Is the m-4 junk ?

Bayou Bluetick · 10-11-2009, 05:17 PM

Yahoo News is reporting that in latest fire fights with taliban the M-4 quit working.Yahoo News also reports that 90% of our soldiers are un-satisfied with their weapons.....We owe it to our soilders to provide them with the most durable weapons possibly...If these reports are true it looks like we may have let our soilders Down............. This is sad

nathangdad · 10-11-2009, 05:32 PM

yet there is no doubt the weapon failed in a critical performance scenario.
One cannot dispute interviews with those who fought with the weapon.

Far too much of America's defense budget goes to big contractors selling their idea of technology on the edge. It is one thing to sit in the Pentagon looking at a computer screen and ordering a drone to fire a missile. It is another thing to be in a combat zone needing the weapon in your hand to function.

Those who approve weapons need to be sent into the freezing wilderness and the wind driven sand/heat of the desert to evaluate the weapons. I don't mean eating a hot breakfast then walking to a bench with the guns thoroughly cleaned, lubricated, and loaded. I mean trying to load and fire a weapon when you are also trying to bury yourself into the dirt or the snow. I mean loading and firing a weapon that you have not had time to clean and lubricate due to combat simulation.

Pretty well beyond anything, soldiers must have confidence in their weapons.

iflylow74 · 10-11-2009, 06:09 PM

Man if that is true, it is a scary statistic. Sounds like it's time for the military to find another main battle rifle.

Bayou Bluetick · 10-11-2009, 08:13 PM

It is scary and according to the story on Yahoo news a soilder in the fire fight picked up a machine gun after his M-4 would NOT work and the machine gun did Not work either..... My opionionion is these soldier's should have weapons that work even when dirty and especially in the Worst conditions....I think it is sad to say maybe the weapon wasnt clean enough to a MAN that puts his life on the line,very sad.

neophyte · 10-11-2009, 08:27 PM

Read at this site; a wow wee thought. Colt had the contract from 1996; issue began and continue:

The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy

Sept 19/96: Small business qualifier Colt’s Manufacturing Company Inc. in Hartford, CT received a $5.5 million firm fixed price contract, with a potential value of $.5 million if all options are exercised, for 9,861 M4 Carbines, 5.56mm and 716 M4A1 Carbines. Work will be performed in Hartford, CT and is expected to be complete by April 30, 1998. This is a sole source contract initiated on September 6, 1996 by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive & Armaments Command in Rock Island, IL (DAAE20-96-C-0391).

Tack Driver · 10-11-2009, 08:30 PM

I sure wouldn't mind a fully automatic piece of junk. Hope they get any jamming problems fixed, if not, they need a new design.

deserthobbies · 10-11-2009, 08:39 PM

[QUOTE=Tack Driver;1018235]I sure wouldn't mind a fully automatic piece of junk. Hope they get any jamming problems fixed, if not, they need a new design.[/QUOTE

as a VN vet we had colt m-16's they always jammed when dirty, the ar15 is nothing more than a glorified m-16. and thats my honest opinion on the m16 and ar rifles for combat. they suck! soldiers in a combat situation dont always have the time to make sure there weapon is spic an span.

deserthobbies · 10-11-2009, 08:42 PM

when they renamed it an ar15 they should have had all the jamming problems fixed.

Ten Man · 10-11-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neophyte

Read at this site; a wow wee thought. Colt had the contract from 1996; issue began and continue:

The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy

Sept 19/96: Small business qualifier Colt’s Manufacturing Company Inc. in Hartford, CT received a $5.5 million firm fixed price contract, with a potential value of $.5 million if all options are exercised, for 9,861 M4 Carbines, 5.56mm and 716 M4A1 Carbines. Work will be performed in Hartford, CT and is expected to be complete by April 30, 1998. This is a sole source contract initiated on September 6, 1996 by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive & Armaments Command in Rock Island, IL (DAAE20-96-C-0391).

I read the whole article you were so kind as to provide the link to.

