Cover-up of M4 Problems? - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


Cover-up of M4 Problems?

This is a discussion on Cover-up of M4 Problems? within the M16 AR15 forums, part of the Rifle Forum category; An Army Historian says there has been a cover-up of the problems with the M4 carbine during deadly Afghanistan battle: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-deadly-afgh/...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Rifle Forum > M16 AR15

14Thanks
  • 1 Post By Tommo
  • 3 Post By ArmyPilot
  • 1 Post By 2336USMC
  • 1 Post By MrM1A
  • 1 Post By Wasted ammo
  • 3 Post By ArmyPilot
  • 1 Post By 2336USMC
  • 1 Post By Harleystoo
  • 2 Post By village16
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old February 16th, 2017, 10:58 AM   #1
Lifer
 
Tommo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 4,787
Cover-up of M4 Problems?

An Army Historian says there has been a cover-up of the problems with the M4 carbine during deadly Afghanistan battle:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-deadly-afgh/

Thanks from High Hat
Tommo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 16th, 2017, 12:07 PM   #2
Designated Marksman
 
ArmyPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: El Paso TX
Posts: 604
If you ignore the rates of fire for any weapon system, it WILL fail.
The failure during those battles mentioned in the article was the lack of support to the defenders. An M4 isn't a replacement for supporting (HMG, indirect fire, air) fires.

Max effective rates of fire for the M4 Rifle.
Semiautomatic - 45 rounds per minute
Burst - 90 rounds per minute
Sustained - 12-15 rounds per minute

Thanks from 2336USMC, Douglas Haig and Rich D
ArmyPilot is online now  
Old February 16th, 2017, 12:33 PM   #3
Banned Camp
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 67
The funny thing that I repeatedly chuckle over is how so many will roast the M16/M4 series of rifles as a combat weapon, but they own at least one AR15.
But anyway as above, the rifle was pressed in to service in an unsupportable role die to a multiple of factors and it failed. Its like buying a Corrola and thinking you can make 1/4 mile runs with it every weekend and think it won't break.

DougCarr is offline  
 
Old February 16th, 2017, 12:45 PM   #4
Lifer
 
2336USMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Road
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmyPilot View Post
If you ignore the rates of fire for any weapon system, it WILL fail.
The failure during those battles mentioned in the article was the lack of support to the defenders. An M4 isn't a replacement for supporting (HMG, indirect fire, air) fires.

Max effective rates of fire for the M4 Rifle.
Semiautomatic - 45 rounds per minute
Burst - 90 rounds per minute
Sustained - 12-15 rounds per minute
Spot on. When you put people in a position where they have to try to use an M16 when they really need a few belt-fed water cooled MGs, you will have failures.

See the Colt video where they shot an M4 on continuous full auto mag dumps until it finally failed. Pretty impressive for what it is, but it's not a water cooled MG.

Thanks from Blademaker
2336USMC is offline  
Old February 16th, 2017, 05:58 PM   #5
Scout Sniper
 
MrM1A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 847

Awards Showcase

If I read the article correctly it's saying that these rifles overheated after 490 rds in 30mins sustained fire. That's only 16rds per min, correct?

Thanks from Lazerus2000
MrM1A is offline  
Old February 16th, 2017, 06:02 PM   #6
Lifer
 
Wasted ammo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: GA
Posts: 2,096
According to the previous post that's enough to make it fail. 12-15 sustained fire per min.
Wonder what the rates are for an m14?

Thanks from MrM1A
Wasted ammo is online now  
Old February 16th, 2017, 07:11 PM   #7
Designated Marksman
 
ArmyPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: El Paso TX
Posts: 604
Every Infantryman should have to be a assistant machine gunner as their first duty position. They will be forced to learn why rates of fire are important to know, how to adhere to them, and when to lube before it's too late.
Exceeding the effective rates of fire can lead to shooting the rifling out ("blowing chrome"), warping the barrel, melting the barrel (done it, 3 minutes at cyclic rate with an M60), the bolt seizing, part breakage, etc...
If you're being over run though all bets are off, run it till it's dry.

PS I believe the sustained rate of fire for the M14 was 15 rounds per minute.

Thanks from Douglas Haig, Mantis108 and MrM1A
ArmyPilot is online now  
Old February 16th, 2017, 07:50 PM   #8
Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Arizona Bay
Posts: 245
It doesn't really give you useful information, but I found these videos entertaining...






