FYI: M4, XM8, SCAR and HK416 to compete

[ChuckS]

FROM:

Jane's International Defence Review - September 01, 2007

Operational experience prompts rifle shoot-off reliability trials

Ben Goodlad

Andrew White

Key Points

• M4, XM8, SCAR and HK416 to compete in extreme dust environment tests
  
• Test results could determine future procurement for US Army
  

A variety of specially selected assault rifles are competing against Colt Defense's M4 carbine in extreme dust environment tests in response to concerns over its reliability on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The tests, which starts on 21 August at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, are aimed at recreating operational conditions where fine particles of sand can cause multiple weapon stoppages.

According to the US Army, the reliability of the M4 carbine will be scrutinised alongside three rival 5.56 mm carbines in an effort to aid the US Infantry Center in selecting the most effective weapon for future operations.

Weapons included in the shoot-off against the M4 include FN Herstal's Mk16 SOF (Special Operations Forces) Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and Heckler & Koch's (H&K) XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle and HK416 Enhanced Carbine. The tests will look exclusively at performance in dusty conditions with a focus on reliability rather than accuracy.

Some 10 weapons of each design will fire 6,000 rounds each to examine how they perform in dusty conditions. The weapons and loaded magazines will also be exposed to extreme dust for 30 minutes before firing 120 rounds, simulating the dust encountered and gathered on patrols in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To test the robustness of the weapons, maintenance will be low. Each rifle will be wiped down and lubricated once every 600 rounds with a full clean taking place after 1,200 rounds.

With 80 per cent parts commonality with its progenitor the M16A2, Colt's M4 has been in service with the US Army since 1994. Using a gas tube system where the gas is applied directly to the bolt carrier, the M4 is currently replacing all M16A2 assault rifles in the US Army inventory.

The US Army has already replaced up to 10 per cent of its M16/A2 weapons (about 200,000 systems) with the M4 carbine. The US Marine Corps is expected to follow a similar strategy.

Consecutive budgets of USD98 million and USD103 million have been earmarked for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 for the army trials.

The test announcement follows a report by the Centre for Naval Analysis in 2006, which found that 80 per cent of 2,600 soldiers returning from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were confident in the M4's reliability. Thirty per cent said that the weapon was difficult to maintain.

The environmental tests will see the M4's direct gas system compete against the short-stroke piston gas system of the HK416, XM8 and SCAR as they battle to prevent dust and dirt entering the breach.

FN Herstal's SCAR is currently in low-level production in the US following the raising of an urgent operational requirement by the Special Operations Command in 2003.

With its 'tappet' closed gas system, which localises gas and propellant residue in the tappet/cylinder area and away from the rest of the system, SCAR can be adapted to both 5.56 mm (Mk 16) and 7.62 mm (Mk 17) calibres and includes a choice of three barrel lengths, varying the lethality of the weapon as required for different tasks.

H&K's proprietary gas system, which is also referred to as a short-stroke piston gas system, does not introduce propellant gases and associated carbon build-up into the weapon's interior, thus reducing cleaning time and stoppages while increasing reliability, according to the company.

The HK416 has proven capable of firing 20,000 rounds without cleaning, lubrication, stoppages or parts replacement, the company added.

The XM8 lightweight assault carbine programme was shelved in 2005 pending further evaluation of requirements having been developed under a USD5 million contract awarded to H&K by the US Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC).

Director of Sabre Defence Industries, Guy Savage, which manufactures the M4 in the UK, told Jane's that a focus on low maintenance could create a trade-off for accuracy.

Describing the M4 as a more accurate weapon compared to gas piston operating systems, which decrease in accuracy as cyclic rate increases, Savage said: "Do you permit poor soldiers to poorly maintain their weapons or do you follow standard operating procedures in keeping a weapon clean and take that as a trade-off to increase hit probability?"

Colt's chief operating officer, Major General James R Battaglini (Retd), added: "In a desert environment, for example, sand and dust have the same effects on a weapon, whether it has a gas piston system or a gas impingement system. This issue is completely different from a debate over a gas piston system operating cleaner than a gas impingement system."

He continued: "Is a gas piston-operated weapon less vulnerable to the effects of the desert than a gas impingement system? If so, where are the results of the controlled tests?"

According to Savage, the direct gas system is a superior, self-cleaning weapon, with gas forcing dirt out of the exhaust vent behind the firing pin. "I think the M4 will surprise a lot of people," he said.

Testing, data collection and analysis is due to take a total of five months.