I find it appalling, but "business as usual" as far as govt. contracts go. This is the kind of political BS that caused me to give up my career as an Air Force Officer back in 1981.

The politicians don't give a damn about soldier's lives, only their own power, influence, and benefits. I'm talking about the politicians in uniform as well as the Communists in the Congress.

Bayou Bluetick · 10-11-2009, 11:24 PM

Do other counties rifles jam when the get dirty --like the AK-47

Bayou Bluetick · 10-12-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ten Man

I read the whole article you were so kind as to provide the link to.

I find it appalling, but "business as usual" as far as govt. contracts go. This is the kind of political BS that caused me to give up my career as an Air Force Officer back in 1981.

The politicians don't give a damn about soldier's lives, only their own power, influence, and benefits. I'm talking about the politicians in uniform as well as the Communists in the Congress.

I read the article and find it unbealievable.Our government is surly not our friend!--DID explains the effort, the issues, and the options. The latest developments? The M4 and 3 competitors, including one M4 variant that can be converted from existing rifles, come out of a sandstorm reliability test – and the M4 finishes dead last, with more than 3.5x more jams than the 3rd place finisher. But the US Army publicly says that it doesn’t care. Low-grade political pressure has continued on Capitol Hill, and the Army appears to be backtracking now, with a competition that may even be open to all calibers. Is their latest information request to industry serious, or just a replay of past practices? Meanwhile, single-source contracts to Colt continue…

MgMn48 · 10-13-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bayou Bluetick

Do other counties rifles jam when the get dirty --like the AK-47

Any rifle can jam with enough crap in it. Even an AK won't work with enough stuff in it. The problem with ours are the tolerances are so tight that if one grain of sand gets in where it shouldn't, the whole thing quits. They've tried fixing this but I've never seen their proving tests. Obviously they don't work under field conditions. Saw a cool thing on Discovery Channel where they put mud on an AK's bolt at the ejector and an AR. The AR jammed but the AK fired all 30 rounds. Give me an M1 Garand anyday.

Bayou Bluetick · 10-13-2009, 05:11 PM

It seems that in test the government chose to pay for the rifle with the worst test results.That saids alot about how low our government has stooped.Its Not fair to our soldiers to have the worst possible choice,,,,,when test proved that there was 3 other considerably BETTER choices..................................

Rex in OTZ · 10-15-2009, 05:29 PM

The M-4 works as long as its clean, most likely the Taliban have developed tactics counting on not giveing our troopers a chance to clean the M-4's, the insurgents weapons have a greater tolerance for operating dirty than we do, now we have a operations limitation of the M-4.

I know AR ducting combustion gasses into the action especially in certain conditions it will jamb up with a few shots fired, the AR works in a military environment where its manditory to clean your weapon after fireing period! you dont, you are a liability to the others in your group, you get repromanded or something, hunters dont have that, they are hunting, right after taking a shot or two the combustion residue &condensation inside the action freeze up the innards(in these parts) while the hunter is trying to flank wolves to get the next shot.
The M-4 works, just too bad the ducted gasses go inside the action instead of the outside kinda like crapping in your pants? who does that? why would you have weapon engineerd to be cleaned to make it work.
From what is reported gas piston type Ar's pretty much break appart after so many rounds run through them.

The Military has allot of money tied up in ammo and guns, they do have have good range but your shooting a little FMJ bullet (55-65gr) thats a mite bigger than a .22lr slug(38-40gr) you want to shoot a man between the size of a coyote and a deer which would be anything 80grFMJ or heaver now try hunting critters with a FMJ they get wounded and run away now for some reasoning the idea of shooting people with a 55-65gr FMJ seems like a good idea it doesent if your hunting you want a clean kill, wounded game isant ethical .
we have a inventory (overhead) invested in a system that if we keep clean in a severly anal way we have a viable combat weapon, while other armies in the world enjoy a smoke or write a line or two to there loved ones our troops are scrubbing the bejezzius out ther black rifles if they want to survive the next go-a-round ther lives depend on it.
I had the misconception that a military weapon should be more reliable than a sporting weapon. when hunting use a rifle for killing, in the military logic goes out the window its more humane to maim the man your shooting at (like some sick game?) it ok to use rockets,land mines, handgernaids to maim and kill people try useing a handgernaid on a covey of quail they'd throw you in prison for being inhumane to animals .

