# Did M4 Carbine Fail U.S. Troops During Afghanistan Assault?



## ToughOmbre (Oct 11, 2009)

*First that I've heard of a problem with these weapons. Eerily reminicent of the issues with the M-16 back in the early days of the Viet Nam War, but the M4 has been in service since 1997. *

Sunday, October 11, 2009 

WASHINGTON — In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any assumptions regarding what did or didn't work correctly," he said.

Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.

The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

"The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.

Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.

Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.

The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., hasn't been publicly released. Copies of the study have been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.

Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.

On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.

Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

Bogar was killed during the firefight, but no one saw how he died, according to the report.

TO


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Oct 11, 2009)

Interesting, does kind of sound like the M-16 when it first debut, but the M4 has been in service for awhile. 
Adler has fired an M4 before, I wonder what his opinion is?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 11, 2009)

And so have I, and I am a firm believer that the M-4 needs to be replaced... 

Gimme an AK any day of the week...


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 11, 2009)

Is this the weapon in question?


----------



## javlin (Oct 11, 2009)

Dan I think while heavy I probably go the M14(.308 ) or maybe the VZ 58 same round as the AK but very well balanced.Kevin

Just wanted to add there is just something about a 55-65 grain bullet that does not bode well with me.The AK rd is what 130-150G, .308 150-175G they finish the job.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2009)

I never had a problem with the M4. I agree with Dan that it is not the best weapon, but I did not have any problems with it. It always fired just fine for me. Based off of my experience, as long as you took care of it, cleaned it properly it worked just fine.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 11, 2009)

Therein lies the problem Chris.. No matter how anal retentive u are with ur gear, especially in desert/mountainous enviornments, theres always the chance of a jam....

Never had an AK jam on me, and AIve fired it after crawlin through mud and swamps and sand dunes....

I totally agree with u Kevin regarding the weight of the M-4 rounds, just no goddamn stopping power....


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 11, 2009)

I forget where I saw this, but it was a TV show comparing guns and they put the guns AK and M4 in mud and water, the AK was fine the M4 jammed after I few shots


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Therein lies the problem Chris.. No matter how anal retentive u are with ur gear, especially in desert/mountainous enviornments, theres always the chance of a jam....
> 
> Never had an AK jam on me, and AIve fired it after crawlin through mud and swamps and sand dunes....
> 
> I totally agree with u Kevin regarding the weight of the M-4 rounds, just no goddamn stopping power....



I certainly agree with you. I also think partial blame can lay into the methods used for cleaning. When I was in Iraq my M-60D would jam quite a bit even though I cleaned it after every mission. It would just fill up with sand and it would stick to the CLP. I ended up switching to WD 40 and cleaning it only every 2 or 3 missions and it worked like a champ. Did not have a jam for 6 months or more.



B-17engineer said:


> I forget where I saw this, but it was a TV show comparing guns and they put the guns AK and M4 in mud and water, the AK was fine the M4 jammed after I few shots



The AK is probably the best. You can literally drag it though the mud and it will still work. As Dan said, I myself have never had one jam on me.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 11, 2009)

The M4 is a shorter and lighter version of the M16A2, 80% of it's parts in common with the M16A2. Hard to comprehend that there should be a problem with this weapon in 2009. 

TO


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 11, 2009)

Certainly a good attribute!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 11, 2009)

Hey TO, it is basically the same weapon as in Nam, but the fact remains, it doesnt have the stopping or brush cutting power of the larger calibre rounds....

I can recall atleast 3 occasions where the M-4 jammed on me, and I kept my sh!t wired tight.... Ive also known several SEALs that were in Nam and had similar experiences with the M-16 and the Stoner 63 System...

Think of all the wasted man hours spent field cleaning and stripping down those M-4's just so they dont jam on u when u need it most...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 11, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Hey TO, it is basically the same weapon as in Nam, but the fact remains, it doesnt have the stopping or brush cutting power of the larger calibre rounds....



Very true, no argument there Dan. Always thought that the muzzle velocity of the M-16 sort of made up for the difference in calibre. 

The jamming problem still really bothers me. 

TO


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 11, 2009)

Hehe, bothers u??? 

Try havin 9 frickin Africans spraying 7.62 rounds all over the place rushing ur posistion and the damn rifle jams after 8 rounds....


----------



## Glider (Oct 11, 2009)

If the Special Forces are changing for something else, then that something else it what I would want to seriously look at.

