PDA

View Full Version : Army quits tests after competing rifle outperforms M4A1 carbine


pcfixer
08-22-2014, 08:24
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/#disqus_thread

A competing rifle outperformed the Army’s favored M4A1 carbine in key firings during a competition last year before the service abruptly called off the tests and stuck with its gun, according to a new confidential report.

The report also says the Army changed the ammunition midstream to a round “tailored” for the M4A1 rifle. It quoted competing companies as saying the switch was unfair because they did not have enough time to fire the new ammo and redesign their rifles before the tests began.

Exactly how the eight challengers — and the M4 — performed in a shootout to replace the M4, a soldier’s most important personal defense, has been shrouded in secrecy.

The Times earlier this year published a two-part series on the M4 revealing that, as the war on terror began, the carbine flunked several reliability tests when subjected to rapid fire. The Times spoke with soldiers who had used the M4 in intense combat.
They said the magazine is tinny and subject to jamming. The gun itself requires constant cleaning. One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts.

Streck-Fu
08-22-2014, 09:14
The gun itself requires constant cleaning.

Sweet jebus, not this still....

The Reaper
08-22-2014, 11:38
Here we go again.

TR

blacksmoke
08-22-2014, 15:28
The M4A1 also requires lubricant, and bullets to function.

PRB
08-22-2014, 15:52
...at least put a piston in it....

Brush Okie
08-22-2014, 16:12
We need to go back to the 03A3 that way when we put females in combat they can shoot instead of using those complicated assault weapons. (points for cross threads and slamming democrats?)

Team Sergeant
08-22-2014, 16:29
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/#disqus_thread

They said the magazine is tinny and subject to jamming. The gun itself requires constant cleaning. One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts.

Five bucks says it was a Jr. SSG 18B.......:D Funny that damn M4A1 worked just fine for me for all those years. Did it jam, yeah, maybe once a year. Watching the TV reporting the war and keeping a close eye on how some of the lads are carrying and firing the M4A1 it's amazing it doesn't jam every other round.

Since when was it a smart idea to hold onto the mag while firing? Seen quite a few of our military doing that while engaged with the islamic morons.

Box
08-22-2014, 22:52
...no it was actually an 180a that did time in 3/3 and 4/3


Because after all, some add on furniture and a trigger job from brownells will make your M4 infinately more reliable.





PLus, you know, using all the non-standard ammo that was never designed for a 14.5 inch barrel makes it so much more reliable..
...and then bolting on a 10.5 and exclaiming thta you "just cant get decent performance" out of your ammo.


SF is full of fucking experts these days.

The Reaper
08-22-2014, 23:09
Well said, hermano!

You left out making it hard to get replacement mags, so teams are still using pre-ban crap that has been through hell and back 10 or 12 times already.

Hey, aluminum mags are expendable and should be regularly replaced. Just like aluminum cans.

Bad parts swapping as you noted, is not conducive to reliability. Most should have no effect.

Many people also neglect their regular small arms maintenance, and then gripe about the weapons not running.

Finally, the AR was designed to run wet. If you aren't using some sort of lube, it is going to quickly choke and stop.

TR

chance
08-23-2014, 11:10
"Finally, the AR was designed to run wet. If you aren't using some sort of lube, it is going to quickly choke and stop."

What?:confused: You mean it can't be white glove inspectable and still run like a scalded dog?

DDD
08-23-2014, 14:49
All the Bravos I worked with (and 11Bs before) told me "Doc, put oil on your rifle". I did it cause they told me to. Had very few problems.... and most (99.9%) of those problems were magazine related...you know the cheapest part of of the system.
If the M-16/M-4 system is so unreliable, why is it so evil for civilians to own? One would think if it doesn't work, it can't be dangerous:confused:

WarriorDiplomat
08-24-2014, 13:53
All the Bravos I worked with (and 11Bs before) told me "Doc, put oil on your rifle". I did it cause they told me to. Had very few problems.... and most (99.9%) of those problems were magazine related...you know the cheapest part of of the system.
If the M-16/M-4 system is so unreliable, why is it so evil for civilians to own? One would think if it doesn't work, it can't be dangerous:confused:

The Weapon is a piece of shit not because it doesn't work but because of the design.

The weapons shits where it eats the gas tube runs across the top and directly into the bolt this puts the trash from the round in the middle of the moving parts of the bolt carrier group. It makes no sense the HK416 or the SCAR with its piston design which requires little cleaning and maintenance like the AK you can fire 1,000's of rounds with little cleaning required it is designed for a low maintenance capability which is perfect for austere environments and reliability.

There is no reason for a weapon to have such a complicated design as the M16 series and it's advancements. There is no excuse for the amount of lives lost due to engineering failures of the weapon from it's beginnings. I think I may have read that in Vietnam the amount of combat casualties lost by us is upwards of 50% could be attributed to the weapons deficiencies. I am shocked in the book "We were soldiers once and young" that so many survived since the weapon was not accurate until the enemy was within 100M. The initial weapon was designed with poor rifling in the barrel I believe 12 right hand twist design and no ammunition to match it so the rounds tumbled at about 100M. Anyone remember when the M16 could not be used by lefties? Were lefties barred from the military at one time?

Does anyone here wonder how a field as precise as engineering could design a weapon and test it could have missed the math involved in the barrel design and round weight, shape and speed? or they tested the thing with the 5.56 ammo and it fired accurately out to at least 300M consistently?Why would the original engineers be so flawed that it requires these dramatic reboots every so many years.

I have rarely picked up an old rusty AK that didn't work even without maintenance or lube. I have never not been able to get at least 200M accuracy out of an AK different makers and after a zero. The HK was awesome a friend of mine at the OTC talked about the first time he had fired thousands of rounds during firearms training with the HK after the first week he was worried about the amount of cleaning it would require and as I stated it required hardly any.

For those of us who have been up close and personal in combat the 5.56 green tip sucks, you get no immediate feedback from a hit like impact and unless you hit a vital there is a good chance of survival. Aim all you want people move unpredictably. I fired and swore I had hit a guy he didn't break his stride and I ended up putting 5-6 accurate rounds into him because he had no reaction to the first few rounds I could not guarantee I hit him so I fired more. Because of the situation I today cannot say I had killed him.

Give me a weapon that fires a heavy intimidating body moving round, give me a weapon that if I am on patrol I do not have to worry about a detailed cleaning especially if I fired it, Give me a gun that doesn't have those damn gas rings that have to be offset or a free floating firing pin that the junk from every round fired coats or the intricate lttle gas holes that need a pipe cleaner pushed through to keep open. I will accept 2-300 meter accuracy so I am not wasting ammunition on a bad guy I am not sure I hit or not.

