PDA

View Full Version : M-4 Shoot-Off


The Reaper
08-02-2007, 07:53
This should be interesting.:munchin

TR

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003625.html

After months of heated debate, the Army will conduct a side-by-side test shoot next month with its standard-issued carbine to see how well it can withstand extreme dust and sand environments.

The tests, which will be conducted at the Army's Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland, will include three other rifles some say are better constructed to withstand the grueling environmental conditions often found in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The service yielded to critics - particularly lawmakers in Congress - who recently ratcheted up the debate over whether the current M4 carbine, manufactured by Colt Defense, is more susceptible to jamming in dusty conditions than other weapons used by Soldiers and special operators.

"The Army agreed to conduct testing of four carbine designs in an extreme dust environment," said Lt. Col. Timothy Chyma, product manager for individual weapons with Program Executive Office Soldier, in an email to Military.com.

"The test results will inform the U.S. Army Infantry Center in the development of a potential new carbine requirement as part of their ongoing capabilities based assessment."

In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) insisted in a letter to then-acting Army Secretary Pete Geren that better weapons technology is available that can guard against stoppages stemming from dust and sand interfering with the firing mechanism of the M4.

The Army's carbine uses a gas system that evidence shows is susceptible to stoppages unless it is frequently cleaned.

The shoot off will test the capabilities of the M4/M16 operating system against three other rifles: the Heckler and Koch-built HK416, the FNH USA-designed Mk16 SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle and the previously-shelved, H&K-manufactured XM8 carbine.

All three competitors use a gas-piston operating system that requires less maintenance and has demonstrated in some tests that it can fire accurately even if completely fouled with sand, dust and mud.

"Considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon," Coburn wrote in April. "A number of manufacturers have researched, tested and fielded weapons which, by all accounts, appear to provide significantly improved reliability."

A December 2005 Center for Naval Analyses study commissioned by the Army indicated the M4 - when properly cleaned - exhibited few stoppages. But 20 percent of those who had complications with their M4s said they experienced bad enough jams that they had to pull out of the fight.

Many special operations units favor the HK416, due in part to its increased reliability. This month, Special Operations Command began operational tests on the Mk16 and the heavier-caliber Mk17 to eventually replace its M4 and HK416 stocks.

The sand tests will include 10 samples of each weapon through which engineers will fire 6,000 rounds. Each weapon and loaded magazine will be exposed to "extreme dust" for 30 minutes then test fired with 120 rounds, Chyma said.

"Each weapon will be wiped down and lubricated every 600 rounds with a full cleaning every 1,200 rounds," Chyma added. "The firing, collection of data and analysis of data is expected to take approximately five months."

Coburn said in his April letter to Geren that even though the M4 works, better weapons exist. He was so insistent that the Army compete new M4 contracts to outfit its expanded brigade combat teams that he placed a hold on the Geren nomination to become Army secretary until the service relented, a Coburn staffer confirmed.

The Army's willingness to hold the limited "sandstorm shoot-off" released the nomination, and Geren was confirmed by the Senate July 13.

The side-by-side sand tests "will be part of the ongoing Army assessment and requirements process - with the ultimate goal of continuing to provide the best possible weapons and equipment to our Soldiers," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins.

Five-O
08-02-2007, 08:41
At a minium maybe this will finally put the XM8 out of our misery. That thing is passing like a kidney stone.

sefryak
08-02-2007, 15:03
It will be interesting to see the results of those tests,but the question in my mind is what difference will the results ultimately have? If,as i believe,it is shown that the M-4 is inferior to the other systems,will the Army then yield to the pressure to procure and distribute new systems? I know that during the recent meeting with the gentlemen from Crane, that there is a gas-piston system listed as a possible future upgrade as part of the SOPMOD system. I hope that this test might make that possibility a reality.

rubberneck
08-02-2007, 15:59
Is dateline NBC going to run their own scientific tests at a lab in Germany?;)

jbour13
08-02-2007, 16:03
Interesting yes, how much reality can be attributed.....we may never know.

Other rifle companies have submitted test rifles as well, it's not just those listed.

As far as folding to pressure. Let's see how long this story stays fresh in the public mind. If it folds and is forgotten, I see a justification to keep current stock. Getting rid of old material has gotten us in trouble before. Can you imagine picking up your old battle rifle on the objective someday?? I can. I'm sure that I touched a few Garands that were handled by GI's from the Korean War in Afghanistan.

