M4 Failure on Headlines - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KirStang · 10-11-2009, 09:20 AM

Not to turn this in to another AR sucks and Ak works even in molten lava threads....

Report that the M4 failed at a crtical moment in an Afghani firefight:

Quote:

WASHINGTON – In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.

When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any assumptions regarding what did or didn't work correctly," he said.

Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.

The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

"The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.

Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.

Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.

The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., hasn't been publicly released. Copies of the study have been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.

Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.

On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.

Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

Bogar was killed during the firefight, but no one saw how he died, according to the report.

___

On the Net:

U.S./NATO forces in Afghanistan: ISAF - International Security Assistance Force - Official Homepage

Army weapons: U.S. Army Fact Files

Weapon manufacturer: Colt Weapon Systems

Couple of Discussion Points:

1.) Was it an inherent flaw in the design of the AR? Are "new weapon systems" mentioned in the article going to change similar failures?

2.) Or was it a lack of fire discipline, and the failure to call up air support (or artillery or w/e)?

Discuss.

Ilow · 10-11-2009, 02:01 PM

I saw this too. If they were going full auto until the barrels melted then it sort of seems like lack of fire discipline (easy for me to say from my desk, right). I would like to have a little more info to know what portions of the rifles failed.
To be honest, I am more bothered by the failure of the 249, which AFAIK is very heavy barreled to withstand extended periods of full auto fire. If our infantry can't fire 600 rounds from a SAW when they are in a firefight then then they are in trouble. It is my understanding that the M4 is really meant for a few (pretty accurate) shots at a time or bursts, but not for sustained full auto. Also, where were the M203s in this scenario?
Tom Coburn probably has the best interests of the troops in mind, but i am skeptical that he really has any idea wtf he is talking about. Seems like political posturing in the end.

Plan9 · 10-11-2009, 02:34 PM

Wow, that article is full of all sorts of bullshit that I'll attempt to dispel later.

remy1492 · 10-11-2009, 02:39 PM

Any gun after 12 mags straight will be so overheated something will happen. Sure, the tolerances on an AK are so much looser that it would probably still function.

Any trained soldier needs to realize that after 3 mags straight, you have to pull that trigger less and less to keep a cool barrel.
That being said, the M-4 is NOT the best weapon, but politically and lobbyist wise, it is what we got.

KirStang · 10-11-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilow

I saw this too. If they were going full auto until the barrels melted then it sort of seems like lack of fire discipline (easy for me to say from my desk, right).

I was thinking the same thing. Easy to say, "poor fire discipline" when I don't have 200 armed insurgents shooting at me.

I know Crompsin is familiar with the weapon systems mentioned in the article, and I also know Crompsin affectionately called the AR-15 "crap" a long time ago. So I look forward to his feedback.

Also, I've heard that the SAW tends to jam up a lot, and is not really liked by the troops? Idk. Just heard it. Looking for confirmation here....

ETA:

It also seems that the M4 style of weapons seem to heat up quicker? I remember when I was reading about the M4's development, that the design team had to add double-heat-shields to the lower hand guard, otherwise the weapon would become too hot to fire rather quickly? It makes sense given the shorter dwell time and higher port pressures of the carbine ARs. I'm sure the DI system does not help either.

Anyone know?

ChrisJericho · 10-12-2009, 02:43 AM

Speaking of malfunctions over in that area... how do the G3 type rifles that the Pakistani army use hold up? The only thing I have read about them is that they are heavy, is there any reason why they don't just use AK's ?

No threadjacking intended !! =D

The_Dunedan · 10-12-2009, 02:26 PM

The G3 is the only weapon in the world which approaches (and in the opinion or some, even exceeds) the AKs level of brute reliability and robstness. There's a reason they're used by the Pakistani and Mexican armies, after all.

Walt · 10-13-2009, 10:56 AM

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

Well yeah. A melted barrel tends to be a show stopper. It sounds like these guys were poorly trained/had shitty fire discipline. Unless they were facing down wave assaults, I don't see much to justify continuously firing fully auto (to the point that the barrel melts) from dug in fighting positions. Full auto fire wastes a ton of ammo and doesnt accomplish much (though it is nice in a few very specific instances). This is why the Army moved to from full auto to 3 round burst.

Also, where were the heavy guns in this? Troops in the open is a wet dream come true for most gunners/mortar teams. Surely they had pre-plotted and set up a base defense plan. Surely they had a couple of trucks loaded up and ready to go, so they could get out and maneuver on the attackers. The guy in the 'crows nest' overwatch was using an M4 because the Mk19 was down, right?

Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down. On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

It's either imupheseesmeimdown or just stay in the pocket and slug it out. Get predictable like whack-a-mole and you will get whacked. I'm curious if McKaig really had weapons problems or if he just had a "fuck this" moment when his buddy caught a round.