What was that called the military industrial complex that Eisenhower mentioned?. It is clear looking at the evolution of the weapon that it was designed to be upgraded every few years which means it was intentionally designed with flaws so it could be updated and revamped with new nomenclatures and all. I have no issues with money making endeavors except when it comes to the lives of the patriots who serve selflessly in the military who are the end user of it. The lobbyist keep this gun alive and us as patriots should question why the military are stuck this thing with while clearly superior low maintenance highly durable weapons are being trumped.

WarriorDiplomat
08-24-2014, 14:30
Mr. Davis: If the problem is timing with the weapon, that is, if it is opening too soon while the gas pressure is still too high and for this reason and this reason only the cartridge fails to extract, then this has a significant effect.
However, if the cartridge case sticks in the chamber because the chamber IS PITTED OR CORRODED, remember that it continues to stick, even after the rim has been sheared through and you have to take a cleaning rod to knock it out.
A matter of a fraction of a millisecond delay one way or another will not materially assist failures to extract which come from RUSTY OR CORRODED CHAMBERS.
In the particular instance of the M-16 rifle our analysis of the cause of failures to extract is such that I think we would not gain very much in that particular remedy by reducing the cyclic rate.
Mr. Ichord: Of course now the ball propellant does give you increased debris which will clog up the chamber and make the cartridge difficult to extract, will it not?
Mr. Davis: WELL, OUR TESTS HAVE NOT REALLY CONFIRMED THAT THIS IS TRUE. WE HAVE HAD A HIGHER MALFUNCTION RATE IN EXPERIMENTS WITH BALL PROPELLANT, USUALLY, PERHAPS ALWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HIGHER CYCLIC RATE. But the increased amount of visible fouling from ball propellant, I must say we cannot correlate with any increase in the gun malfunction rate.
Mr. Ichord: Apparently we have some disagreement among experts. The only thing this committee wants, the only thing the full committee wants, the only thing this Congress wants, and the only thing the American people want is some way that we can correct these excessive malfunctions. They cannot be tolerated, period. I don't care what you do to the gun.
AND I CANNOT BUY SOME OF THESE REPORTS THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT IT IS ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF THE MEN OUT THERE IN THE FIELD NOT CLEANING THEIR WEAPONS.
You can't be wet nursing a weapon. You can't be turning around cleaning that weapon when a Vietcong comes towards you. And I know a man - when his life depends on it - is not going to fail to clean his rifle. He should have gotten sufficient training to be able to clean his weapon. The difficulties are not caused by insufficient cleaning and maintenance of the weapon, alone.

...................

Just think had there been a piston design instead of the faulty chamber design that allows for the bullet trash to dirty the chamber

WarriorDiplomat
08-24-2014, 14:35
Mr. Ichord: In order to establish our hypothesis, at this point I want to read into the record the result of tests of the SAWS study:
Field experiment conducted at Fort Ord, California: Section V, Material Reliability Results.

2. Major causes in malfunctions in 5.56mm weapons.
Major causes of most malfunctions in the 5.56 mm. weapons are attributed to an interaction of ammunition (and belt link) deficiencies:
1. Weapon fouling, judged to be caused primarily by qualities of the propellant used in the standard ball 5.56 mm. cartridge.
2. Cycling of weapons in excess of design rates, judged to be caused by combinations of:
(a) Pressure characteristics of the propellant used in the standard ball 5.56 mm. cartridge.
(b) Factory calibration of M-16E1 rifles for a propellant with different pressure characteristics than that in the standard ball 5.56 mm. cartridge.
(c) Mismatch in internal ballistic (pressure) characteristics between the standard 5.56 mm. ball and tracer cartridges.
.................

(a) fouling

Fouling in the 5.56 mm. weapons occurred throughout the experiment. Dirty chambers resulting from rapid carbon buildup caused most of the failures to extract and some of the failures to chamber. Fouling remained a problem throughout the experiment, although cleaning and inspection of weapons were considered more stringent than would be possible during combat.
Inquiry to AMC determined that the propellant adopted for the standard 5.56 mm. ball cartridge is different from the original propellant used during the development and service testing of the M-16E1 rifle and during the development of the Stoner weapons. A USACDCEC test of samples from the lot of standard ammunition used in the experiment showed more fouling than an AMC provided sample containing the original propellant. This supplemental fouling test was conducted using ammunition lots WCC-6098 and RA-5074. This limited test firing of 12,620 rounds indicated a malfunction rate of 5.6 per 1,000 rounds for the cartridge loaded with ball propellant as opposed to 0.91 for IMR propellant loaded cartridges.
(b) Excessive cyclic rate
Excessive cyclic rates were noted early in the experiment. In addition, surging (uneven firing) was noted when ball and tracer were fired together. There was also an increasing incidence of malfunctions attributed to ammunition cycling the weapons beyond their design rates. The cyclic rates were higher than the design cyclic rates, particularly with the M-16E1 rifle and Stoner machinegun. It is concluded that this excessive cyclic rate caused, complicated, and multiplied such malfunctions as failure of the bolt to remain to the rear after the last round was fired from the magazine, FAILURES TO EJECT, and magazine feeding problems.
A concurrent propellant investigation by Frankford Arsenal showed that the propellant currently used in the 5.56 mm. ball cartridge cycles weapons faster than the original propellant.
Inquiry to AMC determined that, to meet a government acceptance requirement, M16E1 rifles are calibrated at the factory for the gas port pressure of the original propellant rather than that of the propellant currently used in standard ball 5.56 mm. cartridges. Interaction of the higher gas port pressure of the current propellant and the sizing of the gas port for a propellant with a lower gas port pressure is considered the reason for the excessive cyclic rate in the M16E1 rifle.

.......................

WarriorDiplomat
08-24-2014, 14:48
Mr. Ichord: Then we seem to get down to the question - perhaps I am being a little derogatory - how much can we wet nurse a rifle by extensive cleaning under combat conditions?
General Anderson: Well, you have to clean the rifle no matter what kind of powder. Whether it would be more difficult to clean it with the ball powder, or with the IMR, I am not sure at all.
Mr. Ichord: One of the generals, the one who returned from Vietnam, has stated - of course, we have statements all over the lot on it. Some say it is no more difficult to clean than any other weapon, and I think we have statements by high authority that more care and maintenance has to be directed to it --
General Anderson: There is more visible residue on the ball powder than on the other.
Mr. Ichord: Yes. I THINK THOSE STATEMENTS THAT THE M-16 REQUIRES MORE CARE AND MAINTENANCE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE BALL PROPELLANT RATHER THAN TO THE RIFLE ITSELF.
General Anderson: We would like to cut down the so-called dirty rifle with either. But with ball powder leaving more visible residue, there is some speculation as to whether it takes longer to clean it. I am not sure of that at all. I don't know.
Mr. Ichord: I am going to ask if anybody else wants to add anything to the record today. I am not going to adjourn the subcommittee sine die. I had hoped to be able to do so. But I want to give you the chance to clarify the record, straighten up any inconsistency that might result, before I adjourn today.
Mr. Counsel.

