Interesting story - The M4's history, its flaws, why it's still in use

[rah45]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/19/troop-left-to-fend-for-themselves-after-army-was-w/?page=all#pagebreak

Army Senior Warrant Officer Russton B. Kramer, a 20-year Green Beret, has learned that if you want to improve your chances to survive, it’s best to personally make modifications to the Army’s primary rifle — the M4 carbine.

Warrant Officer Kramer has been dropped into some of the most ferocious battles in the war on terrorism, from hunting Islamists in the mountains of northern Iraq to disrupting Taliban opium dealers in dusty southern Afghanistan. He was awarded the Silver Star for his bravery in Operation Viking Hammer to crush the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam in Iraq.

The warrant officer said he and fellow Special Forces soldiers have a trick to maintain the M4A1 — the commando version: They break the rules and buy off-the-shelf triggers and other components and overhaul the weapon themselves.

“The reliability is not there,” Warrant Officer Kramer said of the standard-issue model. “I would prefer to use something else. If I could grab something else, I would.”

Documents obtained by The Washington Times show the Pentagon was warned before the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that the iterations of the M4 carbine were flawed and might jam or fail, especially in the harsh desert conditions that both wars inflicted.

U.S. Special Operations Command in 2001 issued a damning private report that said the M4A1 was fundamentally flawed because the gun failed when called on to unleash rapid firing.

In 2002, an internal report from the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey said the M4A1 was prone to overheating and “catastrophic barrel failure,” according to a copy obtained by The Times.

Critics say the SoCom and Army reports should have prompted the Army to pursue a better design in the early 2000s. The Army periodically improved the rifle, but did not conduct a comprehensive upgrade until a senator pressured the top brass years later.

In 2011, a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Army announced that it was converting M4s to the commando version with a heavier barrel and automatic trigger firing.

Some of the problems uncovered in 2001 and 2002, such as stoppages or jamming, became evident in the conventional firearm, most infamously in the 2008 Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan in which nine U.S. troops lost their lives.

“Realistically speaking, there’s been loss of life that is unneeded because there was a dumbing-down of the weapon system,” said Scott Traudt, who advised the Army on how to improve the M4 a decade ago.

...

In an independent overall survey of soldiers back from Iraq and Afghanistan, 20 percent reported that the M4 jammed during battle, and one-fifth of those said the stoppages made a “large impact.”

Faced with inaction by the Pentagon, soldiers such as Warrant Officer Kramer have taken matters into their own hands, even at the risk of discipline.

“There are enhancements you can do to your weapon to bring that reliability level up. While we’re not authorized to change our weapon or modify them in any manner, obviously there are some guys out there, including myself, we’ll add some things to our guns to bring that reliability level up,” he told The Times. “I’d rather face six of my peers in a court martial versus being 6 feet down.”

The M4 has brought consistent complaints about at least three shortfalls: At a 250-yard effective-kill distance, it lacks range; its 5.56 mm round lacks killing power; and the gun requires constant maintenance — cleaning and lubricating — in sandy conditions or is prone to jamming. Soldiers also complain that the magazine dents easily and the springs break.

The short-barreled weapon was suited for house-to-house fighting in Iraq. But in Afghanistan, its lack of range meant that the Taliban could operate at a safe distance.

Mr. Traudt said there are M4 failures in battle that do not get publicized. The fact that M4s broke down at Wanat was not known publicly until Army historians chronicled the battle and released their narrative in 2010. Even the general in charge of buying the gun said he had not heard of the problems until the press reported on the Army history.

The Times interviewed two active-duty special operations troops who noted flaws but expressed love for the Colt-developed gun.

“The reality for all armies is that governments cannot afford to purchase a perfect assault rifle. It is simply cost-prohibitive,” said an ArmyGreen Beret who is not authorized to speak on the record. “For its cost, I consider the M4 to be an amazing assault rifle. Between the M16 and M4, I’ve carried weapons from that family for nearly 30 years and would not trade them for any other fielded families of assault rifles.”