[SA Friday]

I really want to see the results of this, but I wish they were testing someplace a little closer to desert conditions than MD. You can simulate all you want, but until the air is dry as a bone, its so hot from only sun exposure that you need gloves to handle the gun , and dust varying in size from talc to tiny little pieces of glass, the testing is too limited.

I would REALLY like them to expand this even further and take another set of firearms to Greenland in the winter and see what happens there too.

Geesh, what happened to good old fashioned torture testing? I bet a half dozen of us could do better than a bunch of geeks in a lab somewhere. I mean really, give a set of guns and 200,000 rounds to a half dozen 3 gun shooters from various areas of the US and tell them to figure out everything they can about the guns; good, bad, and ugly. Then give a set to a couple of the high end gunsmiths for 3 gun and get their inputs, what works, what's crap, and what can be done to fix it? There really wouldn't be anything else that could be found at that point.

And I bet they are overpaying for the testing too.....

[Carlos]

I really want to see the results of this, but I wish they were testing someplace a little closer to desert conditions than MD. You can simulate all you want, but until the air is dry as a bone, its so hot from only sun exposure that you need gloves to handle the gun , and dust varying in size from talc to tiny little pieces of glass, the testing is too limited.

I would REALLY like them to expand this even further and take another set of firearms to Greenland in the winter and see what happens there too.

Geesh, what happened to good old fashioned torture testing? I bet a half dozen of us could do better than a bunch of geeks in a lab somewhere. I mean really, give a set of guns and 200,000 rounds to a half dozen 3 gun shooters from various areas of the US and tell them to figure out everything they can about the guns; good, bad, and ugly. Then give a set to a couple of the high end gunsmiths for 3 gun and get their inputs, what works, what's crap, and what can be done to fix it? There really wouldn't be anything else that could be found at that point.

And I bet they are overpaying for the testing too.....

Good point about MD. Would it be that difficult to find a secure area in Afganistan or Iraq & leave examples of all three rifles outside overnight in a real dust storm, then test all 3 the next day? - that might not constitute "laboratory controlled conditions" - but do you know of any combat units fighting under "laboratory controlled conditions" ?

Edited August 27, 2007 by Carlos

[EricW]

And once again, salemanship rules the day and the testing completely misses the point.

Edited August 27, 2007 by EricW

[Derek45]

And once again, salemanship rules the day and the testing completely misses the point.

+1

HK has a great MARKETING department.

[ranger]

"Do you permit poor soldiers to poorly maintain their weapons or do you follow standard operating procedures in keeping a weapon clean and take that as a trade-off to increase hit probability?"

That is a little misleading. You can keep your weapons religiously clean but a soldier cannot plan when a sandstorm blows up or ask for relief when required to operatie in "moon dust" conditions.

Another issue is barrel length - I loved the M4's portability but that short barrel sures does lose a lot of velocity. I hope that the 77 grain loads will become standard issue.

[Religious Shooter]

"Do you permit poor soldiers to poorly maintain their weapons or do you follow standard operating procedures in keeping a weapon clean and take that as a trade-off to increase hit probability?"

That is a little misleading. You can keep your weapons religiously clean but a soldier cannot plan when a sandstorm blows up or ask for relief when required to operatie in "moon dust" conditions.

Sure but ...

Colt's chief operating officer, Major General James R Battaglini (Retd), added: "In a desert environment, for example, sand and dust have the same effects on a weapon, whether it has a gas piston system or a gas impingement system. This issue is completely different from a debate over a gas piston system operating cleaner than a gas impingement system."

When that sandstorm blows how's a piston system gonna help you?

[EricW]

Exactamundo. They all have essentially the same bolt/carrier/barrel extension system, so the differences between the three will be insignificant at best. The issue is being totally ignored. What's *really* needed is a bolt / bolt-extension / carrier redesign that is self-cleaning and gives the crud somewhere to escape to during lockup. But that's hard and takes engineering talent. So let's ignore it and fuss over how the bolt gets pushed backwards, which was never the problem to begin with.

[markcic]

I really want to see the results of this, but I wish they were testing someplace a little closer to desert conditions than MD. You can simulate all you want, but until the air is dry as a bone, its so hot from only sun exposure that you need gloves to handle the gun , and dust varying in size from talc to tiny little pieces of glass, the testing is too limited.

I would REALLY like them to expand this even further and take another set of firearms to Greenland in the winter and see what happens there too.

Having been all over APG/ATC and into damn near every building at the test center at APG. They more than have the capability to simulate the correct conditions. Check out the ATC website.