Notice that weapon fouling and having to wet nurse the weapon was attributed to the ammo not the weapons design. Why would the entire hearing not address the design that caused the fouling?

Below is a more clarified description of what the shitting where it eats I stated earlier.

Direct impingement is a type of gas operation for a firearm that directs gas from a fired cartridge directly into the bolt carrier or slide assembly to cycle the action.

Unlike conventional gas-operated firearms, direct impingement does away with a separate gas cylinder, piston, and operating rod assembly. High-pressure gas acts directly upon the bolt and carrier thereby saving weight, lowering costs, and reducing the mass of the operating parts, and thereby the wear on mechanical parts due to movement.

The main disadvantage of direct impingement is that the breech of the firearm's firing mechanism becomes fouled more quickly due to being exposed to the propellants of the cartidge. This is caused by solids from the high-temperature gas condensing on the bolt face and primary operating mechanism. The combustion gases contain vaporized metals, carbon, and impurities in a gaseous state until they contact cooler operating parts. The deposits increase friction on the bolt's camming system leading to jams, so that thorough and frequent cleaning is required to ensure reliability. The amount of fouling depends upon the rifle's design as well as the type of propellant powder used. For example, the French MAS 44 and MAS 49 series of rifles was known to have been successfully operated for years with corrosive-primed ammunition using ordinary field cleaning expedients such as gasoline (as solvent) and straight-grade motor oil (as lubricant).

A further disadvantage of direct impingement is that combustion gases heat the bolt and bolt carrier as the firearm operates. This heating causes essential lubricant to be "burned off". Lack of proper lubrication is the most common source of weapon stoppages or jams. These combined factors reduce service life of these parts, reliability, and mean time between failures.[

Pericles
08-25-2014, 15:01
Summary - using propellant that was out of spec and left over from 7.62 NATO production caused problems. Who could have expected that?

WarriorDiplomat
08-25-2014, 15:29
Summary - using propellant that was out of spec and left over from 7.62 NATO production caused problems. Who could have expected that?


Is that really all you got out of that?

It is more than just the propellant that is the diversionary explanation of the hearing IMO to protect the contract. We still have the same problem with the alleged proper propellant, it still drops the junk into the bolt carrier group gumming up the operation without constant lube and detailed consistent cleaning.

The Reaper
08-25-2014, 17:58
Crane NWC has tested the current issued M-4 and stated that it will run 5,000 rounds before cleaning is required, minus environmental contamination. They said the carbon will not affect operations as long as it is kept properly lubricated.

Pat Rogers has a BCM M-4 that he uses as a loaner in his classes. "As of this writing, EAG students have 31,165 rounds downrange through Filthy 14. During this evaluation period, it was cleaned once (as in one time), at 26,245 rounds. The end result is that Rack #14 was—and remains—filthy. It is filthy because it has been shot at class. Only at class. Every round that has gone down that barrel has been fired at class, with an average of approximately 1,300 rounds every three days. It has been lubed generously with Slip 2000 Extreme Weapons Lube (EWL)."

http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-magazine-filthy-14/

I have fired the HK 416 a bit, several other piston M-4 variants, to include the PWS, and have been shooting the CAR-15, M-16, AR-15, and M-4 since they came out. I started shooting the earlier models in 1976 or so. Honestly, the latest M-4s I fired have been boringly reliable for my experience. I have fired them till the gas tube glowed red, and they still ran. If properly lubricated, the rifles I fired run just fine and yes, the carbon was dumped into the lube and made everything nasty, but functionally slippery. I accept that your experience may vary.

The M-16 went through some teething pains and should have never been issued without more testing and product improvements. The original AR-15 and M-16 were issued with 1-14" twist rate, which is marginal for the M193 ammunition, which initially contained ball powder to the detriment of cleaning and functioning. It badly needed a chromed chamber. There was inadequate cleaning gear procured and issued, and the soldiers were told it was low-no maintenance. The aluminum magazines were fragile and were not replaced as often as they should have been. The buffer was too light. The extractor spring was not strong enough. The case rim was thin for the intended weapons system. This got quite a few Americans killed. The worst issue, by far was the Ball powder, which burned faster and had a higher gas port pressure and cyclic rate. At this time, Colt was still testing the rifles with the proper IMR powder, rather than the Ball powder loads that the Army had bought and issued. The sad thing was that the Army refused to procure the extruded powder loaded ammo until they finished with the 100,000,000 rounds of ammo loaded with the Ball powder.

The whole M-4 problem was that they chopped almost 6" off the barrel, which created a timing problem which was complicated by buffer weight, gas tube length, gas port size, etc. Again, the weapons were issued before they should have been. The CAR-15 used the muzzle device (sound moderator) to assist with the function issues.

Other weapons have used the direct impingement system without reliability issues, starting in 1901 with the Rossignol and continuing with the Ljungman AG 42 and MAS-49. I consider Eugene Stoner and Jim Sullivan to be among the best small arms designers since John Moses Browning. They, along with most other gun designers I have met or seen cited do not have a problem with direct impingement, as long as the other issues are addressed.

This is what Sullivan had to say in an interview:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_123/512760__ARCHIVED_THREAD____Interview_With_L__James _Sullivan.html&page=1

Piston systems generally make the rifle less accurate, have more parts, and make the weapon heavier.

Some people love the M-16/M-4, and some people hate it. I have owned the M-1A clone of the M-14, the AR and M-4 clones, the issued M-16/M-4 rifles, and some of the piston driven alternatives. If I had to grab one and hit the door, I would have no qualms with the modern M-16/M-4 variants, direct impingement or otherwise.

The Army tried to foist the OICW on us, and after that failed, to salvage the rifle as the HK XM-8. It failed testing.

SOCOM tried and dumped the SCAR after soldiers said that it was no better than the M-4, and in some cases, worse.

Some units have been issued the HK 416 and 417, but those that I have spoken with say that the cost is unjustifiable for the improvement. It seems to me to be a better rifle, but for many thousands of dollars each, I am not sure.

Is the AK more reliable and more easily maintained? Sure. Is 20,000 rounds MBTF better than 5,000 rounds? Absolutely. Is 5-10 MOA acceptable in a combat infantry rifle? I guess it might be, if your targets are all close, or you shoot a lot. It would be fun to draw an AK for qualification the next time a unit is scheduled, and see how well it stacks up. Why hasn't someone done that already? Is the HK 416, or its current version worth 5-10 times more money than the M-4? I don't know. Can we make all of those improvements with a single new rifle? I doubt it.

What the Army said about the competition was that no weapon tested provided a significant improvement over the M-16/M-4 that would justify the cost of a million new rifles and carbines. I think the M-16/M-4 contract is in its third primary provider, from Colt to FN to now I hear, Remington.

I guess we will have to agree to dsagree about that. It sure makes for spirited team room and club discussions though. Then we can discuss the relative merits of the 5.56x45 round.

Good historical citation, WD.

