Posted on 07/10/2003 4:36:05 PM PDT by Aliska
Several soldiers of the 507th Maintenance Company could not defend themselves or their comrades March 23 because their weapons malfunctioned while they sustained a lengthy fire attack by Iraqis near Nasiriyah, Iraq, according to a U.S. Army report on the ambush.
The weapons that jammed or otherwise failed included a M-249 machine gun called a SAW (squad automatic weapon), a .50 caliber machine gun, as well as several M-16 rifles. The M-16 is the Army's standard issue weapon.
The report is not conclusive about why up to three different kinds of weapons failed and suggests that the "malfunctions may have resulted from inadequate individual maintenance in a desert environment."
For rest of story click on link.
(Excerpt) Read more at borderlandnews.com ...
Exactly!
Experience has taught me not to rely on an automatic in adverse environmental condtions. I surely wouldn't rely on one in a life or death situation.
I have been duck hunting for nearly 50 years, and have not seen an auto malfunction since the introduction of plastic shotshells. I have probably seen a million rounds fired at skeet and trap ranges over the years, and have seen 2 malfunctions that were not caused by handloads.
I have one 870 riot gun in the house, and 3 Model 11 Remingtons. I will trust John Browning's Model 11 just as far as I will his 1911A1 .45ACP, that is, all the way.
So9
I don't think so, what happened here is sand, lots and lots of sand.
The Marines I know who were over there wrote that it was a constant battle.
L
Well, I wasn't there. So, at the end of the day, I wouldn't pass judgement on those that were. But I've seen 50s shoot with large amounts of grit, sand etc in them. Once that baby gets going it's got inertia on its side.
From my own experience, like I said earlier, these MOS involved here don't know or look after their weapons the same way an infantry soldier would. It seems incomprehensible to me that three different weapons systems failing would be the reason this convoy met the fate it did. I suppose it could happen and I won't rule that out, but I don't see how one could rule out operator level maintenance either.
While the 870 Remington certainly runs fine under adverse conditions, I have experience with the Benelli and never have had a malfunction - even with mixed loads. The Benelli is the best defensive shotgun I've ever worked with.
The Steyr AUG is a nice 5.56mm bullpup. Ingenious design, great ergonomics, and quite reliable. The only drawback to me seems that the recoil is perceived to be more like a slap on the cheek, rather than a push to the shoulder. The AUG is standard issue in Austria and Australia, and is used by many elite units.
And I can testify that any weapon will jam, under certain conditions. I jammed up a M1-D so solid, it had to be opened by whacking the operating handle with a big hunk of wood.
I was firing the weapon from the prone position. The soil was dry and sandy. Then a few big fat drops of rain started to fall. You could hear them go "splat" as they hit the sand.
The drops hit so hard, they kicked grains of sand onto the top of the rifle. There wasn't enough rain to wet the rifle, but just leave areas a bit damp, just enough to hold the grains of sand in place. After firing a few rounds, this sand-and-water "paste" got onto the close-tolerance areas of the locking lugs. The action was sluggish for a couple of rounds, then refused to cycle at all after the last round was fired.
If it had been a downpour, the sand grains would have been washed off. But the odd sand-moisture-lube combination locked up even the legendary Garand.
This article is the first time I've read that other weapon types failed, too. The problem sounds more the fault of the troops, and their NCOs, than the weapons themselves. If grunts had had the same kind of problem, and it was the M-16's fault, there'd be congressional investigations by now.
But let's start at zero. You have your weapon and you should clean it daily or as often as necessary in a hostile environment.
Next, we hit usage of the weapon. Shooting three or four mags through a sixteen doesn't really matter. But getting past that point depends on the time frame the rounds are shot. It's got to do with heat and metal in the pure sense. The dirt is a secondary matter. You can't just fire indefinite amounts of rounds through any weapon without having to stop and do maintenance.
Now, what is "maintenance"? It can be literally kicking the gun as is the case of a mortar tube or changing the barrel as is the case with the M60 or M2 50 Cal for example. Both those weapons come with extra barrels that have to be rotated depending on the volume of fire. No matter how thick the enemy is, at some point you will have to change the barrel on the 50 or it will stop working or explode- which is worse.
I've seen 50 barrels with rounds stuck in them. I'm not a physicist so I can't go into the details of it intelligently, but apparantly, the barrel is designed to "resonate" (like a bell) a certain way as the round travels its length. Once the temperature of the barrel reaches a certain point, the properties of the metal change and the "resonation" changes. The bad vibration in the barrel can literally stop a round half way down it- I've seen barrels like this. My explanation might not make sense but I've definitely seen barrels in this shape.
At any rate, the point is- yes after a certain amount of firing any weapon must be maintained- whether it be pissing on the thing or kicking it or changing parts.
But this has nothing to do with the weapon not initially firing. You've got to fire a good 600 rounds through a 50 Cal in a short space of time before you start worrying about this. The fellow in this convoy never got off a shot.
How was he travelling? He was either travelling with the weapon fully loaded and ready to fire or not (again, the 50 has no safety). If he wasn't travelling ready to fire, he would have to at least charge the weapon once (which believe it or not, some people have trouble doing). If he loaded it by the book, he'd have to charge the weapon twice. If he had failed to set the timing correctly, the weapon wouldn't have fired no matter how many times he charged it. If the headspace was wrong, the weapon might have fired once but would not have continued to fire on full auto.
The only way to check this is to test fire the weapon before hand. You can do this "dry firing" and trust the weapon will work later or you can actually put a few rounds through it. On the other thread I commented on, this was what I suspected might have been the last mistake- failure to test fire before combat operations.
Either way, let's look at this situation. The 50 the SAW, the MK 19 were the main weapons guarding this convoy- not 16s. Those M16s are ineffective in this mode (fired through a window while driving). Those bigger weapons were the fire support for this convoy. They should've been looked after thoroughly, maintained, test fired and manned by someone who knew how to employ them.
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.