Posted on 11/27/2009 6:46:56 PM PST by Neil E. Wright
November 25, 2009: The U.S. Army has finally addressed years of complaints about the M-4 and M-16 assault rifles. The M-4 is a short barrel M-16, and has become very popular with the troops. The army has asked the Department of Defense for permission to spend a few hundred million dollars on upgrades for its 400,000 M-4 assault rifles. The big change is replacing the main portion of the rifle with a new component that contains a short stroke piston gas system (to reduce buildup of carbon inside the rifle) and a heavier (by five ounces) barrel (which reduces barrel failure from too much heat, which happens when several hundred rounds are fired within a few minutes.)
Much of this goes back to the decades old argument about replacing the recoil system in the M-16 assault rifles. This came to a head (again) two years ago, when the army ran more tests on its M-4 rifle, involving dust and reliability. Four weapons were tested. The M4, the XM8, SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) and the H&K 416 (an M4 with the more dust resistant components of the XM8 installed).
The testing consisted of exposing the weapons to 25 hours of heavy dust conditions over two months. During that testing period, 6,000 rounds were fired from each of ten weapons of each type. The weapons with the fewest failures (usually jams) were rated highest. Thus the XM8 finished first, SCAR second, 416 third and M4 last. In response, the army said it was satisfied with the M4s performance, but was considering equipping it with a heavier barrel (to lessen overheating) and more effective magazines (27 percent of the M4s 882 jams were magazine related.) The army noted that the M4 fired over 98 percent of its rounds without problems. That missed the point that the other rifles had far fewer jams. In combat, each jam is a life threatening situation for the soldier in question. The army had been forced by Congress to conduct the tests. Congress was responding to complaints by the troops.
The XM8 had 127 jams, the SCAR 226 and the 416 had 233. Thus the M-4 had nearly eight times as many jams as the XM8, the rifle designed to replace it. The M4 had nearly four times the jams of the SCAR and 416, which were basically M4 type rifles with a different gas handling system. Any stoppage is potentially fatal for the soldier holding the rifle. Thus the disagreement between the army brass, and the troops who use the weapons in combat.
In dusty places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to clean your M16 and M4 rifles constantly, otherwise the combination of carbon (from the recoil system) and dust in the chamber will cause jams. The army and marines both decided to stick with their current weapons, rather than adopt an easier to maintain weapon, like the XM8 or H&K 416, because of the billion or so dollars it would cost to switch rifles.
If the issue were put to a vote, the troops would vote for a rifle using a short-stroke system (like the XM8, SCAR or H&K 416). But the military is not a democracy, so the troops spend a lot of time cleaning their weapons, and hoping for the best. The debate involves two intertwined attitudes among senior army commanders. First, they don't want the hassle, and possible embarrassment, of switching to a new rifle. Second, they are anticipating a breakthrough in weapons technology that will make a possible a much improved infantry weapon. This is likely to happen later, rather than sooner, but the generals kept obsessing over it.
Earlier efforts to just get the troops a more reliable rifle have failed. Back in 2005, the U.S. Army's design for a new assault rifle, the XM8, was cancelled. But now the manufacturer has incorporated one of the key components of the XM8, into M4 rifles, and calls the hybrid the H&K 416. Heckler & Koch (H&K) designed the XM8, which was based on an earlier H&K rifle, the G36. SOCOM is using the 416, but no one else is (except for a few police departments).
The XM8 (like the G36 and 416) uses a short-stroke piston system. The M16s uses the gas-tube system, which results in carbon being blown back into the chamber. That leads to carbon build up, which results in jams (rounds getting stuck in the chamber, and the weapon unable to fire.). The short-stroke system also does not expose parts of the rifle to extremely hot gases (which wears out components more quickly). As a result, rifles using the short-stroke system, rather than the gas-tube, are more reliable, easier to maintain and last longer.
H&K developed the 416, for SOCOM, at the same time the XM8 was being evaluated by the army. SOCOM got the first 416s in 2004, a year before the army cancelled the XM8. The 416 looks like the M4, for the only thing that has changed is the gas system that automatically extracts the cartridge after the bullet has been fired, and loads the next round. SOCOM can buy pretty much whatever they want, the U.S. Army cannot. SOCOM listens to what its troops want, the army often doesn't.
The army is also making three other changes, as part of the M-4 component replacement. There will be improved trigger pull characteristics, a stronger (less likely to fail) rail on the top of the rifle (for fitting scopes and other accessories), ambidextrous controls (to make life easier for lefties) and a round counter (in the pistol grip) to track the number of bullets fired over the lifetime of the rifle (makes for better data on how rifles perform over time, and for scheduling the replacement of components.)
Problem is, CLP collects dust. So you wind up in the weird position that the more it is oiled, the dirtier and more unreliable it becomes.
Most jamming problems I saw were clip related. Clips are used over and over and become broken and worn out. However, they wind up at the ahha for redistribution. This is why I never put more than 20-25 rounds in a 30 round clip. SPORT
The worse part for me was accuracy once they got dirty.
I dunno? Kinda agree with the generals. Let’s just wait for the Star Trek phasers...I guess?