TR

WarriorDiplomat
08-25-2014, 18:51
[
TR[/QUOTE]

They have replaced the M4 with other variants a few times during GWOT. The amount of money spent on fixing our weapons is ridiculous and the reason we now have more than 1 level 3 armorer in Group these days a never ending money pit of performance upgrades to remedy identified issues. I know there are those die hard M4 fans who believe it is iconic I feel to a fault. This is an intensive cleaning heavy weapon that would not serve a soldier isolated and on an E&E or an ODA that is running out of cleaning supplies we need to knock on wood we aren't in a fight with anyone powerful enough to shut down or make logistics impossible.

The Reaper
08-25-2014, 20:37
[
TR

They have replaced the M4 with other variants a few times during GWOT. The amount of money spent on fixing our weapons is ridiculous and the reason we now have more than 1 level 3 armorer in Group these days a never ending money pit of performance upgrades to remedy identified issues. I know there are those die hard M4 fans who believe it is iconic I feel to a fault. This is an intensive cleaning heavy weapon that would not serve a soldier isolated and on an E&E or an ODA that is running out of cleaning supplies we need to knock on wood we aren't in a fight with anyone powerful enough to shut down or make logistics impossible.[/QUOTE]

Well, the M-16 series is the longest serving rifle in U.S. history.

As with all weapons, modifications and improvements were made throughout its history in order to make it more user friendly, reliable, durable, etc. It is not now perfect, nor will its replacement ever be.

Sadly, there have been few significant advancements in small arms over the past 50 years. Between 1850 and 1900, we developed / popularized the brass cartridge case, internal primers, cylindro-conoidal bullets, smokeless powder, copper-jacketed bullets, breech loaders, revolvers, repeating rifles, bolt-action rifles, lever- action rifles, pump-action rifles, automatic-rifles, magazine-fed rifles, optically- sighted rifles, belt-fed machine guns, suppressors, etc., etc. Very little in use today would surprise John Browning, except possibly the fact that the 1911 and the M-2 (almost 100 years old) are still in wide service.

No caseless rounds, no heatless rounds, no magic bullets, no lasers, phasers, or plasma rifles.

The ideal rifle for a cook, may not be ideal for a tanker, may not be optimal for a grunt, may not for a SEAL, may not be for a Marine, or for an SF soldier. The M-4 is IMHO, the first U.S. Army modular rifle, so people will tinker with it to try and adapt it for their use. Or to make it sexy, like swapping in a 10.5" barrel.

As long as they take the same ammo and mags, I could care less which of the several weapons systems team members took with them into combat (unless they are unique and maintenance intensive, or somehow endanger others). If there is something better out there, we should all be pushing for it. I suspect that the Army also fears that taking an expensive evolutionary 20% improvement today might jeopardize their obtaining a revolutionary 50% better weapon in the future.

Of course, given the Army's budget woes, I think we are going to be using what we have now for a long time to come.

Still, it would be fun to take all of the contenders and run them through zero, qual, CQB, etc. for score and see how they all compare.

TR

Toaster
08-25-2014, 22:09
TR, Warrior Diplomat,

Thank you for sharing the information, there are several hours of information and thought to go thru on what's already here.

As far as new bullet designs go, I like the Russian round that's a FMJ with a hollow space behind the tip that crushes. IIRC 5.45 and sometimes referred to as a "poison arrow" round. I believe it follows the letter of the law, but not the intent of the Hague accords. The idea of a bullet that isn't supposed to cause maximum damage and kill quickly is beyond me.

Why don't we rebarrel them for a better caliber? I know they tossed the idea around at some point.

The Reaper
08-25-2014, 23:16
TR, Warrior Diplomat,

Thank you for sharing the information, there are several hours of information and thought to go thru on what's already here.

As far as new bullet designs go, I like the Russian round that's a FMJ with a hollow space behind the tip that crushes. IIRC 5.45 and sometimes referred to as a "poison arrow" round. I believe it follows the letter of the law, but not the intent of the Hague accords. The idea of a bullet that isn't supposed to cause maximum damage and kill quickly is beyond me.

Why don't we rebarrel them for a better caliber? I know they tossed the idea around at some point.

5.45x39 is the Soviet's attempt to make a 5.56x45 round. The "hollow space" is really just where the components (core and penetrator) fit together inside the jacket.

The M855/SS109 round is the NATO force's attempt to make an improved 5.56/5.45 penetrator. The lethality is actually better with the older M193 non-penetrator round. Do some searches here for the terminal ballistics.

The M-16/M-4 is the basis for several caliber change attempts, to include the 6.8 SPC, the 6.5 Grendel, the .300 Whisper and Blackout, the .458 SOCOM, and the .500 Beowulf, among others.

Do your homework.

TR

WarriorDiplomat
08-26-2014, 06:39
TR, Warrior Diplomat,

Thank you for sharing the information, there are several hours of information and thought to go thru on what's already here.

As far as new bullet designs go, I like the Russian round that's a FMJ with a hollow space behind the tip that crushes. IIRC 5.45 and sometimes referred to as a "poison arrow" round. I believe it follows the letter of the law, but not the intent of the Hague accords. The idea of a bullet that isn't supposed to cause maximum damage and kill quickly is beyond me.

Why don't we rebarrel them for a better caliber? I know they tossed the idea around at some point.

The M855 ball regardless of any skewed testing that states it's kill potential the reality is far different than the book answer, the rounds we use are so fast and are designed to penetrate armor and will go right through a human clean and fast. I can only note other experiences and lessons learned like Somalia with the Marines the year before and the TF Ranger the following year. One of the issues that was noted was the round was not adequate for a few reasons.

No feedback, I mean when you fire a heavy round like the 7.62x39 and hit something the target will move with little question. I believe the Marines and Rangers were claiming they would have to shoot someone several times before they felt confident they had neutralized them I also experienced this as well. Carrying a single basic load of 210 rounds kills your confidence in how survivable you could be if a house was being overrun.

When we changed the original ISOF from AK's and fielded M4's and other weapons the 36 commandos immediately noticed the power difference of the weapons. Considering that a majority of their operations were in cities there was no need for a more accurate rifle. They were not confident in the weapon feeling it's lack of "knock down" power.

Every tour I did as the primary trainer I used the AK in training and range time and learned to love the weapon. Regardless of what AK I used I rarely had an issue with 200M accuracy and many times could hut a KD target at 400M. It was comfortable and after a day of range training when it came to maintenance it was a great, the bolt had hardly any residue which was mostly in the bolt face and the piston, a few swabs of the barrel and it was done. You could fire the AK reasonable dry with little damage which is preferable in a dry dusty desert environment which you would be ill advised to do with the Colt.

