Weapons failed US troops in Afganastan

[alsaqr]

Would anyone here be surprised to learn that the "reporters" at AP who read the rough draft of the battle took a lot of liberty with the truth when they wrote their article?  They distorted and bowderlized in their sensationalized article to suit their political agenda.

This guy has carefully dissected the article: 


http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/10/13/the-truth-behind-the-recent-m4-controversy/ 

The AP infers that the barrels of many of the weapons were getting white hot. From the AP article:

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot.

There is only one reference to a gun getting white hot in the draft report, and it is a SAW not a M4 Carbine:

Specialist Bogar fired approximately six hundred rounds at a cyclic rate of fire from his SAW when that weapon became overheated, and eventually jammed the bolt forward. Specialist Stafford noted, “Bogar was still in our hole firing quite a bit. Then Bogar’s SAW jammed. Basically it just got way overheated, because he opened the feed tray cover and I remember him trying to get it open and it just looked like the bolt had welded itself inside the chamber. His barrel was just white hot.”

In fact, it is not even possible that an M4 barrel can heat up to the point of being white hot. M4 barrels are made from Alloy Steel 4150. The melting point of this steel is 1426 degrees Celsius. For steel to go white, it needs to be over 1400 degrees Celsius.

The Ground Precautionary Message ACALA #97-031, from November 1996, clearly states that if an M4 barrel reaches just 737 degrees Celcius, the barrel will be weaked to the point where burst.

(3) BURST BARRELS RESULT WHEN THE WEAPONS ARE FIRED UNDER VERY EXTREME FIRING SCHEDULES AND THE BARREL TEMPERATURE EXCEEDS 1360 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. WHEN THE BARREL REACHES THESE EXTREME TEMPERATURES, THE BARREL STEEL WEAKENS TO THE POINT THAT THE HIGH PRESSURE GASES BURST THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE BARREL APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES IN FRONT OF THE CHAMBER. THIS CONDITION CAN RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY.

You are not going to see an M4 barrel white hot because by that point it would have exploded!

The AP also infers that the M4 Carbine is designed to handle a high rate of fire

The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

This is also not true. From the Ground Precautionary Message[^1]:

(B) FIRING 140 ROUNDS, RAPIDLY AND CONTINUOUSLY, WILL RAISE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE BARREL TO THE COOK-OFF POINT. AT THIS TEMPERATURE, ANY LIVE ROUND REMAINING IN THE CHAMBER FOR ANY REASON MAY COOK-OFF (DETONATE) IN AS SHORT A PERIOD AS 10 SECONDS.

...

(D) SUSTAINED RATE OF FIRE FOR THE M16 SERIES RIFLES AND M4 SERIES CARBINES IS 12-15 ROUNDS PER MINUTE. THIS IS THE ACTUAL RATE OF FIRE THAT A WEAPON CAN CONTINUE TO BE FIRED FOR AN Indefinite LENGTH OF TIME WITHOUT SERIOUS OVERHEATING.

No operator should empty more than 4 magazines rapidly. The AP quotes the draft report:

My weapon was overheating. I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn’t charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down.”

I sympathize with the solider and would not dare to presume to question his actions in combat. He did what he had to do in the heat of the moment, but I cannot think of any current weapon in the M4 class that can sustain continuous fire. To make such a weapon it would need to have a heavy quick change barrel and maybe also include a heat sink. I doubt any soldiers will want to trade in their M4 for a heavy automatic rifle.

Many thanks to Jay, aka. jdun1911, for his research into this controversy. He should get all the credit for this blog post.

UPDATE: I just want to clarify a point mentioned by commenters below. If the solider fired his 12 magazines evenly over a 30 minute period he should have had no overheating problems (assuming the Army GPM info is correct). What we do not know is the period of continuous fire. As Bram, who has seen combat, said "Time moves very differently while under fire. It’s impossible to judge how fast those soldiers were actually firing.".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not make a .mil link to the GPM but it is widely published on the internet. It can be read in full on The Firearm Blog. I did verify, on a .mil website, that this GPM does exist. ↩

[Dee]

(1):  You never, ever situate your redoubt or outpost below a accessible high point.

(2):  The Armalite system will fail regardless of environment.  A 9 lug bolt is simply much too cluttered to continue to work in adverse situations.

(3):  The Kalashnikov or Siminov systems will continue to work in any environment and after severe and adversarial use.

(4):  The M1/M14 systems and the Mini-14 systems will continue to work under adverse conditions but a more effective battle round is needed; A Mini-14 system in a accurate 7.62x39 chambering would be very effective.  A longer barrelled Kalashnikov (RPK bbl length) would be better yet.

(4) A better package than what we field now would be a scopable American Kalashnikov in 260.  jmtcw.

Not to argue, but Mikey are you saying an "open action" will function better in blowing sand? I would strongly disagree, and have extensive experience with both the garand action AND the AR, M16 platform.
The one thing that may or may not have been addressed here (I lazily haven't read them all yet) is MAINTENANCE on the weapons in question, AND records. I have trained with other SWAT teams that had weapons failures due to poor maintenance, and theirs and our weapons systems in many cases were near identical. I have been told by MANY veterans that this problem is also prevalent in the military, sometimes unit wide depending on the unit leaders priorities.
When I was working the SANDY river bottoms of the Oklahoma-Texas border in the 70s and 80s, I ALWAYS maintained my weapon ANY TIME THERE WAS AN OPORTUNITY. I am not criticizing these brave men and women, I am just saying most are CITY RAISED, and might have been a little lax in this area.
I have own 5 AR15s, trained with them and their M16 brothers, and M14s, and 7 mini14s have been owned by me. I have NEVER HAD A FAILURE of any to operate. EVER!
I have seen others weapons fail, and in regards to the AR-M16 platform it was ALWAY MAINTENENCE, and usually lack of proper lubricant. JMOATs No one has to agree.

