The Big Lie about the M4 Carbine (COP Kahler)

[JU-87]

Hi all
This is a story about the loss of 9 American Infantryman at "Combat Outpost Kahler", in Afghanistan.

Lately, some gun Industry lobbyists/salesman are spreading rumors that it was the current rifle our military is using-the M4 Carbine's so-called "failure" that caused there deaths through "jamming",overheating, etc.

I'm a fan of Eugene Stoner's M16/AR15 design. I own "more than one" AR-15 , and shoot one in Service Rifle competition. Although I think shortening the barrel to 14.5 inches was a big mistake (short barrel=lower velocity. Velocity is all the 5.56mm has going for it), I believe the M4 carbine is a very good killing tool within 100 meters. Lobbyists/salesman want the Army to buy there brand, so they blame the M4 instead of bad tactics and poor training.

Read an explanation from WEAPONSMAN, who knows far more about this issue than I.



The Big Lie About Wanat (COP Kahler), Part 1 of 2 (long)

The lie is that, “9 American Infantrymen died on 13 July 08 at COP Kahler at Wanat, Afghanistan, in the Waygul Valley of Nuristan province, because their M4 Carbines jammed”. This lie clearly doesn’t hold up if you read the historical papers, professional analyses, and interviews with survivors. What does hold up is a story of incredible devotion, dedication and heroism on the part of the Americans there, and of intelligent, bold and fearless attacks on the part of their enemies. But there are some facts the foreign-firm lobbyists don’t tell you.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=20023#more-20023" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[carmen fovozzo]

Interesting article....Brave men died, not because of the way they fought or the weapons they used, but of the way Command set up a COP in the most idiotic place...with out enough support...IMO.

One thing I don't quite understand..this was a out post with a ammo supply...Why not additional AR's in that supply ?

[CCIman]

It is hard to defend a poor position, against an overwhelming enemy that has better position and cover, no matter what arms you have.

Why the cyclic fire? Seems to be strong suggestion that these soldiers did not understand the limitations of their weapons.

Why not argue that we need to replace the M4 with the AK and RPG?

[schmieg]

The same complaints were made about the M16 in Viet Nam when they were first issued. Turned out that in 90% of the cases the reasons for the failure was that the Marines were removing the dust covers because they felt they were a PITA. Retraining and periodic cleaning resolved the problem.

[CCIman]

I am still trying to wrap my brain around firing a automatic weapon until it got "white hot", and using M4 on "cyclic" fire rate until it failed.
Unless the enemy was coming in massive waves... and in high density....dunno.

[Mr. Glock]

The same complaints were made about the M16 in Viet Nam when they were first issued. Turned out that in 90% of the cases the reasons for the failure was that the Marines were removing the dust covers because they felt they were a PITA. Retraining and periodic cleaning resolved the problem.

Wasn't the powder changed at the last minute too, so the guns ran dirtier, and they were presented as low maintainance (so cleaning & cleaning kits were spotty).

[walnut red]

The same complaints were made about the M16 in Viet Nam when they were first issued. Turned out that in 90% of the cases the reasons for the failure was that the Marines were removing the dust covers because they felt they were a PITA. Retraining and periodic cleaning resolved the problem.

Wasn't the powder changed at the last minute too, so the guns ran dirtier, and they were presented as low maintainance (so cleaning & cleaning kits were spotty).

There were additional problems with the early M16 that lead to people getting killed. After some modifications the platform turned into a reliable firearm. There have always been trouble with the AR platform in dusty environments and questions about the round longer ranges. I had one solder tell me of the frustration of trying to engage a target who was shooting at him from around 200 yds away. The target was using an empty 55 gallon steel drum as cover and they could watch the 5.56 bullets bounce off the curved surface of the drum.

[Six Shooter]

Wasn't the powder changed at the last minute too, so the guns ran dirtier, and they were presented as low maintainance (so cleaning & cleaning kits were spotty).

Thats what I have also read. The wrong powder was a ball type.

"As it turns out, the blame for the malfunction rested with neither the soldier nor the M-16 rifle. It rested with the manufacture of 5.56 mm. ammunition with ball propellant, because it was cheaper than using IMR extruded propellant, and there was a huge surplus of old artillery powder from which ball propellant was manufactured."

http://bobcat.ws/rifle.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[catfish86]

The MK19 is hard to get firing on a clear sunny day at the range with nothing better to do. The weapon capability is superior but I am not a fan.

