M4 Finishes Dead Last in Army... Test

[ranger]

Report from Aberdeen "extreme dust test". Four weapons tested - XM8, MK16 SCAR, HK 416, and M4. They tested 10 of each weapon - fired 6,000 rds per weapon - 60,000 total rounds per weapon type. Results: XM8 - 127 stoppages, MK16 SCAR LIGHT - 226 stoppages, HK 416 - 233 stoppages, and M4 - 882 stoppages. I am not going to re-type the whole article - I'm sure someone can post a link, etc.

The Army currently plans to stick with the M4 - the next weapon will be "a leap ahead".

The Army has $375 million in M4 orders through FY2009.

[ChuckS]

www.armytimes.com

[SA Friday]

I'm not shocked at all at these results, but I sure am pissed about it.

375 million dollars... can't tell me I went into combat with second best. Maybe 4th best. Just stinks of politics.

[HSMITH]

Please correct my math but that looks like a 1.5% failure rate for the M4, where the XM8 is about .2% failure rate.

If my gun fails to fire 1 time for every hundred rounds I fire I am going to fix it or toss it, and all I am doing with it is playing a GAME.......

[uscbigdawg]

Well...let's just say that my M4 runs fine here, in this environment (add in rotor wash and I'll say it's about as dusty as it can get). My M4 last year worked just fine and so on. Basically, I don't care what you do with a rifle design, if it takes "AR mags" then it is subject to the performance of that magazine. The mags are the weak link in the system and it's why I have HK and PMag's here.

Just my $0.02.

Rich

[Joe4d]

Another example of distorting the truth with facts... If the M-4 is so crappy why does it dominate shooting sports ? Bad ideas and designs are quickly discarded and we are left with what works. The extreme dust is only one of many tests. I am sure the M-4 came out on top of other tests. Personally I would like to see a larger calliber. The Army tends to gear up to win the last war. We went to desert storm with cloths equipment and vehicles designed to win in Vietnam. For the first time in history the Army is fielding very new equipment. You have to keep in mind that that M-4 needs to work in alot of different environments, Maybe the M-4 came in second in some , first in others and fourth in dust.

[jobob]

Nearly one stoppage per 60 rounds. Not terribly good. But this is extreme dusty environments, and one would hope you could clean it occassionally. Still, the piston guns are looking pretty good in comparison. Glad I have my POF.

[Kingman]

I mean realistically though. How many of us are going to shoot an AR 6k rounds without any cleaning, which is what I guess they did.

[GentlemanJim]

I think they need to learn to CLOSE THE DUST COVER

Jim

[Religious Shooter]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army...usttest_071217/

Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Dec 17, 2007 14:50:05 EST

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.

Weapons officials at the Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., exposed Colt Defense LLC’s M4, along with the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416 to sandstorm conditions from late September to late November, firing 6,000 rounds through each test weapon.

When the test was completed, ATEC officials found that the M4 performed “significantly worse” than the other three weapons, sources told Army Times.

Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model. Here’s how they ranked, according to the total number of times each model stopped firing:

• XM8: 127 stoppages.

• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.

• 416: 233 stoppages.

• M4: 882 stoppages.

the results of the test were “a wake-up call,” but Army officials continue to stand by the current carbine, said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, commander of Program Executive Office Soldier, the command that is responsible for equipping soldiers.

“We take the results of this test with a great deal of interest and seriousness,” Brown said, expressing his determination to outfit soldiers with the best equipment possible.

The test results did not sway the Army’s faith in the M4, he said.

“Everybody in the Army has high confidence in this weapon,” Brown said.

Lighter and more compact than the M16 rifle, the M4 is more effective for the close confines of urban combat. The Army began fielding the M4 in the mid-1990s.

Army weapons officials agreed to perform the test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army combat forces to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Coburn is questioning the Army’s plans to spend $375 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009.

Coburn raised concerns over the M4’s “long-standing reliability” problems in an April 12 letter and asked if the Army had considered newer, possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.

John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, who was traveling, said the senator was reviewing the test results and had yet to discuss it with the Army.

