Army quits tests after competing rifle outperforms M4A1 carbine

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Pericles

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]

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...ine-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_123/5...an.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]

[
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]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

[
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]

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]

Originally Posted by Toaster

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]

Originally Posted by Toaster

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]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

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]

Originally Posted by 11Ber

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bubba

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?

[Old Dog New Trick]

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! )

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]

Originally Posted by WarriorDiplomat

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

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...