# The Atlantic "Gun Trouble"



## theo3 (Jan 3, 2015)

I haven't seen this posted anywhere else. BLUF: author says the M4/M16 are unreliable and getting soldiers killed mostly due to gas versus piston driven cycling. I'm just curious what other guys who have been there/done that think.

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/#disqus_thread


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 3, 2015)

theo3 said:


> I haven't seen this posted anywhere else. BLUF: author says the M4/M16 are unreliable and getting soldiers killed mostly due to gas versus piston driven cycling. I'm just curious what other guys who have been there/done that think.
> 
> http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/#disqus_thread


Has he personally used one in combat?
or does he work for a company making piston uppers?
Each system has plusses and minuses; folks I really respect tell me DI is no worse than piston.


----------



## pardus (Jan 3, 2015)

Are there any documented cases of someone dying as a result of an M4/M16 jamming? 

I'll take a piston over DI any day, but I'm not impressed at all by that article.


----------



## Viper1 (Jan 3, 2015)

SOWT said:


> Has he personally used one in combat?
> or does he work for a company making piston uppers?
> Each system has plusses and minuses; folks I really respect tell me DI is no worse than piston.



Answer to the first question is yes.  MG (ret.) Robert Scales is a Vietnam Veteran and I've heard him mention in talks during college they used the M-16.  Those were talks I thoroughly enjoyed.  He pulled no punches then, and doesn't seem to do so now.  

He works as a news commentator and I've seen him on FOXnews over the last decade or so, commenting on military matters. 

As the second question, I have no idea.  

This article starts with a bang and ended with a whimper in my opinion.  First, the range ratings for the M-4 / M-16 variants are incorrect.  The manual states 800m and that's what it is.  Second, if he's talking about the sound suppressors I'm thinking of _á la_ this: http://www.surefire.com/tactical-equipment/sound-suppressors/rifle-carbine-suppressors.html then I disagree.  My understanding is that these reduce the range.  If he's talking about muzzle breaks, then ok.  Third, the special operations forces he talks about ordering things off the shelf willy-nilly are more then likely the special mission units.  As such, they have a reason, a purpose, and a time-sensitive need to acquire materials quickly.  Life in the SF Regiment is certainly different than what he is implying, although we do have some good kit, helmets, RFI's, etc.  Fourth, as far as pulling no punches, I agree with his comparison to the cost of the F-35 but flaming inter-service rivalry is not going to help on the acquisitions front.  Look at it this way: the Air Force was able to articulate and effectively persuade people to give them money for their new top-of-the-line fighter jet.  The purpose, use, capability, etc is all secondary once we accept the fact the USAF was better at getting people to give them money than the Army.  Until the Army, Acquisitions Corps, whoever gets better at persuading and influencing people to do what they want them to do (sound like a familiar skill?) then we lose on this front.  Fifth, he admitted laziness among himself and his soldiers in Vietnam, hence the weapons failures.  I'm not passing judgement, just repeating his own words: 





> I was too inexperienced—or perhaps too lazy—to demand that my soldiers take a moment to clean their guns, even though we had heard disturbing rumors about the consequences of shooting a dirty M16.
> 
> At 3 o’clock in the morning, the enemy struck. They were armed with the amazingly reliable and rugged Soviet AK‑47, and after climbing up our hill for hours dragging their guns through the mud, they had no problems unleashing devastating automatic fire. Not so my men. To this day, I am haunted by the sight of three of my dead soldiers lying atop rifles broken open in a frantic attempt to clear jams


.  My Dad swore against the M-16 during his two Vietnam tours and carried an M-1 Carbine and an M3 Grease gun.  

He makes some good points.  Yes they get dirty easily, they jam, they are plastic, etc. etc. however the cleanliness issues are fixed via training and discipline.  He fails to make a convincing argument for a replacement.  He argues for an increased caliber in 6.5mm and 7mm.  Okay, I've got no opinion because I haven't used either.  Half of us had M-4's, half of us had SCARs in 7.62mm and we killed people with both.  Why not argue for SCARs Army wide to avoid costs of R&D for the 6.5 or 7mm?  He argues for new sights but I would counter a lot of soldiers require better, more frequent training on the equipment they already have.  Case in point: training FA guys at Fort Bliss two years okay we found ten who had no idea which was their dominant eye.  True story.   Taking a look at how SF trains at the team and at the Advanced Skills Company level would be a good start.  Fundamentals, practice, training, cleaning, more practice, harder training, rinse, repeat.  It's not hard, but some units I've come in contact with consistently fail to train properly.  They should start with that before asking for different (not necessarily better) equipment.


