View Full Version : Weapon Failures in Astan?!?!?!
Ambush Master
10-11-2009, 08:53
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091011/D9B8SUPO0.html
Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Oct 11, 8:28 AM (ET)
By RICHARD LARDNER
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.
---
The Reaper
10-11-2009, 09:36
Sounds like a leadership failure to me.
TR
HowardCohodas
10-11-2009, 09:39
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091011/D9B8SUPO0.html
Weapons failed US troops during Afghan firefight
Oct 11, 8:28 AM (ET)
By RICHARD LARDNER
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.
...
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.
...
---
Replacing the M4s with what?
The Reaper
10-11-2009, 09:42
Replacing the M4s with what?
SCAR, Light and Heavy. Try to keep up.
TR
Kyobanim
10-11-2009, 09:44
SCAR, Light and Heavy. Try to keep up.
TR
Is that why I can't afford one?
The Reaper
10-11-2009, 09:50
Is that why I can't afford one?
I see no significant advantage over a new M-4. They are just worn out, as are many of the magazines.
Save your money. For the price of one civilian SCAR-Light, you can have two top tier M-4s, two dozen quality mags, spare parts, cleaning kits, and 2,000 rounds of ammo.
TR
HowardCohodas
10-11-2009, 09:51
SCAR, Light and Heavy. Try to keep up.
TR
My remark was meant to be deprecating to the reporter who left the idea hanging without closure.
Sometimes pithy leads to the wrong impression. :o I can always depend on someone here to slap me upside the head.
The Reaper
10-11-2009, 09:54
My remark was meant to be deprecating to the reporter who left the idea hanging without closure.
Sometimes pithy leads to the wrong impression. :o I can always depend on someone here to slap me upside the head.
The sarcasm color is pink, for everyone here but me.
I would have nothing but pink text on my comments.
TR
dadof18x'er
10-11-2009, 09:55
a few days ago I saw a headline about "morale" being low, I wonder how
many of troops would have a problem with that? with all this coming out
before BO makes a decision on troop levels it seems like we're getting
set up by the state run media. Am I too suspicious?:rolleyes:
SCAR, Light and Heavy.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/scar.htm
As for the original article posted by AM:
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.
IMO and experience - this is an issue most often directly related to command effectiveness and adequacy of training - fire discipline.
Richard
The Reaper
10-11-2009, 09:56
a few days ago I saw a headline about "morale" being low, I wonder how
many of troops would have a problem with that? with all this coming out
before BO makes a decision on troop levels it seems like we're getting
set up by the state run media. Am I too suspicious?:rolleyes:
I have seen no low morale among SF soldiers.
TR
Kyobanim
10-11-2009, 09:57
TR, come on, don't you want to pay $2700 for a fancy new rifle? :D
Ambush Master
10-11-2009, 09:59
The sarcasm color is pink, for everyone here but me.
I would have nothing but pink text on my comments.
TR
As well as MANY of the ADMINS, to include myself!!!
The Reaper
10-11-2009, 10:00
TR, come on, don't you want to pay $2700 for a fancy new rifle? :D
I do, but not for that new rifle.
A guy at the Raleigh gun show wanted well over $3000 for one, IIRC, he said $3700.
No thanks.
TR
HowardCohodas
10-11-2009, 10:01
a few days ago I saw a headline about "morale" being low, I wonder how
many of troops would have a problem with that? with all this coming out
before BO makes a decision on troop levels it seems like we're getting
set up by the state run media. Am I too suspicious?:rolleyes:
IIRC, this was based on interviewing troops about to leave for deployment. I don't believe that this is the sentiment of the deployed.
dadof18x'er
10-11-2009, 10:18
IIRC, this was based on interviewing troops about to leave for deployment. I don't believe that this is the sentiment of the deployed.
here's the article.......
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6865359.ece
Ambush Master
10-11-2009, 10:29
I have an M16, that was built in the mid-70's (Colt). Purposefully, I did not clean the weapon, other than the Chamber, Bolt Face/Area and Bore. It was not at all to the Weapon's detriment.