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down." The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute. Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

Jesus Christ...

The M4 is a reliable weapon and doesn't need to be meticulously cleaned like everyone seems to believe.
99.9% of M4 failures are due to the shitty GI magazines. Not the rifles, themselves.
The SAW is an awesome gun. It does exactly what its supposed to do. The only problems I've ever seen/heard about are the result of the shitty plastic ammo box breaking, as well as the clips on the sling crapping out. The cloth nutsack and zip ties sort out these problems.

Plan9 · 10-16-2009, 05:50 PM

Disclaimer: All I know about firearms and small unit tactics I learned from playing Doom II multiplayer back in '97.

...

Okay, I'm back. Turns out I busy fighting world hunger by mailing out free abortion kits to the citizens of third world nations.

Lemme wade into this bullshit... since it's the funniest thing I've read since I looked at my IRA earnings last week.

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

Of course not. Lowest bidder, guys. $80 toilet seats and $500 dollar rifles. It should be $20 toilet seats and $1000 rifles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.

Troops bitching about having to clean their weapons? Unheard of! And when is a good time for a weapon to jam?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.

At a base? So all they had was M4s and M249s? What unit is this? They should have had M203s, M240Bs, Mk19s, and M2s available. Where were the vehicles? Artillery support? AT4s, Claymores, frag grenades... knives and sharp sticks?

And it smells like somebody could have hit up a FM 5-34 and dug in the site better. Or, ya know, maybe engaged in some kind of proactive defense. It's kinda hard to sneak up on somebody in the desert if you've got roving patrols.

This whole firefight is probably a giant example of what not to do in combat. It smells like the field training exercise in basic combat training: tons of fail as a "learning experience."

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.

Maybe so, but definitely not in consecutively and not while being tossed around in moon dust. The M4 is a very tight weapon in comparison the the over-glorified AK47. It's finicky and it doesn't like to get dirty. In the case of this particular "Oh shit!" scenario, the weapons probably should have been run "wet," which means dousing their actions with lube. The excessive lube keeps things from gumming up at the cost of being utterly disastrous if you get any kind of grit in the action. There are a million opinions on this.

Quote:

The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.

Like they have fucking a choice. We used to joke about deploying with our own personally-owned weapons hidden in the milvans. I wanted to show up in country with a scoped AR-10 and a few Glocks.

Quote:

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.

Maybe I'm bitter, but having know-nothing politicians choose weapons is how we ended up with the M16 in the first place. Some Air Force guy saw it essplode a watermelon at a demo party and suddenly everybody wanted one. Weapons are incredibly political.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

SCAR'd! I'll assume they're talking about the Fabrique Nationale SCAR system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.

90% of soldiers don't know what "direct gas impingement" is... let alone care. They're just as lazy as civilians: they wouldn't change the oil in their cars unless they were compelled by the warranty requirements. Playing in the desert means your weapons get really dirty. You spend a lot of time before and after missions busting your knuckles with rods and brushes. It's tedious and monotonous, but if you aren't deadly serious about keeping your weapons in functioning condition, you need to get a different job. You might ignore washing the truck one week but you don't go to bed with a dirty M4 and call yourself a professional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

As we learned in Vietnam: technology doesn't beat proper preparation and cunning. If you leave yourself open, expect a shot to the ribs. If some "half ass mountain boys" can sneak up on you and kick your ass... you've been flashing that sign for a while.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.

Minor media correction: The M4, as issued to most Joes, is not equipped with automatic fire. It is equipped with a 3 round burst limiter. The idea is that it prevents rock 'n roll bursts... but really, it's the same effect or worse as the operator repeatedly jerks the trigger and has a sight picture as good as your average teenager on E. Automatic fire from a 6 pound rifle is useless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.

Fire discipline, anybody? You have to pace yourself... both to conserve ammo and to keep your weapon from overheating.

Pfft, try rock 'n rolling half a dozen mags through ANY contemporary individual weapon... M4, AK47, G36, G3, FAL, Uzi, whatever... they all get real hot-real quick. One can be all critical of the M4 and say that the AK47 is mondo radical gnarly for desert warfare because it's loose 'n reliable, but the AK47 handguard is a 1/2" piece of WOOD. You can't even put your hand near the wood without getting a burn after that kinda burst. Anybody that has used an AK47 for a hot minute realizes its limitations.

It just sounds like these jokers would have put ANY modern weapon system out of commission. You can't repeatedly slam your Geo Metro from dead stopped to maximum speed a dozen times in half an hour and not expect something to fail eventually. Sorry we don't have laser blasters, kids... but you need to use short, controlled bursts on the SAWs and pop slowly on your M4 if you want it to keep popping without needing a cool down period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down. On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

Walt's Whack-A-Mole comparison is perfect. Generally speaking: never shoot over cover, never use the same cover more than once (if you can avoid it). This is a case of bad training, not a failure of equipment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."