----------



## Brill (Jan 3, 2015)

theo3 said:


> I haven't seen this posted anywhere else. BLUF: author says the M4/M16 are unreliable and getting soldiers killed mostly due to gas versus piston driven cycling. I'm just curious what other guys who have been there/done that think.
> 
> http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/#disqus_thread



I never saw a M4 fail in a fight but did see TWO M2 and a M-134 go down right when we needed them the most.  I also saw those same weapons systems kill a lot of Taliban.


----------



## Brill (Jan 3, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> Taking a look at how SF trains at the team and at the Advanced Skills Company level would be a good start.  *Fundamentals, practice, training, cleaning, more practice, harder training, rinse, repeat. *



BINGO!

The Bravos took all the enablers to the range DAY ONE and conducted basic instruction (spotting and assessing too).  They "culled the herd" of enablers and gave a select few more advanced training and Team SOP indoc.

This served two purposes: demonstrate confidence and let us absorb training that significantly produced quality results.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 3, 2015)

For an artillery officer, he sure likes to talk about life in the Infantry. 

I, like @pardus, prefer a piston gun and since I have a choice that's what I carry.  But I have to say that a DI M4 is a reliable weapon when well-maintained and used properly.  In these matters--maintenance and training--I am in complete agreement with @Viper1.


----------



## AWP (Jan 3, 2015)

I find it funny that our military carried the Garand for aroughly two decades, the M14 for less than a decade (as a primary weapons system, I'm aware that some variants are fielded today), and the M-16/ M-4 family for about 5 decades. 50 YEARS. I won't rehash the M-16's early teething problems, but the Army changed the basic design and ammo. Then the Army fielded the weapon without properly training soldiers in the care and maintenance of said weapon. Of course the things failed in Vietnam. Sure, there are cases of the M-4 jamming, but no one discusses that unit's maintenance program, particularly at the user level.
"My gun jammed."
"How often do you clean it? How do you clean it?"
"We clean them. It sucks, I want an AK."

Maybe it is because I look at this from a...semi-academic or theoretical perspective, but the whole M-16 vs AK-47 nonsense is just that. Up next, Windows vs Mac, 9mm vs .45 ACP, Ford vs Chevy, and your mom vs your sister.

Let's face it, when the author ADMITS to being lazy and inept regarding the handling of his unit, how much weight does his opinion carry? Wags dig this crap up because they know it will generate traffic and controversy, critical components in a media outlet's profitablity. For all the money put into the SCAR I think it is telling that units generally ditched the light version and kept the heavy version. If you want a genuine argument about the weapon I'd look at the caliber used, which is moot because we won't change that anytime soon.

For a valid argument regarding a new weapon I'd think the only case could be made for a revolutionary change: Bolt-action Springfield to Garand to M14 to M16...all vastly different platforms. To add to Viper's excellent post, the Army needs to make the case for a new weapon which means a revolutionary change, not a rebranded M-16 with a piston. Otherwise, enjoy your M-4 and 5.56 because that will be the standard for the forseeable future.


----------



## pardus (Jan 3, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I find it funny that our military carried the Garand for aroughly two decades, the M14 for less than a decade (as a primary weapons system, I'm aware that some variants are fielded today), and the M-16/ M-4 family for about 5 decades. 50 YEARS. I won't rehash the M-16's early teething problems, but the Army changed the basic design and ammo. Then the Army fielded the weapon without properly training soldiers in the care and maintenance of said weapon. Of course the things failed in Vietnam. Sure, there are cases of the M-4 jamming, but no one discusses that unit's maintenance program, particularly at the user level.
> "My gun jammed."
> "How often do you clean it? How do you clean it?"
> "We clean them. It sucks, I want an AK."
> ...