A Marine commando who served in Afghanistan praised the firearm but noted that it requires constant cleaning or becomes vulnerable to jamming. “The first thing you do back at camp is clean the gun,” he said.

Mr. Zinke, the former SEAL, said the M4A1 improved as its flaws were worked out.

“The M4 has become the standard special forces weapon system,” said Mr. Zinke. “The rail system has greatly improved over time and can easily accommodate advances in optics, illumination and targeting. The 5.56 mm M4 provides an appropriate trade-off between range and firepower. Improvements and diversity in ammunition types has also improved its versatility.”

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, an artillery officer who earned the Silver Star in Vietnam, is a prominent M4 critic.

He said its 5.56-caliber bullet is too small and the gas-piston firing system is prone to stoppage. He said better weapons — the German Heckler-Koch G36 and Russian AK-74 (a version of the venerable AK-47) — use superior firing systems.

“Frankly, this whole thing is scandalous,” Gen. Scales said. “We send soldiers into close combat with lousy weapons and we’ve done it since World War II and nobody complains. It’s a national outrage.

“It has no penetrating power,” he said of the M4. “It’s ineffective against vehicles, against bunkers. It’s ineffective against virtually anything except a man in the open. Put a flak jacket on the enemy and it’s virtually useless.”

The Army believes it is answering critics such as Gen. Scales with a 5.56 mm round — the “green” lead-free M885A1 introduced in 2010. The ammunition, the Army contends, has more penetration power and longer effective range to kill the enemy.

Gen. Scales also asks why the Army issues only one model of conventional carbine.

“More soldiers are killed because of small-arms engagement than air-sea battle, air-to-air combat,” he said. “There is a difference between breaking down doors in Baghdad and fighting in the open, flat terrain of Afghanistan. One deserves a heavy bullet with longer range. One deserves to be light and nimble and maneuverable inside of buildings.”

In 2009, eight years into the war, an Army officer wrote a study making that point.

“Open source reports from Afghanistan since 2001 reveal that soldiers are engaging the enemy at ranges from contact distance to beyond the maximum effective range of the M4 carbine,” wrote Maj. Thomas P. Ehrhart, who at that time was attending the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. “Many comments focus on the ability of the soldier to hit his intended target or a failure of the bullet to achieve the desired effect.”

He summed up his findings by concluding that the M4 is not the best weapon for America’s longest war: “Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy at ranges beyond 300 meters. While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate.”

[rah45]

I don't think any standard infantry rifle today is going to penetrate bunkers, and many won't penetrate flak jackets, but I think overall he makes a good point.

[rah45]

The first second-guessing on the M4 occurred inside the military in 2000, when U.S. Special Operations Command, in conjunction with gun specialists at Naval Sea Systems Command, conducted an exhaustive evaluation of its version — the heavier-barrel M4A1. At the time, SoCom had no idea it was testing a critical weapon on the eve of two major land wars that would thrust commandos into constant combat.

With SEALs and Green Berets in mind, testers subjected the carbine to the kind of constant barrel-burning fire in harsh conditions that would erupt in Iraq and Afghanistan.

SoCom’s private study called the M4A1 carbine “fundamentally flawed.” Upon firing, the bolt opened and attempted to extract a cartridge case that was stuck to the chamber because of pressure from the fired round. The gun can be kept at “reasonable levels of reliability” if subjected to “intense maintenance,” the report said.

The study also mentioned “alarming failures of the M4A1 in operations under harsh conditions and heavy firing.” It blamed six factors, including spare parts shortages and a “decline in quality control along with mass production.”

The report said that at a conference of joint special operations forces — SEALs, Rangers and Delta Force — the warriors “identified multiple operational deficiencies inherent to the M4A1” including reliability, safety and accuracy.”

Barrels can become loose and “become inaccurate.”

Still, the SoCom report said, the M4A1 “essentially meets the needs of conventional Army users.”

