Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test

"The M4 carbine, the weapon soldiers depend on in combat, finished last in a recent "extreme dust test" to demonstrate the M4's reliability compared to three newer carbines."

About 4-7 times as many stoppages as the XM8, HK416, MK16 SCAR Light.

Army Times article:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/

Army press release:

Army tests carbines for the third time in extreme dust Dec 17, 2007

Recently Army testing laboratories at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,
subjected the M4 carbine and three other weapons to a severe environmental test called the "Carbine Extreme Dust Test." The lab environment allowed
engineers to push the weapons beyond their technical limits to better inform
and understand what is required for the most capable weapons on the current
battlefield. This was the third such test for the Army's carbine of choice,
the M4.

The weapons were exposed to "heavy dusting," similar to an intense and
sustained dust storm, several times for 25 hours. There were ten weapons of
each of the four different types of carbines. Each fired 6,000 rounds
(60,000 rounds per type). Individually, each weapon fired fifty 120 round
cycles with minimal cleaning and lubrication (wiped and lubed every 600
rounds; fully cleaned after every 1,200 rounds). The maintenance performed
during the test was the equivalent to not performing even minimal cleaning
of the weapon until after firing nearly three basic loads of ammunition (a
Soldier's basic load is 210 rounds).

The Army noted all the weapons in the test performed well: the number of
stoppages all the carbines exhibited was roughly one percent or less of the
total rounds fired by each, meaning the weapons had over a 98% reliability
rate under these unique conditions. Though the M4 performed exceptionally
well, it came in fourth compared to the other three carbines in this
particular extreme single-environment (dust as the only condition) testing.
The Army is taking these test results seriously. These preliminary results
revealed or confirmed several areas for potential materiel improvements to
the M4 and the other weapon types in the test. A full analysis of the test
data is expected in several weeks, and the Army will evaluate those areas
that can be improved.

The M4 in particular is a weapon subjected to intense scrutiny and remains
one of the most improved pieces of Army equipment: there have been over
390 improvements since it was introduced into the force. But it has become
one of the most popular weapons in the Army inventory: every post-combat
survey taken in the last several years shows an almost 90% approval rating
for the M4 among Soldiers. Official requests and "operational needs
statements" from the combat zones show the M4 as the weapon of choice for its size,
weight, versatility and performance.

Soldiers shared their comments about the M4 in recent surveys. "The M4 was
an extremely dependable weapon system," writes a 10th Mountain Division
(Light Infantry) command sergeant major who served in Afghanistan. "We
operated at extreme elevations (10,000 feet) along with extreme climate
changes from one end of the spectrum to the other. I cannot remember any
occasions where an M4 malfunctioned or failed to perform."

A 10th Mountain first sergeant writes "Of all the weapons that I have fired
in the Army, I like the M4 best."

Similar comments come from other Army divisions. "The 101st has no issues
with the M4 and, as a matter of fact the Soldiers of all MOS's to include
cooks, mechanics, administrative clerks and nurses are getting very
proficient with the M4," writes a 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
command sergeant major.

"While I am confident in the reliability, accuracy and effectiveness of the
M4 in today's fight because of what Soldiers tell us, we're never satisfied
with good enough," said General Dick Cody, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff.
"We will look at the test results when they are complete and assess any
needed adjustments to the M4. We will also determine if our requirements
need to change for this weapon."

"The Soldier in the field is our number one priority," Secretary of the Army
Pete Geren said. "And that means testing our equipment to the highest of
standards so that we can understand and improve their performance in the
harshest of conditions. Our commitment is to continue to field the best
equipped and best trained fighting force in
the world."

Why not utilize the venerable AK47 in dusty desert environments. They are cheap, reliable, prolific and have a renewable source of ammo - battlefield recovery?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkPotts:
Why not utilize the venerable AK47 in dusty desert environments.

Some AK-47s pulled out of the Iraqi desert were so fouled with sand and rust that they refused to function. Don't confuse "low maintenance" with "no maintenance".