One summer, at our annual Machinegun-Shoot, someone was bad mouthing the AR/M16 Platform. I grabbed mine/w 20 rd mag and an empty Dufflebag (which I draped over my leg to ward off the flying fragments), walked over to a Mesquite tree that was about 6-8 inches in diameter and proceeded to SAW IT DOWN with full automatic fire!! I then walked over to the disparaging individual, broke the weapon open and extracted the "Bolt Carrier Group"!! I then grabbed his arm and slapped the VERY GRIMY, but well lubed with LSA, BCG into his hand!!
He was amazed, to say the least.
A few weeks later he bought an M16!!
All you need to do is KNOW WHAT WILL KEEP THE WEAPONS RUNNING!!!
This is truly a Training/Command Issue!!!
Not a fault of the Weapon(s) Platform(s)!!
Take care.
Martin
Team Sergeant
10-11-2009, 11:01
I was not aware the general purpose forces were issued M4A1's ?
greenberetTFS
10-11-2009, 11:17
I was not aware the general purpose forces were issued M4A1's ?
A comment made by a British para on BBC said the Americans make the best body armor protection,but the Russians the best machine guns..... :confused: He had served several deployments in Iraq and was now working as a military contractor and was being interviewed about their duties in Iraq now....:rolleyes: He stated he was making 10 times as much money than when he was a S/SGT medic...... ;)
Big Teddy :munchin
No new rifle needed, All they need to do is upgrade to piston uppers.
MMMMmmmmm MMMMmmmmm MMMMmmmmmm
No new rifle needed, All they need to do is upgrade to piston uppers.
MMMMmmmmm MMMMmmmmm MMMMmmmmmm
OK Quit trying to make sense........:p
You will confuse the politicians......:eek:
The Reaper
10-11-2009, 17:04
No new rifle needed, All they need to do is upgrade to piston uppers.
MMMMmmmmm MMMMmmmmm MMMMmmmmmm
That has been problematic lately, with the torque and impact of the piston/op rod causing upper receivers to crack and fail a lot sooner than a direct impingement gun would.
TR
Peregrino
10-11-2009, 17:29
And if you're interested in piston conversions, do your homework. Not all conversions are created equal (and the bad manufacturers spend more on lawyers than quality control :rolleyes: [anybody remember Dragonskin?:D]) I witnessed a friend taking gas pistons from one manufacturer, dropping them on a concrete floor from shoulder height, and shattering one in five. He dropped about twenty-five; five snapped cleanly, the rest had a very high-pitched ring. I would not have wanted to use any of them with live rounds in a functioning weapon. My buddy was illustrating a point and making another when he said this was the "good" batch. Other systems have their own problems. Peening is a good example. Reciever cracking usually doesn't appear until the 20,000 round point, sometimes they'll last as long as 60,000 rounds (some seperate after as few as 5,000 rds). Most civilians will never see these round counts; however, the military is at war and between training and combat weapons can see 20,000 rounds in as little as 12-18 months. Broken guns are inevitable - even a Kar-98 can be broken. That's why I keep spare parts, watch my round count, and practice transitions.
That has been problematic lately, with the torque and impact of the piston/op rod causing upper receivers to crack and fail a lot sooner than a direct impingement gun would.
TR
TR is that a result of the bolt not unlocking and then the oprod not having anyplace to go with all that energy behind it ?
Ive noticed on alot of the SWC weapons after all the use we put them threw. Thats one of the major problems when the weapon gets hot, is the bolt fails to unlock and extract the round. its got me thinking maybe the bolt and the chamber need a redesign. I know if we make the thing loose it won't be as accurate. But would that solve the failer to unlock if the boltface and chamber where not so tight. gunsmiths got any feedback?
The Reaper
10-11-2009, 20:07
TR is that a result of the bolt not unlocking and then the oprod not having anyplace to go with all that energy behind it ?
Ive noticed on alot of the SWC weapons after all the use we put them threw. Thats one of the major problems when the weapon gets hot, is the bolt fails to unlock and extract the round. its got me thinking maybe the bolt and the chamber need a redesign. I know if we make the thing loose it won't be as accurate. But would that solve the failer to unlock if the boltface and chamber where not so tight. gunsmiths got any feedback?