Good post, agreed. Agree with the bolded too. I was pretty luke warm about the M4 when I first came here, I used the M16A1 early in the NZ Army and liked it a  lot. the more I use the M16/M4 the more I like it. However I don't particularly trust the 5.56, specifically the 62g M855 we are issued, after I saw what it did or didn't do to soft tissue. 
I would still carry a 7.62x51 if I had the choice, but I don't so ho hum. Like you say, I don't see our issue rifle changing anytime soon.


----------



## theo3 (Jan 3, 2015)

Appreciate the input. I don't have any experience with the M4 beyond the range and I have no complaints with it there. I agree with a lot of the points made about his admitted laziness and its effect on the weapon. However, I think it's valid to consider a situation like crawling through mud and how that would effect weapon operation. I was disappointed that he didn't offer a specific replacement recommendation.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 3, 2015)

M16/M4 series of weapons has a bunch of low cost ways to avoid 'mud troubles'...   the little plastic caps, closing dust covers, using finger cots or condoms over the barrel... or Imagine this... low crawling with the weapon held properly.

Viper hit the nail on the head with his assessment...

I do not own an M4gery, I personally prefer 7.62/.308, and have bolt and piston versions (FN-FAL)...   But that being said, I have a lot of time behind M16 or M4 sights....    iron sights mostly...  nothing is going to replace training and range time and cleaning and training and range time and cleaning and training and range time and cleaning....  as infinitum....


----------



## AWP (Jan 3, 2015)

theo3 said:


> I was disappointed that he didn't offer a specific replacement recommendation.


 
And that's what these guys do...or don't do. They make a bunch of noise, argue for change, and then....drop out of sight. When the change occurs, or doesn't, they make a bunch of noise, argue for change....
"So you want the AK?"
"Well, the weapon should have..."
"Given those criteria, what do you recommend?"
"Choosing a weapons system is vital and we shouldn't rush to judgement..."

They say a lot without saying anything. That's an old management trick in uniform and out. These articles stir the pot without offering anything of substance.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 3, 2015)

MG (R) Scales has been a part of an effort to make the infantry squad the centerpiece for Army efforts in R&D and procurement vs larger systems and I think this article is a part of that effort.  The Army Times really bit on this hard and had a number of articles on the topic in previous years.  Here's a Military Review article from a few years ago that I think sums it up: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120630MC_art004.pdf

I remember seeing some presentations from the Infantry school on several of these efforts but the one to develop a new rifle was discarded a year of two ago.

I think MG (R) Scales and others' major point, which is a good one, is that the Army will spend Billions of dollars on UAS', fighting vehicles, and computers but won't put a 10% of that effort towards the infantry squad - the ones doing the lions share of the fighting and dying, especially in small wars.  The DoD wouldn't even consider an aircraft, vehicle, or major weapons system that's not at the cutting edge (at least when it enters development) but they do not feel the same about the shit Soldiers actually patrol in.

My view is MG(R) Scales has started to recognize the real obstacles to his overall vision - the DoD procurement process and the politics that drive it - and is attempting to put some political pressure on the folks that have prevented major procurement reforms, especially in regards to Soldier gear.


----------



## pardus (Jan 3, 2015)

theo3 said:


> Appreciate the input. I don't have any experience with the M4 beyond the range and I have no complaints with it there. I agree with a lot of the points made about his admitted laziness and its effect on the weapon. *However, I think it's valid to consider a situation like crawling through mud and how that would effect weapon operation*. I was disappointed that he didn't offer a specific replacement recommendation.



I have inadvertently dunked my M4 in a watery mudhole, it was fucked after that. I didn't have time to clean it, it was only capable of single shots until I was able to clean it. Thankfully that was a training exercise only. 



Il Duce said:


> MG (R) Scales has been a part of an effort to make the infantry squad the centerpiece for Army efforts in R&D and procurement vs larger systems and I think this article is a part of that effort.  The Army Times really bit on this hard and had a number of articles on the topic in previous years.  Here's a Military Review article from a few years ago that I think sums it up: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120630MC_art004.pdf
> 
> I remember seeing some presentations from the Infantry school on several of these efforts but the one to develop a new rifle was discarded a year of two ago.
> 
> ...



We know the procurement system is corrupt, just look at the adoption of ACU pattern by the Army.
That said, IIRC the DoD said they would only consider a replacement if it gave X% (I forget the number, it was big though, 100 - 200%), more capability than what the M16 series provides now. Now, is that too much to ask? I'm not sure.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 3, 2015)

pardus said:


> I have inadvertently dunked my M4 in a watery mudhole, it was fucked after that. I didn't have time to clean it, it was only capable of single shots until I was able to clean it. Thankfully that was a training exercise only.