12 mags in half an hour? Let's say he's right... that's 12 rounds a minute for 30 minutes. And something tells me he dumped a mag or three with his burst selected, waited/moved, and dumped another mag. The M4 carbine is point weapon designed to provide accurate fire at specific targets... it is not a machine gun despite having the bullshit burst option.

You never ditch your weapon. If it's too hot to handle, sling it. Even if you've exhausted your basic load of ammo and are completely dry, your buddies have mags they can feed your weapon and you know it's dead-on-balls when it cools down again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OP Article

The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute. Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.

Some basic GI Joe tech shit real quick: The M249 SAW is a 5.56mm "light machine gun." The LMG part means that its operated by just one dude instead of the two dudes (gunner / assistant gunner) usually attached to a general purpose ("medium") machine gun such as the M240B . Also, the SAW is belt fed from disintegrating metal links stored inside a 200 round capacity disposable plastic drum or a 100 round capacity reusable cloth "nutsack." Turns out machine guns typically have quick change barrels. Each gunner carries two barrels. The idea is that during rock 'n roll situations that you fire a drum, pull the current barrel off 'n set it aside to cool, lock in the spare (cold barrel), reload, fire another drum, wash-rinse-repeat.

While it sucks that the SAW gunner has to do this extra step by himself, he should have his buddies with him to provide covering fire while it happens. Rehearsed verbal commands and the familiar "BANG" of gunfire is a good way to do this. Fireteams are supposed to "talk" their weapons during a firefight. You get a few pops from the M4s, then a burst from the SAW. The team leader, an NCO, is in charge of keeping that cadence going through verbal commands... lest his Joes turn into manic video gamers as seen in this bullshit scenario.

...

The US military's small arms are not without their flaws but they're a million times better than anything they go up against in the GWOT.

============================================================

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisJericho

Speaking of malfunctions over in that area... how do the G3 type rifles that the Pakistani army use hold up? The only thing I have read about them is that they are heavy, is there any reason why they don't just use AK's ?

The G3, a sweet H&K-designed roller-block battle rifle, uses 7.62x51 (NATO) ammunition. The AK47 uses 7.62x39 (WP) ammunition. The G3 is more powerful and offers much better range and accuracy at the cost of weight and less magazine capacity.

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by remy1492

Any gun after 12 mags straight will be so overheated something will happen. Sure, the tolerances on an AK are so much looser that it would probably still function.

Maybe, but you couldn't hold onto it. The little chunk of wood forward of the magazine would burn your hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirStang

molten lava

Wait, what?

Slims · 10-17-2009, 01:12 PM

Sorry, I have been away for a while.

I will try to give my two cents without getting into a full deconstruction of the article:

1'st: Since the Army uses the M-4/M-16 platform almost exclusively, any stories about small-arms failing the troops will always be about the m-4/m-16 platform.
2'nd: SF has been trying to adopt a new rifle, the SCAR, and they have met resistance like you couldn't possibly believe from the soldiers on the teams who are supposed to be using it. Why: because they have well maintained weapons (a big variable army-wide) which work reliably and get the job done. You can argue all day long about caliber, but given the choice between 5.56 platforms, the guys on the ground in the SOF community want an m-4 style weapons system (though most will ask for a 416).

3'rd: I have melted barrels in a fight before. The solution was to swap the barrel (I was using a crew-served weapon). Conventional units aren't given m-4's with full auto and I have never seen instances where sustained automatic fire was appropriate. Even an AK won't hold up to barrel-melting abuse.

On another issue, here is what happenned in Kamdesh, short short verison:

That firebase sits more or less in a bowl with large OP's on high ground around the perimeter providing most of the actual security.

Several hundred HIG (almost certainly not Taliban, as reported) fighters seem to have massed in PK and pushed deeper into Afghanistan than is currently typical. They initiated with indirect and PK fire onto the main base to prevent a coordinated counter attack and to suppress the base mortars. The bad guys then took out each OP and then breached the wire gaining access to the main base. The occupants of the base took up a final defensive perimeter and held long enough for a large QRF to get in. The INS then counter attacked and re-took most of the base as their proximity to the defending unit prevented the QRF from straight smashing them. There was some other nonsense and the call was made that retaking the base would cost too many lives and simply wasn't worth the cost of holding it.

The occupants of that base were horribly complacent, relied solely on Afghans for security, failed to push out and reinforce their OP's when the fighting started, congregated in bunkers, failed to man their counter battery despite incoming rounds, blew all their claymores at once (I believe) and generally acted in a reactive and defensive fashion.

Daniel_ · 10-17-2009, 11:43 PM

I've read this with interest. Thanks for the clear and well informed posts, all of you guys who know how it works in the real world.

This story clearly shows a degree of spin.

