Author Topic: Combat Weapons Failure  (Read 2690 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31314
  • Gender: Male
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2007, 01:53:06 AM »
  The old "grease gun"..LOL

  As a tanker, it was part of my issue armaments. They were fairly dependable...for the same reason the AKs are:

  1) They were cheap to produce, being a two piece, stamped housing..

  2) They operated by "slam-fire" ignition

   The bolt was essentially, a cylindrical steel billet with a protrusion for a firing pin. When the bolt slammed forward it fired the first round and the piece continued firing till the trigger was released...plaxcing a interrupter in the way of the slamming bolt..
     The grease gun had a tendancy to draw up and to the right while firing...so it was best to start at the lower left of your target..

   The big item was the low cost..as I recall, it was $7 and change in 1950s dollars...the big .45 ACP was effective, even in FMJ..

   As tankers, we needed more compact weapons to fit in the more confined spaces. In the event we were smoked out, we had our .45 Colt (made by several mfgs), the grease gun, .30 cal carbine (not a notorious "man stopper") and in some rare cases  a tanker's M1 ( on everyone's wish list ) .
   I can't comment on the Thompson..never used one..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2007, 01:42:03 PM »
The Thompson I carried for a while, was reliable, short range, and HHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAVVVVVVVYYYYYYYYYY.
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline Rogue Ram

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2007, 05:27:08 PM »
This is what I was referring to in my original post. Soon as HK starts making this for Semi Autos, civilian law enforcement will be all over it. From MILITARY.COM......


Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4
Military.com  |  By Christian Lowe  |  April 06, 2007
It's a debate that's gone on for years - and now it's finally coming to a head.
The compact M4 carbine - a shortened version of the M16 - that is now standard issue for most Army troops, some Marines and other specialized units is facing increased criticism because of its tendency to malfunction with even the minutest exposure to the elements.

Some ground communities, including special operations forces, have begun to sideline the M4 in favor of newer, gas-piston operated variants such as the Heckler & Koch-manufactured 416 and the FNH-built Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR

In a routine acquisition notice March 23, a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbines. The M4 fires using a system that redirects gas from the expended round to eject it and reload another. The 416 and SCAR use a gas-operated piston that physically pushes the bolt back to eject the round and load another.

Carbon buildup from the M4's gas system has plagued the rifle for years, resulting in some close calls with Soldiers in combat whose rifles jammed at critical moments.

According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."

The 416 is used by the Army's elite Delta Force, and a recent Army Times investigation showed the service's top equipment buyers ignored data from the spec ops community showing the M4 had fundamental flaws. Enamored by the development of futuristic weapons such as the XM29 and, later, XM8 - neither of which were ever fielded - the M4 stayed in the hands of Soldiers deploying to hot, dusty, austere environments like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army would prefer to wait for the development of a new rifle firing an airburst, round - essentially leaping ahead of today's technology. But that innovation has been hard to find in the right weight class.

An Army spokeswoman for Program Executive Office Soldier, based at Fort Belvoir, Va., said in a statement the Army isn't buying into SOF's argument.

"At this time PEO Soldier is not procuring and does not have plans to procure the 416," said Army spokeswoman, Erin Thomas, in an email statement.

But special operations forces sometimes work outside the "Big Army" procurement system, so they can grab the best gear quickly.

"The elimination of the gas tube ... means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained," the justification for the 416 assembly buy states. "There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."

Army weapons experts have been tinkering with new weapons designs, such as the HK-built XM8. Its modular design, rugged construction and accuracy intrigued many in the Army - and other services. But in 2005, the Army abandoned the XM8 after spending $33 million - though the Natick Soldier Systems Center has been looking at a shortened version of the XM8 as a personal defense weapon for officers and armored vehicle crews.

So far, however, the Army is unwilling to buy what the special operations community believes is a clearly superior system and is still spending money looking for another technology while Soldiers use what many say is an inferior weapon in harsh combat conditions.

"The Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia is currently conducting a Capabilities Based Assessment to determine future Army needs," Thomas said in the statement, declining to elaborate.


Offline scout34

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2007, 11:28:24 AM »
Op rod is the way to go.  Way easy to update all currently fielded weapons as well.  As for not having the money, that's a crock.  It would be cheaper to field this system than a new weapon.  Training would not be changed at all and the vast majority of parts are the same.  Too easy.

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31314
  • Gender: Male
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #34 on: May 12, 2007, 02:33:50 PM »
   Got a call last week, from my Grandson..Marine armorer, based between Ramadi & Fallujah.
 
   Since this discussion has been carrying on, I decided to get the latest report possible from the field.