So it's not good enough for SpecOps, but we'll "O-Kay" it for the regular Army pukes. Really, guys?

[rah45]

The Times asked Special Operations Command why it continued to distribute the M4A1.

“The M4A1 and M4 Carbines have served our forces well during more than a decade of sustained combat,” said Navy Capt. Kevin Aandahl. “The Army has improved the M4A1/M4 significantly over the past 12 years. The Army developed a heavy barrel and placed it in production in 2002. In addition, the M4 and M4A1 have received improvements to the trigger assembly, extractor spring, recoil buffer, barrel chamber, magazine and bolt. These upgrades addressed the issues raised in the 2002 report.”

Capt. Aandahl said the command on its own has fielded new gun parts to “improve the M4A1 capability to meet USSOCOM requirements for close-in, urban operations and room-clearing types of engagements that require this type of weapon.”

The same year Picatinny weighed in, the Marine Corps conducted its own testing of the conventional M4. The Corps infantryman’s main rifle was then, and is today, the longer-range, heavier-barrel M16.

The Army Times, an independent Gannett newspaper, later reported that the “M4 malfunctioned three times more often than the M16A4.”

To Mr. Traudt and other M4 critics, the testing should have prompted the Army to rethink the design as thousands of the carbines were about to be shipped overseas.

Mr. Traudt said he thinks the jamming problems encountered by a significant segment of troops over the past decade could have been avoided if special operations continued developing Green Mountain’s Reliability Product Improvement Kit.

The kit was tested at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Ind., in 2001 and at Picatinny in 2002. It included replacing the extractor spring, ejector spring, gas tube and gas plug with more heat-resistant ones, and moving to a one-piece, four-coil system that was engineered from more thermally durable materials to make the gun function better.

“An M4A1, when equipped with those parts, will fire continuously on full-automatic magazine after magazine until its barrel disintegrates,” Mr. Traudt said. “In our tests, M4A1 barrel failure occurred at 1,375 rounds. A normal Army M4A1 is out of action at 840 shots fired when equipped with its standard, metallurgically and technologically antiquated parts — and this isn’t even barrel failure. It’s gas system or bolt failure.”

At the time of the tests, internal reports by SoCom and Picatinny said the M4A1 was terribly flawed and not suited for commando missions.

[rah45]

I've copied the most relevant parts over here, and the link's in the OP for you guys to review at your leisure. Seems like the M16/M4 system isn't serving well as the "end-all" weapon, no matter how much they tweak it. I say they need to go back to .30 cal, if they're having that many issues with it. AK's are reliable, as are M14-style weapons, and there are other designs out there to fit the bill.

[JohnyMac]

There is CQB and long distance battle. Just thinking outside the box: The AR 15/ M16M4 is probably just fine for out to 200-250 yards while the ArmaLite AR 10 is better suited out past that range.

With that said, most militaries (Army's) do not want to have YET another variant in the field especially using different ammo - 5.56Nato vs. 7.62Nato.

Interesting post Rah 
 

[Grudgie]

They should just transition to .308 over a 10 year period and be done with it. One of the main reasons to switch to 5.56 was that it was controllable on full auto and Marines/soldiers are trained to use primarily semi auto anyway.

The Army Times, an independent Gannett newspaper, later reported that the “M4 malfunctioned three times more often than the M16A4.”

This is why I built my Ar15 with a 20" rifle length system. Eugene Stoner gets a lot of shit but he made a damn fine rifle in spite of government restrictions. A rifle length gas system dissapates heat better, gives a smother recoil impulse, doesn't spew as much carbon in the action, has higher muzzle velocity, and a longer sight radius. These are all factors why the USMC made the right choice in sticking with the M16A4.

And before people start spouting nonsense about the merits of AK reliability, let me stop you right there because they on average have a malfunction 1 out of 30 rounds. It's called going 'click' on an empty chamber.

[JohnyMac]

Our military will never do it Grudgie however I agree - We should go back to the 7.62Nato.