The M4, like its predecessor, the M16, uses a gas tube system, which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Some weapons experts maintain the M4’s system of blowing gas directly into the firing mechanism of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication, causing excessive wear on parts.

The other contenders in the dust test — the XM8, SCAR and 416 — use a piston-style operating system, which relies on a gas-driven piston rod to cycle the weapon during firing. The gas is vented without funneling through the firing mechanism.

The Army’s Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004 after tests revealed that the piston operating system significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts. The elite unit collaborated with the German arms maker to develop the new carbine.

U.S. Special Operations Command has also revised its small-arms requirements. In November 2004, SOCom awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace its weapons from the M16 family.

And from 2002 to 2005, the Army developed the XM8 as a replacement for the Army’s M16 family. The program led to infighting within the service’s weapons community and eventually died after failing to win approval at the Defense Department level.

How they were tested

The recent Aberdeen dust test used 10 sample models of each weapon. Before going into the dust chamber, testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to each weapon. Each weapon’s muzzle was capped and ejection port cover closed.

Testers exposed the weapons to a heavy dust environment for 30 minutes before firing 120 rounds from each.

The weapons were then put back in the dust chamber for another 30 minutes and fired another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.

Testers then wiped down each weapon and applied another heavy application of lubrication.

The weapons were put back through the same sequence of 30 minutes in the dust chamber followed by firing 120 rounds from each weapon until another 600 rounds were fired.

Testers then thoroughly cleaned each weapon, re-lubricated each, and began the dusting and fire sequencing again.

This process was repeated until testers fired 6,000 rounds through each weapon.

The dust test exposed the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to during a “systems assessment” at Aberdeen last year and again this summer. The results of the second round of ATEC tests showed that the performance of the M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of lubrication used.

Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in the tests earlier in the summer, the 10 M4s tested had 307 stoppages, test results show, far fewer than the 882 in the most recent test.

in the recent tests, the M4 suffered 643 weapon-related stoppages, such as failure to eject or failure to extract fired casings, and 239 magazine-related stoppages.

Colt officials had not seen the test report and would not comment for this story, said James Battaglini, executive vice president for Colt Defense LLC, on Dec. 14.

Army officials are concerned about the gap between the two tests because the “test conditions for test two and three were ostensibly the same,” Brown said.

There were, however, minor differences in the two tests because they were conducted at different times of the year with different test officials, Brown said. Test community officials are analyzing the data to try to explain why the M4 performed worse during this test.

Weapons officials pointed out that these tests were conducted in extreme conditions that did not address “reliability in typical operational conditions,” the test report states.

Despite the last-place showing, Army officials say there is no movement toward replacing the M4.

The Army wants its next soldier weapon to be a true leap ahead, rather than a series of small improvements, Brown said.

“That is what the intent is,” he said, “to give our soldiers the very best and we are not going to rest until we do that.”

Col. Robert Radcliffe, head of the Directorate of Combat Developments for the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., said the test results will be considered as the Army continues to search for ways to improve soldier weapons.

For now, he said the Army will stick with the M4, because soldier surveys from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to highlight the weapon’s popularity among troops in the combat zone.

“The M4 is performing for them in combat, and it does what they needed to do in combat,” Radcliffe said.

The dust test exposed the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to during a “systems assessment” at Aberdeen last year and again this summer. The results of the second round of ATEC tests showed that the performance of the M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of lubrication used.

Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in the tests earlier in the summer, the 10 M4s tested had 307 stoppages, test results show, far fewer than the 882 in the most recent test.

in the recent tests, the M4 suffered 643 weapon-related stoppages, such as failure to eject or failure to extract fired casings, and 239 magazine-related stoppages.

Initial test had 307 stoppages. Then in a more recent test it had 882 stoppages.

How about a tie-breaker?

[SA Friday]

"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." Eisenhower.

Any more, and I will either get the thread closed or at least chastised in some odd colored font.

[dvc40jim]

It's a slow moving wheel sometimes... but we all know that if the exact same test were performed again the results would not be the same. Even if we ran the test another time!

One of the largest problems I see over here is dirty or poorly maintained magazines. Dirty ammunition and dirty weapons! But those guys routinely headed outside the wire aren't having those issues since they have long since gotten smart and they take care of their weapons.

