Posted on 10/11/2009 1:54:20 PM PDT by honestabe010
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.
When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.
Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?
Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.
A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...
It’s always a problem when a weapon here and there fail; the bigger problem by far is the CIC failing, and its bigtime.
The incident they talk about took place in 2008, so they can blame Bush for the problem.
yeah this is allways a problem. but since a weapon is only a tool made of many mecanical parts they will fail some time. there is nothing you can do against this (of course you can minimize the “chance” by proper handling and cleaning but the risk is allways there). there is nothing you can do against this then just hope that it doesn´t happen to you in combat.
a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times. ......................................... M4 is a jazzed up version of the m-16? No wonder. Lets admit that the AK 47, a derivative of the Sturm Gewehr 44 tends to be better suited for a variety climate and terrain conditions. The M-4 is a precision made weapon, but not a weapon you can drop in the mud, pick up and expect no problems. Maybe we should contract Chavez to deliver some new AK 47’s now that he’ll have a factory there to produce them. (Personally, I’d choose the AK’s made by the Finns, they are the best quality.)
The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy
There is a lot of politics involved in this and it is not going to get better under Obama.
I just pieced together my first AR-15 this week, with a 20" bull barrel intended for varmint hunting or target shooting. I don't shoot all that much, but figured like many others that a ban on sales (at the least) is coming. Ugly, threatening-looking black rifles, don't ya know.
AR's have to be kept clean. They are inherently accurate due to relatively close tolerances on the components.
I suppose I could drop my Mini 14 in the dirt, pick it up and shake the dirt out of it, and it will function. But it ain't very accurate, due to loose fit of the bolt and such.
If I was in a war zone, I don't suppose at the end of a long day I would like to spend a lot of time cleaning my rifle, but you must with an AR. It's a compromise between accuracy vs. reliability. It's the most solid-feeling firearm I've ever owned, though. Plus, it's so versatile. For less than 500 bucks, you can slap a different upper on it, lighter barrel, different caliber, whatever you want. It's a great buy. But you must keep it clean. Unfortunately.
Should the U.S. military have a new/different rifle? Probably but the AK47 and its derivatives is not it.
a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times. ......................................... M4 is a jazzed up version of the m-16? No wonder. Lets admit that the AK 47, a derivative of the Sturm Gewehr 44 tends to be better suited for a variety climate and terrain conditions. The M-4 is a precision made weapon, but not a weapon you can drop in the mud, pick up and expect no problems. Maybe we should contract Chavez to deliver some new AK 47’s now that he’ll have a factory there to produce them. (Personally, I’d choose the AK’s made by the Finns, they are the best quality.)
True, the 223 round has practically non-existent recoil. The 7.62x39 kicks pretty hard considering how small it is. Much harder to get back on target in a dangerous situation.
No,he's not failing.He's achieving *exactly* what he wants regarding foreign policy and military policy.And now that he has the cover provided for him by those filthbags in Oslo,he'll continue to succeed at least until Jan 2013.
True, the 223 round has practically non-existent recoil. The 7.62x39 kicks pretty hard considering how small it is. Much harder to get back on target in a dangerous situation.
The M4 is a short barreled weapon and more suitable to close quarters combat. It also tends to get heat up and get dirtier faster. Still, it seems to me that the main problem in this case is that they were simply outnumbered. If you set yourself up in a permanent fortified position, you’re going to be a target. In such a situation, the weight and bulk of your weapon is not so important a factor. The guys defending these firebases should have some heavier-duty weapons and plenty of hand grenades, grenade launchers, claymores, small mortars, etc.
Preferably, I never have to find out in this lifetime. But I know there are some Freepers out there, Viet Nam vets and such, who have live experience.
You know, I’ve heard lately that the piston kits actually make the short-barreled ARs more reliable, but that they are an unnecessary expense with the longer-barreled versions, 16” and above.
The thing that makes the AK reliable is the gas piston system (which was also in an alternative AR that Stoner designed, but was not selected by the military). You simply don’t poop where you eat and that is what the current AR platform (M16/M4) does.
There are sealed gas piston uppers available for conversion of ARs; do the swap and you’ll find you can run your AR for 500+ rounds without a jam, because the chamber is kept clean; the recoil gases aren’t shoved back through the chamber.
Small, simple change and you can keep everything else you have with the M4 platform including compact size, high capacity, excellent armor penetration, light weight, and accuracy.
Really? You think guys in friggin’ Afghanistan don't know these weapons need to be babied? Of course, they know it and I gotta think these soldiers, who were under threat of attack at any moment, kept their weapons meticulously clean.
There are other western made rifles that are just as accurate and more reliable in combat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.