Is the M-4 Junk? no but it does have limitations other weapons shrug off, we may be seeing the beginnings of tactic's exploiting this.

Huntinfamily · 10-15-2009, 10:28 PM

the M4 is a great weapon because of it's weight/portability and accuracy. It does have serious limitations in field use though. When I was in Iraq we cleaned our weapons just like we did in the states. Big problem that we found was that when we put a light coat of oil on the bolt(like we were taught in boot camp) even with the dust cover closed we always ended up getting sand in the bolt carrier. The quick field remedy for this was to use powdered graphite. It did help the problem. Another problem we found was that during a sustained firefight two things happened. 1, after firing a large amount of rounds the bolt would actually operate slower from all the carbon build up and 2. After the barrel got real hot aiming was pretty much useless because the barrell expanded so much from the heat the rounds went everywhere. Was I happy with the M4, yes. It saved my life on many occasions. If given the choice would I have chosen a different weapon? Yes, I would have taken an M14 anyday. I was a .50 gunner but still had my M4 with me all the time.

pico · 10-15-2009, 10:47 PM

Why did the military stick with the M4 when better designs are out there? The XM-8 would have been a much better choice for long term sustainability with the .223 round. Anyway, I think the problems with the M4 are probably partly trying to use this weapon for purposes it is clearly not designed for. At least they should have a heavier barrel in their more compact form.. just my 2 cents worth.

SightNSqueeze · 10-15-2009, 11:23 PM

This was my response yesterday in a similar thread. I think I shed some light concerning the problem, not only with the M4/M4A1, but the M16A2/A3/A4 service rifles. Since the caliber is too small, it needs to be in a bigger caliber. Likewise, since the weapon doesn't function well when it gets gritty and dirty, it needs a cleaner gas system. These fixes won't make the weapons perfect, but they will be more reliable.

Quote:

The "fix" was already in place with a design improvement complete with a change in caliber from 5.56x45mm to the excellent 6.8mm. It would have involved a replacement barrel and upper receiver which included a reliable "gas piston" in place of the dreaded gas tube. Existing magazines could have still been used with a reduction of just 2 rounds. Heckler & Koch made prototypes kits that could have converted all existing M16A2/A3/A4 service rifles and all M4/M4A1 service carbines to the improved specs. Remember, the only real flaws with the "black rifle" are the gas system and the caliber. This simple conversion would have brought these weapons to their full potential. Perhaps Colt didn’t want to share in the profits with Heckler & Koch by purchasing patent rights for all the “new” weapons that would have been made by Colt with the new patented improvements. When I was in Iraq, I noticed that a lot of personnel armed with M4 carbines had M203 grenade launchers attached to them. Gee, I wonder why …

For what it is worth, I wasn't issued a rifle. I was issued an M9 pistol which I cleaned every chance I got. Unlike Huntinfamily above, I was never in a position where I could return fire. However, like Hf said, there is a problem of very fine dust that gets into everything. It's in the air and leaves a thin layer of reddish orange dust on and in everything; at least that is the way it was in western Iraq, and Baghdad before that. When I cleaned my pistol and mags, I cleaned them dry with solvent and used graphite only where needed. The Marines that I was with did much the same to their M16A2s and M9s. We were all assigned to logistics, so we had a bit more time to keep our weapons clean.

Cyrano · 10-16-2009, 12:06 AM

"Is the M4 junk?"

Is the Pope Catholic?

The entire M-16 line is utter crap as a battle rifle. The failings of that weapons system have been letting out troops down and getting them killed for more than 40 years! At the veriest minimum, the Army needs to junk the 5.56 NATO round and put 7.62 NATO uppers on the M-16/M-4 receivers. I don't think this would do a thing for reliability, but it might at least give the troops a chance to hit the enemy hard enough that they'd go down and stay down at ranges long enough they don't have to advance under fire for a couple of hundred meters before they can return fire with the expectation of hitting something.

