Did the M-16 fail some of our troops??(vanity)

[jacksonstate]

After reading the news on how some of our POW's were captured I read a tidbit about how their rifles failed them during their capture. How the sand had caused their M-16's to jam/fail. If that is true and I see no reason for it not to be then something needs to be done.

[fourdeuce82d]

their rifles failed them during their capture

I wasn't there, and I don't want to slam the troops that were serving their country. Having said that, these guys were maintenance/rear echelon types- not reknowned for good weapon maintenance. Haven't heard of any problems from the front line folks.

[Jimmy Valentine]

All of our weaponry is built to very close tolerances, which means that you have to be very careful to keep them clean. You might notice that some of our troops carry small brushes with them to help keep their weapons clean.

The AK-47 is a simpler weapon, [fewer moving parts] and is set up a little "looser". That is one of the reasons that third world countries prefer it. Easier to keep clean, more reliable when dirty or in inclement conditions.

Regards.

[centurion316]

I agree, something should be done. The thing that comes to mind is cleaning your weapon. Based on many years of experience in such things, I suspect that what happened here is that these soldiers put their weapons in their trucks when they left Kuwait and did not touch them again until they came under fire.

Two reasons for this come to mind:

1. They were support troops - support troops never expect to have to fight for their lives and are typically less attentive to such details

2. Their sergeants failed to check

[harpu]

"The AK-47 is a simpler weapon, [fewer moving parts] and is set up a little "looser". That is one of the reasons that third world countries prefer it. Easier to keep clean, more reliable when dirty or in inclement conditions."

You forgot to mention; the AK-47 is significantly LESS ACCURATE at 25 meters.

[SBprone]

A classic tradeoff of performance characteristics.

Our military has chosen a system that is harder to keep clean and actually a bit dirtier due to gases being driven through the bolt carrier.

On the other hand, the M-16 is capable of very accurate shooting within 200 to 300m, which the AK-types are not. I can't fault the Pentagon for the choices that were made.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

Operator malfunction, one must maintain a weapon. If they want a battle rifle that will operate full of sand or mud, use the totally inaccurate AK varients.

They always work, they are always inaccurate, and they are that way on purpose so as to be used by spray and pray third world combatants who have no concept of maintenace or aimed fire.

[FreedomPoster]

You folks have pretty well summarized the answer to this question. Next!

[FreedomPoster]

Didn't mean to leave you folks out of that thread summary.

[Illbay]

Please put in "Breaking News" next time.

We need to know your thoughts on these issues.

[JZoback]

If you drive your car 25,000 without an oil change and the engine seizes up. Darn thing failed!!!

.............then something needs be done about it

[TominPA]

"2. Their sergeants failed to check"

The most important point made in this discussion. It's widely know the M-16 requires more maintaince in a sandy or dusty enviornment. No one made them check or clean them, plain and simple.

[fat city]

Seem to remember the M-16s jamming on occasion when the magazines were filled to capacity (18 rounds?)so we were advised to leave a round out. Also remember a lot of guys preferring M-14s for long distance accuracy despite being way heavier. Well, it was a long time and many brain cells ago.

[Burkeman1]

That is generally true from what I have heard and read. The Ak is not a very accuratte assault rifle. The true Russian made AK is supposed to be accurate and is considered a grat weapon. However- the AK is the most copied assault rifle in history. About a dozed countries make verisons of the Ak that are cheap and not very good. Even Pakistanni gunsmiths make their own from scratch.

[dogbyte12]

I was support personnel (commo), but in the HQ company of a light infantry division. I never worried about my weapon malfunctioning. Every time we fired it, went out in the field, etc... we had a grueling inspection on our m-16's.

If it wasn't clean, you couldn't turn it in period. After 2 weeks in the field, needing a shower desperately, you worked your ass off to get the thing cherried out. I know the supply companies just didn't have the same standards. It was more up to you to make sure your weapon was totally gi'ed out.

[garybob]

Lack of training failed the soldiers of the 507th, not the M-16. As a former company commander, I can say that the M-16 takes more abuse than merely riding in a vehicle before it "jams".

Immediate action drills practiced again, and again, and again would have helped those soldiers come through.

[Sam Cree]

Does that mean polar bear?

[gcruse]

Please put in "Breaking News" next time.
We need to know your thoughts on these issues.

ROFL

[Jimmy Valentine]

Agreed. But when you are feeding green troops into a close-in meat grinder [Russian style] they are the obvious weapon of choice.