Despite what most sources would have you believe, an AK-47 isn't that lethal. The 7.62x39 round's ability to penetrate lies mostly in the low velocity of the bullet. By traveling slow, it doesn't fragment after initial impact, so it travels through things. Fine if you're shooting at telephone poles. Not so good if you're shooting at people, because bullets tend to pass through, making a simple entry and exit wound.

Combine the AK design with a 5.56 NATO round? Been done. Israel's Galil and South Africa's R4 (Galil clone) are just that. All the good features of the AK - heavy as hell too. Take a good look at Israeli troops sometime - their standard service rifle is the M16, because it's lighter and cheaper. IIRC, in today's Israeli military, only reservists (and very few of those) and armor crewmen use Galils.

They get the M16s for free from US, have to use their own money to make their own stuff.

IIRC, they have fielded a new service rifle, the Tavor?

Some of the brigades have them, I understand, and it's performed pretty well. However, it is more expensive and the M16 has done well for the Israelis. If they do adopt it fully, it will probably be a bit down the road. It is seeing service and apparently the Israelis like it, but India, one of the first countries they exported the rifle to, has had some major problems with it.

In regards to the test, as I said on the other thread, this was really like shooting fish in a barrel. "The piston systems were cleaner and more reliable" duh! Next, they'll conduct a study to prove that SUVs suck up more gas than mountain bikes

Here's my thought, mostly based on BTDTs I've talked to on SOCNET. The M4 is a good, reliable weapon, no doubt about that. Yes, it fouls quicker and needs to be cleaned more often and more thoroughly than a piston gun. Does this mean we NEED a piston AR? Obviously, the M4 is doing its job. Would a piston AR be a good idea? According to Sharky (SOCNET), yes, and there's really no reason why not. All they would really have to do would be to buy new uppers and that would be it. There would be no retraining, except for cleaning procedures, it would be cheaper than a whole new weapon system, and the switch would not even be a speed bump.

Now, this knocks as the 416 upper out, as it is build differently than most ARs and would not for sure be compatible with current lower receivers.

One thing the government needs to learn: If they see a problem, that does mean destroy it and start from scratch, it means fix the problem and keep the good. The M4/M16 has a lot of good aspects, no need to trash it yet. Just keep the improvements coming.

They stacked the deck against the M4 fom the start, by "heavily" lubing the rifle.

-10 emphasises LIGHT lube in dusty/sandy environs.

Why they can't make any of these "tests" fair, is beyond me.

BTW, I've not had to repair a single M4 since I've been here...That says more than there "test" ever could.

It was a "fair" test in that all the guns were treated the same as far as clean/lube/dust/fire cycles.

The purpose of the test was not to see how the M4 or other weapons performed w normal care (they already know that), but how they compared under "extreme" conditions, in this case that meant too much lube, too little clean, etc.

Now we know. No more, no less.

The other purpose of the test was too build a case for a change. Plenty are happy w the M4, just as plenty are happy w the M9. Many are not happy w them too.

There are groups who want to stick w the M4/M9 and/or 5.56/9mm, and those who want new stuff and/or new calibers. We will see tests and survey results from all of them. The Army press release about this test is an example of the flip side and CYA: the M4 wasn't best in this test, but it's close enough, the troops like it, we are on top of this.

Many want to save the money for other things, many want to generate some new contracts...

I'm old enough to remember the last time we did this... kinda like the tests we saw in the 60/70s when the USAF/Army proved the 5.56/9mm and M16/M9 were better than the 7.62/.45 and M14/M1911A1. Many did not agree then or now...

This test was very politically motivated. The problem is, the issues with the M4 were not how it was handling dusty environments, but the heat generated from the direct impingement system.

Now, as guys who have BTDT like SnB will tell you, there are a lot of dead bad guys dating back as far as 1964 who say that the direct impingement ARs have fired successfully over a million times. It works fine, very few complaints. However, this does not mean that, perhaps instead of buying that extra F/A-18 Hornet, they can work on improving the already superb M-16 series. There's a discussion on this at SOCNET with a lot of good ideas.

the M-8 had the LEAST amount of stoppages in these tests. I was told [2nd hand info]that the m-8's polymer grip heats up after firing a couple 30 rnd mags. the Israeli's had the same problem with the Magal, and they fixed it. Wat happens if ur in a running gunbattle over a 24 to 48 hr. period and ur M-4 jams? The time to switch has come. I wish the politicians would stay outta the procurement process. That is where the REAL problem lies.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa_Yam:

quote:

Originally posted by MarkPotts:
Why not utilize the venerable AK47 in dusty desert environments.

