Weapons fail US troops during Afghan firefight

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.

Small simple change, but expensive. $300-$500. But our troops, at least our real live front line combat troops, should have it. If it's true.

Such frustration is beyond my comprehension, being in the middle of a fire fight, and the rifle doesn't go bang when they pull the trigger.

Inexcusable. Too bad so much living, breathing, lowlife trash in our gubmint that would give these frontline guys and gals anything but the best.

I’ve never looked at any studies that say the 7.62 round has more “put-down” power than the 223. I don’t know if the ‘39 has the same tendency to yaw and break up, or just drill right through. The reports I’ve read are mixed. I remember that in Somalia, there were reports our troops complained that they’d have to shoot the “skinnies” several times to put them down (indicating that maybe the 223 was drilling straight through, rather than yawing and breaking up and causing explosive wounds), so I don’t know for sure which one I’d rather be shot with, if I had a choice.
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.

well i would not go this far and say that a 7,62 round has more “put down” powert hen a 223 because the .223 round often starts to tumble inside the body because of it´s nose. so the .223 is a very capable round to put somebody down. the 7,62 has just more penetrating power thats all. btw. a .223 round at 200 yards will pass your body if you don´t wear any body armor or it will break because you hit a bone. (even worse for the guy who is hit) . so the 223 is a very capable round in combat. low recoil and for that high “damage” and and good balistics. the only problem is “she” doesn´t preform well agains “massive” targets. the round lacks penetration power. so in times where a 7,62 will fly trough the barrier the 223 has a good chance not to penetrate and there for miss the targed. but then again the standart body armor will normally save you from getting killed if this happens.

Like I said in a thread yesterday, our firearms instructors back in the day kept on hand a metal ammo can that was filled with water and shot with a 223 round, to show us what hydrostatic shock means.

22 caliber hole going in, the whole back of the can opened up wide open. Nasty.

It surprises me that the human body can absorb such energy, and not go right down. But it happens.

It also surprised me as I posted yesterday that Gen Petraeus was shot in the chest at close range by a 223 round at close range, by one of his own troops (accidental, tripped and fell at the range) and was back on the job a few days later.

Looking at the ammo can, I don't know how anyone survives that. But, it happens.

Such frustration is beyond my comprehension, being in the middle of a fire fight, and the rifle doesn’t go bang when they pull the trigger.

Inexcusable. Too bad so much living, breathing, lowlife trash in our gubmint that would give these frontline guys and gals anything but the best.

unfortunatley this happens. the army never gets the best. it gets what is affordable for politicians and the tax payer. btw. i really nearly pissed in my pants in afghanistan when we stoped and did some training targeting because my rifle quited firing after the 3rd round. this was not fun. luck for me we had no live firefight this day because fight with the Glock 17 (backup weapon) against an AK? luck for me it turned out well. (ok i have to admit we had several rifles in the vehicles but just imagine this had happened during live combat “and this was why a nearly pissed myself at this moment”)

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.

Bigger issue: I see no indication that the troops had mortars, grenade launchers, and other stuff that you would want to hold off bad guys in an isolated environment.

I would also want some scoped M-14s.

M-4s are OK for patrols, but for holding an outpost in "Indian Country", you should have a whole bunch of heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, etc. Plus you should be on the high ground.

It surprises me that the human body can absorb such energy, and not go right down. But it happens.

for example the steyr Aug has a V0 of(speed straight from the barrel) 990 metres per second “it was reduced because the geneva convention of hydro shock ammunition” the original velocity was higher). yes a hit at close range will do “less” damage because the slower the bulllet fly the more energy is delivered so a “slower” bullet will do more harm to your body then a fast one. this is a fact. of course the resent ammunition types can do critical damage even at high speed but fact is the slower heavier bulllet delivers more energy to the body.

My only experience with the M16 jamming was up at Fort Drum. They sent a bunch of us Air Force troops up there for a 1-week contingency deployment. We made an encampment, us comm guys with some medical and chow hall people, made a perimeter with bunkers and the whole works.

They gave us M-16 A1's with MILES gear and blanks.

Long story short: The Ft. Drum OPFOR, all experienced Rangers in their 30's, infiltrated the camp and "killed" us all the first night.

(Oh, and they were carrying AK's, and that stuff about "distinctive sound" is right on. That and the huge muzzle flash was a downright eye-opener).

Next night, we killed each other, shooting at shadows, all hyped up with adrenaline, waiting for OPFOR to attack us again.

Them there Rangers were a lot smarter than us. They knew fratricide was gonna happen. Inexperience sucks.

Anyway, those dirty 223 blanks from the Viet Nam era stopped our rifles from functioning withing six rounds. Dirty, sooty things.

All I could think was, what if this was real? We were all dead. Several times over.