We've flogged it to death about what the real solution is. I "assist" a Gas Piston Rifle manufacturer and hope that the piston system makes it into the hands of the shooters that need them. Do I do it for money, no. I know the rifle is up to par with a leading maker, and will out shoot a standard M-4. I know this because my work rifle (I'm an Intel geek, don't put to much faith in me) is crap compared to what my brother makes.

Cost comparison is going to be the biggest issue I see. Colt has been in the pocket for so long that they can offer a rifle at $XXX unit cost per rifle. Let's hope that those that make a cleaner, cooler operating system can produce them at a competitive price to the Military consumer. Cost of parts and maintenence go down significantly. The lead designer for the company has had the same rifle for years, and he's only had to change the barrel (3 times). Every other part has withstood intentional punishment to really push it to the limits. I'm sure that other manufacturers have met the same results. I've seen this one personally and it runs like a raped ape.

AbusesToilets: let me know where you work via PM and I'll bring mine by for a little look see. Already brought it in for 336's TS to fondle, couldn't hurt to get some more love.

TR: I'm getting itchy about mine, it has yet to be shot, or sighted in since the rebuild. You have a good place to do both?? I got ammo to burn. Let me know what I need to bring.

rubberneck
08-02-2007, 16:14
"Considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon," Coburn wrote in April.

Other than the SCAR-H and the 417 what makes the XM-8, the 416, and SCAR any more lethal than the M-4 and the M-16? I can understand crowing about reliability but why bring up lethality when those rifles will be firing the same rounds out of the same length barrels?

The Reaper
08-02-2007, 16:39
Other than the SCAR-H and the 417 what makes the XM-8, the 416, and SCAR any more lethal than the M-4 and the M-16? I can understand crowing about reliability but why bring up lethality when those rifles will be firing the same rounds out of the same length barrels?

The longest barrels will tend to have the best lethality. The XM-8 was supposed to have been fielded to most units with a 10" barrel, hardly conducive to better lethality than the M-4 or M-16.

If they shoot different loads, the issued M855 will tend to be among the worst.


TR: I'm getting itchy about mine, it has yet to be shot, or sighted in since the rebuild. You have a good place to do both?? I got ammo to burn. Let me know what I need to bring.

McKellar's is the easiest place to zero, as long as you do it between Weds and Sun, IIRC.

TR

Gene Econ
08-05-2007, 18:32
At a minium maybe this will finally put the XM8 out of our misery. That thing is passing like a kidney stone.

Five-0:

He, he, he. What happens if the XM-8 outshoots and outlasts the others?

There is a reason why the Army doesn't want to go through another series of small arms test and evaluation. They become a legal nightmare with lawsuits galore, even if the test is run as perfectly as humanly possible.

The 9 MM pistol program was a real lesson for the Army.

The lesson learned was not to solicit for new small arms unless one proved to give a quantum leap in terms of hit and kill probabilities when fired by an average trained soldier, while being lighter and using a lighter round of ammunition BTW.

Soon that carbine will weigh more than an M-1 or M-14 -- unless they weight that much now with all the stuff people are forced to put on the rail systems.

If the problems with sand and dust are that this stuff gets into the bolt and bolt carrier thus jamming the locking or unlocking of the bolt, then it appears to be logical to look at the bolt and bolt carrier. I don't see how that much dust or sand can get into the gas system itself to clog a gas tube. I can see how sand and dust can jam up op rods and gas pistons though.

Well, we will see what happens but I bet that jamming won't be due to a system of operation but rather the function of the bolt and bolt carrier.

Gene

Five-O
08-05-2007, 20:29
Five-0:

He, he, he. What happens if the XM-8 outshoots and outlasts the others?
Gene

Gene,
Anything is possible, and I don't pretend to have 1/8th of your weapons knowledge, but if the XM-8 becomes the next Army battle rifle I will pay for your subscription to a beer of the month club. :)

Gene Econ
08-05-2007, 20:57
Gene, Anything is possible, and I don't pretend to have 1/8th of your weapons knowledge, but if the XM-8 becomes the next Army battle rifle I will pay for your subscription to a beer of the month club. :)

Five-0:

There is a reason why the proponents of the XM-8 want it entered into the fray and it ain't to prove the XM-8 is a failure. You better believe that huge amounts of money have or are being spent to make sure the XM-8 comes out on top if it is entered. And I mean in engineering -- not paying off a Congressman or Senator to pressure the military.

Also -- I don't know if I know more than you do about the RDTE process in the Army or not -- or about weapons technology. Your opinion or expertise was not in question from my angle.

Gene

Gene