Link: The infantry rifle question has puzzled me a long time...

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,622
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
I remember hearing stories about guys dropping their M16's for dead NVA AK47's. I thought reliability of the M16 had changed since then. I guess not so much.
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,645
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
The military has a long history of doing the basic stuff on the cheap while dropping massive amounts on pipe dreams. If we're going to ask people to fight and die for our country, we have an obligation to see that they are properly equipped.
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,645
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
I remember hearing stories about guys dropping their M16's for dead NVA AK47's. I thought reliability of the M16 had changed since then. I guess not so much.
From that article, the reliability stems from a fundamental design issue. the only way to address it is to redesign the rifle from the ground up--as the author suggests--or to just buy a ton of AK-47s.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
The military has a long history of doing the basic stuff on the cheap while dropping massive amounts on pipe dreams. If we're going to ask people to fight and die for our country, we have an obligation to see that they are properly equipped.
This M4 fired full auto for 28 magazines in less than 5 minutes. (a Basic Load is 7 magazines and US Army M4 do not fire full auto; they fire three-round burst). After magazine #15, the plastic on the handguard caught fire, but the rifle continued to fire full auto until magazine #28.
The problem in dusty environments is oiling the rifle, then having the dust settle on the oiled parts, causing the rifle to jam. Afghanistan is covered by a fine dust like talcum powder.
This is a training problem. Using graphite (or dry metal with no lube) solves the problem, although dry metal wears out the rifle faster.
Getting a new rifle will bring about the same result if soldiers are not trained to avoid the normal rifle lube.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
From that article, the reliability stems from a fundamental design issue. the only way to address it is to redesign the rifle from the ground up--as the author suggests--or to just buy a ton of AK-47s.
I have pulled a burnt AK (burnt to the point that the wood on the pistol grip was half burned away and the bluing was gone off the metal bits) out of a burnt "Meatball" (MTLB), slapped a magazine into it and fired full auto with no problem.
The problem with the AK is that, at ranges beyond 300m, you need to hyper-elevate the muzzle so far, the muzzle obscures the target you are shooting at and you end up "lobbing" bullets towards the target. You might hit something, but this is far from optimal. Engagement ranges in deserts tend to be beyond 300m, putting AK-equipped forces at a disadvantage when facing soldiers equipped with M4, especially if the MA has an ACOG (scope). I'll take that firefight all day long.
As for a new rifle, USSOCOM put out a bid for contracts and adopted the SCAR, which is a short-stroke gas piston operating rifle. It comes in 5.56 and 7.62x51 variants, both with long and short barrels. If the US DoD were to order a few million, I'd bet the per-unit cost would be fairly low.
On the other hand, when the military bought the Baretta, the pistol they tested was not the version they ended up buying. Baretta offered up a top of the line pistol made with high-end metallurgy. The closest competition (and probably the better pistol) was the BHP, but the BHP failed the drop test (load a round, .... the hammer, drop the pistol onto control from 40 feet up, and if the gun goes noff, it's not safe), so the Army bought the Baretta, and then told Baretta it did not want the metal to be as high-grade (and expensive) as the pistol they tested. They wanted the cheaper version, with inferior steel, which has a tendency to fail at high round counts. There used to be a saying in NAVSPECWARCOM, "You ain't a real SEAL until you've eaten Italian steel."
 
Last edited:

gman4tide

All-SEC
Nov 21, 2005
1,906
442
107
55
Flint Creek
Wow, my dad told me about barrels getting "white hot" and about rounds "cooking off"...but never said anything about weapons catching on fire. Then again, that was close to 1000 rounds in what, 4.5 minutes? And a plastic forearm.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Wow, my dad told me about barrels getting "white hot" and about rounds "cooking off"...but never said anything about weapons catching on fire. Then again, that was close to 1000 rounds in what, 4.5 minutes? And a plastic forearm.
Yeah, there's no way the guys at Wanat fired that much that fast. It would be physically impossible with a rifle with a 3-round burst.
Reports from Wanat caused a lot of soul-searching, but the weapons end of that was not really the problem.

And yes, you fire a bunch, getting the rifle good and hot, and leave a round chambered, it might cook off, but this would take a lot of rounds over a brief period of time.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Even the M-1 was more reliable...

LINK
Geoffrey Perett, There's a War to Be Won: The United States Army in World War II, tells of the contest to field a new rifle during the interwar years. There was the "pig test" (shooting a pig to test the lethality of the round), the "goat test," various bullet sizes, etc. The Army and Marine Corps were both involved, but the Marines were sceptical of a semi-automatic rifle, favoring the bolt-action '03 Springfield.
The Army tested the M1 Garand, fired thousands of rounds with it wthout cleaning it, threw it in the mud, froze it, kicked it around in the dirt. Around the 10,000 round, the rifle jammed. The Marines seized on that "failure," screaming, "See! That thing is a piece of junk! We demand to keep the '03 Springfields, so Marines can do their jobs with certainty. The Army can keep those new-fangled semi-automatics." The Army's response was, "You guys want the Springfields? Okay."
By late 1942 after some sustained combat experience, the Marines were back sheepishly asking if they could have some M1 Garands.

