The truth behind the recent M4 controversy

Steve Johnson
by Steve Johnson

Yesterday I blogged about the M4 reliability controversy story that was originally reported by the Associated Press. At best the writer of the AP article exaggerated many the points. The leaked draft of the of the analysis of the Battle of Wanat reads quite differently.

The M4 Carbine

The AP infers that the barrels of many of the weapons were getting white hot. From the AP 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.

There is only one reference to a gun getting white hot in the draft report, and it is a SAW not a M4 Carbine:

Specialist Bogar fired approximately six hundred rounds at a cyclic rate of fire from his SAW when that weapon became overheated, and eventually jammed the bolt forward. Specialist Stafford noted, “Bogar was still in our hole firing quite a bit. Then Bogar’s SAW jammed. Basically it just got way overheated, because he opened the feed tray cover and I remember him trying to get it open and it just looked like the bolt had welded itself inside the chamber. His barrel was just white hot.”

In fact, it is not even possible that an M4 barrel can heat up to the point of being white hot. M4 barrels are made from Alloy Steel 4150. The melting point of this steel is 1426 degrees Celsius. For steel to go white, it needs to be over 1400 degrees Celsius.

The Ground Precautionary Message ACALA #97-03, from November 1996, clearly states that if an M4 barrel reaches just 737 degrees Celcius, the barrel will be weaked to the point where burst.

(3) BURST BARRELS RESULT WHEN THE WEAPONS ARE FIRED UNDER VERY EXTREME FIRING SCHEDULES AND THE BARREL TEMPERATURE EXCEEDS 1360 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. WHEN THE BARREL REACHES THESE EXTREME TEMPERATURES, THE BARREL STEEL WEAKENS TO THE POINT THAT THE HIGH PRESSURE GASES BURST THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE BARREL APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES IN FRONT OF THE CHAMBER. THIS CONDITION CAN RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY.

You are not going to see an M4 barrel white hot because by that point it would have exploded!

The AP also infers that the M4 Carbine is designed to handle a high rate of fire

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.

This is also not true. From the Ground Precautionary Message[^1]:

(B) FIRING 140 ROUNDS, RAPIDLY AND CONTINUOUSLY, WILL RAISE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE BARREL TO THE COOK-OFF POINT. AT THIS TEMPERATURE, ANY LIVE ROUND REMAINING IN THE CHAMBER FOR ANY REASON MAY COOK-OFF (DETONATE) IN AS SHORT A PERIOD AS 10 SECONDS.

(D) SUSTAINED RATE OF FIRE FOR THE M16 SERIES RIFLES AND M4 SERIES CARBINES IS 12-15 ROUNDS PER MINUTE. THIS IS THE ACTUAL RATE OF FIRE THAT A WEAPON CAN CONTINUE TO BE FIRED FOR AN Indefinite LENGTH OF TIME WITHOUT SERIOUS OVERHEATING.

No operator should empty more than 4 magazines rapidly. The AP quotes the draft report:

My weapon was overheating. 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.”

I sympathize with the solider and would not dare to presume to question his actions in combat. He did what he had to do in the heat of the moment, but I cannot think of any current weapon in the M4 class that can sustain continuous fire. To make such a weapon it would need to have a heavy quick change barrel and maybe also include a heat sink. I doubt any soldiers will want to trade in their M4 for a heavy automatic rifle.

Many thanks to Jay, aka. jdun1911, for his research into this controversy. He should get all the credit for this blog post.

UPDATE: I just want to clarify a point mentioned by commenters below. If the solider fired his 12 magazines evenly over a 30 minute period he should have had no overheating problems (assuming the Army GPM info is correct). What we do not know is the period of continuous fire. As Bram, who has seen combat, said “Time moves very differently while under fire. It’s impossible to judge how fast those soldiers were actually firing.”.


  1. I do not make a .mil link to the GPM but it is widely published on the internet. It can be read in full on The Firearm Blog. I did verify, on a .mil website, that this GPM does exist

Steve Johnson
Steve Johnson

I founded TFB in 2007 and over 10 years worked tirelessly, with the help of my team, to build it up into the largest gun blog online. I retired as Editor in Chief in 2017. During my decade at TFB I was fortunate to work with the most amazing talented writers and genuinely good people!

More by Steve Johnson

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 83 comments
  • Bullzebub Bullzebub on Mar 15, 2010

    my thoughts... if they weren't actually surrounded they failed to move. and.. .sustained fire? it seems like it was somewhat poorly trained troops. i mean... if you are going to make the bad guy hunker down you don't actually need more than 2-3 shots a seconds.

    and the comment about "needing 2-3 shots to make sure he is dead" id say that's true for all calibers ... even .50 BMG. why? you cant really be sure you made a lethal hit. not even on ranges under 50 yards. especially when the adrenaline is pumping though your veins.

    and about replacing the ar15 platform.... sure. it has its problems. like reliability. but the great upside with it is that's it so damn easy to upgrade. just slap a monolithic upper with gas system on it and you have fixed most problems... and this can be done gradually. and that's good because you don't have to retrain people on a new system, don't have to replace all at once and can easy evaluate the system.

  • Yalien619 Yalien619 on Jun 21, 2014

    This is why the US Gov needs to switch over to a piston system instead of the regular gas blow back, they are not only more reliable in varying environments, but will help with the "over heating" of rifles. As a former soldier and NCO and proud veteran of the 101st DIV 2/506th BN, and having fought in both theaters, I have first hand experience with the M4 and its shortcomings. Its a fun plinking or target/range rifle but that is about the extent on it. The round is far to small (never shoot a large caliber man with a small caliber bullet) and there is a lot of ?'s remaining on the reliability

Next