I honestly believe the armed forces would be better off adopting the CETME, the G3 or the FN-FAL (there just aren't enough M-14s available to outfit everyone) to replace the M-16 in all its variants tomorrow, than try to come up with any M-16 variant in a heavier caliber just because the troops are already trained on the M-16 weapons system. The rifles I named were designed to be used in the dirty combat environment, where a rifle is expected to get dirty but continue to function properly. The M-16 line was not and does not.

It was a mistake for the Army to adopt that rifle; a mistake that is getting our troops killed. I do not give a hoot how much egg gets on the Army's face. I don't care whose reputations get ruined because they are too stubborn or stupid to admit the M-16 was a mistake. We just need to get rid of that cursed kludge and get our troops a rifle in a military caliber (as opposed to the M-16's varmint-hunting caliber) that will work the first time, every time, when lives are on the line. That's the real issue here.

SightNSqueeze · 10-16-2009, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrano

"Is the M4 junk?"

[...]the Army needs to junk the 5.56 NATO round and put 7.62 NATO uppers on the M-16/M-4 receivers.

They had a chance to convert every M4/M4A1 and every M16A2/A3/A4 in the entire U.S. inventory with Heckler & Koch made upper receivers, barrels, and "gas pistons" in place of the filthy grimy "gas tubes" that are causing much of the problem due to carbon blown straight onto the bolt face and into the receiver. The new caliber would have been "6.8mm" and all existing mags could have still been used. Instead, they are still grinding out new M16A4s and M4A1s with the “same” faulty gas system and the “same” insufficient 5.56x45mm caliber.

Bayou Bluetick · 10-17-2009, 02:34 AM

It still amazes me every day since i read about the m-4 on yahoo news.A 90 percent unsatisfactory rating among troops and more are being bought.......Multiple types of weapons not working in a fire fight....Purchasing millions of dollars worth of the WORST performing(X3.5 times) tested weapons........................................... ........

10-11-2009, 05:17 PM	#1
Bayou Bluetick Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: USA Posts: 30	Is the m-4 junk ? Yahoo News is reporting that in latest fire fights with taliban the M-4 quit working.Yahoo News also reports that 90% of our soldiers are un-satisfied with their weapons.....We owe it to our soilders to provide them with the most durable weapons possibly...If these reports are true it looks like we may have let our soilders Down............. This is sad Last edited by Bayou Bluetick; 10-11-2009 at 05:20 PM.

10-11-2009, 05:32 PM	#2
nathangdad Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,781	Tough question yet there is no doubt the weapon failed in a critical performance scenario. One cannot dispute interviews with those who fought with the weapon. Far too much of America's defense budget goes to big contractors selling their idea of technology on the edge. It is one thing to sit in the Pentagon looking at a computer screen and ordering a drone to fire a missile. It is another thing to be in a combat zone needing the weapon in your hand to function. Those who approve weapons need to be sent into the freezing wilderness and the wind driven sand/heat of the desert to evaluate the weapons. I don't mean eating a hot breakfast then walking to a bench with the guns thoroughly cleaned, lubricated, and loaded. I mean trying to load and fire a weapon when you are also trying to bury yourself into the dirt or the snow. I mean loading and firing a weapon that you have not had time to clean and lubricate due to combat simulation. Pretty well beyond anything, soldiers must have confidence in their weapons.