I wonder if it would even be possible for the US press to run a story that said "these soldiers died because they did not use their equipment correctly, and did not fight a sensible battle"; this being the feeling I get from the well informed opinions above - please forgive me if I'm over-simplifying.

Plan9 · 10-18-2009, 09:29 AM

But why tell the embarrassing truth about piss-poor preparation and tactics when you can blame the gear?

Team POG - Fuck No!

Slims · 10-18-2009, 12:21 PM

For what it's worth, we stayed in quite a few remote outposts during my last trip. Passing through on business I guess.

I won't mention names or locations, but several of them were in danger of being over run by a stiff breeze.

You know the base defense plan is bad when you and your fellow visitors take over a mortar position, man the fighting positions and push people out to find the POO when a base starts taking indirect....because nobody else was doing anything effective.

Laziness and a defensive risk-averse mindset ruled the day. They had bunkers but few fighting positions. A few months after we left they were in fact over run.

Plan9 · 10-18-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

I won't mention names or locations, but several of them were in danger of being over run by a stiff breeze.

*Cough*Sharana.*Cough*Khayr Kot Castle.*Cough*

Plan9 · 10-19-2009, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

You can argue all day long about caliber, but given the choice between 5.56 platforms, the guys on the ground in the SOF community want an m-4 style weapons system (though most will ask for a 416).

From your perspective, why is this a problem?

...

Also:

For those of you who aren't familiar with this popular AR15 (M4) rant, check it out: >>>LINK<<<. Be aware that it is only one side of the story. I tend to agree with a lot of it, though. Don't get me wrong: I like the AR and own several variants... I'm comfortable with it and it's universal in the US. It's lightweight, incredibly modular, and perhaps the most idiot proof and ergonomic shoulder arm I've used (aside from the charging handle, one of my biggest peeves). It is important to mention that my rifle, the same beatup Colt M4 that the guys in the OP article were using, never failed me while deployed (at ranges, test fires, guard, etc), although I was never allowed to use it in a firefight due to PeRF issues (oh, the fury). That being said, the M4 has its limitations. The design isn't perfect... it's really kinda flawed for a fighting gun. It's put together really tight, it craps on itself when it fires, has a bunch of small pieces, and the charging handle placement could use some improvement. It isn't so much that Eugene Stoner's AR design is total shit, it's that the US military can do a lot better for 2009, especially for those who spend a sizable amount of their time trading lead with the enemy out there.

...

Keep in mind that every nation has had issues with their primary service rifle. The British Army's Enfield L85 was a real boxload of fail.

Slims · 10-19-2009, 06:40 PM

I don't think it is a problem. The m-4 is a bit long in the tooth, but it is a completely different weapon than it was during Vietnam and has benefited from 40 years of continuous evolution.

I think due to the nature of the Army procurement system, any "new" weapon will be chosen because it has the most bells and whistles, such has modularity, hot-swap barrels, cool folding stocks, etc. rather than a weapon which simply shoots better and with even less weight.

We are adding complexity size and weight to an already ridiculous overall load by adding the SCAR.

It may be the best thing since sliced bread, but I suspect it won the contract on it's "flair" rather than it's substance. Time will tell though.

For instance, one of the big selling points is it's modularity, but even in SOF, how many soldiers do you think are going to get the CQC upper for the SCAR Heavy in addition to the standard upper? Or do you think current logic will prevail and soldiers will be issued a weapon as-is and to hell with mission-dictated configurations? It is great to have a weapon that can be configured differently, but if the extra parts are not issued it is more or less a mute point.

Edit: For instance (from Wikipedia), SOCOM has requested more than 80,000 of the standard SCAR Lites, but less than 30,000 of the SCAR CQC configurations.....looks to me like you are going to be stuck with whatever you get.

If you have a group of guys who are stuck with a variety of weapons-styles they will do nothing well. If you issue them all one-type they will be equiped for one particular mission and poorly for others. If instead you coughed up a little extra money and gave them what they needed to modify their equipment based on mission they can be optimally prepared for any environment which they know they will be going into.

Plan9 · 10-19-2009, 07:12 PM

Heh, that reminds me of something one of my buddies once said: "Uniformity may be the death of adaptability... but, damn, adaptability sure weighs a lot."

...

I completely agree with what you've laid out here. Even the guys with two braincells in my shitbag outfit used to have the same argument all the time. What it should be vs. what it is will always remain a huge problem. Weapons are all about money and politics, not the product. Everybody in Pope's Ghetto has a M4, a M249, or a M240B. That's what you get to work with... so you have to blunt force 'em into your mission requirements. The nearly-too-rare-to-mention (and often busted up) M14 "DMR" is often used like some kind of junior NCO trophy instead of being put to a useful purpose. If you wanted to do better, you spent your paycheck buying and fielding as much as you could get away with... parts, mags, optics, etc.

