Debunking the Myth that the M-4 Failed at the Battle of Wanat

From Loose Rounds. Part 1 and Part 2. And a similar article from The Firearms Blog.

These articles are in response to one by retired general Robert Scales, published at The Atlantic, that claims that the M-4 is seriously flawed and should be replaced. Scales argument is fairly straightforward: the rifle was flawed when it was introduced in the 1960's, and it has hardly changed since then, ergo, the current version is also flawed. To back up his argument, he cites to the Battle of Wanat, where soldiers experienced failures due to their rifles overheating. Scales doesn't offer any specific suggestions for an alternative, but seems to prefer the gas piston operation of the AK.

 The flaw in his argument is that each of the premises is wrong. The articles at Loose Rounds and The Firearms Blog refute Scales' arguments on every point: the AR system has been improved since its introduction (I discussed this recently as well), that there is no evidence that the soldiers at Wanat died because their M-4's malfunctioned, and that those weapons that overheated was due to being used for sustained automatic fire (which is why weapons designed for sustained fire have removable barrels and other features to accommodate their role).

I just want to point out that Scales arguments are the same old tired arguments raised since Vietnam. Scales ignores the fact that even firearms have to obey the laws of physics--no one firearm can do everything. The fact that Scales resorts to an incident during the American Civil War (!) merely underscores the weakness of his arguments.