Troops must have absolute confidence in their weapons and the rifle above all.


----------



## javlin (Oct 11, 2009)

Yea TO the 5.56 is about 400-500 ft/s faster but when you can get a 150g .308 going 2400 ft/s and less drift in wind I don't know.Now I thought that one of the reasons for the smaller cailbre was to wound more than kill.Make the enemy(his comrades) tend to wounded on the field (and this could just be old lore).The enemy we have now could care less about the guy beside him I think.


----------



## Butters (Oct 11, 2009)

Les,

Are there any Western assault rifles/carbines that you think are a match (per reliability/durability) for the AK? I know that the Isreali Galil is based upon the the Kalishnikov design philosphy. Have you ever had a chance to handle one of those?

JL


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2009)

For "western weapons", I really enjoy the G-36.

I hear that some Spec Ops are replacing the M-4 with the HK-416 which is an improved M-4 with a new redesigned bolt systme that reduces jams and malfunctions.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Oct 11, 2009)

Maybe the G-36 should replace the M-4. What rounds do the G-36 fire?


----------



## javlin (Oct 11, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Maybe the G-36 should replace the M-4. What rounds do the G-36 fire?



The same as the M-4 the 5.56 or .223 for some.I do not know and it probably has changed but I thought I heard that the armour(bullet vest) was basically made to stop a 5.56 rd but not the .308 so much?any enligthment out there?


----------



## Milosh (Nov 9, 2009)

> The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.



Sounds like overheating more than dirt that caused the weapons to stop working.


----------



## Amsel (Nov 9, 2009)

LWRC has fixed the main issue with the M-4 with its new self-regulating short-stroke gas-piston system. Well besides the weak penetration and stopping power of the 5.56 itself, LWRC has made the M-4 a much better piece. I really like the m-10 version though, utilizing the .308.

I wonder why the government doesn't look into using an improved gas-piston system.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 9, 2009)

Amsel said:


> LWRC has fixed the main issue with the M-4 with its new self-regulating short-stroke gas-piston system. Well besides the weak penetration and stopping power of the 5.56 itself, LWRC has made the M-4 a much better piece. I really like the m-10 version though, utilizing the .308.
> 
> I wonder why the government doesn't look into using an improved gas-piston system.


Trying to do anything different or replace anything puts you into a world of hurt with all of the layers of bureaucratic oversight that have been added since the original contract has been signed. Why did the F-16 cost 15 million and the F-35 cost 83 mil? ISO 9000 and layers of corrupt bureaucracy.


----------



## renrich (Nov 18, 2009)

Aside from the stopping power of the round, wouldn't the problem of jamming with the M4 and the M16 compared to the AK be because the manufacturing tolerances of the AK are substantially more loose than the AR designs. The US weapons may be more accurate than the AK, but in a close quarters fire fight with lots of firing who needs good accuracy? I am just speculating for I am an M1 Garand guy.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 18, 2009)

We have an inferior weapon that no one cares about because there isn't enough lobby to replace it. Colt's connections outweigh the arguments against the poor stopping power of the 5.56 from a short barrel and the unreliability of the shortened version of the M16 gas system.


----------



## Theo (Nov 18, 2009)

I recently read the same thing about the British SA80 rifle. 

MoD under pressure to abandon SA-80 rifle


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 20, 2009)

> Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.



So the Minimi fired 600 rds before jamming. I'd say that's a huge amount for an air-cooled weapon.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 22, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> So the Minimi fired 600 rds before jamming. I'd say that's a huge amount for an air-cooled weapon.


The M249 is actually a good gun.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2009)

Gotta agree Clay, never had probs with em, but we mostly used the M60 anyways...


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2009)

They could go for the G-36, that would solve the problems with jamming whilst even having tighter tolerances. The recycling mechanism in the G-36 is a work of art and it is a real shame that the cooperation between H&K and the US army with the XM8 rifle (The G-36 just with a facelift) didn't win over the US politicians. 

But even then I gotta say that the 5.56mm just doesn't cut it anymore, the western alliance needs a new std. assault rifle calibre, and they need it now! The new 6.8mm round is a great alternative IMO, it has great penetration power and energy retention, making it a lot more suitable for places like Aghanistan and Iraq. Either that or they go the cheap route and make the 7.62 the std. round once again and give the soldiers a weapon like the G3.