Oh, yessir, Uncle Sam is real big on the junk. I look at the huge push of M249 "Para" kits in 200X. Everybody wanted those stubby barrels and those craptacular plastic twist stocks. And those Elcan machine gun optics. They're so COOL. Forget that your most important fire team weapon just became less useful and yet still weighs just as much if not more. Forget that you don't even have a good place to put the fuckin' sling anymore. Ugh. Painful.

I feel the the FN SCAR is a big step back for the reasons you illustrated above as well as others. I believe the H&K 416 (hell, even a LWRC-style upper) would be a step forward in the goal of producing a more shootable personal weapon, the real goal of military weapon procurement.

Today's soldiers would really benefit from an upper receiver and magazine product improvement program. Off the shelf stuff. No bullshit.

...

Of course neither of those systems would have made a lick of difference to the numbnuts in the OP article.

remy1492 · 10-20-2009, 12:14 AM

After seeing lots of new rifle trials, I wonder even IF a super rifle came along, is the military complex so corrupt to the core that it'd be passed for another failed US rifle system? I think so. Just like the new body armor we got in 03/04. The armor paid for by GWOT funds John Kerry voted for............then voted against. Why is government still not giving us the right equipment to come back alive with?

.....money

Walt · 10-20-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remy1492

After seeing lots of new rifle trials, I wonder even IF a super rifle came along, is the military complex so corrupt to the core that it'd be passed for another failed US rifle system?

Another? What was the first failed rifle system?

Quote:

Originally Posted by remy1492

Just like the new body armor we got in 03/04. The armor paid for by GWOT funds John Kerry voted for............then voted against. Why is government still not giving us the right equipment to come back alive with?

.....money

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the IBA with SAPI plates for your average Joe. What additional equipment do you think we need but are being denied?

Plan9 · 10-20-2009, 07:54 AM

Incoming threadjacks!

...

"Other rifle" was the infamous XM8, maybe?

...

All the bolt-on bullshit required by the IBA / SAPI combo, for one. Unit SOP dictated shoulder pads and side plates.

I don't know about you, but my skinny ass can't move inside an RG31 with that shit on. We need tighter stuff.

Running with all that floppy bolt-on armor on really tired me out and I'm not exactly a couch potato.

A single piece breakaway rig with pockets for front/rear/side SAPIs. Preferably not front-opening.

tcp · 10-20-2009, 08:32 AM

The USMC is still using the M16A2. Its received improvements over time since the original Vietnam-era M16, but its not a significant change. They may use newer, better weaponry selectively, but the standard rifle is kept simple as dirt. Is there a need for something new? I think the equipment will always be a little less than desirable. A new rifle is bound to have new problems.

However, I think the troops should know what they will be going in with and receive it on time. The worst thing you could probably do is to promise a new series of equipment and take forever to deliver.

I don't have the source but there was one story about the units that were deployed at the start of OIF using Flak jackets which can barely stop smalls arms fire.

Plan9 · 10-20-2009, 08:36 AM

The point is that there are known issues that haven't been addressed. It isn't about a rifle, it's about the solution to the problem.

Always consider the problem space. What is the problem? "Rifle has to X,Y,Z." Not "the M4 is just fine," or "We need the HK416."

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcp

I don't have the source but there was one story about the units that were deployed at the start of OIF using Flak jackets which can barely stop smalls arms fire.

Heh. I was one and lemme tell ya: the PASGT flak jacket can't stop a BB gun let alone small arms. We used to call 'em "party sweaters."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcp

The worst thing you could probably do is to promise a new series of equipment and take forever to deliver.

Why? Everybody is used to it being that way. The stuff we need takes forever (rifle, armor) and the stuff we don't give a rat's ass about (new berets, fancy digital Velcro camo) is pushed on us in a heartbeat. Such is the way of the DeeOhDee. Will probably continue as such in the future.

Walt · 10-20-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

"Other rifle" was the infamous XM8, maybe?

The XM8 was garbage. I managed to break one after 20 minutes of playing with it. But it was never fielded. The only shitty rifle that was issued that I know of was the original M16 in the early 60's. The problems have largely been ironed out. IMO, the M4 is a fantastic weapon, though there is still room for improvement.

If it were up to me, I'd:
Swap out the front sight post/gas block with folding BUIS.
Scrap the gas system and go with a gas-piston system
Standardize the M4 feed ramps and 1913 hand guards
Dump the shitty mag followers and replace them with an anti-tilt, self leveling design
Get rid of the green tip and use a 77gr. BTHP

Do that, and it will be unstoppable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

don't know about you, but my skinny ass can't move inside an RG31 with that shit on. We need tighter stuff.

Running with all that floppy bolt-on armor on really tired me out and I'm not exactly a couch potato.

A single piece breakaway rig with pockets for front/rear/side SAPIs. Preferably not front-opening.