I must say, the USMC improvements on the M16 after Vietnam (e.g. heavier barrel, better windage and elevation system on the rear sight aperture) were first rate. The M16A2 is not a bad rifle.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,663
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I have pulled a burnt AK (burnt to the point that the wood on the pistol grip was half burned away and the bluing was gone off the metal bits) out of a burnt "Meatball" (MTLB), slapped a magazine into it and fired full auto with no problem.
The problem with the AK is that, at ranges beyond 300m, you need to hyper-elevate the muzzle so far, the muzzle obscures the target you are shooting at and you end up "lobbing" bullets towards the target. You might hit something, but this is far from optimal. Engagement ranges in deserts tend to be beyond 300m, putting AK-equipped forces at a disadvantage when facing soldiers equipped with M4, especially if the MA has an ACOG (scope). I'll take that firefight all day long.
As for a new rifle, USSOCOM put out a bid for contracts and adopted the SCAR, which is a short-stroke gas piston operating rifle. It comes in 5.56 and 7.62x51 variants, both with long and short barrels. If the US DoD were to order a few million, I'd bet the per-unit cost would be fairly low.
On the other hand, when the military bought the Baretta, the pistol they tested was not the version they ended up buying. Baretta offered up a top of the line pistol made with high-end metallurgy. The closest competition (and probably the better pistol) was the BHP, but the BHP failed the drop test (load a round, .... the hammer, drop the pistol onto control from 40 feet up, and if the gun goes noff, it's not safe), so the Army bought the Baretta, and then told Baretta it did not want the metal to be as high-grade (and expensive) as the pistol they tested. They wanted the cheaper version, with inferior steel, which has a tendency to fail at high round counts. There used to be a saying in NAVSPECWARCOM, "You ain't a real SEAL until you've eaten Italian steel."
How did the Berettas fail at high rounds? I use FireClean for CLP. It doesn't collect dirt, but I'm still careful not to get it down in the striker channel of my Kahr...
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
How did the Berettas fail at high rounds? I use FireClean for CLP. It doesn't collect dirt, but I'm still careful not to get it down in the striker channel of my Kahr...
On the Berettas DoD purchased, when you have fired 10,000 rounds or so, the slide barrel assembly will come right off the receiver. Of course, when you fire, the recoil of the slide barrel assembly is normally aimed at your face.
The number of rounds fired by a pistol in a normal Army (non-Special Ops) unit is less than 100/year, so 10,000 is not really a problem.* SEALs, on the other hand, can fire that many rounds through their Barettas pretty quickly, hence the saying about eating Italian steel.
SEAL units of the SEALs I knew fixed this by buying Barettas made from better steel and/or buying BHPs. I don't know what they are shooting now, but I am fairly certain it is not the "off the shelf" DoD Baretta.

* I managed my battalion's ammo account while I was in the 101st Airborne Division and we did not get enough pistol ammo to qualify every pistol shooter every year which was 90 rounds/pistol/year.
 

formersoldier71

All-American
May 9, 2004
3,829
152
87
53
Jasper, AL
Some random thoughts...

Not a huge fan of the M16/M4, gas impingement, or the caliber.

Regarding The Atlantic's mention of calibers, there are 6.5 mm versions out there, and with, I think, impingement or piston systems. I've heard some good things about the 6.5, but never fired one myself.

At Wanat, it wasn't just M4's jamming, it was also a mark-19 and SAW's...

http://www.combatreform.org/CALL-Wanat-Final-Report.pdf

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2011/RAND_OP329z1.pdf
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,663
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
On the Berettas DoD purchased, when you have fired 10,000 rounds or so, the slide barrel assembly will come right off the receiver. Of course, when you fire, the recoil of the slide barrel assembly is normally aimed at your face.
The number of rounds fired by a pistol in a normal Army (non-Special Ops) unit is less than 100/year, so 10,000 is not really a problem.* SEALs, on the other hand, can fire that many rounds through their Barettas pretty quickly, hence the saying about eating Italian steel.
SEAL units of the SEALs I knew fixed this by buying Barettas made from better steel and/or buying BHPs. I don't know what they are shooting now, but I am fairly certain it is not the "off the shelf" DoD Baretta.

* I managed my battalion's ammo account while I was in the 101st Airborne Division and we did not get enough pistol ammo to qualify every pistol shooter every year which was 90 rounds/pistol/year.
I sort of anticipated the slide, after your remark. The slide stop just wasn't robust enough? 10K rounds is a lot to expect out of a sidearm. It seems like you might as well give them practice pistols to wear out and then a combat pistol to put a few hundred rounds through. I just never could work up much love for the Beretta. Of course every brand has its problems and critics...
 