Of course the cool guys opt for something else when they can...... Cause it's cool!

[Chuck Anderson]

Another example of distorting the truth with facts... If the M-4 is so crappy why does it dominate shooting sports ?

For the same reason Open guys shoot the 2011 design with nice tight tolerances. Because the gun stays clean and maintained and no one shoots at you. How many jams have you seen with open pistols? The AR dominates because it works well when maintained and when 3 gun was coming into the mainstream the 94 ban went into effect and AR were the only reasonably priced alternative. If not for that stupid ban we would probably be shooting something else.

[Alan Meek]

How they were tested

The recent Aberdeen dust test used 10 sample models of each weapon. Before going into the dust chamber, testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to each weapon. Each weapon’s muzzle was capped and ejection port cover closed.

Testers exposed the weapons to a heavy dust environment for 30 minutes before firing 120 rounds from each.

The weapons were then put back in the dust chamber for another 30 minutes and fired another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.

Testers then wiped down each weapon and applied another heavy application of lubrication.

The weapons were put back through the same sequence of 30 minutes in the dust chamber followed by firing 120 rounds from each weapon until another 600 rounds were fired.

Testers then thoroughly cleaned each weapon, re-lubricated each, and began the dusting and fire sequencing again.

This process was repeated until testers fired 6,000 rounds through each weapon.

I never heavily lube my AR

[JoshF]

I for one don't doubt their results at all (yes this is only one test of MANY). Yes the M4 works well when maintained but this is about those what-ifs. If you can make a weapon just as accurate, just as light (or lighter) even MORE modular and function with less maintenance wouldn't that be a good thing? Yes the M4 is a good weapon as it's been proved time and time again but technology moves on and better things await!

I for one have shot several "civilian" AR variants. However I've only shot ONE full auto M4 before granted it had a Suppressor on it but that thing overheated quick and jammed like CRAZY. Definately wasn't impressed however, that's my only experience and of course results may vary....

Edited December 18, 2007 by KSmoker

[SinistralRifleman]

They had to have the testers wear respirators and kyvex suits...this doesn't sound like any kind of normal use, or even field use test to me.

The government wasted millions of dollars paying HK to repackage the G-36 (which has an acceptable accuracy level of 10MOA and melts trunions out of the receiver under extended use) and make it into the XM8. I wish we had 27 million to develop something new, and we wouldn't just spend it all on advertising hype and getting the gun into the next Tom Clancy video game. Heck I wish we had a million to come up with something new, my opinion is that firearms and accessories made by people who actually shoot will be better than something some egg-head engineer designs in an office.

These tests do nothing but undermine the faith our soldiers have in their equipment, and make them feel like Uncle Sam is giving them second hand crap.

Edited December 18, 2007 by SinistralRifleman

[Patrick Sweeney]

I mean realistically though. How many of us are going to shoot an AR 6k rounds without any cleaning, which is what I guess they did.

[raised hand]

That'd be me. In fact, I had several "frankenguns" I used as loaners in LEO rifle classes, and to entice new members at our club into trying 3-gun. No cleaning, no maintenance, not even a rod or patch down the bore.

I got tired of the boring lack of malfunctions, and cleaned them. One I never put a rod or patch down the bore, and at 15,000 rounds it was still 1.5 MOA.

[SinistralRifleman]

I put 1,000 rounds a day over the course of 5 days through my rifle in 115-120 degrees in the AZ desert at the Tactical Response High Risk Civilian Contractor Course held out here in June of 2006. Sand completely coated my rifle and magazines. Many of the exercises I fired 8-10 magazines about as fast as I could change them and put rounds down range. I did not experience a single malfunction during the course of the class.

http://www.cavalryarms.com/vids/HRCCFE.wmv

You can see the amount of sand/dust in the air in this video

Every night I cleaned my rifle and all my magazines. Most of the malfunctions students encountered were due to dirty magazines

[askomiko]

I would have loved to see the exact same test with AK47. AK does fail (at least if I take one into competition.. ), but it would be fun to see a controlled test to get some numbers.