There are definite improvements to be made - Dback has some awesome plate carriers with the quick release tabs, better cut for movement, etc - but the IBA/SAPI does what its supposed to in that it stops bullets and has saved a lot of lives.

Plan9 · 10-20-2009, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt

Swap out the front sight post/gas block with folding BUIS.
Scrap the gas system and go with a gas-piston system
Standardize the M4 feed ramps and 1913 hand guards
Dump the shitty mag followers and replace them with an anti-tilt, self leveling design
Get rid of the green tip and use a 77gr. BTHP

Do that, and it will be unstoppable.

- Folding front sight post = something for Private Dipshit to break.
- Gas piston would be so good. New uppers for everybody?
- I concur on feed ramps and rails. They are defacto today.
- Forget aluminum mags, give everybody PMags or similar product.
- Heavy 77 gr. BTHP would be a good choice but unlikely.

"Unstoppable" is strong language, sir. I admire that. Ballsy.

Slims · 10-20-2009, 11:29 AM

FWIW, the Army is preparing to field MBAV Plate Carriers to drop the size and weight of a soldiers armor down to 17 pounds or so. In addition, they are beginning to field new body armor and are replacing the Intercerptor.

The Interceptor Body Armor was revolutionary for it's time, and now that we have firmly established and superior alternatives the military is moving towards them, albeit slowly.

There is no real need to hurry...it is a big investment and the reality is that one type of level V body armor is probably going to perform almost as well as another, even if the latter is more comfortable or user friendly.

Jinn · 10-20-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

"I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight."

Really late to this thread, but this line just about sums up the whole article.

This was the problem, not the weapon employed to do it. Very few modern guns would withstand 12 30-round magazines in half an hour without partial or full overheating.

Plan9 · 10-20-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

Really late to this thread, but this line just about sums up the whole article.

This was the problem, not the weapon employed to do it. Very few modern guns would withstand 12 30-round magazines in half an hour without partial or full overheating.

Pfft, this wouldn't be a problem if they'd give us all GE M134 manpacks. Idiots. Gawd.

KirStang · 10-20-2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

Pfft, this wouldn't be a problem if they'd give us all GE M134 manpacks. Idiots. Gawd.

Plan9 · 10-20-2009, 07:12 PM

A+, Kir.

10-11-2009, 02:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ilow Junkie Location: Pats country	I saw this too. If they were going full auto until the barrels melted then it sort of seems like lack of fire discipline (easy for me to say from my desk, right). I would like to have a little more info to know what portions of the rifles failed. To be honest, I am more bothered by the failure of the 249, which AFAIK is very heavy barreled to withstand extended periods of full auto fire. If our infantry can't fire 600 rounds from a SAW when they are in a firefight then then they are in trouble. It is my understanding that the M4 is really meant for a few (pretty accurate) shots at a time or bursts, but not for sustained full auto. Also, where were the M203s in this scenario? Tom Coburn probably has the best interests of the troops in mind, but i am skeptical that he really has any idea wtf he is talking about. Seems like political posturing in the end. __________________ "Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about" --Sam Harris

10-11-2009, 02:34 PM	#3 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Wow, that article is full of all sorts of bullshit that I'll attempt to dispel later. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-12-2009, 02:43 AM	#6 (permalink)
ChrisJericho eat more fruit Location: Seattle	Speaking of malfunctions over in that area... how do the G3 type rifles that the Pakistani army use hold up? The only thing I have read about them is that they are heavy, is there any reason why they don't just use AK's ? No threadjacking intended !! =D __________________ "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

10-13-2009, 10:56 AM	#8 (permalink)
Walt I'm calmer than you are, dude Location: North Carolina	Are these guys reservists? The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions. Well yeah. A melted barrel tends to be a show stopper. It sounds like these guys were poorly trained/had shitty fire discipline. Unless they were facing down wave assaults, I don't see much to justify continuously firing fully auto (to the point that the barrel melts) from dug in fighting positions. Full auto fire wastes a ton of ammo and doesnt accomplish much (though it is nice in a few very specific instances). This is why the Army moved to from full auto to 3 round burst. Also, where were the heavy guns in this? Troops in the open is a wet dream come true for most gunners/mortar teams. Surely they had pre-plotted and set up a base defense plan. Surely they had a couple of trucks loaded up and ready to go, so they could get out and maneuver on the attackers. The guy in the 'crows nest' overwatch was using an M4 because the Mk19 was down, right? Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down. On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine. It's either imupheseesmeimdown or just stay in the pocket and slug it out. Get predictable like whack-a-mole and you will get whacked. I'm curious if McKaig really had weapons problems or if he just had a "fuck this" moment when his buddy caught a round. "My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down." The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute. Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon. Jesus Christ... The M4 is a reliable weapon and doesn't need to be meticulously cleaned like everyone seems to believe. 99.9% of M4 failures are due to the shitty GI magazines. Not the rifles, themselves. The SAW is an awesome gun. It does exactly what its supposed to do. The only problems I've ever seen/heard about are the result of the shitty plastic ammo box breaking, as well as the clips on the sling crapping out. The cloth nutsack and zip ties sort out these problems. __________________ Calmer than you are...