TexasBama

TideFans Legend
Jan 15, 2000
25,842
29,054
287
66
Houston, Texas USA
Some random thoughts...

Not a huge fan of the M16/M4, gas impingement, or the caliber.

Regarding The Atlantic's mention of calibers, there are 6.5 mm versions out there, and with, I think, impingement or piston systems. I've heard some good things about the 6.5, but never fired one myself.

At Wanat, it wasn't just M4's jamming, it was also a mark-19 and SAW's...

http://www.combatreform.org/CALL-Wanat-Final-Report.pdf

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2011/RAND_OP329z1.pdf
I have read that an M16 can be refit with HK416 parts and the impingement action goes away
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
I sort of anticipated the slide, after your remark. The slide stop just wasn't robust enough? 10K rounds is a lot to expect out of a sidearm. It seems like you might as well give them practice pistols to wear out and then a combat pistol to put a few hundred rounds through. I just never could work up much love for the Beretta. Of course every brand has its problems and critics...
I think the practice pistols were the problem. SEALs just shoot a lot. A LOT.
Every weapon has its advantages and disadvantages.
210 rounds of 5.56 ammo weighs 7.35 pounds.*
210 rounds of AK ammo (7.62mmx39) weighs over 13 pounds.
210 rounds of G3 ammo (7.62mmx54) weighs 12.8 pounds.
210 rounds of AK-74 (5.45mmx39) ammo weighs just under 10 pounds.

Stopping power versus how much ammo you can bring to the fight. If you are dismounted in rugged terrain, 5.56 is a good round. If you are in a vehicle (armored or otherwise), I'd prefer 7.62mmx54. It is more likely to put a guy on his butt. I like the Beretta's magazine capacity more than the M1911, but the 9mm round is not as effective as the .45, for the same reason.

Getting back to the opening post, Scales is just fishing for more Army money at the Air Force's expense.

* James Dunnigan, How to Make War, pg. 41.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,663
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I think the practice pistols were the problem. SEALs just shoot a lot. A LOT.
Every weapon has its advantages and disadvantages.
210 rounds of 5.56 ammo weighs 7.35 pounds.*
210 rounds of AK ammo (7.62mmx39) weighs over 13 pounds.
210 rounds of G3 ammo (7.62mmx54) weighs 12.8 pounds.
210 rounds of AK-74 (5.45mmx39) ammo weighs just under 10 pounds.

Stopping power versus how much ammo you can bring to the fight. If you are dismounted in rugged terrain, 5.56 is a good round. If you are in a vehicle (armored or otherwise), I'd prefer 7.62mmx54. It is more likely to put a guy on his butt. I like the Beretta's magazine capacity more than the M1911, but the 9mm round is not as effective as the .45, for the same reason.

Getting back to the opening post, Scales is just fishing for more Army money at the Air Force's expense.

* James Dunnigan, How to Make War, pg. 41.
Interesting. We have a retired general in the neighborhood (they're all over Huntsville) named John Scales. I'll probe for family - it's not that usual a name. You didn't answer about the failed slide on the Berettas. I'm still presuming the stop...
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Interesting. We have a retired general in the neighborhood (they're all over Huntsville) named John Scales. I'll probe for family - it's not that usual a name. You didn't answer about the failed slide on the Berettas. I'm still presuming the stop...
The slide barrel assembly comes plum off the receiver when fired, hitting the shooter in the face. The piece that stops the slide barrel assembly from coming off just breaks and the slide just keeps recoiling at the shooter. It has never happened to me, but I would assume the lip on the bottom front of the slide assembly (the place into which you put the recoil spring and the recoil guide) just breaks and the slide just keeps going backwards (i.e. towards the shooter).
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Interesting. We have a retired general in the neighborhood (they're all over Huntsville) named John Scales. I'll probe for family - it's not that usual a name.
John Scales. Old SF guy. I have met him, but do not know him well. An alum of Lee High of Huntsville, I believe.
Not sure if he is related to Robert Scales.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,194
462
crimsonaudio.net
Do you want accuracy or reliability? They are, essentially, on the opposite ends of the spectrum. The M16 is FAR more accurate than the AK47 (which is why >200 yards our troops absolutely lay waste to enemies with AK47s), though yeah, more sensitive to grime and gunk.

That said, I've gone more than 2,500 rounds without cleaning anything on one of my AR15s several times and have yet to have a MF(eed) or MF(ire).

Also, if given the option of an M1 or an M16, I'd have to know where I was going / what I was doing. If I were a sentry at a post, an M1 would probably be preferred, but if I had to lug the firearm (and ammo), the M16 would win every time...
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.