   He tells me that his M16s and derivatives are functioning very well..as per usual.. Then too..being a very fastidious armorer, he has trained his troops well in the operating and maintenance of the rifles.

   Surprisingly, the weapon system giving a bit of trouble recently is the old, reliable .50 cal Browning..Now , how do you like those apples ? I always pictured the browning .50 as "dependable as a hammer"..

  There was a sound delay on the transmission, so I didn't get the clear reason why the Brownings were giving a problem.
  However, I take it that it had something to do with the head space and timing.  He said he would have to sit his troops down and review the "care and feeding of the .50 cal"....LOL

   He went on a special volunteer mission a couple weeks ago where his main weapon was the .50 cal . He had no problems with it..but then, he's the armorer..
 
  One thing for sure, any problem with the Browning .50 can only be a temporary snag..most likely a training issue..

  So..the latest news from the sandbox is that the M16 system is working fine and doing what it does best...


If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline superjay01

  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
  • Gender: Male
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2007, 05:34:20 PM »
My best friend from high school has recently come back from Iraq, and he has noted the problems they are having are with the new rifles that Israel is producing for the troops, not the ones manufactured by Colt. At  any rate I don't quite understand why a lot of people have this idea about the ak-47 not being accurate, it might not shoot sub MOA groups but it was never intended for that purpose. If it would be I'd rather be shooting an ak because that 223 is a mighty small round to try and kill someone with.
Chance favors the prepared mind

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2007, 11:05:49 AM »
My best friend from high school has recently come back from Iraq, and he has noted the problems they are having are with the new rifles that Israel is producing for the troops, not the ones manufactured by Colt. At  any rate I don't quite understand why a lot of people have this idea about the ak-47 not being accurate, it might not shoot sub MOA groups but it was never intended for that purpose. If it would be I'd rather be shooting an ak because that 223 is a mighty small round to try and kill someone with.

Well, my son whom is still fighting house to house in Baghdad with the 82nd Airborne was able to somehow call home on mothers day to talk to my wife. I was able to visit with him for about 5 minutes, and told him about this discussion. He said a bulldozer will shut down if you don't put oil in it. He also said it will be his first purchase when he gets home. An M4, not a bulldozer.
He continues to say maintenance is the key, but says the rumors of the piston driven merit deserve some looking into. ;D
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31314
  • Gender: Male
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2007, 12:42:55 AM »
  Right on Dee;

  As I said..my grandson..a Marine fighting in Al Anbar and the armorer responsible for his unit's weapons agrees with your son..

  I think we can conclude..their opinions are not formed by old stories, rumors, sour grapes or innuendos..LOL
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline ibfestus

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2007, 01:51:52 PM »
I am no expert but do have experience with the M-1, M-1A, and the M-16.  I carried an M-1 in ROTC and qualified with it.  I was issued a M-16A1 in my role as OIC TACP CAG-3 in 1971.  I have owned a Fulton Armory built M-1A since 1984.  In 1986 I purchased a NFA registered M-16A1 from John Ross in St. Louis, MO.

Of the three, hands down, the Mickey Mouse gun wins the day. JMHO
:D

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31314
  • Gender: Male
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2007, 03:01:35 AM »
  Talked with my grandson in Iraq on Memorial Day weekend..the M-16 series still doing what it does best..getting the bad guys..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline Echo4Lima

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #40 on: October 28, 2007, 09:57:05 PM »
Marine Corps new rifle is the M16A4. Note the A4.  It's not the M4 the Army uses. This is the newest model of the M16.   

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31314
  • Gender: Male
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2007, 07:56:04 AM »
   Right on Echo, I was just saying M-16 for brevity...and "series" because there seem to be related weapon systems and many "add ons"..

 
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)

Offline Echo4Lima

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2007, 05:36:08 PM »
Hey Iron wasn't trying to poke at you. I know what you meant, I was just clarifying for others that it still the M16, just updated.

Offline Chilachuck

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2007, 05:37:18 AM »
If anyone is going to compare the design of M16 with the AK47, then they should be trying an AK with a machined receiver.

The US is not going to an AK design (unless certain politicians have their way), but if the US did, it would not be to a stamped sheet metal receiver.

I think I saw a US made semi auto AK advertised for over $2000. I'd expect the accuracy to be pretty good. (As for basic design, isn't the Druganov (sp?) sniper rifle based on the AK action?

Offline ironglow

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31314
  • Gender: Male
Re: Combat Weapons Failure
« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2007, 06:14:07 PM »
  It appears to be..and it is no great sniper rifle..
If you don't want the truth, don't ask me.  If you want something sugar coated...go eat a donut !  (anon)