10-11-2009, 06:09 PM	#3
iflylow74 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Arkansas Territory Posts: 1,675 Blog Entries: 11	Man if that is true, it is a scary statistic. Sounds like it's time for the military to find another main battle rifle. __________________ Regnant Populi

10-11-2009, 08:27 PM	#5
neophyte Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 10,102 Blog Entries: 2	M-4 Read at this site; a wow wee thought. Colt had the contract from 1996; issue began and continue: The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy Sept 19/96: Small business qualifier Colt’s Manufacturing Company Inc. in Hartford, CT received a $5.5 million firm fixed price contract, with a potential value of $.5 million if all options are exercised, for 9,861 M4 Carbines, 5.56mm and 716 M4A1 Carbines. Work will be performed in Hartford, CT and is expected to be complete by April 30, 1998. This is a sole source contract initiated on September 6, 1996 by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive & Armaments Command in Rock Island, IL (DAAE20-96-C-0391). __________________ Craig The wisdom of nations lies in their proverbs, which are brief and pithy. William Penn

10-11-2009, 08:30 PM	#6
Tack Driver Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Caswell County, NC Posts: 517	I sure wouldn't mind a fully automatic piece of junk. Hope they get any jamming problems fixed, if not, they need a new design. __________________ If pro is the opposite of con, is Congress the opposite of progress?

10-11-2009, 08:13 PM	#4
Bayou Bluetick Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: USA Posts: 30	It is scary and according to the story on Yahoo news a soilder in the fire fight picked up a machine gun after his M-4 would NOT work and the machine gun did Not work either..... My opionionion is these soldier's should have weapons that work even when dirty and especially in the Worst conditions....I think it is sad to say maybe the weapon wasnt clean enough to a MAN that puts his life on the line,very sad.

10-11-2009, 08:39 PM	#7
deserthobbies Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Southeast , MO. Posts: 350	[QUOTE=Tack Driver;1018235]I sure wouldn't mind a fully automatic piece of junk. Hope they get any jamming problems fixed, if not, they need a new design.[/QUOTE as a VN vet we had colt m-16's they always jammed when dirty, the ar15 is nothing more than a glorified m-16. and thats my honest opinion on the m16 and ar rifles for combat. they suck! soldiers in a combat situation dont always have the time to make sure there weapon is spic an span.

10-11-2009, 08:42 PM	#8
deserthobbies Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Southeast , MO. Posts: 350	when they renamed it an ar15 they should have had all the jamming problems fixed.

10-11-2009, 11:24 PM	#10
Bayou Bluetick Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: USA Posts: 30	Do other counties rifles jam when the get dirty --like the AK-47

10-13-2009, 05:11 PM	#13
Bayou Bluetick Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: USA Posts: 30	It seems that in test the government chose to pay for the rifle with the worst test results.That saids alot about how low our government has stooped.Its Not fair to our soldiers to have the worst possible choice,,,,,when test proved that there was 3 other considerably BETTER choices..................................

10-15-2009, 05:29 PM	#14
Rex in OTZ Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: NorthWest Alaska Posts: 983	The M-4 works as long as its clean, most likely the Taliban have developed tactics counting on not giveing our troopers a chance to clean the M-4's, the insurgents weapons have a greater tolerance for operating dirty than we do, now we have a operations limitation of the M-4. I know AR ducting combustion gasses into the action especially in certain conditions it will jamb up with a few shots fired, the AR works in a military environment where its manditory to clean your weapon after fireing period! you dont, you are a liability to the others in your group, you get repromanded or something, hunters dont have that, they are hunting, right after taking a shot or two the combustion residue &condensation inside the action freeze up the innards(in these parts) while the hunter is trying to flank wolves to get the next shot. The M-4 works, just too bad the ducted gasses go inside the action instead of the outside kinda like crapping in your pants? who does that? why would you have weapon engineerd to be cleaned to make it work. From what is reported gas piston type Ar's pretty much break appart after so many rounds run through them. The Military has allot of money tied up in ammo and guns, they do have have good range but your shooting a little FMJ bullet (55-65gr) thats a mite bigger than a .22lr slug(38-40gr) you want to shoot a man between the size of a coyote and a deer which would be anything 80grFMJ or heaver now try hunting critters with a FMJ they get wounded and run away now for some reasoning the idea of shooting people with a 55-65gr FMJ seems like a good idea it doesent if your hunting you want a clean kill, wounded game isant ethical . we have a inventory (overhead) invested in a system that if we keep clean in a severly anal way we have a viable combat weapon, while other armies in the world enjoy a smoke or write a line or two to there loved ones our troops are scrubbing the bejezzius out ther black rifles if they want to survive the next go-a-round ther lives depend on it. I had the misconception that a military weapon should be more reliable than a sporting weapon. when hunting use a rifle for killing, in the military logic goes out the window its more humane to maim the man your shooting at (like some sick game?) it ok to use rockets,land mines, handgernaids to maim and kill people try useing a handgernaid on a covey of quail they'd throw you in prison for being inhumane to animals . Is the M-4 Junk? no but it does have limitations other weapons shrug off, we may be seeing the beginnings of tactic's exploiting this. Last edited by Rex in OTZ; 10-15-2009 at 05:59 PM.

