Surprise! The M4 ia not a machinegun

[coyotejoe]

This is a lengthy discussion of the failure of M4A1 carbines in high volume fire as experienced in the battle of Wanat Afghanistan. The Army says there was no problem with the M4, the problem was that it was being used in a manner for which it was never intended. I don't own any stock in the M4 and I know the army is notorious for playing the CYA game but in this case I think they have a point, you really can't expect a light weight carbine to perform as a substitute light machinegun in a prolonged fire fight. But here is the story, see what you think.


Cover-up? Army historian says report on deadly Afghan battle was altered to absolve faulty gun

Survivors of bloody battle report M4 jams


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/20/cover-up-army-historian-says-report-on-deadly-afgh/#ixzz2ty1nezBm
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[spruce]

The M16 and it's subsequent variants have a long history of controversy.  The military has been "tweaking" it for 50 years in an attempt to make it more reliable - with mixed success.
 
It's main flaw is the direct gas impingement system.  It causes it to run hot, and dirty by blowing hot gases and crud directly into the bolt/receiver.  I think most of it's problems could be fixed by changing to a gas piston system, but the military refuses to do that.  Probably due mostly to the cost involved, and their unwillingness to admit they made a mistake.
 
It's a good sporting rifle, but the hard fact is it can't hold a candle to an AK as far as reliability goes.