Army quits tests after competing rifle outperforms M4A1 carbine

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by frostfire

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

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]

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!"

[pcfixer]

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...dgi-operation/

6 Facts About AR-15 Gas Impingement Vs. Piston
http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-ge...ment-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_carb...vement_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]

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]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

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]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

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]

Originally Posted by pcfixer

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]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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]

Originally Posted by pcfixer

Just had to search for answer.


Does this look like to bolt?

Yup, and it stays clean!

[fox33c1]

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). 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]

Originally Posted by fox33c1

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

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]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Five bucks says it was a Jr. SSG 18B....... 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-