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.)
Im gonna hide like an Apache, and strike like a WartHog
The M14, with some changes, could have been the weapon in use today, but Robert M.(stupid Kennedy minion)decided, in the middle of a war, to change rifles entirely.
I don't have to place the .308 and the .300 side by side, I know both of them quite well. The .300 would have been a better choice, IMO. Actually the 7.62 X 39 would have been better yet, it is lighter and has enough power. My absolute pick, however, would have been for a shortened version of the .243, or 6 MM.
It was not my call, or anyone else's who had enough firearms savvy to make a correct decision in time of war, and so we are stuck with a gun that jams, and was even worse in the early days of Vietnam, killing our boys with stuck cases in the chambers, and the bureaucrats will take forever to make the mods on the M4, having dithered since 1965 or so already.
I have no problem replacing it, but let’s not make cosmetic changes, let’s take it to the next 20 to 30 years.
This is the paper that changed it all.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD377335&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
I think the 7.62mm is too powerful for CQC.
“Ballistically the 7.62 has superior long range performance compared to the .06.”
Got ballistics to support that?
That report is a classic of “bureau-science” in that it has unproven assumptions, faulty premises, and reached an invalid conclusion.
Sumation: File it with the CRU level screw-ups.
I can’t tell the difference in weight or recoil.
This is what I don’t understand – why don’t they simply do that?
The lower receiver and the rest of the rifle shouldn’t affected by the whether it’s direct impingement or piston, so why not swap them out and be done with it?
“All you have to do in the mean time is to switch to the M14/M1A SOCOM, or the FN Scar .308 cal. and everyone will be happier.”
Neither of those options are particularly likely. The M14 is almost nonexistent at this point (there were only about a million made) and the M1A “SOCOM” wouldn’t pass quality control. The .308 SCAR would be too heavy.
“Most jamming problems I saw were clip related. Clips are used over and over and become broken and worn out. “
Ah, I see the crux of your problem! You should’ve been using magazines, not clips! (teasing)
“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.”
That’s because the M14 was intended as an M1 replacement and the rifleman was still king. 7.62 x 39 is massively inferior at range. The ballistics of the 7.62x51 NATO are similar to .30’06 in a shorter, lighter, package.
The M14 itself is a great gun, better and more reliable than the M16. The military shot it self in the foot when they made it so heavy and used a round that weighted so much and then a few years later got stuck with Robert M's(a Kennedy clone)M16 idea, a poor choice at the time, one that hasn't been fully fixed since Viet Nam.
All the arguements against the M14 could have been fixed easier and cheaper than making a new rifle.
Shorten the barrel, use a smaller round, make 3 round burst instead of full auto. The reliability and ruggedness would have still been there.
“I just never understood the thinking behind using the .308 when there already existed a smaller, lighter, easier to control replacement.”
They wanted good long range ballistics.
“The military shot it self in the foot when they made it so heavy and used a round that weighted so much and then a few years later got stuck with Robert M’s(a Kennedy clone)M16 idea, a poor choice at the time, one that hasn’t been fully fixed since Viet Nam.”
The M14 was designed to be lighter than the M1. They didn’t “make it heavy”.
“Shorten the barrel, use a smaller round, make 3 round burst instead of full auto. The reliability and ruggedness would have still been there.”
Accuracy would not have still been there. The Battle Rifle concept was not intended for CQB.
I’m sorry Sg,.bit there is usually not much time for reading People in action.
Maybe the Bible...that would be worth it.
“I’m sorry Sg,.bit there is usually not much time for reading People in action.”
I can see how your M16 may give you fits if they issue you fashion and celebrity magazines instead of the metal ones... ;)
How do you get the clips to stay in the rifle? Don’t they just fall out? (grin)
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.