Some AK-47s pulled out of the Iraqi desert were so fouled with sand and rust that they refused to function. Don't confuse "low maintenance" with "no maintenance".

Despite what most sources would have you believe, an AK-47 isn't that lethal. The 7.62x39 round's ability to penetrate lies mostly in the low velocity of the bullet. By traveling slow, it doesn't fragment after initial impact, so it travels through things. Fine if you're shooting at telephone poles. Not so good if you're shooting at people, because bullets tend to pass through, making a simple entry and exit wound.

Combine the AK design with a 5.56 NATO round? Been done. Israel's Galil and South Africa's R4 (Galil clone) are just that. All the good features of the AK - heavy as hell too. Take a good look at Israeli troops sometime - their standard service rifle is the M16, because it's lighter and cheaper. IIRC, in today's Israeli military, only reservists (and very few of those) and armor crewmen use Galils.

the Israeli military has been using the M-4 since it was smaller and easier to use in the urban environment. The Tavor is a bullpup that will be the main infantry carbine. It also can be used for different missions, from carbine to LMG to sniper rifle. The M-16 is just too unwieldly upclose. A piston driven system is more reliable too. Anything Hk puts out, i would be comfortable with. The 416 was designed by 2 SF operators, one being Larry Vickers. I can't wait until the pistol debate begins. The M9 is almost history.

Iam a fan of "Weaponology". I think Machowicz is a funny, but serious dude. Again, they showcased a carbine built by a small company outside Denver. It was not Magpul. They built a 6.8 short stroke carbine that has all the features of the M-4, like the grip, tele-stock, but it spits out that 6.8, on full auto too. Its short, made for up close battles. There are a lot of small companies coming up with these firearms, like Barrett [468] Magpul, and P.O.S..i wish they would go with the 6.8, its a bigger round than the 5.56, and one round can stop a man. If it was not for the optics on the M-16, M-4, there would not have been so many head shots, kill shots. Changing the round and using a piston system would be a helluva good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by RHYNO506:
i wish they would go with the 6.8, its a bigger round than the 5.56, and one round can stop a man.

One round of 5.56 can stop a man too. And sometimes it takes many rounds, the same goes for the 7.62 NATO, the 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and it will be the same for the 6.8. There is no, "One round, anywhere, anytime."

quote:

If it was not for the optics on the M-16, M-4, there would not have been so many head shots, kill shots. Changing the round and using a piston system would be a helluva good thing.

The round of choice and operating system had nothing to do with the amount of head shots taken. A head shot is always going to be more effective, and if you have optics that would give a greater hit percentage on a head shot, you're going to take it I'm sure. There are rounds that will incapacitate more reliably than the 5.56, and maybe in the future, there will be a move in that direction, but don't think that it was the shortcomings of that round that brought the need for optics. The reason for optics was hit percentage, period. Doesn't matter what you're shooting; ain't gonna do much good if you don't hit your target in the first place

M-14 Loyalist, i can appreciate ur views. However, the 6.8 rnd hits with more kinetic energy, a bigger slug than the 5.56. I know shot placement is important, but wat if the enemy is behind a thin wall? or in a car? the 6.8 will punch right through that. I think the 5.56 has a place, but i think the 6.8 is a better round. When they test it in actual combat, then we will hear it right from the horse's mouth. If I could have had one of those modified M-14's they are remaking now, damn i would take it.

It doesnt matter what system or weapon you go to until the training on said systems is improved and taken seriously. That doesnt apply to the Combat Arms side of the house, well maybe it doesnt apply to the infantry, but as for the rest of the force, I think it may apply more than less depending on the commanders focus.