Didn't see any such things for an M1A or M14 type. Guess people were too attached to destroy their babies?

MuppetMeat4Me is offline  
Old February 16th, 2017, 10:41 PM   #9
Old Salt
 
DaMoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommo View Post
An Army Historian says there has been a cover-up of the problems with the M4 carbine during deadly Afghanistan battle:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-deadly-afgh/
The M4 has a rather thin barrel under the hand guards. This is because the M203 grenade launcher requires the original .625 barrel diameter of the original M16A1 it was designed for to attach to. The M16A2 and M16A4 share this as well.

It doesn't take a lot of shooting to heat this this pencil barrel sucker up.

The Army is putting thicker barrels on the new standard M4A1 guns, the USMC is moving to make the M27 IAR a standard issue weapon.

It makes a big difference. I have one of those 90s bushmaster M16A2 clones that has a big thick HBAR barrel under the hand guards. Makes the thing weigh as much as the M14 but boy that sucker hardly gets warm.

DaMoose is online now  
Old February 16th, 2017, 10:47 PM   #10
Lifer
 
2336USMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Road
Posts: 3,827
The M4 fails at the gas tube. It melts.

Thanks from DudleyDR
2336USMC is offline  
Old February 17th, 2017, 02:56 AM   #11
Old Salt
 
lysander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMoose View Post
The M4 has a rather thin barrel under the hand guards. This is because the M203 grenade launcher requires the original .625 barrel diameter of the original M16A1 it was designed for to attach to. The M16A2 and M16A4 share this as well.

It doesn't take a lot of shooting to heat this this pencil barrel sucker up.

The Army is putting thicker barrels on the new standard M4A1 guns, the USMC is moving to make the M27 IAR a standard issue weapon.

It makes a big difference. I have one of those 90s bushmaster M16A2 clones that has a big thick HBAR barrel under the hand guards. Makes the thing weigh as much as the M14 but boy that sucker hardly gets warm.
Yeah, because of the lack of proper support weapons, inadequate training, coupled with one extra-ordinary event, all infantrymen are now being saddled with a heavier individual weapon...

The new barrel on the M4A1 has now increased the weight to the point where it now weighs about what the original M16A1. But, you now also have about 2000 fps less muzzle velocity, not much higher than the M80 Ball, but with a lighter bullet.

lysander is offline  
Old February 17th, 2017, 08:12 AM   #12
Lifer
 
Harleystoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 2,025
Reading that article was like reading all of the personal accounts of Vietnam. It stunk then, as it does now. Blowing carbon directly on to a bolt is just stupid for a combat rifle. There are a dozen other issues, but don't get me started.

Since the government got out of the business of making our own combat weapons, selection has become purely political and at the expense of our troops.

Thanks from DudleyDR
Harleystoo is offline  
Old February 17th, 2017, 04:06 PM   #13
Scout Sniper
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Oscar Mike
Posts: 813
I'm not a fan of the m4 vomitting hot dirty gas all over itself, but most of the issues guys run into these days are caused by improper maintenance and faulty magazines.

spsosicmcise is offline  
Old February 17th, 2017, 06:42 PM   #14
Rifleman
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Graham, WA
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysander View Post
Yeah, because of the lack of proper support weapons, inadequate training, coupled with one extra-ordinary event, all infantrymen are now being saddled with a heavier individual weapon...

The new barrel on the M4A1 has now increased the weight to the point where it now weighs about what the original M16A1. But, you now also have about 2000 fps less muzzle velocity, not much higher than the M80 Ball, but with a lighter bullet.
2000 fps less? You mean 200?

Merle is offline  
Old February 21st, 2017, 07:34 PM   #15
Platoon Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 507
The M4 was never designed for high sustainability firing. I am a recent subscriber to Chris Bartocci on YouTube. He worked for Colt and has a lot of knowledge about the industry. Check him out.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_t...iL3G_zQ/videos

Thanks from DudleyDR and ArmyPilot
village16 is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Rifle Forum > M16 AR15

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PASGT x-large helmet cover JD Russell PX 3 November 30th, 2009 12:47 PM
Is Your rear Sight Cover Worn Out? art luppino Accuracy 6 October 21st, 2009 01:09 PM
Watch that Rear Sight Cover. art luppino The M14 2 January 3rd, 2009 11:35 AM
SA Inc. manufacture parts, any problems? trbon8r The M14 4 December 19th, 2005 06:35 AM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List