[ChuckS]

I have had multiple avionics components for dust testing. While I have not been to the sandbox, I have talked to people who have and they say that the dust chamber with the right selection of particle size does a very good job representing the conditions. I second that with the few Az sandstorms that I have witnessed. It is amazing where the dust winds up! We had a mission computer that we found dust in places where we did not know there were places. Environmental testing can be very thorough.

But, testing for soldier/sailor/airperson-proofing can only be done in the field.

Later,

Chuck

PS: You should see stuff coming out of the salt-fog test!

[Scooter]

Where did you find the time machine? Article is dated 9/1/07, but right now it's only 8/28.

On Futureweapons, they did the sand thing with the 416, but they always made sure to close the bolt dust cover before pouring sand on it. Not exactly a true test there.

[11.43mm]

GREAT term "'moon dust' '

[Mike P]

Do any of those rifles being tested use the Leitner-Wise operating system?

Mike

[ChuckS]

Where did you find the time machine? Article is dated 9/1/07, but right now it's only 8/28.

Jane's web site.

[jobob]

I'm thinking there is a combination of factors affecting rifle reliability. The heat and carbon dump into the actionon a gas inpingment AR, in conjunction with extreme dusty conditions, certainly could result in lower reliability than the piston systems. Also, if the cleaning interval can be extended by use of a piston system, this would certainly be an advantage to troops in the field, who may not have the luxury of getting into a relatively dust free environment to strip and clean their weapons in the middle of a firefight.

[davidwiz]

It seems like you copy/pasted the entire Jane's article. Isn't that a violation of Jane's copyright?

[SA Friday]

No monetary gain, therefore nothing to sue over, and he also gave credit to Jane's as releasing the material.

Quite literally not worth 10 minutes of a corporate lawyers time.

[davidwiz]

No monetary gain, therefore nothing to sue over, and he also gave credit to Jane's as releasing the material.

Quite literally not worth 10 minutes of a corporate lawyers time.

With all the harping about private property rights here, it is nice to see that Janes' property rights are being respected. And FYI, it doesn't matter if there is financial gain or not - infringement is still infringement. Further, crediting the source of the copyrighted material doesn't make it lawful.

[cottyw]

Been here in the sand box for a year. Got about 5K through my M4 and about the same with my pistol. Most in training some in combat. I run mine wet. I give it a few squirts before I go out. Same with my pistol and crew served weapons on the team. No problems. Everything is always dirty (moon dust). I have seen about 100 broken AK’s out of maybe 1600. All weapons will malfunction/ break if given enough abuse. I think the regular M4 will do pretty well in the test.

Will

[EricW]

Dammit Will!

This isn't about reality. This is about hypotheticals, the uncertainty they create in people's minds, and the oodles of moolah to be made solving something besides the problem.

Now seriously, thanks for your post. Hope you make it home from the Al Jazeera 3-Gun Uninvitational soon.

[jobob]

C'mon Eric, who needs reality?

I have a freind who was a Marine in Nam when the new M16 was issued. He absolutely HATES the gun! He won't listen to anything about how the early problems were fixed, and, yes, it was rushed into combat too early without proper testing, but the difficulties with the early guns and ammo have been rectified. But, it's now a great system as it is. Not that it can't be improved. Anything that reduces my gun cleaning time is welcome, and that's why I like my POF. But, much of the criticism of the M4/M16 is just emotion based and facts don't enter into the argument, unless, of course, a fact or two might support their side.

Hey Will, be safe and come back whole! God bless you!

[SinistralRifleman]

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/PBS_Guns_of...rs_in_0924.html

Watch the video....you guys will love this. Apparently, you can't move and use the sights at the same time, that's why our military needs Beta Mags so they can spray and pray from the hip

[cottyw]

too funny

[jobob]

Amazing how PBS dredges up these firearm "experts".

[cottyw]

I think the real problem with the AR is the magazine. I have shot about 4 in the last year. I put a hole in them so nobody else tries to use them. The magazine on an AK is built like a tank. The most catastrophic malfunction on the M4 is when a round jumps up over the bolt. You have to use a pocketknife to get it out, but thats why they give us a backup pistol. For as long as US GIs have been duking it out at close range they have all carried three weapons like Samurai. Rifle/shotgun, pistol and a knife. Owe, and somebody needs to tell that elderly gentleman we don’t use full auto for regular troops anymore. Standard practice is two rounds at close interval, from the shoulder and with optics.