Gun Trouble: M4 & M16

[Firn]

Ive got to say that some retired officer whose last time in combat was 40+ years ago pontificating about our troops current needs off of what he learned in the Mekong is a joke. The only thing the same about that weapon system and the one we carry on a daily basis is the operating system.

...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/6...our_range.html

The real issue is that most of the M4 failures are based on mythology.

...

Here are some "facts" about OUR experience with M4's on the range.

- Some of our M4's have well over 200,000 rounds down range. Barrels have been replaced, gas tubes have been replaced, BCG's have been replaced but what sets it apart from the AK47's is that upper and lower receivers continue to function. AK's get to about the 100,000+ round count and rails on the receiver will start to crack. It's an easy fix with tig welding but they crack. We have yet to lose an upper or lower receiver from cracking.

The above post, with a quote from the linked thread, raises for me a very general question:

What exactly is reliabilty when it comes to firarms, specifically issued one? Is a gun reliably because you can fire it after a quick cleaning after having been buried in African sand for decades? When it fires in a bitter Russian winter with little care or after it was dropped from a house hitting the pavement?

What is it's relationship with durability, as witnessed in the M4's upper and lower receiver after so many rounds fired reliably?

Overall it seems fairly easy to stack the deck against or for a specific firearm, by using a tailored mix of conditions.

P.S: I wonder how often just the usual wear and tear without proper maintance or replacement parts grinds down the reliability of a weapons system which afterward gets a name for unreliability.

[120mm]

The above post, with a quote from the linked thread, raises for me a very general question:

What exactly is reliabilty when it comes to firarms, specifically issued one? Is a gun reliably because you can fire it after a quick cleaning after having been buried in African sand for decades? When it fires in a bitter Russian winter with little care or after it was dropped from a house hitting the pavement?

What is it's relationship with durability, as witnessed in the M4's upper and lower receiver after so many rounds fired reliably?

Overall it seems fairly easy to stack the deck against or for a specific firearm, by using a tailored mix of conditions.

P.S: I wonder how often just the usual wear and tear without proper maintance or replacement parts grinds down the reliability of a weapons system which afterward gets a name for unreliability.

To paraphrase I, Robot, "Those are the right questions."

Culturally, there are many ways to frame "reliability".

In engineering terms, reliability = predictability

If a machine fails, but does so predictably with relatively simple repairs, it is still reliable.

[Firn]

To paraphrase I, Robot, "Those are the right questions."

Culturally, there are many ways to frame "reliability".

In engineering terms, reliability = predictability

If a machine fails, but does so predictably with relatively simple repairs, it is still reliable.

That seems a sensible approach for firearms in the modern context. Actually in the case of the M4 systems it may have become more so in the last decades.

A simplified view it's classic counterpart, just taken from Wikipedia:

Design

The AK-47 was designed to be a simple, reliable automatic rifle that could be manufactured quickly and cheaply, using mass production methods that were state of the art in the Soviet Union during the late 1940s.[40] The AK-47 uses a long stroke gas system that is generally associated with great reliability in adverse conditions.[30][41][42] The large gas piston, generous clearances between moving parts, and tapered cartridge case design allow the gun to endure large amounts of foreign matter and fouling without failing to cycle. This reliability comes at the expense of accuracy, as the looser tolerances do not allow for precision and consistency.

According to already sibling thread from the already mentioned author:

- This may sound crazy but it's fair to say that they finally suffer a catastrophic failure (cracked trunion) at 80,000-100,000 rounds. Also, we have WASR's that have suffered a catastrophic failure and we just pull out the old trunion and barrel, grab one from a parts kit, re-rivet, re-barrel and get them up and running.

- The AK is the most reliable but after seeing how many have broke over the last two and half years on the range, it's not the indestructible weapon everybody talks about (and I always thought it was).

Considering the harsher impuls inflicted on the system this is still very durable. Perhaps one of the most revealing aspects is the following:

What makes is reliable is it's simplicity. My guys clean/service 4-5 AK's for every M4 or MP5.

------------------------------

Now why did I write that the 'M4' approach to might have become more sensible compared to the past in recent times?


a) The vastly increased use of various combat optics which have become overall cheaper, lighter and better makes it easier to use more of the high precision potential of the system. Magnified ones also provide the increased ability to spot and identify at longer ranges which in terms dovetails with the precison potential.


b) The highly modular nature achieved with precise specs due to modern manufacturing (CNC) combined with the huge US civilian AR15 market enable a huge amount of working products at surprisingly low prices.

i) Cheap parts of high quality which are interchangeable across all 'M4' should make it far easier to get high reliability because worn or dubious elements of the system could be quickly and cheaply replaced.

ii) It would make it easy for the military to react to feedback from the troops and proper test and make (acquire) modifications in general or specific for the theater.


c) More broadly the long experience with the system in the military and the huge civilian market in combination with modular design should have facilitated the elimination or at least great reduction of practically every initial flaw. Maybe the only downside is the information overload through all that widespread use.



All in all this weapon system might be for those reasons and a very important additional one the smartest choice for a small allied country with a relative low-funded military. The additional one is of course the vast production capability and huge supply with no development costs attached.



P.S: How they keep the guns economically going:

Weapons are inspected every morning and afternoon and that's also when they are lubed. We use Slip 2000 on all of our weapons. It's safe, non-toxic and keeps the weapons running properly.

....

Each weapon has it's own maintenance log that records the last cleaning, who cleaned it, headspace and any parts that required replacing. The weapons, depending on model and volume on the range, are cleaned every 2-7 days. The MP5 SD's are the dirtiest of the weapons and the M-134 "miniguns" are probably the cleanest.

I really like his disciplined common economic sense approach to business.

[120mm]

I really like his disciplined common economic sense approach to business.

I am currently developing a theory as to how to (re)apply this to the military as well.

I'm not sure if I will ever put pen to paper on this topic, but I think another military revolution is at hand, and we in the US are largely missing it, entirely.

[Firn]

I am currently developing a theory as to how to (re)apply this to the military as well.

I'm not sure if I will ever put pen to paper on this topic, but I think another military revolution is at hand, and we in the US are largely missing it, entirely.

In the sense more theory then 'just' about small arms maintenance?

[120mm]

In the sense more theory then 'just' about small arms maintenance?

A thought piece on how cheaply you could run a military that still had the capability to win wars by using professionalism and decentralized design and decision-making.

I think our adversaries have captured how to do this, and we could learn a lot from them if we only looked at it dispassionately.