Even better here's a great new weapon which I think fits the bill very well when it comes to what our soldiers need atm (The part from 5:00 onwards is esp. interesting!): 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJhPMIVgF6c_


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2009)

That you can have it fire 7.62x39mm rounds in like 2min by a simple changing of a few parts can prove EXTREMELY useful in many combat situations I promise you that!


----------



## Colin1 (Nov 22, 2009)

Soren said:


> ...they go the cheap route and make the 7.62 the std round once again...


Nothing wrong with 7.62mm if you want something to go down and stay down
You think of most firefight situations where the enemy might use the natural cover of trees, walls, vehicles etc to hide behind; 7.62mm ball ammunition would penetrate most of these. There was nowhere to hide when that stuff started flying.
The SLR wasn't perfect but as the SA-80 was just coming into service, I breathed a sigh of relief that I was just going out


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Nothing wrong with 7.62mm if you want something to go down and stay down
> You think of most firefight situations where the enemy might use the natural cover of trees, walls, vehicles etc to hide behind; 7.62mm ball ammunition would penetrate most of these. There was nowhere to hide when that stuff started flying.
> The SLR wasn't perfect but as the SA-80 was just coming into service, I breathed a sigh of relief that I was just going out



Exactly Colin1, I also always prefered the 7.62 over the 5.56, and I truly believe that the G3 is FAR better suited for the role in Afghanistan than the M4 or M16, or any other 5.56mm design down there.

But the best would obviously be to have something in between the 7.62 NATO and the 5.56 NATO in power, something like the new 6.8mm round.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2009)

Promote the 6.8mm all we can fellas......

We need it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2009)

I really think the US should consider the G36 again. I was really impressed with it every time I had a chance to play around with it. It was one of the weapons I shot when I qualified for the German Schützenschnur.

Then again though, if they were to consider it, we would be back to the original discussion of the 5.56 which I think we all agree is not enough.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 22, 2009)

The G3 is my all time favorite battle rifle, just as good as the M-14, better than the FAL, at 1/3 the price of either.


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2009)

G36 or XM8chambered in 6.8mm, that would be a dream come true for every soldier down there right now.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 22, 2009)

We'll be stuck with the M4 or at best the M16 forever, the 5.56 too. This military is only interested in spending money on expensive toys, not the basics.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 22, 2009)

I've never fired the 6.8mm but have fired (and loved) the .270. Is that pretty much the same round?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 22, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I've never fired the 6.8mm but have fired (and loved) the .270. Is that pretty much the same round?


No, it falls short of .270 performance. Smaller bullet, less speed. The .270 is based on the 30-06, the 6.8 is based on the a rimless 30-30 (the 30 Remington). The 6.8 has far less powder capacity to work with.


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> We'll be stuck with the M4 or at best the M16 forever, the 5.56 too. This military is only interested in spending money on expensive toys, not the basics.



The G36 XM8 are both more expensive to manufacture than either the M4 or M16, and were turned down by the military because of this. But this was despite the fact that the G36 XM8 both displayed far superior performance than any AR15 design.

IMO the military should cough up the extra money and buy a rifle following the design of the G36 and chamber it in the 6.8mm round. That is what our boys need.

Some reading on the 6.8mm SPC round: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 22, 2009)

Very cool. Thanks for the education fellas!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Nov 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> The G36 XM8 are both more expensive to manufacture than either the M4 or M16, and were turned down by the military because of this. But this was despite the fact that the G36 XM8 both displayed far superior performance than any AR15 design.
> 
> IMO the military should cough up the extra money and buy a rifle following the design of the G36 and chamber it in the 6.8mm round. That is what our boys need.
> 
> Some reading on the 6.8mm SPC round: 6.8 mm Remington SPC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Appreciate the link, but guns are my thing, I know the ballistics inside and out. I agree with you entirely, but the fact is that we will not do it, no matter how much we should.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2009)

Gotta agree with both u guys.... Its downright blashphemous not to kit out our troops with the best product available...

Another reason why I used an AK whenever I had the chance....


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Appreciate the link, but guns are my thing, I know the ballistics inside and out. I agree with you entirely, but the fact is that we will not do it, no matter how much we should.



Which is sad as heck. I truly believe that decisions such as these should be voted on within the military after a cost assessment has been made. It shouldn't be left up to some nimwit politician sitting at his desk eating cake whilst watching the news on CNN.


----------