10-15-2009, 10:28 PM	#15
Huntinfamily Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Callahan Florida Posts: 240	the M4 is a great weapon because of it's weight/portability and accuracy. It does have serious limitations in field use though. When I was in Iraq we cleaned our weapons just like we did in the states. Big problem that we found was that when we put a light coat of oil on the bolt(like we were taught in boot camp) even with the dust cover closed we always ended up getting sand in the bolt carrier. The quick field remedy for this was to use powdered graphite. It did help the problem. Another problem we found was that during a sustained firefight two things happened. 1, after firing a large amount of rounds the bolt would actually operate slower from all the carbon build up and 2. After the barrel got real hot aiming was pretty much useless because the barrell expanded so much from the heat the rounds went everywhere. Was I happy with the M4, yes. It saved my life on many occasions. If given the choice would I have chosen a different weapon? Yes, I would have taken an M14 anyday. I was a .50 gunner but still had my M4 with me all the time.

10-15-2009, 10:47 PM	#16
pico Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Iowa Posts: 382	Why did the military stick with the M4 when better designs are out there? The XM-8 would have been a much better choice for long term sustainability with the .223 round. Anyway, I think the problems with the M4 are probably partly trying to use this weapon for purposes it is clearly not designed for. At least they should have a heavier barrel in their more compact form.. just my 2 cents worth.

10-16-2009, 12:06 AM	#18
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 7,813	"Is the M4 junk?" Is the Pope Catholic? The entire M-16 line is utter crap as a battle rifle. The failings of that weapons system have been letting out troops down and getting them killed for more than 40 years! At the veriest minimum, the Army needs to junk the 5.56 NATO round and put 7.62 NATO uppers on the M-16/M-4 receivers. I don't think this would do a thing for reliability, but it might at least give the troops a chance to hit the enemy hard enough that they'd go down and stay down at ranges long enough they don't have to advance under fire for a couple of hundred meters before they can return fire with the expectation of hitting something. I honestly believe the armed forces would be better off adopting the CETME, the G3 or the FN-FAL (there just aren't enough M-14s available to outfit everyone) to replace the M-16 in all its variants tomorrow, than try to come up with any M-16 variant in a heavier caliber just because the troops are already trained on the M-16 weapons system. The rifles I named were designed to be used in the dirty combat environment, where a rifle is expected to get dirty but continue to function properly. The M-16 line was not and does not. It was a mistake for the Army to adopt that rifle; a mistake that is getting our troops killed. I do not give a hoot how much egg gets on the Army's face. I don't care whose reputations get ruined because they are too stubborn or stupid to admit the M-16 was a mistake. We just need to get rid of that cursed kludge and get our troops a rifle in a military caliber (as opposed to the M-16's varmint-hunting caliber) that will work the first time, every time, when lives are on the line. That's the real issue here.

10-17-2009, 02:34 AM	#20
Bayou Bluetick Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: USA Posts: 30	m-4 junk It still amazes me every day since i read about the m-4 on yahoo news.A 90 percent unsatisfactory rating among troops and more are being bought.......Multiple types of weapons not working in a fire fight....Purchasing millions of dollars worth of the WORST performing(X3.5 times) tested weapons........................................... ........