Edited December 18, 2007 by askomiko

[Derek45]

They had to have the testers wear respirators and kyvex suits...this doesn't sound like any kind of normal use, or even field use test to me.

The government wasted millions of dollars paying HK to repackage the G-36 (which has an acceptable accuracy level of 10MOA and melts trunions out of the receiver under extended use) and make it into the XM8. I wish we had 27 million to develop something new, and we wouldn't just spend it all on advertising hype and getting the gun into the next Tom Clancy video game. Heck I wish we had a million to come up with something new, my opinion is that firearms and accessories made by people who actually shoot will be better than something some egg-head engineer designs in an office.

These tests do nothing but undermine the faith our soldiers have in their equipment, and make them feel like Uncle Sam is giving them second hand crap.

Well Said !

HK has a great marketing dept.

[jobob]

How they were tested

The recent Aberdeen dust test used 10 sample models of each weapon. Before going into the dust chamber, testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to each weapon. Each weapon’s muzzle was capped and ejection port cover closed.

Testers exposed the weapons to a heavy dust environment for 30 minutes before firing 120 rounds from each.

The weapons were then put back in the dust chamber for another 30 minutes and fired another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.

Testers then wiped down each weapon and applied another heavy application of lubrication.

The weapons were put back through the same sequence of 30 minutes in the dust chamber followed by firing 120 rounds from each weapon until another 600 rounds were fired.

Testers then thoroughly cleaned each weapon, re-lubricated each, and began the dusting and fire sequencing again.

This process was repeated until testers fired 6,000 rounds through each weapon.

I never heavily lube my AR

You should!

Manufacturers recommend heavily lubing certain areas, like the bolt and cam. The military has found keeping weapons well lubed helps in dusty environments.

[Alan Meek]

How they were tested

The recent Aberdeen dust test used 10 sample models of each weapon. Before going into the dust chamber, testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to each weapon. Each weapon’s muzzle was capped and ejection port cover closed.

Testers exposed the weapons to a heavy dust environment for 30 minutes before firing 120 rounds from each.

The weapons were then put back in the dust chamber for another 30 minutes and fired another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.

Testers then wiped down each weapon and applied another heavy application of lubrication.

The weapons were put back through the same sequence of 30 minutes in the dust chamber followed by firing 120 rounds from each weapon until another 600 rounds were fired.

Testers then thoroughly cleaned each weapon, re-lubricated each, and began the dusting and fire sequencing again.

This process was repeated until testers fired 6,000 rounds through each weapon.

I never heavily lube my AR

You should!

Manufacturers recommend heavily lubing certain areas, like the bolt and cam. The military has found keeping weapons well lubed helps in dusty environments.

Well lubed is a lot different than heavily lubed

[Religious Shooter]

Every 68 rounds an M4 rifle jammed. You know if you had one M4 that was a dog it could skew the results for the test. It would have been interesting to see what the failure rate was for each particular rifle to see if one (or two) bad rifle(s) skewed the results.

CARBINE MRBF

XM8 472

MK16 265

HK416 258

M4 68

[Kingman]

The thing is how many of us shoot M4 type guns that go a lot further than 68 rounds between malfunctions. Something is odd. I know high dust, but during the summer lots of ranges have a lot of dust on them.

As for the Cav Arms video, at first it sounded almost like paintball guns.

[Chris Conley]

They had to have the testers wear respirators and kyvex suits...this doesn't sound like any kind of normal use, or even field use test to me.

The government wasted millions of dollars paying HK to repackage the G-36 (which has an acceptable accuracy level of 10MOA and melts trunions out of the receiver under extended use) and make it into the XM8. I wish we had 27 million to develop something new, and we wouldn't just spend it all on advertising hype and getting the gun into the next Tom Clancy video game. Heck I wish we had a million to come up with something new, my opinion is that firearms and accessories made by people who actually shoot will be better than something some egg-head engineer designs in an office.

These tests do nothing but undermine the faith our soldiers have in their equipment, and make them feel like Uncle Sam is giving them second hand crap.

One of the best things said all day. Let them come up with something totally new.

Chris C.