Just preferences

11Ber
08-26-2014, 11:22
They have replaced the M4 with other variants a few times during GWOT. The amount of money spent on fixing our weapons is ridiculous and the reason we now have more than 1 level 3 armorer in Group these days a never ending money pit of performance upgrades to remedy identified issues. I know there are those die hard M4 fans who believe it is iconic I feel to a fault. This is an intensive cleaning heavy weapon that would not serve a soldier isolated and on an E&E or an ODA that is running out of cleaning supplies we need to knock on wood we aren't in a fight with anyone powerful enough to shut down or make logistics impossible.

In the time I have been in Group I have never seen an M4 get coded or deadlined. Honestly, I have not. I have seen 3 or 4 M9's go down on one range and we constantly have one or two with the armorer. But never an M4. As much as I wish we had 12 SCAR-Hs on the team, I can't hate on the M4A1. Never failed me.

Streck-Fu
08-26-2014, 11:38
A few basic parts could easily sustain an M4: a spare bolt, a few sets of gas rings, maybe a recoil spring but probably not....

Not much goes wrong with it. It takes years of neglect or very dry operation to lead to catastrophic failure.

Just some lube applied from time to time keeps it going. Even motor oil can be used in a pinch.

I understand the criticism of the caliber but not the platform.

I wouldn't be surprised if most failures are from weapons cleaned too much for inspections and run too dry when finally used. "What's all this goop on your bolt?! Wipe that off...."

WarriorDiplomat
08-26-2014, 17:48
A few basic parts could easily sustain an M4: a spare bolt, a few sets of gas rings, maybe a recoil spring but probably not....

Not much goes wrong with it. It takes years of neglect or very dry operation to lead to catastrophic failure.

Not true a dry dusty environment and alot of use will cause it to fail simply because dust and sand stick to lubricant and the weapon is not designed to run dry

Just some lube applied from time to time keeps it going. Even motor oil can be used in a pinch.

The weapon is designed to run wet which was OK in a jungle but not so much in a desert.

I understand the criticism of the caliber but not the platform.

So you would rather give a detailed cleaning on a complicated in comparison weapon with 20+ moving parts that dirties up the bolt for no apparent gain in performance vs a weapon with 8 such as an AK, VZ58, SCAR or HK416 where the junk from the round never even sees the bolt.

I wouldn't be surprised if most failures are from weapons cleaned too much for inspections and run too dry when finally used. "What's all this goop on your bolt?! Wipe that off...."

I doubt that is the case and definitely not from my experience

WarriorDiplomat
08-26-2014, 17:52
In the time I have been in Group I have never seen an M4 get coded or deadlined. Honestly, I have not. I have seen 3 or 4 M9's go down on one range and we constantly have one or two with the armorer. But never an M4. As much as I wish we had 12 SCAR-Hs on the team, I can't hate on the M4A1. Never failed me.

You haven't seen them deadlined I will bet because it is your primary and is taken better care of. I can't speak for your weapons guy but when I was I routinely inspected weapons and did alot of preventative maintenance on ours outside of routine cleaning etc...

bubba
08-26-2014, 19:53
Since the actual doctrine is to use the carbines to defend the machine guns, I'd say the M16 series of carbines does pretty well. Yes, I said M16 carbine. It is a short, light weight, under-powered, easily controlled, short range weapon. The M240 does the work, the M110 does the work, the 60mm mortar does the work. The carbines defend the real weapons doing the work. The exception being CQB obviously, and the "special" variations for "Special Forces" work as well as anything else on the modern battlefield. But hey, what ever, it's just doctrine.....

Old Dog New Trick
08-26-2014, 21:47
Since the actual doctrine is to use the carbines to defend the machine guns, I'd say the M16 series of carbines does pretty well. Yes, I said M16 carbine. It is a short, light weight, under-powered, easily controlled, short range weapon. The M240 does the work, the M110 does the work, the 60mm mortar does the work. The carbines defend the real weapons doing the work. The exception being CQB obviously, and the "special" variations for "Special Forces" work as well as anything else on the modern battlefield. But hey, what ever, it's just doctrine.....

What on earth are you talking about? :munchin

Old Dog New Trick
08-26-2014, 22:10
WD - I can clearly see your dislike of the M4/M16 series of rifle and yes there are better weapons out there, but dollar for dollar and Army wide it is an acceptable platform for what it is.

Was it the best weapon for the last twelve years of war, probably not and a reason some guys started carrying M1A/M14s and other 7.62 variants of battle rifles. (*)

The question is and within the limits of NATO and the Geneva Convention what is so much better that about 500,000 to a million guns should be bought to replace the current standard?

(* girls, cooks and clerks can't shoot a real gun, so one designed with help from Mattel is a better choice for the Army and Marines! :p )

DEVGRU switched to HK416s but what do regular SEALs carry? M4A1s?

It would be nice if SF stepped out of line with big Army but I still see limits on caliber and accessories that are AR compliant just so that across the battle field equipment is compatible. JMHO

BTW I never experienced major problems with the M16/M4A1 in desert, forest, or jungle environments over my twenty years. Only problem of note was in freezing temperatures and that was attributed to user neglect to maintain between warming and freezing cycles. Oops!

frostfire
08-27-2014, 01:28
The weapon is designed to run wet which was OK in a jungle but not so much in a desert.

WarriorDiplomat, et al.

have you experimented with dry lube?

I understand the limitation of the platform, but perhaps latest advancement in dry lube technology can increase the platform's resiliency. IIRC, there's elaborate discussion here on Militec at some point.

Not peddling this one by any means, but tec-shield elite seems promising. In the vid, it's 5000rds through 240, not M16/M4, but still (copy and paste) youtube.com/watch?v=HqYCs99zL78

I've tried it and it works as advertised, but I don't run my lead slingers enough to tell any difference between tec-shield, frog lube, fireclean, army issue CLP or good 'ol spit:D

I'm an AK proponent myself, particularly the 74 variant. I've shot targets of army qual dimensions and distances, and perform just as well as I do with M4/M16. From the AK injuries I treated, there isn't much to add to what's known on effectiveness, but that's caliber discussion and not platform...

WarriorDiplomat
08-27-2014, 13:06
WarriorDiplomat, et al.

have you experimented with dry lube?

I understand the limitation of the platform, but perhaps latest advancement in dry lube technology can increase the platform's resiliency. IIRC, there's elaborate discussion here on Militec at some point.

Not peddling this one by any means, but tec-shield elite seems promising. In the vid, it's 5000rds through 240, not M16/M4, but still (copy and paste) youtube.com/watch?v=HqYCs99zL78

I've tried it and it works as advertised, but I don't run my lead slingers enough to tell any difference between tec-shield, frog lube, fireclean, army issue CLP or good 'ol spit:D

I'm an AK proponent myself, particularly the 74 variant. I've shot targets of army qual dimensions and distances, and perform just as well as I do with M4/M16. From the AK injuries I treated, there isn't much to add to what's known on effectiveness, but that's caliber discussion and not platform...

