14 with a selector.  I soon learned that shooting it FA was only good for making noise and sending bullets skyward.  Although the M16 overheats easily when fired FA it is lot easier to control FA.  There are some things an M14 may be better for but that doesn't mean I would make it my go to rifle or a better rifle for general issue to the troops. 

 

Yeah, but what do I know.  I've only been shooting M16s, M4s, and ARs for fun and using them in serious social situations for over 45 years. 

[Fork 0]

There is so much wrong with that article I don't know where to start. The author, and some of his "experts" have no idea what they are talking about. You have a General that still can't get past his Vietnam era experiences with an M16 calling an M4 a "gas-piston" gun and saying the HKG36 is the way to go , a "Green Beret" (who calls them Green Berets anymore anyway?) stating that he has to swap triggers to make it reliable, and an engineer using a rifle like a machine gun and wondering why that doesn't work so well. That's like using a car for a boat and wondering why it sinks.

 

Clownshoes for everyone. I award them no points and may God have mercy on their souls.

I call them green berets

[HavocMan 13]

I call them green berets

 

 

....so you're the guy, eh?

[Golf battery 1,223]

Sounds like gas piston might solve the problem if you dont want to clean your weapon. True this is an ar. A weapon that is not designed for full auto. Ive shot plenty of rounds on three round bursts and never had a failure because we always kept it clean. The heavy barrel is the way to go not these other barrells. I suspect colt bought lwrc because they have a good gas piston system and thats the way the us military is gearing up for so they dont want to be left out. I have a colt 6940 piston ar and so far so well. Apparently i didnt do any torture tests cause there id no reason to for me. But bolts cool and really needs no cleaning. The heavy barrell works. The m14 Yikes I feel bad for you that had had that as your duty rifle. Too much power. That also depends on the war youre fighting. The ars are close combat rifles.

[magnawing 5]

Keep in mind that 99% of the time the M14 was in reserve next to me. In six months, it only got fired 3-4 times. It was a backup, not something I had to rely on as a main combat weapon. And I was in a helicopter, not walking around.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[blksheep 466]

Y cant they find anything to replace it?

[Vlad G 345]

I really wish every gun forum had a "AR platform sucks, says sumdoode" thread and had it pinned at the top of the forum. Then whenever someone started another thread about that (so roughly once a week) that person would only be allowed to post in the pinned thread for 48h.

 

I'm not really picking on the OP here, but I'm so fatigued by these threads. At some point you have to look at a platform that's been around for 50 years and people voluntarily  pick by the millions with their own money and take every "xyz gun sucks article" with a big grain of salt.

 

It is like starting a thread saying the F150 or the Honda Accord suck. Man, I understand they might not be the car for you but when they sell one every 90 seconds or so (like the F150 does), after 37 years of being the best selling truck on the market, every year, do you really think it sucks?

[blksheep 466]

I drive a Tundra. Lol.

[pbkid6974 1]

Ford trucks are the only thing ford makes that doesn't suck. My f150 has done everything I've asked it to do and then some. 

[blksheep 466]

F150 is a great truck...all the newer ones are. The Titan is a dated design but lovable. Not to derail the thread but ive always wanted a Tahoe.