This is from a fellow I know who is in small arms testing and acquisition for the US who has read the still classified after action report from Wanat:

The M-4 has become the designated weapon of choice for the United States Army since combat operations have demanded a modular carbine in Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Much of the focus and shift has been on the full functionality of the M-4 as a platform for added on items such as a thermal weapons sight, reflexive fire optics, laser designator and others.

A study released this weekend by the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, stated multiple failures of the M-4 during the firefight at Wanat, Afghanistan in which 9 soldiers were killed. The study which has not yet been publicly released cited battlefield after action reviews in which soldiers having fired more than a basic load on their individual M-4 were found searching for functioning M-4s of fellow fallen Platoon members. Those too apparently were not functioning.

While soldiers in both theatres have spoken for and against the M-4 the study shows a grim side to the weapon in which it may or may have not been a factor in the deaths of some soldiers. The Army has entertained testing against a few other weapons including the M-4, HK416, SCAR and HK XM8. The testing in July of 2007 had an end result of the SCAR suffering 226 stoppages ranking second to the XM8 with 127 stoppages, but less compared to the M4 with 882 stoppages and the HK 416 with 233.

Having personally fired the M-4 quitea a few times I’ve found the function and fit comfortable to my size and though I have suffered stoppages I can’t speak for units Army wide. And while the M-4 when well cared for and maintained has proven itself in Iraq and Afghanistan only time will tell if we have the best weapon money can buy…which is what it comes down to… Taxpayer dollars.

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

...The Army has entertained testing against a few other weapons including the M-4, HK416, SCAR and HK XM8. The testing in July of 2007 had an end result of the SCAR suffering 226 stoppages ranking second to the XM8 with 127 stoppages, but less compared to the M4 with 882 stoppages and the HK 416 with 233.

Snipped a bit for brevity. 882 seems quite a large number compared to the others; how many rounds were fired through each, and what conditions were used?

Info here BZ


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...sttest_071217/

Originally Posted by rampant

Info here BZ

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...sttest_071217/

Thanks for that. An interesting read.

I'd like to see how it stacks up against the M-14 or SLR for stoppages... probably not very well

I've read a draft of the report (it's all over the web) and it contributes nothing to the "debate". No 5.56 or even 7.62 assault rifle could have stood up the sustained fire of the Want battle. It's just more anecdote.

This is a good assessment:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...4-controversy/

Of course the unstated, but no doubt main contributing, cuprit here was not the weapons, but the leadership that allowed this situation to arise in the first place.

I'd like to see a frank discussion about how the bad guys were allowed to concentrate so closely to a location like this without being detected/ ambushed/ counter-attacked/ issued parking violations etc.

EOM,

Must... get.... back.... to ... my armchair...

Originally Posted by Bravo_Zulu

Snipped a bit for brevity. 882 seems quite a large number compared to the others; how many rounds were fired through each, and what conditions were used?

This has an entry in Wikipedia:-

2007 dust test
In the fall of 2007, the Army tested the M4 against three other carbines in "sandstorm conditions" at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler & Koch XM8 rifle, Fabrique Nationale de Herstal SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416. Ten of each type of rifle were used to fire 6,000 rounds each, for a total of 60,000 rounds per rifle type.[7] The M4 suffered far more stoppages than its competitors: 882 stoppages, 19 requiring an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones, followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the HK416 with 233.[8][9] The Army was quick to point out that even with 863 minor stoppages—termed "class one" stoppages which require 10 seconds or less to clear and "class two" stoppages which require more than ten seconds to clear—the M4 functioned well, with over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds firing without a problem. The Army said it planned to improve the M4 with a new cold-hammer-forged barrel to give longer life and more reliable magazines to reduce the stoppages. Magazine failures caused 239 of the M4's 882 failures. Army officials said the new magazines could be combat-ready by spring if testing went well

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine

Originally Posted by JohnSmith

The Army said it planned to improve the M4 with a new cold-hammer-forged barrel to give longer life and more reliable magazines to reduce the stoppages. Magazine failures caused 239 of the M4's 882 failures. Army officials said the new magazines could be combat-ready by spring if testing went well

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine

Here is another way some units are fixing the problem:

In a routine acquisition notice in 2007, a US Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 barrels for the Heckler & Koch HK416 assault rifle.

The HK barrels will be used to replace the barrels on their own M4s.

Why? Here's what the notice says:

The 416 barrel "allows soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent. The elimination of the gas tube ... means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained. There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."

Translation: the M4 barrel is so unreliable that special operations forces units need to swap it out with a barrel from a different gun -- and one that actually works in real combat conditions.

One solution is to simply swap out the barrel.

I think that report is confusing "barrel" with "upper"...