Granted the AR’s are accurate, but just how important is x-ring accuracy in full auto. Any weapon will over heat in full auto if fired continously. Not ever having been in combat, I would imagine that that to pray and spray would be tempting although 3rounds would make the piece last longer.
barbra ann

That is the thing. At close range, pinpoint accuracy doesn't matter a bit. In fact from what I've read, almost all contact is well within a hundred yards.

But it is human tendency to want that do-it-all rifle. One that can function quickly, with complete reliability, yet can reach out and touch someone at 500 meters, with confidence that it will shoot right where you point it, without excuses.

I love my AR. It feels so solid. It gives one confidence. It has so many add-ons, so many options.

But in combat, would I be better off with my mini 14, with its loose-action and gas piston system, even though it isn't anywhere near as accurate, and tends to have a wilting inaccurate barrel under hot sustained fire?

I don't know. It might be better functionally, but it doesn't give you that solid feel. And confidence matters, too.

true but nobody (who has a clue)fires an assault weapon on full auto. full auto is for african child soldiers, or really close combat. nothing more. a AK47 fired on full auto is an inferior weapon.

Sure, but the slower heavier bullet has its own compromise. No doubt for instance the 45 auto is a better round than the 38 as the Moro war proved, but then there's logistics.

Should one want to carry 200 rounds of 308 because it hits harder, or should one want to carry 400 rounds of 223, because it gives 200 more bangs before the bad guys overrun you?

Don't ask me. I don't know.

Almost everything I’ve read indicates that the short barreled AR’s are less reliable. I was in the Army during the 70’s and never really had any significant problems with mine. However, in training, you are always shooting blanks, which causes an incredible amount of crud build-up. IMO, any rifle ever used in training to any extent, should never be used in combat.

Everytime I have argued M-16 variant performance IN ACTUAL COMBAT, a bunch of the usual suspects jump out of the woodwork and slap me around with a lot of twaddle about service life and troop satisfaction.

Basically,the M-16 is a great rear echelon weapon and a lousy firefight weapon.

If your life depends on performance, shoot the enemy and take their weapon whatever it is.

Best regards,

Many times, the barrel of a malfunctioning gas-impingement AR is dying. If you take a borescope and look towards the top of the barrel near the gas block, you will find that the gas tube constricts the amount of gas that flows through for reliable timing. The pressure that backs up begins to erode a channel that forms just before the gas port. As the channel grows longer and deeper, the AR's timing changes sometimes resulting in a double feed.

Excessive gas flow carries with it carbon aerosol that carries back and excessively fouls the receiver, resulting in poor ejection and jamming.

The other primary cause of jams is an over-wound magazine latch spring that prevents magazines from being fully latched in. Especially on three shot burst, the mag works slightly loose and the later rounds may misfeed.

Most armorers think that the tighter the latch, the better. That's generally true except when you are in a firefight and swapping mags in a hurry, a softer latch will more likely allow the mag to bottom out and stay tight.

Bottom line is that worn and dirty weapons may work fine on the range but not in battle.

“But it ain’t very accurate, due to loose fit of the bolt and such.”

May I suggest spending some time at the perfectUnion BBS?

The voluminous, and validated, methods of “accurizing” the Mini-14 are well discussed on that site.

AS an example, shortening the barrel, adding a brake, a trigger job, etc - all are extensively discussed.

The thin barrel seems more of a culprit on the inaccuracy issue than is bolt fit.

If you take a borescope and look towards the top of the barrel near the gas block, you will find that the gas tube constricts the amount of gas that flows through for reliable timing. The pressure that backs up begins to erode a channel that forms just before the gas port.

Okay, but unless I am thinking this wrong, all this takes place at the gas port, not after. Therefore, what difference does it make whether it's impingement or piston?

Not trying to get on your case. Just asking. Because I don't know.

As far as I know, the impingement system works fine, as long as you use clean-burning propellant. (That is assuming one knows that the design is tight-fitting and susceptible to dirt, and must be kept clean; the complaint; the dagger).

The problem during the Viet Nam era was that the "Whiz Kids" decided that Stoner was stupid and that it was ok to use all the old surplus powder that was high-residue upon firing, rather than the more modern clean-burning propellant that Stoner spec'd. And the intelligent dumb@$$es prevailed at that time.

A lot of it is thin barrel, and less-than-perfect fit between the gas block and the barrel.

That's why Ruger has gone with a thicker barrel and better machining of the gas block/barrel fit, with the later Minis.

I have one of the older Minis, and with the right loads it is around 2 MOA. That's after working on the trigger and the gas block fit with JB Weld, not to mention glass bedding the action. That's not all that bad, and better than to be expected from the old thing. Still, despite all its flaws, I've had probably 2000 rounds through it and it is the ultimate in reliability. It has never jammed. Not even once. And that's 99% hand loads, not the expensive factory stuff that I don't afford.

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.