The bolt carrier was not designed to take an impact to the top, it does not have rails to keep it running true. When it is hit, it tips slightly higher in the front and lower in the rear. Sometimes, it may ground out completely, and gouge the inside of the receiver. I would keep my eye out for any unusual wear in the receiver or on the bolt, and anticipate a catastrophic failure of the upper at some relatively low round count.
Just my opinion. YMMV.
TR
My thoughts...(For what there worth)
If I let my gunner fire a continuous burst on the M240 Coax (think 10,000rds linked together) and we get a stoppage so severe, the gun goes down, is the gun a POS???
A M249 is a gas piston, last time I looked, and they can go down if you run 200 rd packs thru it non stop with no lube and no barrel change.
Fire discipline, proper cleaning and lube.
I Have put my fair share or rds downrange over the years on ranges and never had a stoppage that was not due to operator error. The average E-3 Joe is far from a small arms expert.. I would like to have been around to see the PCC/PCI's that were being done at squad/PLT level prior to this fight.
Basenshukai
10-11-2009, 21:21
I've participated in three SFAUCCs (cut me some slack, I'm still young in this business) and I have deployed to AFG as well as some other places. I have fired thousands of rounds from my assigned M4s. Heck, in one deployment down south, the battalion that we were going to train did not show up - only a company did. So, guess who fired those thousands and thousands of rounds? Let me tell you, post-deployment we could shoot wings off a fly. Anyway, my M4 only failed whenever I used simunition, or whenever we used blue tip training rounds. I never had my M4 fail with live rounds.
Team Sergeant
10-11-2009, 21:32
Sounds like a leadership failure to me.
TR
I've participated in three SFAUCCs (cut me some slack, I'm still young in this business) and I have deployed to AFG as well as some other places. I have fired thousands of rounds from my assigned M4s. Heck, in one deployment down south, the battalion that we were going to train did not show up - only a company did. So, guess who fired those thousands and thousands of rounds? Let me tell you, post-deployment we could shoot wings off a fly. Anyway, my M4 only failed whenever I used simunition, or whenever we used blue tip training rounds. I never had my M4 fail with live rounds.
TR already stated the probable cause and I agree. I've also fired tens of thousands of rounds through the M-4 without failure.
Personally I think the reporter RICHARD LARDNER is fabricating some of this story.
Dozer523
10-11-2009, 21:34
[url]The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders.--- Bull shit. When the final investigation comes out they are going to find a total breakdown. No one with a malfunction was taking care of their weapon. No one witht a Soldier claiming a malfunction was inspecting weapons or anything else for that matter. This battle is going to become the red-headed step-child / poster child for COIN. "Whatever you do DON'T do this."
That battle was lost long before any bad guy came out of that village. It was lost when we wern't having tea in that village.
That battle was lost long before any bad guy came out of that village. It was lost when we wern't having tea in that village.
Makes sense, Dozer.
IMHO, it seems the greatest failure (as previously stated and alluded to above) was in leadership, and that probably could be sourced all the way up from SGT thru General.
Does a Mission Needs Statement exist for the M4? What is the Mean Time Between Failures noted in the spec? Was an Operational Test ever done on the M4, or were the changes introduced following factory testing? Just wondering. The Navy does (or used to) Operational Testing of damned near everything placed in service, and the last time I checked, the Army relies a lot on factory testing. (A cost cutting measure I think.) Contractors love it. This is more an acquisitions question. Sorry if this issue is a distraction.
My brass farthings worth...
Sounds like a leadership failure to me.
TR
AMEN!!! Failure to get off their Arses and go around to the local village(s). Lead from the front.
Personally I think the reporter RICHARD LARDNER is fabricating some of this story.
Agree with you TS… Someone is feeding this story or lies to push some agenda.
Bull shit. When the final investigation comes out they are going to find a total breakdown. No one with a malfunction was taking care of their weapon. No one witht a Soldier claiming a malfunction was inspecting weapons or anything else for that matter. This battle is going to become the red-headed step-child / poster child for COIN. "Whatever you do DON'T do this."
Yeah, watch they are already saying that the camp was DUE to be CLOSED because of the NEW FOCUS to townships and local centers for Conventional Forces. There will be a spin, off this battle for some months to come. Sad that men had to die, but now “they” will be used IMHO for others gains; Political gains that is.
