Issue A -- Every weapons system assigned to Lynch's unit failed during the ambush, up to and including the sainted John Moses Browning's own M2HB. This speaks to incredibly shoddy officers and NCOs in the unit, and says nothing about the weapons systems. The same unit, armed with AKs, PKs and other "ultra-reliable" Russian kit, or anything else, would have had a similar experience for the simple reason that troops who do not care for their weapons (and unit leadership who does not enforce this if the troops don't do the right thing) will not have reliable weapons.
No doubt there were/are leadership problems. I don't doubt these folks didn't know how to set the head space on that 'MaDeuce' either.
I have never, I repeat, NEVER, heard of such a problem with another family of weapons, in any military group. If the weapon is THAT susceptible to jamming with the difference of function vs non-function is that close, it is frankly unacceptable. Some things never change. :banghead:
Issue B -- The Vietnam era M16s and modern M16A2/A4s and M4s are different. If you're not familiar with the modern weapons, ranting and raving about them and insisting they're just as flawed as the one they handed you 40 years ago is not a very productive contribution to the discussion.
Contrary to your very wrong assumption, I am very aware of the differences. It is that knowledge and awareness that is the basis for my concern, and apparently a lot of other folks too. Hell, the Israeli's didn't trust the widow maker so much they finally developed their own rifle. Apparently they care about their troops a lot more than our leadership does.
Why, did the Israeli's spend all that money and time?? Poor reliability of the M16/M4 systems. No doubt they didn't like 14% of their troops, that survived, being placed at risk. (remember those are only the ones that lived to complain about their weapons failing)
The bolt still sucks, it is the only major weapons system that I know of that the operator often carries an additional bolt, to replace the broken one, in the rifle. The existing bolt is simply to weak. The heat from the gas impingement exacerbates that weakness.
A very similar problem exists with the extractors. Again the very nature of the system exacerbates the innate weakness of it's to small and weak extractor.
Today, last week, 40 years ago. They ain't fixed that ****.
Some things never change! :banghead:
I'm still waiting for a compelling reply to the fact that the US Army's own sand tests, on two completely separate occasions, showed that three different piston-drive potential replacements were far more reliable than the M4. We're not talking jimbob's theory of direct impingement problems, or one random person, we're talking about the Army's own tests where they wanted the M4 to do well and it didn't.
BINGO!!!
Don't forget that earlier the Corps had found in their testing the M4 jammed 3 or 4 times more often than the M16 Rifle. (I really don't remember the model sitting here right now)
Don't let any of that sandy factoid stuff get in the kool aid, though. It is similar to the FAL folks who ignore the fact that in Yemen the Brits had to modify their FAL,s because of the sand causing them to jam too. They had to make "sand cuts" in/on the bolt, to increase the FAL's reliability in the desert.
Many folks who have only fought with the M16 family, just don't know any difference.
Go figure.
Fred