[Dixie Dude]

I was told by a friend who returned from Iraq that the were using black electricians tape to seal the crack between the top and bottom receiver of their weapons, and the flap that seals the ejection port, and even the end of the barrel.  That kept the dust out so they would have a working gun in a firefight.  He did say the M14 was better in the wide open spaces for range. 

[BBF]

That rate of 12 to 15 rounds per minute works out to a shot fired every 4 to 5 seconds. That is semi auto fire not spray and melt.

[beerbelly]

                                 I will take the M1 Garand any day. To start with it has enough bullet to do the job, not like that wheezily 223. A Simi-auto with well  aimed fire will get the job done.  Of course every one has their own preference.
                                    Beerbelly

[Redtail1949]

7.62x39 is just about the equivelent power wise as a 30-30.  the ak is not very accurate but its is famous for reliability and low maintenece requirements. it was designed and excells in assualt situations and close combat.

the real secret to a close quarters and assaualt weapon in my opinoin is reliability first and power second with accuaracy last (reasonable is just fine at close quarters) then simplicity in disassembly and reassembly a few of parts as possible and ease of takedown no specialized tools or tiny parts. thats where the garand M14 and the trusty Colt 1911 .45 pistol were tops. the troops could take them down blindfolded  or in the dark and reassemble the same way. they went bang under almost all conditions thery were subjected to.

extreme accuracy (snipers) require specialized bolts and specialized calibers from .308 to the old war horse .50 cal. Amazingly the .50 cal in snipers and in Heavy Machine Guns just keeps on giving. Now with the invention of special ammo for that .50 it will live on for another 100 years in my opinion.

I agree with beerbelly just give me my garand or my M14 and I will hump the weight and never look back.

[billy_56081]

I wouldn't be surprised they're on the verge of something like this soon with a high cycle rate...wherein old tech gunpowder-projectile-case is not needed...no ammo to carry, no trajectories.....just carry battery packs..

fyi.....http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/03/handheld-laser-gun-available-for-purchase/



..TM7

TM are you trying to pass that silly crap off as real? 6000 watts out of AA batteries? OMFG that is one of the silliest things you have tried to post as fact I have ever seen. 


TM we are talking about real weapons here not some "SUPER LASER" that runs on AA batteries. So how many Amps are these guys getting out of those AA's?

Please tell us all you really didn't think this link you posted was for real.

...Well listen my reptilian cohort..this is called a discussion group...the link is future looking whether you like it or understand it. Powder, primer, projectile, case technology is old school and I know its a lot of fun for psychos like yourself, but somewhere-someplace somebody is thinking of technology like this, whether you get it or not. I'm not a lazer engineer, but I certainly intend to look into companies developing this kind of tech as per investment...you on the otherhand can stay around 1875 for all I care where you belong.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


from janes.com USAF unveils non-lethal version lazer gun:

US Air Force unveils hand-held laser gun

By Michael Sirak JDW Staff Reporter
Washington, DC

The US Air Force has unveiled its first hand-held laser weapon that gives security forces a non-lethal option for controlling crowds and protecting areas like checkpoints, according to service officials.

While only in prototype form and years away from fielding, the weapon, known as the Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response (PHaSR) system, holds great promise, they said.

The PHaSR is about the same size and weight of a fully loaded M60 machine gun - around 9 kg - but shoots a low-power beam of laser light instead of bullets. The light it generates is capable of temporarily impairing an individual's vision, much like the disorienting glare one sees when looking into the sun, said the officials.

Upon completion of testing, one prototype will be handed over to the Department of Defense's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) and the second to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ): the law enforcement arm of the US Department of Justice. Both organisations support the programme, with the latter interested in its civil applications.

~~~~~~~~~

Lethal versions to follow....?


..TM7

TM this silly thing you have linked here has as much to do with the Military lasers talked about in the second part as a paper plane has to do with an F22. I am not saying that the military and others are not working on and actually have military grade laser/charged particle beam weaponry. Back in th e early ninteys we had sucessful tests of air defence lasers. The problem is, is the power requirments to run such a weapon. Unless you have a couple semi loads of AA batteries as your "SUPER LASER" in your link runs off of you aint got the power. I suppose if you hooked 4000 AA batteries in series you could get a voltage of about 6000 VDC, you could gets about 1.5 to 2 hours at 6000 watts if you draw at 1 amp intermittently. Just remember I x E = P. By the way TM I do have an associates degree in Electronics technology.



Lets get back to reality now, the M16 is reliable as DEE has said if it is maintained. The A1's we had when I served were very reliable if cleaned. Any weapon will jam at times, especially when used in a course sand environment. Overheating will happen in EVERY weapon if fired full auto for a long time. It is not possible to dissipate the heat fast enough by air cooling alone at a high rate of fire. Most full auto fire is panic fire, fire disipline, controlling your rate of fire in a firefight is important in keeping a weapon system funtioning. 99% of the time aimed semi auto fire is more efective than full auto.