Are those currently serving experiencing any of the hair-brained weapons' design flaws that haunted us in Vietnam?

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 22:28:31 -0500

I just recieved the following message and it stirred a few memories:

"I just finished your book "A SOLDIERS JOURNAl" and it brought up some memories of my time in the boonies . My battalion 3/8 inf. 4th inf. division made the trip over by boat and we are forever known as boat people to later units.The m14s we had trained with in fort lewis were replaced with the m16 rifle and was the earlier model bolt and receiver group not chromium coated,open flash guard very few cleaning kits as expected many jams in fire fights.I have read quite a bit about the war in my later years and this subject is seldom mentioned. I wonder why.?"

Yes, that was a terrible issue in its day. Many dead GIs were found with their weapons partially disassembled indicating that they had been attempting to clear a jam during a firefight. The open ended flash suppresser looked "cool" (like something out of Star Trek) walking through heavy foliage with the weapon extended ahead of you was like navigating a woven carpet with a fork. It became ensnared on everything.

Any similar weapons issues these days?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 1 at 2016 10:45 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 22:45:20 -0500

Luckily we've been using what is essentially the same "platforms" since the Vietnam era, but with continual and constant upgrades.

The evolution of the AR platform is actually pretty amazing when you look at it sequentially. The one thing I wish that could have happened is that we would have stuck with the AR-10 (.308/7.62) v Ar-15 (.223/5.56).

Yes there would have been weight issues, but we would have gained commonality of ammo, and a lot more take down power.

I believe our biggest issue was at the front end of OIF/OEF when we were still dealing with 20" barrels and fixed stocks and hadn't shifted the majority of our inventory to 14.5-16" barrels and adjustables which far better for MOUT environments. That combined with ammunition issues resulting "wear & tear" but I believe those have since been addressed as well.

Our next big push is going to be the Pistol platform. The M9 is going the way of the dodo within the next decade. There will be lots of challenges with that, especially depending on round selection. Then we'll see what happens with our long gun. We're 20-25 years away from really looking at a replacement. The modularity and inexpence makes it "too easy to keep," even with it's flaws.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 1 at 2016 11:51 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:51:41 -0500

CPT Jack Durish is pointing out what happened when the "Whiz Kids", a group form the Rand Corporation, were brought on board by McNamara. They were not military types but "knew better" than the military types. Strum and gang who developed the original AR which was short for Armalite Rifle specified chrome lining in the barrels. The Whiz Kids decided it wasn't worth the cost. In early testing, the fore guard was deemed to be too fragile. The Whiz Kids decided the military was too rough on the rifles. The barrel was way too thin and would overheat and warp. That fell on deaf ears. The flash suppressor was a poor design because it wasn't grunt proof. Besides snagging on everything, it got used as a tool to twist barbed wire back and forth to snap it. Combined with the thin barrel, that just made things worse. There was no forward assist at the time either which is usually considered a design flaw.

The Whiz Kids also had much to do with the Vietnam War failed strategy that cost a bunch of lives. A very dark time for our military indeed.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 8:37 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 08:37:17 -0500

We have a much better understanding of weapons design today than we did 40 years ago. The current version of the M4A-1 carbine has over 80 improvements from the M4 carbine that was fielded in the early 90s and is practically a laser rifle compared to the old CAR-15 of the Vietnam era. We also have a much better understanding on why weapons fail and what their common points of failure are. While bad weapon designs still make it through, they are usually in the form of poor ergonomic design or durability and they are rarely catastrophic failures. Examples of this are the poor barrel selection for the MK-13 sniper rifle which had an extremely short barrel life, the extractor on the M82A1M which tended to break after 500 rounds, the screws working loose on the stock of the M2010, and the M4A4 MWS's inability to handle heat stress with the light barrel it was initially fielded with. The issued Back-up Iron Sight on most M4's are very prone to being bent or cross-threaded making it impossible to properly zero the sight (but does not prevent a shooter from grouping). All these issues have been fixed, but they represent some of the modern issues you were looking for.

It should also be noted that the Army is moving back to an open, three-pronged SOCOM Surefire flash-hider for the M-4 which has already been fielded in several units.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 3 at 2016 10:46 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:46:20 -0500

Don't know anything about the state of current day infantry weapons, but still get outraged and tied in knots at the thought or mention of those early M16s. Something I will never forget or get over. The MC and rest of the system seemingly swept the issue under the rug hyping on the need for constant cleaning to keep the weapon functioning when a SM couldn't possibly find the time to be constantly cleaning his weapon in combat. This was a disgusting and horrible equipment flaw to foist on troops and undoubtedly cost many many lives until it was fixed.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 3 at 2016 12:35 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 12:35:01 -0500

I too heard the M16 was adopted with insufficient training, maintenance requirements, and jammed a lot.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 8:36 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:36:10 -0500

I haven't had any problems with M16 nor M4 except the elevation on the M4 can move by bumping other gear and equipment I check my dope on a M4 more often than a 16

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2022 12:29 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Jan 2022 00:29:38 -0500

I know we had a lot of problems with the first generation of the M249 SAW. They were fragile, the buttstocks would snap, the bipods were easily broken, and they prone to jamming and misfires, via belt or magazine. Fortunately it didn’t take them very long to make necessary improvements. Except the magazine feed issues. Not sure they ever got that worked out to be anything more than an “oh gawd, it’s an emergency” option.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2022 12:37 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 22 Jan 2022 00:37:39 -0500

I have dived into the history of the M16/m4 a few times. The early and 16ths were played with misconceptions about never being cleaned and increasing the powder count to make them hit harder. In the end this made the rifle's unreliable. But todays M16/m4 a specifically designed to be very precise. Meaning the tolerances on everything are so little that it is hard for any type of debris or dirt to get in the rifle's making them incredibly reliable. But at the point where anything can get in the way of the Pistons the bolt firing pin anything they become incredibly unreliable and require a large amount of maintenance to correct. In the end, if they fail they feel very hard, but are very hard to fail.