That battle was lost long before any bad guy came out of that village. It was lost when we wern't having tea in that village.
Conventional Leaders at these “outposts” and firebases all are being “controlled” to do their COIN mission. Which is just to sit in their camps walls. If they get in a fire fight most will go back to their base camps for safety and not engage the enemy. Time will tell from this event.
All of this for a new weapon?? I don't think so. I think there is more to these reports.
This is one reason that it would be nice to put 45B's in with the line units as opposed to the rear. At least a detailed pre-inspection could be done before they leave the wire. Hell, it would be better to have 45's outside the wire with them for emergency repairs. We are heading downrange soon, and I discussed this with my higher. They said no way. Would it be any different once we got in country?
Oldschool45B
10-13-2009, 10:37
We have all seen what happens to a weapon over there when you leave the hooch. just walking around it is dirty before lunch. So if they were constantly clean I am guessing they were also dry as a bone so that the dust did not get inside and show that little grit in the lube so some snuffy didn't get his ass chewed. Dry guns are not happy guns.
Be that as it may they were using the weapons outside what the weapon was designed for. I have not been in a 30 minute mad-minute firefight but it sounds from the article that they were using them in a suppressive fire role, shooting more and aiming less. Maybe conventional forces should have the select fire taken out and be forced to use them as semi-auto only. It worked in Rhodesia when they were running out of ammo to fight the terrorists. Their consumption went down and their hit to shot ration went up..... I mean we can not rely on the NCO's and officers to train these guys properly so what else can we do?
Ya know, after a few SFAUC and BCCS classes I have been thru, and having worked for the same end users down range none of our guys, even the support guys had these issues. :confused:
ETA no, it probably won't be any different. The 45B's get stuck on the FOB most of the time in order to work on everyone's weapons. I was lucky in that I got to sneak out a few days at a time and get to the firebases and see what was going on so I could better adjust the parts I was sending out for spares and replacements. Once I started rebuilding the captured weapons for the ASF I got out more with my list of parts and items that were available to the Teams. Did I mention how badly the FOB sucks the life out of you and how much I hated it?
...Did I mention how badly the FOB sucks the life out of you and how much I hated it?
Thanks for the info. It sucks that I'll most likely be stuck on the FOB for my first deployment, but it is what it is so long as the guys get my best work. PMCS would've went a long way before these guys rode out. Sounds like a ps magazine quote, but it's true.
An early account of the battle at Camp Keating
By Bill RoggioOctober 11, 2009 9:43 PM
At The Best Defense, Tom Ricks published an "earwitness account" of the battle at Camp Keating in Kamdish in Nuristan province. The account comes via General Barry McCaffrey, and is given by an unnamed military officer serving in nearby Laghman province whose position is not identified, and I won't speculate further. The full account is published below, with permission of Mr. Ricks. I'll define the acronyms and other confusing terms in brackets.
Just a few notes:
• The troop commander seemed to be very level-headed during the battle, and adjusted in a professional manner to several serious setbacks, such as losing his command post and ammunition dump. Only at one point did he appear to be rattled, early on when urging the helicopter to get on the scene as soon as possible lest the camp be fully overrun. The Squadron commander let his troop commander manage the battle and got the troop commander whatever resources he could.
• The base was nearly overrun. As mentioned, the US troops temporarily lost control of the command post and ammunition dump, and the troop commander lost contact with some of his troops. The Afghan Army and Afghan security guards' checkpoints were completely overrun and set aflame.
• The US troops fought hard, and lost eight of their brothers. It could have been much worse. The helicopter and air support was the great equalizer against the massed Taliban assault.
• The US troops lost nearly everything they owned during the battle save the clothes on their backs. You can help them out by donating to the American Legion, which has set up a program, called the COP Keating Relief Fund to specifically help these men.
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/10/an_early_account_of_the_battle.php#ixzz0TrpCiQLd
The bolt carrier was not designed to take an impact to the top, it does not have rails to keep it running true. When it is hit, it tips slightly higher in the front and lower in the rear. Sometimes, it may ground out completely, and gouge the inside of the receiver. I would keep my eye out for any unusual wear in the receiver or on the bolt, and anticipate a catastrophic failure of the upper at some relatively low round count.