 
Out of curiousity, were you firing real ammo or was this a MILES thing with blanks?


----------



## pardus (Jan 4, 2015)

policemedic said:


> Out of curiousity, were you firing real ammo or was this a MILES thing with blanks?



I should have stated that, it was blanks.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 4, 2015)

It sounds like the author is making the case for infantry and SOF units to be the only ones to receive an updated rifle. If true that only 5% of the military is a grunt, it would be easier to field a rifle that fits the bill. The downside though is that the top brass and other cherry picked units would get that rifle before the ground soldier did. It's always plain to see who gets the newest gear and it is not the grunts. And that's just for FLAK jackets, let alone a shiny new rifle.


----------



## AWP (Jan 4, 2015)

SOTGWarrior said:


> It sounds like the author is making the case for infantry and SOF units to be the only ones to receive an updated rifle. If true that only 5% of the military is a grunt, it would be easier to field a rifle that fits the bill. The downside though is that the top brass and other cherry picked units would get that rifle before the ground soldier did. It's always plain to see who gets the newest gear and it is not the grunts. And that's just for FLAK jackets, let alone a shiny new rifle.


 
Which then obliterates the argument that "Every ____ is a rifleman." The Marines said it for years and the Army adopted the philosophy after it found itself in Iraq. Giving a new rifle to the infantry admits there is a "class divide" in the military which runs counter to the feel good, "we're all the same" policies in place. It isn't that I disagree with you, but I also don't see it playing out. Just because something "is" doesn't make it right.


----------



## HALO99 (Jan 4, 2015)

All issued weapons like the standard M16s and other systems (including the modern and updated designs) will do their job when taken care of by the user.  Simple as that. Even during sustained environmental exposure in tropical weather and jungle terrain, in austere/spartan operating conditions, they will work when needed. I've yet to see one fail in my travels in these types of conditions. Tired, hungry, sleepy, and complacent users are motivated by good leadership at the tactical level to take care of these weapon systems (ranging from M1 garands to m60s).  When tactical leadership fails - all tools are likely to fail.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 4, 2015)

pardus said:


> I should have stated that, it was blanks.



Was your adapter loose?


----------



## pardus (Jan 4, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Was your adapter loose?



No, but I can't say with certainty that it wasn't faulty, we weren't given an opportunity to test fire.
Also I'd never used that particular rifle before, it was handed to me before the exercise and taken away afterwards.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jan 4, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Which then obliterates the argument that "Every ____ is a rifleman." The Marines said it for years and the Army adopted the philosophy after it found itself in Iraq. Giving a new rifle to the infantry admits there is a "class divide" in the military which runs counter to the feel good, "we're all the same" policies in place. It isn't that I disagree with you, but I also don't see it playing out. Just because something "is" doesn't make it right.



Agreed, but the point of war is to win. Caring about feelings is partially what has led to the Generals leading the Iraq and Afghanistan War to fail.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 5, 2015)

The Army has what? 25% of it's M1 Abrams tanks in storage, yet the current defense bill buys more tanks.
They've (the Army) asked to stop the line yet the Ohio delegation keeps adding tanks.  They could stop (reduce) production and let the Army spend the rest on items it deems necessary for warfighting, but that won't happen.
Ike bemoaned the Military Industrial Complex, he needed to add Congress into the mix.

The RFI system initially put into practice was great, and quality gear made it to those that needed it, the the Acquisitions folks whined about the system not being used, those in-charge then demanded we return to the established (wasteful) system.

Winning has become secondary.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 6, 2015)

Story from WiB today:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-m-4-carbine-is-here-to-stay-fe9012f293f4

BLUF: The M4 family is here for a few more years.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 7, 2015)

Erm, you might want to reference if that's refurbishment or outright replacement. There's a huge buy from/resell to thing w/ the Abrams for significant maintenance and upgrades. Plus, all the powerpacks aren't even manufactured anymore and as such have to be hand rebuilt.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 7, 2015)

We're going through the M4 upgrade now, it's refurbishment but essentially they replace the entire upper receiver.


----------