The M4 did fine for me but I maintained mine, replaced parts ad was always on top of the preventative maintenance. My team really didn't know how many times I took guns to the level 3 or the operator level repairs I was making. Yes we tried various lubes my favorite was a can of good ole water displacement #40 WD 40 for the desert. The fact that their is a small industry dedicated to lubricants trying to make their fortune off DOD and guaranteed they know full well the requirement for good lubricant in this gun. should tell us what others think of it outside of the military as far as industry.

I do not hate the M4 itself just the design, to me to use the blowback of the round to put the junk back into the bolt is ridiculous. The fact that it requires the amount of lube and maintenance it actually does in comparison to the piston design should in itself be an eye opener. As far as this weapon only being security or the big guns?? we are fighting terrorism not taking europe precise operations require a more personal kind of fighting like in your face door to door mitigation of collateral damage not 240's and mortars where women and children are intermingled.

I am not saying that we should buy the HK and pay that price but I am saying that the design should never be accepted as the better design. We replaced the M16A1 fr the A2 then the M4 then the A1-A4 we have spent enough money on repairs to have probably just bought the better weapon in the first place.

As far as mods their is an industry niche for weapon mods like piccatiny rails, scopes etc...it isn't the clever design I care about it is the durability of a simplistic all around weapon. I hate the idea of lobbyist etc....ensuring this weapon keeps it's DOD contracts. At the minimum the weapon should be redesigned to eliminate the fallacy called direct impingement.

I like many here grew up with guns and love turning wrenches and have a fairly good grasp on mechanical concepts and this weapon has always made me question why we would have it. When you look at how cheap, efficient and durable an AK is given the last 70 years of an untouched design and Ops testing I wonder why didn't we consider that mechanical design. The Czechs have a VZ58 with a rail for modular addons and a thumb safety like ours, a piston design and it is everything a soldiers could want and need , I suspect it costs less than an M4 and they used the basic successful idea of why the AK was a success and modified it for their needs. Why didn't we? I will bet we will see the AK with the same design for the next XX years in the hands of terrorists and third world revolutionaries still chugging along proving how much better the design was.

Oh well to each his own, and most here are correct the weapon is not used enough by mother army to warrant a massive revolution. We came close with the HK and the SCAR but our primary will always be the individual weapon the Army says they will buy and field.

Old Dog New Trick
08-27-2014, 13:22
WD - you must remember...

"The greatest quality and testing went into to choosing an individual weapon system for your protection and combat effectiveness - was awarded to the "lowest" bidder!" :p:D

pcfixer
08-27-2014, 18:17
I posted the OP for my learning and that I did learn alot. As for the SF soldiers who contributed, I thank you for your service for our country.

To WD, TR, ODNT, PRB, TS, Billy L-bach and DDO thank you for your responses.

The U.S. Army’s Next Carbine: Hello Gas Piston/Op-Rod “Enhanced M4/M4A1 Carbine”-Type AR (AR-15), Goodbye Direct Gas Impingement (DGI) Operation?

http://www.defensereview.com/the-u-s-armys-next-carbine-hello-gas-pistonop-rod-enhanced-m4m4a1-carbine-type-ar-ar-15-goodbye-direct-gas-impingement-dgi-operation/

6 Facts About AR-15 Gas Impingement Vs. Piston
http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-gear/tactical-guns/ar-15-gas-impingement-vs-piston

I did a search for the differences between the to find more about the the 'gas impingement' vs. 'gas piston' debate.

WD, you do have a very direct opinion of the faults of Colt's AR's and that platform. That being said, I shot many of M16's, not shot an M4 at all. I now own a clone of the Colt AR-15 HB. As a 67 year old retired soldier, I sure wish I had the funds to purchase a M4 or a HK416 as for my purpose to shoot for a hobby and or self defense.

I did find this information to pass along. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine#M4_Product_Improvement_Program
M4 Product Improvement Program
The M4 product improvement program (PIP) is the effort by the U.S. Army to modernize its fleet of M4 service rifles. Phase I consists of converting and replacing regular M4s with the M4A1 version. This variant of the rifle is fully automatic and has a heavier barrel, and is given ambidextrous fire controls.

Phase II of the PIP explored developing a new bolt carrier. 11 designs were submitted. The competition was scheduled to conclude in summer 2013, but ended in April 2012. Over six months of testing revealed that the current bolt carrier assembly outperformed the competing designs, especially in the areas of reliability, durability, and high-temp and low-temp tests.

Phase II also includes a competition for a free-floating forward rail assembly. The Army may award contracts to up to three finalists in early 2013, with the selection of a final winner in early 2014. If the Army determines that the winning rail system should be procured, delivery of new rail is anticipated by the summer of 2014.[24]


On 21 April 2012, the U.S. Army announced to begin purchasing over 120,000 M4A1 carbines to start reequipping front line units from the original M4 to the new M4A1 version. The first 24,000 were to be made by Remington Arms Company. Remington was to produce the M4A1s from mid-2013 to mid-2014.[18]

After completion of that contract, it was to be between Colt and Remington to produce over 100,000 more M4A1s for the U.S. Army. Because of efforts from Colt to sue the Army to force them not to use Remington to produce M4s, the Army reworked the original solicitation for new M4A1s to avoid legal issues from Colt.[19]

On 16 November 2012, Colt's protest of Remington receiving the M4A1 production contract was dismissed, which was thought to[according to whom?] likely result in the Army re-awarding the contract to Remington.[20] Instead, the Army awarded the contract for 120,000 M4A1 carbines worth $77 million to FN Herstal on 22 February 2013.[21][22] The order is expected to be completed by 2018.[23]

M4A1
The M4A1 carbine is a fully automatic variant of the basic M4 carbine intended for special operations use. The M4A1 has a "S-1-F" (safe/semi-automatic/fully automatic) trigger group, while the M4 has a "S-1-3" (safe/semi-automatic/3-round burst) trigger group.

The M4A1 is used by almost all U.S special operation units including, but not limited to, Marine Force Recon, Army Rangers, Army Special Forces, Navy SEALs, United States Air Force Pararescue and Air Force Combat Control Teams. The M4A1 is especially favored by counter-terrorist and special forces units for close quarters combat and urban warfare because of the carbine's compact firepower

Reliability
In early 2010, two journalists from the New York Times spent three months with soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan. While there, they questioned around 100 infantrymen about the reliability of their M4 Carbines, as well as the M16 rifle. Surprisingly, troops did not report to be suffering reliability problems with their rifles. While only 100 troops were asked, they fought at least a dozen intense engagements in Helmand Province, where the ground is covered in fine powdered sand (called "moon dust" by troops) that can stick to firearms.