I have always questioned the M4 other than in room clearing. The velocity loss is something the 556 can't afford.

The cyclic rate, not sure which variant of the M4 they are using...the M4A1 (safe-semi-full auto) or the M4A2 (safe-semi-3rd burst). We had the M16s but had a mix of the A1 and A2. With the A1, it didn't take long to have the barrel glow. It took slightly longer, some determination to do that on burst. The reason for the burst feature is exactly that the AR rifles are not designed for sustained full auto. Even the M60 belt fed is supposed to be 6-9 round bursts. The barrell is much heavier but still not water cooled.

I am not sure what they were thinking when they made the statement that ALL they had was an M2 50 cal machine gun. Any position I am assaulting the first order of business is taking that beast out. Hard to find effective cover against that.

[Six Shooter]

The reason for the burst feature is exactly that the AR rifles are not designed for sustained full auto.

Are you sure about that ?

[CCIman]

The overall statement this author is making (which I agree with based on what is presented in the article) is that using this scenario as a platform to discuss weaknesses of the M4, entirely misses the much bigger picture of other inherent issues that were greater factors in the deaths of these service men.

I don't know who the author is, and where he obtained the information. So although the arguments seem cogent to my untrained, non-military eyes, he may not be qualified to make battle/strategy assessments, nor have the correct information, or is only presenting one side to have written what he did.

I've spoken to a TDI trainer during one of the rifle courses and specifically asked him about actual combat in theater. He had been to 2 tours to Afghanistan. I asked him about auto fire, and how often it was used and how it was done. His reply was "almost never" and that firing controlled shots, one trigger pull for each round, just like we were doing at TDI taining was the predominant method of fire in the "real world". I did not do a background check on him either, but he seemed qualified. I also asked him about hearing protection, he said it was not used in combat.

[Mr. Glock]

The reason for the burst feature is exactly that the AR rifles are not designed for sustained full auto.

Are you sure about that ?

I thought the burst feature was added to control ammo expenditure of the average user, rather than a mechanical issue? Don't fix the training, fix the weapon sort of thing.

[Six Shooter]

I thought the burst feature was added to control ammo expenditure of the average user, rather than a mechanical issue?

If I remember correctly, that was it. First adopted by the Marines.

It was to instill (and teach) the basic shooting skills of "aimed" fire, instead of the "spray and pray" technique.

[synack2]

I am just a fat AK man that built a Basic AR, but I will give my thoughts. I can tell you that the AR gets a lot dirtier a lot faster, it excretes where it eats with the gas system. The dirt really seems to get baked on and requires a lot more scrubbing that the AK does. I feel that is a bad design for a battlefield weapon, but it has a lot of advantages as well. It is generally more accurate than most AK's. Lighter. More ammo in a smaller space and for the same weight. My AK can out group my AR any day of the week, but my AR is built from the cheapest of everthing and cost $419, my AK is a Pre-Ban Poly Technoligies AKS-762 which was built for the civilian market to be a match grade rifle, and a lot of people call the Rolls Royce of AK's, so it is not indicative of a typical battlefield AK. Point is I can't say I am comparing apples to apples here.

The AR is not designed for continuous cyclic fire (neither is an AK). Mine gets dry after about 300 rounds of rapid firing and I have to spray some oil in it. It gets hot fast but not as fast as my AK does. My AK keeps the heat up by the hand guard where my AR keeps it back by the BCG. As far as the barrel getting hot, I would personally keep a bucket of water near by. Quench that thing for 15 seconds and then start firing again. I do that often with my AK, AR, and SKS. Quench it before it gets to hot so you don't change the metal though. Quenching it when it's white hot is going to make it brittle.

My AK will definitely run a lot longer between cleaning with no trouble, but 600 rounds at full auto and I am sure it would be in flames (might still fire, but not for much longer)

I have never been downrange of anything or been in the military, but I think they needed more firepower than any typical rifle was designed to provide. They probably needed some 1919's or something else belt fed with changeable barrels.

[carmen fovozzo]

M-14's