[sledge]

"And before people start spouting nonsense about the merits of AK reliability, let me stop you right there."

LOL!  You seem a little sensitive there. 

Actually, the wisest course is to never trust any machine completely.  Anything of a mechanical nature can fail.  This includes any safety ever designed, AR's, AK's, or any transmission, can opener, or mouse trap ever made.  If it's mechanical, it can and will fail at some point.  Usually at the worst possible time.   

[Grudgie]

But really there is so much more that could be done to improve the reliability of existing AR15s. But the military is slow to change. Thanks to the innovative free market we civilians have created, their is virtually no limit to what we can do with an AR15 platform.

As far as terminal ballistics of the 5.56, it is the most misunderstood round ever made. It is excellent if you know it's capabilitys and how it works. I highly HIGHLY recommend anyone interested to read up a little on AR15.com's ammo oracle. It will tell you everything you need to know about the 5.56, it's history, and about the tumbling myth. For instance, military ammo requires a muzzle velocity of 2700 fps or faster to reliably fragment. This is its primary wounding mechanism. The army's 14.5 inch barrel causes it to drop below this at 45-50 meters. The USMC's 20 inch barrel stays above 2700 fps from 140-150 meters. After that it may as we'll be a .22lr. Read all about it.

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/

Basically, xm855 sucks and we civilians have much better options. But that's not to say the military can't switch to a better bullet.

[brat]

If it's mechanical, it can and will fail at some point.  Usually at the worst possible time.   

The two loudest sounds you will ever hear...... a "click" when you expect to hear a "bang" and a "bang" when you expect to hear a "click".

[sledge]

If it's mechanical, it can and will fail at some point.  Usually at the worst possible time.   

The two loudest sounds you will ever hear...... a "click" when you expect to hear a "bang" and a "bang" when you expect to hear a "click".

You're right on point with that Brat.  Those are some nasty little surprises.   

[rah45]

Just to be clear, though I'm obviously biased towards the 7.62 NATO (as I own an M1A), I do think that the 5.56 has (had, to be more precise) its place. However, as Grudgie mentioned, the military doesn't really use full-auto for riflemen anymore. My brother, a Marine, was issued an M-16 that was physically limited to burst or semi-auto. He rarely used the burst function. I agree that if you're going to use semi for the most part, why not just have 7.62 NATO standard weapons and have dedicated rifles and support machine guns, like we already have? Phase out the 5.56, or limit it to urban deployments only, and give the 7.62 rifles to troops expected to encounter the enemy at distances of more than 200 meters. Isn't that reasonable?

[DMCakhunter]

Let's not forget that while the military is limited to the type of bullet used in it's ammo, civilians are not limited and have a large choice of far more effective loadings to choose from.
Also, if we want more power up close from our AR's, we can swap out the upper for a .300 blackout and still use the same magazines.

[rah45]

Let's not forget that while the military is limited to the type of bullet used in it's ammo, civilians are not limited and have a large choice of far more effective loadings to choose from.
Also, if we want more power up close from our AR's, we can swap out the upper for a .300 blackout and still use the same magazines.

Isn't the Blackout a lot more cost-prohibitive for serious prepping for the average person? I haven't seen any 300 BLK prices for anything less than what .308/7.62 is priced.

[DMCakhunter]

Yes, the blackout is usually priced the same as hunting grade ammo$18-$25 per 20, but from time to time, Remington 115 gr fmj pops up at $12 per 20. Supposedly Wolf is to make this and it should bring costs down at the other manufactures.
The .308 is a way better cartridge for most tasks but the weight vs. round count is always a debate. Really just depends on a person's preference and platform. The nice thing is we have options.
For prepping, if you want to buy a lot of ammo, you cannot beat the 5.45x39 or 7.62x39 for cost. Next up is .223/5.56 military rejects, then comes quality foreign military ammo. From there the cost gets kind of high to build a big stash.