10-17-2009, 01:12 PM	#10 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Sorry, I have been away for a while. I will try to give my two cents without getting into a full deconstruction of the article: 1'st: Since the Army uses the M-4/M-16 platform almost exclusively, any stories about small-arms failing the troops will always be about the m-4/m-16 platform. 2'nd: SF has been trying to adopt a new rifle, the SCAR, and they have met resistance like you couldn't possibly believe from the soldiers on the teams who are supposed to be using it. Why: because they have well maintained weapons (a big variable army-wide) which work reliably and get the job done. You can argue all day long about caliber, but given the choice between 5.56 platforms, the guys on the ground in the SOF community want an m-4 style weapons system (though most will ask for a 416). 3'rd: I have melted barrels in a fight before. The solution was to swap the barrel (I was using a crew-served weapon). Conventional units aren't given m-4's with full auto and I have never seen instances where sustained automatic fire was appropriate. Even an AK won't hold up to barrel-melting abuse. On another issue, here is what happenned in Kamdesh, short short verison: That firebase sits more or less in a bowl with large OP's on high ground around the perimeter providing most of the actual security. Several hundred HIG (almost certainly not Taliban, as reported) fighters seem to have massed in PK and pushed deeper into Afghanistan than is currently typical. They initiated with indirect and PK fire onto the main base to prevent a coordinated counter attack and to suppress the base mortars. The bad guys then took out each OP and then breached the wire gaining access to the main base. The occupants of the base took up a final defensive perimeter and held long enough for a large QRF to get in. The INS then counter attacked and re-took most of the base as their proximity to the defending unit prevented the QRF from straight smashing them. There was some other nonsense and the call was made that retaking the base would cost too many lives and simply wasn't worth the cost of holding it. The occupants of that base were horribly complacent, relied solely on Afghans for security, failed to push out and reinforce their OP's when the fighting started, congregated in bunkers, failed to man their counter battery despite incoming rounds, blew all their claymores at once (I believe) and generally acted in a reactive and defensive fashion. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 10-17-2009 at 11:55 PM..

10-11-2009, 02:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
remy1492 Crazy Location: CA TX LU	Any gun after 12 mags straight will be so overheated something will happen. Sure, the tolerances on an AK are so much looser that it would probably still function. Any trained soldier needs to realize that after 3 mags straight, you have to pull that trigger less and less to keep a cool barrel. That being said, the M-4 is NOT the best weapon, but politically and lobbyist wise, it is what we got.

10-12-2009, 02:26 PM	#7 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The G3 is the only weapon in the world which approaches (and in the opinion or some, even exceeds) the AKs level of brute reliability and robstness. There's a reason they're used by the Pakistani and Mexican armies, after all.

10-17-2009, 11:43 PM	#11 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	I've read this with interest. Thanks for the clear and well informed posts, all of you guys who know how it works in the real world. This story clearly shows a degree of spin. I wonder if it would even be possible for the US press to run a story that said "these soldiers died because they did not use their equipment correctly, and did not fight a sensible battle"; this being the feeling I get from the well informed opinions above - please forgive me if I'm over-simplifying. __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

10-18-2009, 09:29 AM	#12 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	But why tell the embarrassing truth about piss-poor preparation and tactics when you can blame the gear? Team POG - Fuck No! __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 10-18-2009 at 09:32 AM..

10-18-2009, 12:21 PM	#13 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	For what it's worth, we stayed in quite a few remote outposts during my last trip. Passing through on business I guess. I won't mention names or locations, but several of them were in danger of being over run by a stiff breeze. You know the base defense plan is bad when you and your fellow visitors take over a mortar position, man the fighting positions and push people out to find the POO when a base starts taking indirect....because nobody else was doing anything effective. Laziness and a defensive risk-averse mindset ruled the day. They had bunkers but few fighting positions. A few months after we left they were in fact over run. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