Weapons were often dusty, wet, and covered in mud. Intense firefights lasted hours with several magazines being expended. Only one soldier reported a jam when his M16 was covered in mud after climbing out of a canal. The weapon was cleared and resumed firing with the next chambered round. Furthermore, a Marine Chief Warrant Officer reported that with his battalion's 700 M4s and 350 M16s, they've had no issues.[53]
The reliability of the M4 has increased as the design was upgraded. In 1990, the M4 was required to fire 600 mean rounds between stoppages using M855 ammunition. In 2013, the current M4A1 version can fire 1,691 mean rounds between stoppages using M855A1 ammunition.[54]

Gas piston
Complicating the Army search for higher reliability in the M4 is a number of observations of M4 gas piston alternatives that suffer unintended design problems. The first is that many of the gas piston modifications for the M4 isolate the piston so that piston jams or related malfunction require the entire weapon be disassembled, such disassembly cannot be performed by the end user and requires a qualified armorer to perform out of field, whereas any malfunction with the direct-impingement system can be fixed by the end user in field.

The second is that gas piston alternatives use an off-axis operation of the piston that can introduce carrier tilt, whereby the bolt carrier fails to enter the buffer tube at a straight angle, resulting in part wearing. The third is that the use of a sound suppressor results in hot gases entering the chamber, regardless of a direct-gas impingement or gas piston design choice. The gas-piston system also causes the firearm to become proprietary to the manufacturer, making modifications and changes with parts from other manufacturers difficult.[15][55] The argument for a gas piston is that it would reduce fouling; while the argument against it is that it would increase weight and reduce accuracy.[citation needed] The Enhanced M4 uses an articulating link piston operating system.

Old Dog New Trick
08-27-2014, 19:04
Pcfixer - I've got a Sig Arms 556 SWAT model rifle. It has a user maintainable gas system with both a low cyclic rate and high cyclic rate (similar to the SAW.) The LE/MIL version - select fire has ability to clear (clean) itself in the high cyclic rate (sadly doesn't do the same in semi-only version) if it begins to run slow or malfunction ('course you'd have to be able to fire full-auto to create the heat to self-clean.) The rifle is part AR part AK in design. When it is stripped down to the basics it's about 2.3-pounds heavier than an M4A1 (some of that is the gas piston system some the folding stock (a nice feature BTW) some stamped metal over cast aluminum, it is also slower to point from low ready due to forward weight.

The thing that scares me about a gas piston system is water and freezing conditions. If that piston gets frozen in the tube you've got a one shot rife.

I like it, it's very accurate (16" barrel) but the weight is an issue for me especially with attachments it gets close to 10-12 pounds of modern tacticool rifle. Good for an LE officer not so good for day in day out carry. I think that it's slow to point and the heavier weight makes me like the lighter M4 with or without things like a PEQ or light forward mounted.

As I said earlier, I have no complaints with the (then circa 12 years ago) M4A1 I was issued. I have seen and fired some very modern variants of the AK47 but can't say with absolute certainty they are not without issues of reliability that would not be found in sloppy old "reliable" military versions of the same.



ETA: I don't know why I posted all that, I guess just wanted say, there are trade offs and neither IMHO are more reliable than the other. It's certainly easier to clean or not need to clean the BCG in a piston operated system, but now you need to clean the piston from the same carbon or it sticks.

pcfixer
08-27-2014, 20:49
Pcfixer - I've got a Sig Arms 556 SWAT model rifle. It has a user maintainable gas system with both a low cyclic rate and high cyclic rate (similar to the SAW.) The LE/MIL version - select fire has ability to clear (clean) itself in the high cyclic rate (sadly doesn't do the same in semi-only version) if it begins to run slow or malfunction ('course you'd have to be able to fire full-auto to create the heat to self-clean.)
The rifle is part AR part AK in design. When it is stripped down to the basics it's about 2.3-pounds heavier than an M4A1 (some of that is the gas piston system some the folding stock (a nice feature BTW) some stamped metal over cast aluminum, it is also slower to point from low ready due to forward weight.

The thing that scares me about a gas piston system is water and freezing conditions. If that piston gets frozen in the tube you've got a one shot rife.


How can the rifle be part AR and part AK in design? Sounds and looks like a nice firearm to me too. Do you use this with a 2 point adjustable sling?

BTW, Thank you for the information.

The Reaper
08-27-2014, 20:59
Pcfixer - I've got a Sig Arms 556 SWAT model rifle. It has a user maintainable gas system with both a low cyclic rate and high cyclic rate (similar to the SAW.) The LE/MIL version - select fire has ability to clear (clean) itself in the high cyclic rate (sadly doesn't do the same in semi-only version) if it begins to run slow or malfunction ('course you'd have to be able to fire full-auto to create the heat to self-clean.) The rifle is part AR part AK in design. When it is stripped down to the basics it's about 2.3-pounds heavier than an M4A1 (some of that is the gas piston system some the folding stock (a nice feature BTW) some stamped metal over cast aluminum, it is also slower to point from low ready due to forward weight.

The thing that scares me about a gas piston system is water and freezing conditions. If that piston gets frozen in the tube you've got a one shot rife.

I like it, it's very accurate (16" barrel) but the weight is an issue for me especially with attachments it gets close to 10-12 pounds of modern tacticool rifle. Good for an LE officer not so good for day in day out carry. I think that it's slow to point and the heavier weight makes me like the lighter M4 with or without things like a PEQ or light forward mounted.

As I said earlier, I have no complaints with the (then circa 12 years ago) M4A1 I was issued. I have seen and fired some very modern variants of the AK47 but can't say with absolute certainty they are not without issues of reliability that would not be found in sloppy old "reliable" military versions of the same.



ETA: I don't know why I posted all that, I guess just wanted say, there are trade offs and neither IMHO are more reliable than the other. It's certainly easier to clean or not need to clean the BCG in a piston operated system, but now you need to clean the piston from the same carbon or it sticks.

AR lowers (and uppers) should be forged 6061 aluminum T-6 tempered, IIRC, not cast.

TR

Old Dog New Trick
08-27-2014, 21:02
How can the rifle be part AR and part AK in design? Sounds and looks like a nice firearm to me too. Do you use this with a 2 point adjustable sling?

BTW, Thank you for the information.

I don't have a sling on it at the moment, but yes a 2-point or 1-point sling would work just fine.

How is it an AR/AK? Well, for the most part it's all AR except the bolt and upper receiver are built like an AK/HK and there is no need for a buffer (buffer tube) and spring behind the bolt, which allows the folding stock and all. It's a roller block cam bolt much like an HK. Pretty well designed rifle over all.

pcfixer
08-27-2014, 21:21
I don't have a sling on it at the moment, but yes a 2-point or 1-point sling would work just fine.

How is it an AR/AK? Well, for the most part it's all AR except the bolt and upper receiver are built like an AK/HK and there is no need for a buffer (buffer tube) and spring behind the bolt, which allows the folding stock and all. It's a roller block cam bolt much like an HK. Pretty well designed rifle over all.

Just had to search for answer.

The description of the 556 as "an AK and an AR getting together and having a baby" pretty much accurately describes the Sig rifle.