The quality of the soldier is much more important than the quality of the weapon.
Give me a sharp stick and a noble mission...and I’m movin’ out. And I’ll still kick haji’s ass.
Carry on my bothers. Much love, God bless, and be safe.
Somewhere there is a post that links to scrawny little blond chick firing an M14 on full auto. She did not seem to have any problems putting lead down range.
A buddy of mine threw down his M-16 the first time is jammed in Vietnam, and picked up an M-14, which he carried with him the rest of his tour. He swore by it.
Problem is, CLP collects dust. So you wind up in the weird position that the more it is oiled, the dirtier and more unreliable it becomes.
Yup! So what to do? Call in arty
That piece of junk is just that -junk. Take it from someone who was raised in teh scrap metal business.
For what a mouse gun can be, Google the Daewoo DR-200.
For the same gun in a far better calibre, Google Daewoo DR 300.
Note that the above are only semi-auto rifles, but Daewoo made a military series (same basic gun) with selective fire capability.
As for accuracy, the Daewoo guns are basically minute of angle guns, but have the super reliable mechanism of the AK-47, not the idiot design of the infamous AR-15, 16, whatever.
That’s long range as in time not distance.
...has finally addressed years of complaints about the M-4 and M-16 assault rifles. The M-4 is a short barrel M-16, and has become very popular with the troops.
Q2, several companies make uppers that are piston driven that will pin right on to a M4 lower assembly.
Q3, Never
I’m good with the piston. Not real enthusiastic about the barrel. I own an AR-15 HBar [Colt], and the thing I like least about it is the weight. The 16 I carried back in the day was at least 1-2 lbs lighter [without all the extra stuff they picatinny on now], and I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now they weigh damn near as much as an M-14.
And I never had, nor heard of, anybody having trouble with overheated barrels [much thinner ones than now]. And our 16s could be put on full out rock ‘n roll, not bursts of three.
The recoil, and also the heating problem, can be cured on the M14 by simply changing its full auto capability to 3 round burst, similar to other "full" autos in the government inventory. This slows down the rate of fire a bit but also keeps the gun from riding up(which can be controlled by the shooter anyway with practice)and keeps the barrel cooler. Actually, I could never understand why they went to the 7.62 in the M14 to begin with, they should have used a lower powered .30 caliber, similar to the 7.62 X 39, they had a readily availble round in the .300 savage, which would have been lighter than the .308, enough power, less recoil, less problem controlling the gun, less heating of the barrel, etc.
The M14 was far more reliable than the early M16s and it sounds as if they are more reliable than the present day M4s also.
Given a choice(if I was still young enough to be a soldier)I would rather carry a weapon that kept me alive than one that would jam and get me killed, regardless of weight. Ask any of the troops that have had their M4s jam on the battle field if they would rather carry a 8 pound rifle that works or do they want to keep the jamming beauty they carry now.
I agree. Something that marries ease of handling with good stopping power.
Because the M14 is basically a box magazine fed Garand with an 'improved' cartridge. Ballistically the 7.62 has superior long range performance compared to the .06.
they should have used a lower powered .30 caliber, similar to the 7.62 X 39, they had a readily availble round in the .300 savage,
Get an example of each of these cartridges and place them side by side on a table. Then get back to me. The 300 Savage was actually considered for use in the M14, but the Winchester design won out.
The M16 design was a huge advance for its time, but there is far better available now. We should be moving towards one of them with all available speed.
L
Well now Hellfire! I wish I’d though of that.
I’m such a drone.
Change the cartridge to the 6.5 Grendel and make it a piston design and you've got a winner.
Short term, they should free-float the M4A1 barrels, retrofit a gas piston op system, acquire better mags, and make the Mk262 77gr ammo avail to everyone deployed.
Long term, they should purchase the HK416’s and make a positive investment in the warfighter’s future. HK’s are expensive but worth it to the shooters, but prob not the bureacrats cutting the purchase orders.
Don’t get me started on the lack of a good battle pistol either. What a shame.
Personally, ever since I got my Navy Pistol Marksman medal in 1969 using the 1911A1, and having followed the profession of arms ever since, I'm partial to the 1911 style pistol. :)
I've used and carried many different revolvers and pistols over the years, but I always come back to the 1911 style handgun. It just WORKS! I currently have 2 .... a 1911 in .45 and a 1911 style 9mm Largo. Both fine shooters and no malfunctions (well, was 1 box of 9mm Largo that was bad some years ago .... but it all went BANG when I squeezed the trigger).
YMMV
Toward FREEDOM!
I own 2 pistols, both are M1911 Springfields. I’ll be the first to admit he cheaper models can be testy at times, but with good ammo, and a few upgrades, they don’t let you down.
I have never had a pistol point as well as it either.
SOCOM is doing a .45ca bid right now. It is on the USMC and USAF radar for future projects.
M1911’s are still avail in the stock system at $50 each!! I was going to get them for my unit but I could not get the ammo allocation. The irony.
Also, Magpul PMAG followers should be installed in all magazines.
Also, Magpul PMAG followers should be installed in all magazines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.