10-19-2009, 06:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I don't think it is a problem. The m-4 is a bit long in the tooth, but it is a completely different weapon than it was during Vietnam and has benefited from 40 years of continuous evolution. I think due to the nature of the Army procurement system, any "new" weapon will be chosen because it has the most bells and whistles, such has modularity, hot-swap barrels, cool folding stocks, etc. rather than a weapon which simply shoots better and with even less weight. We are adding complexity size and weight to an already ridiculous overall load by adding the SCAR. It may be the best thing since sliced bread, but I suspect it won the contract on it's "flair" rather than it's substance. Time will tell though. For instance, one of the big selling points is it's modularity, but even in SOF, how many soldiers do you think are going to get the CQC upper for the SCAR Heavy in addition to the standard upper? Or do you think current logic will prevail and soldiers will be issued a weapon as-is and to hell with mission-dictated configurations? It is great to have a weapon that can be configured differently, but if the extra parts are not issued it is more or less a mute point. Edit: For instance (from Wikipedia), SOCOM has requested more than 80,000 of the standard SCAR Lites, but less than 30,000 of the SCAR CQC configurations.....looks to me like you are going to be stuck with whatever you get. If you have a group of guys who are stuck with a variety of weapons-styles they will do nothing well. If you issue them all one-type they will be equiped for one particular mission and poorly for others. If instead you coughed up a little extra money and gave them what they needed to modify their equipment based on mission they can be optimally prepared for any environment which they know they will be going into. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 10-19-2009 at 06:48 PM..

10-19-2009, 07:12 PM	#17 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Heh, that reminds me of something one of my buddies once said: "Uniformity may be the death of adaptability... but, damn, adaptability sure weighs a lot." ... I completely agree with what you've laid out here. Even the guys with two braincells in my shitbag outfit used to have the same argument all the time. What it should be vs. what it is will always remain a huge problem. Weapons are all about money and politics, not the product. Everybody in Pope's Ghetto has a M4, a M249, or a M240B. That's what you get to work with... so you have to blunt force 'em into your mission requirements. The nearly-too-rare-to-mention (and often busted up) M14 "DMR" is often used like some kind of junior NCO trophy instead of being put to a useful purpose. If you wanted to do better, you spent your paycheck buying and fielding as much as you could get away with... parts, mags, optics, etc. Oh, yessir, Uncle Sam is real big on the junk. I look at the huge push of M249 "Para" kits in 200X. Everybody wanted those stubby barrels and those craptacular plastic twist stocks. And those Elcan machine gun optics. They're so COOL. Forget that your most important fire team weapon just became less useful and yet still weighs just as much if not more. Forget that you don't even have a good place to put the fuckin' sling anymore. Ugh. Painful. I feel the the FN SCAR is a big step back for the reasons you illustrated above as well as others. I believe the H&K 416 (hell, even a LWRC-style upper) would be a step forward in the goal of producing a more shootable personal weapon, the real goal of military weapon procurement. Today's soldiers would really benefit from an upper receiver and magazine product improvement program. Off the shelf stuff. No bullshit. ... Of course neither of those systems would have made a lick of difference to the numbnuts in the OP article. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 10-19-2009 at 07:41 PM..

10-20-2009, 12:14 AM	#18 (permalink)
remy1492 Crazy Location: CA TX LU	After seeing lots of new rifle trials, I wonder even IF a super rifle came along, is the military complex so corrupt to the core that it'd be passed for another failed US rifle system? I think so. Just like the new body armor we got in 03/04. The armor paid for by GWOT funds John Kerry voted for............then voted against. Why is government still not giving us the right equipment to come back alive with? .....money

10-20-2009, 07:54 AM	#20 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Incoming threadjacks! ... "Other rifle" was the infamous XM8, maybe? ... All the bolt-on bullshit required by the IBA / SAPI combo, for one. Unit SOP dictated shoulder pads and side plates. I don't know about you, but my skinny ass can't move inside an RG31 with that shit on. We need tighter stuff. Running with all that floppy bolt-on armor on really tired me out and I'm not exactly a couch potato. A single piece breakaway rig with pockets for front/rear/side SAPIs. Preferably not front-opening. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 10-20-2009 at 08:01 AM..

10-20-2009, 08:32 AM	#21 (permalink)
tcp Crazy	The USMC is still using the M16A2. Its received improvements over time since the original Vietnam-era M16, but its not a significant change. They may use newer, better weaponry selectively, but the standard rifle is kept simple as dirt. Is there a need for something new? I think the equipment will always be a little less than desirable. A new rifle is bound to have new problems. However, I think the troops should know what they will be going in with and receive it on time. The worst thing you could probably do is to promise a new series of equipment and take forever to deliver. I don't have the source but there was one story about the units that were deployed at the start of OIF using Flak jackets which can barely stop smalls arms fire.

10-20-2009, 11:29 AM	#25 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	FWIW, the Army is preparing to field MBAV Plate Carriers to drop the size and weight of a soldiers armor down to 17 pounds or so. In addition, they are beginning to field new body armor and are replacing the Intercerptor. The Interceptor Body Armor was revolutionary for it's time, and now that we have firmly established and superior alternatives the military is moving towards them, albeit slowly. There is no real need to hurry...it is a big investment and the reality is that one type of level V body armor is probably going to perform almost as well as another, even if the latter is more comfortable or user friendly. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

10-20-2009, 07:12 PM	#29 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	A+, Kir. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."