Mechanically speaking, it's essentially an AK. But it also has the tight build tolerances and, arguably, the better ergonomics of an AR. And IMHO, and owing to it's Swiss heritage, the 556 has one of the best triggers to be found on an EBR.

Does this look like to bolt?

Old Dog New Trick
08-27-2014, 21:26
AR lowers (and uppers) should be forged 6061 aluminum T-6 tempered, IIRC, not cast.

TR

You are right, I was mistaken in my speak.

Old Dog New Trick
08-27-2014, 21:28
Just had to search for answer.


Does this look like to bolt?

Yup, and it stays clean!

fox33c1
09-23-2014, 16:10
If I may let me drop a bit of fuel on this fire.

#1 Logistics. We have metric shit tons of 5.56 and 7.62x51 on hand. We will not field a rifle in any other caliber other than these for the near term. As much as I like 300blk, 6.5CM, and 6.8, they are not going to happen on a large scale .mil. Not in the near future and possibly ever. Why? too expensive to change over for a minimal increase in performance and flexibility from either of these two rounds.

#2 Next generation hardware. I think we are on the verge of the next generational leap in small arms. have worked with Handl Defense on their Mk.17/Mk.20 improvement program, I think I know what is next. They have conceptual prototypes of caseless guns and a handheld rail gun. They know/ have access to one of the guys who worked on 4.6 caseless from an HK project. I know HK and and others are looking at what we will use in 2040.

I also think the Army as a whole wants a generational leap. I use the analogy of the 350 Chevy Small block vs. the V8 electric hybrid from the Porsche 918. We all have seen some insanely tuned 350 small blocks (unless you are gay:cool:). Balanced cranks, carrillo rods, blueprinted motors, holley 4 barrels, superchargers, etc. 450 hp with 400 ft lbs of torque. A pinnacle of that technology, a monster motor. Unfortunately nothing in the face of the next generation. The 918's 4.8L v8 hybrid motor puts out 887 horsepower and about 1000 ft. lbs of torque. sub 7 minutes at nuremburgring

No matter how hard you try, old technology can't match modern technology and materials. Guns, cars, bikes, its all the same, if applied properly, new tech is better than old.

The Army I think sees the M16/M4 and even the SCAR and HK417 as the chevy 350. Old tech, but executed to the best possible level. Beyond the capabilities of most, but something much better is on the horizon.

I do not think we will get a new carbine/ battle rifle other than the 417/416 until the next generational benchmark is produced. Think a rail gun with the ability to modulate the penetration of the tungsen dart based off of type of / distance to target. Optics that will auto calculate distance and wind drift. Then tell the gun to shoot with X amount of joules to cause X effect.

I think this is the small arm army wants, and it will keep replacing $900 m4's and burning stock piles of 5.56 and 7.62 until its ready.

DDD
09-23-2014, 21:19
The Army I think sees the M16/M4 and even the SCAR and HK417 as the chevy 350. Old tech, but executed to the best possible level. Beyond the capabilities of most, but something much better is on the horizon.


I have to agree with this sedimate..... The vast majority of the military knows very little about the weapons that they see once a year on a flat range.

Brush Okie
09-23-2014, 21:31
Pcfixer - I've got a Sig Arms 556 SWAT model rifle. It has a user maintainable gas system with both a low cyclic rate and high cyclic rate (similar to the SAW.) The LE/MIL version - select fire has ability to clear (clean) itself in the high cyclic rate (sadly doesn't do the same in semi-only version) if it begins to run slow or malfunction ('course you'd have to be able to fire full-auto to create the heat to self-clean.) The rifle is part AR part AK in design. When it is stripped down to the basics it's about 2.3-pounds heavier than an M4A1 (some of that is the gas piston system some the folding stock (a nice feature BTW) some stamped metal over cast aluminum, it is also slower to point from low ready due to forward weight.

The thing that scares me about a gas piston system is water and freezing conditions. If that piston gets frozen in the tube you've got a one shot rife.

I like it, it's very accurate (16" barrel) but the weight is an issue for me especially with attachments it gets close to 10-12 pounds of modern tacticool rifle. Good for an LE officer not so good for day in day out carry. I think that it's slow to point and the heavier weight makes me like the lighter M4 with or without things like a PEQ or light forward mounted.

As I said earlier, I have no complaints with the (then circa 12 years ago) M4A1 I was issued. I have seen and fired some very modern variants of the AK47 but can't say with absolute certainty they are not without issues of reliability that would not be found in sloppy old "reliable" military versions of the same.



ETA: I don't know why I posted all that, I guess just wanted say, there are trade offs and neither IMHO are more reliable than the other. It's certainly easier to clean or not need to clean the BCG in a piston operated system, but now you need to clean the piston from the same carbon or it sticks.

I appreciate the info on the sig. I have been wanting one for a while, but never heard any feedback from someone I trusted or knew what they were talking about. BTW have you used Mobil 1 synthetic for lube? It might help your carbon clean up? The only thing I don't like about the sig from handling them in the store is the location of the safety. For some reason it seems a little to far away and awkward to flip. SAtill want one however.

MAB32
09-23-2014, 22:46
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxwe5bbBF3c

Also a video from the Picatinney Arsenal on a comparison between the AK and the M-16A1.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0


This discussion kind of reminds me of the T48 vs the T44 fiasco.

Also don't forget this rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-18

Old Dog New Trick
09-24-2014, 00:23
I appreciate the info on the sig. I have been wanting one for a while, but never heard any feedback from someone I trusted or knew what they were talking about. BTW have you used Mobil 1 synthetic for lube? It might help your carbon clean up? The only thing I don't like about the sig from handling them in the store is the location of the safety. For some reason it seems a little to far away and awkward to flip. SAtill want one however.

No problem at all. Same location (grip to thumb), 1/3 throw compared to 1/2 throw, and ambidextrous too boot.

No I haven't tried different lubes, very happy with TW-25B lube or CLP and Birchwood Casey Gun Scrubber for solvent.

I really, really like this rifle, just a tad heavy compared to an M-4.


BTW, I was very upset when my department gave our HK416s away, very stupid for having already purchased them. Very fine rifle!!!

Also, when you (if) you get up my way, you're welcome to shoot mine.

ccrn
10-03-2014, 10:38
Five bucks says it was a Jr. SSG 18B.......:D Funny that damn M4A1 worked just fine for me for all those years. Did it jam, yeah, maybe once a year. Watching the TV reporting the war and keeping a close eye on how some of the lads are carrying and firing the M4A1 it's amazing it doesn't jam every other round.

Since when was it a smart idea to hold onto the mag while firing? Seen quite a few of our military doing that while engaged with the islamic morons.


Ditto.




I carried an M4 of varying models (and one made by FN while in Iraq) for over 22 month in combat, fired thousands of round clean, dirty, wet, and dry and never had a problem......





not saying its right but in defense of some shooters Ive seen a lot of guys hold on to the magazine well and not the actual magazine while engaging-