Results 1 to 9 of 9
Thread: M4 Comes In Last
01-02-08, 10:55 AM #1
M4 Comes In Last
M4 Comes In Last
by James Dunnigan
January 1, 2008
The U.S. Army recently ran more tests on its M-4 rifle, involving dust and reliability. These tests were supposed to take place in August. They didn't, and after several delays they were finally performed. Four weapons were tested. The M4, the XM8, SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) and the H&K 416 (an M4 with the more dust proof components of the XM8 installed).
The testing consisted of exposing the weapons to 25 hours of heavy dust conditions over two months. During that testing period, 6,000 rounds were fired from each of ten weapons of each type. The weapons with the fewest failures (usually jams) were rated highest. Thus the XM8 finished first, SCAR second, 416 third and M4 last. In response, the army said it was satisfied with the M4s performance, but was considering equipping it with a heavier barrel (to lessen jams from overheating) and more effective magazines (27 percent of the M4s 882 jams were magazine related.) The army noted that the M4 fired over 98 percent of its rounds without problems. The army had been forced by Congress to conduct the tests. Congress was responding to complaints by the troops. The XM8 had 127 jams, the SCAR 226 and the 416 had 233. Any stoppage is potentially fatal for the soldier holding the rifle. Thus the disagreement between the army brass, and the troops who use the weapons in combat.
In dusty places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to clean your M16 and M4 rifles constantly, otherwise the combination of carbon and dust in the chamber will cause jams. The army and marines both decided to stick with their current weapons, rather than adopt an easier to maintain weapon, like the XM8 or H&K 416, because of the billion or so dollars it would cost to switch rifles.
If the issue were put to a vote, the troops would vote for a rifle using a short-stroke system (like the XM8, SCAR or H&K 416). But the military is not a democracy, so the troops spend a lot of time cleaning their weapons, and hoping for the best. The debate involves two intertwined attitudes among senior army commanders. First, they don't want the hassle, and possible embarrassment, of switching to a new rifle. Second, they are anticipating a breakthrough in weapons technology that will make a possible a much improved infantry weapon. This is likely to happen later, rather than sooner, but the generals keep thinking about it.
Earlier efforts to just get the troops a more reliable rifle have failed. Back in 2005, the U.S. Army's design for a new assault rifle, the XM8, was cancelled. But now the manufacturer has incorporated one of the key components of the XM8, into M4 rifles, and calls the hybrid the H&K 416. Heckler & Koch (H&K) designed the XM8, which was based on an earlier H&K rifle, the G36. SOCOM is using the 416, but no one else is (except for a few police departments).
The XM8 had one major advantage over the M16. The XM8 (like the G36 and 416) uses a short-stroke piston system. The M16s uses gas-tube system, which results in carbon being blown back into the chamber. That leads to carbon build up, which results in jams (rounds getting stuck in the chamber, and the weapon unable to fire.). The short-stroke system also does not expose parts of the rifle to extremely hot gases (which wears out components more quickly). As a result, rifles using the short-stroke system, rather than the gas-tube, are more reliable, easier to maintain and last longer.
H&K developed the 416, for SOCOM, at the same time the XM8 was being evaluated by the army. SOCOM got the first 416s in 2004, a year before the army cancelled the XM8. The 416 looks like the M4, for the only thing that has changed is the gas system that automatically extracts the cartridge after the bullet has been fired, and loads the next round. SOCOM can buy pretty much whatever they want, the U.S. Army cannot. SOCOM listens to what its troops want, the army often doesn't. In trying to avoid embarrassment and scandal, the army leadership is blundering into it anyway. Now the issue is getting revived, and is getting more attention from Congress. The army doesn't like that either.
IN LOVING MEMORY OF MY LATE HUSBAND, SSgt Roger A. Alfano, USMC
ONE PROUD MARINE
Once a Marine...Always a Marine
01-02-08, 11:32 AM #2
Sounds just like Vietnam all over. It is just a pile of sh!t all over. 7.62x51 is the only way to go.
01-02-08, 08:37 PM #3
Why don't they just flute the chamber to allow better feed and extraction when hot?
It ain't rocket science boys!
01-02-08, 09:43 PM #4yellowwingGuest Free Member
Replacement parts. Replacement weapons. Colt make a lot of money, real mony measured in BNs, one man facing a Billion Dollars. Its a hard choice.
01-02-08, 11:44 PM #5
The M16/M4 is a good system. Most in this forum know as well as I that the weapon, when kept lubed (and I mean wet) that it will run; even when dirty. It won't run well when dirty and dry.
By simply converting the direct-impingement system to a short-stroke gas piston and switching from the M855 62 grain round to a 77 grain projectile (using the existing M4 1/7 barrel), you greatly improve reliability and get more stopping power with the heavier projectile.
IMHO, this is a great piston system for the AR platform.
01-02-08, 11:58 PM #6Originally Posted by USMC_1983-89
01-03-08, 12:43 AM #7
---except, that the "AR platform" would not be my choice. I do like the short slap piston design however.
01-03-08, 01:47 PM #8Originally Posted by USMC_1983-89
01-03-08, 02:31 PM #9
The M-16 system is nothing but a pile of s***. Guess who owned a lot of stock at Colt when it was brought into service? LBJ. Guess who owned a lot of stock in the UH1 choppers? LBJ wifes familey. I had some buddys on 881 South. They were found dead with them worthless M-16's broke open. Nobody on this site will ever convince me that a M-16 is a good system. M-4 or whatever.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)