Just my opinion. YMMV.
TR
IIRC, most company's making piston guns have designed a advanced bolt carrier group to solve this issue. I know my LWRC has one.
Location of the battle cited: plug into Google Earth (good to update the app too if you haven't in a while): 35 25 23 N , 71 19 44E
-for those not familiar with GE: once the image resolves, zoom with your mouse scroll wheel and then hold down a shift key and scroll for vertical relief
~3300' gain to nearby ridge tops.
question to QPs and ADs:
How could have those in charge of siting this FOB, better set it up (ballpark placement, not OPSEC violating particulars) while balancing COIN needs (close contact with locals) and yet be more defensible than this was?
The Reaper
10-14-2009, 09:18
question to QPs and ADs:
How could have those in charge of siting this FOB, better set it up (ballpark placement, not OPSEC violating particulars) while balancing COIN needs (close contact with locals) and yet be more defensible than this was?
I don't think we know you well enough to answer that question.
TR
Stevo777
10-26-2009, 18:22
This site has so much great info, I haven't really felt the need to speak up till now. As a new PL, what I am looking for is input regarding small unit leadership issues that directly affected the outcome of this battle (and maybe the fact that the battle even occurred), for my own PD. I owe this to my men. I have been spending a large part of my leave doing my homework at places like Stryker.net in preparation. I am reading stuff like Three Cups of Tea and a full report of the Waygal Valley battle, but would appreciate additional (offline) recommendations.
The Reaper
10-26-2009, 20:18
This site has so much great info, I haven't really felt the need to speak up till now. As a new PL, what I am looking for is input regarding small unit leadership issues that directly affected the outcome of this battle (and maybe the fact that the battle even occurred), for my own PD. I owe this to my men. I have been spending a large part of my leave doing my homework at places like Stryker.net in preparation. I am reading stuff like Three Cups of Tea and a full report of the Waygal Valley battle, but would appreciate additional (offline) recommendations.
See the reading list.
Paul Howe's book would be a good place to start.
TR
regular guy
12-25-2009, 05:54
TR already stated the probable cause and I agree. I've also fired tens of thousands of rounds through the M-4 without failure.
Personally I think the reporter RICHARD LARDNER is fabricating some of this story.
Gentlemen,
I am very familiar with the unit that this story is about. I was in their sister BN a while ago. While I should say that there are some very locked on NCO's in that BN, the training cycle that they received and the leadership put them through in the work up for deployment was neither realistic nor practical. To further aggravate the situation, they are an armor (mechanized) unit. They trained from the Bradley. They might have done some integral dismount live fire training, but not enough to successfully teach the primary shooters of the squad (Joe). The problem was the attitude of many of the leaders in that unit and higher. They were rolling with the training and experience from 06-08 OIF NCO's. :mad:
TR, TS, and many of the other QP's on here hit the nail on the head. The SAW is a great weapon. So is the M4. The basic discipline of the unit was reflected though in this article. Rates of fire, talking guns were not even relatively mentioned. They were assumed, and I see obviously that it was a blind assumption. I hate armchair quarterbacking more than anyone, and the only reason I spoke up is because I felt I should provide some first hand knowledge of the unit in question. The senior leadership is lazy and half assed. My apologies. The good news is that one of the problem sources no longer has his name placard on the banana belt. A start...
Yes, I don't work there anymore and haven't for a while, but it is hard to watch the news and see friends names. And I have seen a lot of names this year.
My apologies for interruptions to the thread.
The first thing I thought, was directly parallel to many of the senior individuals who spoke up in this thread.
Leadership failure.
I never had issues with my assigned weapons... and I don't see what the complaint is, about 5m of maintenance on a system that you are entrusting your life to...
The Reaper
12-25-2009, 09:06
The only reliably unreliable weapon I have ever been issued by the Army (that was not quickly repairable) was a worn out M-60 Machine Gun.
Now that is one I am not sad to see gone.
Otherwise, you keep it clean, you keep it lubed, you use good ammo and mags, and understand the capabilities and limitations and it should work properly.
You violate these rules, especially in a combat zone at your own peril.
TR