Nice article on why the piston is better.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

In a nutshell the M4 is still overfailing when dirty, more so than the A4 and the piston design brings down the failure rate. The quotes are priceless, "Sometimes we have to shoot this rifle dirty".
For us average Joe's not as big a deal as sanbags and bench rests don't clog anything, but it's still better to be cleaner than not no matter how you hate it.

There's a photo of Robert Hirt doing the HK 416 land/sea testing in there! He's the same guy that did that HKP30 and SIG 516 videos! +1 to Robert Hirt and his influence to gas piston AR's

you mean the quote where the guy said, we were on the road for 2 days straight and had not time at all to clean our rifles....

something about that just yells im to lazy. hell they had to take a shit at some point, i can wipe down the BCG while shitting.

besides this is clearly started to stir up a shit storm.....get it shit storm.....

WE GOT A COMEDIAN IN THE HOUSE!!!

I like to lube my bolt for the short stroke.

The question is, should they have to? All firearms need maintenance, but it should really only necessary be
before and after a mission not during is the point their driving home.

Thats true, and sice they according to them" we were on the road for more than two days" they had time to at least wipe down and relube the BCG.

You cant tell me every single one of them was going non stop for more than 2 days without having 2 minutes to spare.

I understand what your saying though, but it wouldnt have been a problem had they not gone 2+ days without cleaning in a combat zone, i mean do the vehicles even have enough gas for 2+ days of non stop driving? I mean one guy could wipe down and relibe the BCG's while others regas and do what other chores are needed.

Lazy or not it happens. And yes NCO's should get on the people to get the weapons clean but we know it doesn't always get done. You can only babysit/hand hold so much. We know the infantry weapons cleaning mindset is not practiced with every unit. Todays mobile combat where supply types and truck drivers are intertwined with the front lines need something that works.

I have always wondered how the M16s would fare in a wet landing Amphibious assault like Normandy. I know with the LCACs and Traks that is not likely to happen, but it would be interesting to see how the wet and sandy M4 with alot of the lube washed off would perform. David

On the same note i wonder how other rifles would have faired filling up woth sand for 2+ days.

Sadly the quote leaves alot to be desired, we have no idea how old those M4's in question were(crane upgrades, etc) or what if any stoppages they had to try and diagnose the problem. If they had failures to extract from to much sand in the hamber it rly wouldnt have matteret much about what rifle it was.

Pretty much.

Sand is death to any weapon, piston or not. I was reminded of that today when I accidently dropped my FAL into the sandy ground while shooting prone. Rounds would not feed or eject until I stripped it down and cleaned it.

The US military issued a water proof bag to put your rifle in while crossing the surf zone (you actually see them being used in SPR) in WW2

I respectfully disagree with the this comment. It's not hand holding or babysitting. It's called enforcement of basic discipline and standards IAW the SMCT, which if I remember correctly, is the guide in which all soldiers, regardless of MOS, are judged under. Frankly they (non-combat MOS types) don't need a weapon that needs less maintenance because they don't take the time to clean them properly. What they need is leadership that will enforce the basic standards no matter if they are infantry, spec ops, truck drivers, computer techs or a lowly potato peeling cook. If the unit leadership can't (or won't) even enforce the basic standard of weapons cleaning on those troops that might come into contact (ergo the 507th Maintenance Company at Nasiriyah) how could they ever expect those same troops to perform any kind of basic soldier standards listed under the SMCT 21-1 when actually on the two way firing range?

I'll call a spade a spade. It comes down to apathy, laziness, loss of discipline/control and an utter lack of concern for their soldier's well being. Bottom line, NCOs and Officers that don't enforce basic weapons maintenance and cleanliness is piss poor leadership. And I dare anyone to call it anything different.

And no gas piston, DGI or phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range will fix that problem.

Apologies for the thread drift.

I wonder how often the average terrorist cleans their AK?

And how often does he shoot it and what is the failure rate.

Sorry about the thread drift. I have been trying to get lazy people to do what they are suppose to do for many years.

Just three weeks ago a SWAT officer who should know better came off the firing line to me stating something was lodged in his barrel and he couldn't chamber a round. This is with a brand new LWRC M6A1S that I issued him less than 6 months ago. Our SWAT officers shoot every Wednesday on their training day. His LWRC was bone dry and the chamber was filthy. I ran a bore snake down the barrel and squirted some oil on the BCG and fired the rifle without an issue. The SWAT Lt and both Sergeants where on the line when this happened. This occured right when I started the course of fire and no other rounds had gone down range yet. So this tells me that the 8 year veteran had been driving around all week with a rifle that wouldn't chamber a round. Will a piston gun work better than a DI rifle, maybe. I do love our LWRC's, but they still have to cleaned. Even when I'm not around to remind them. David

My guess for how often they shoot is : alot, but not more than our military of course. And as far as the failure rate goes.. it's an ak. Bottom line, they dont have to worry about cleaning meticulously like a gas AR. I still choose piston.

I think they shoot a lot less they are more constrained by ammo supply and cost.

I'm guessing more often than we think. I seem to remember reading from the book "Lone Survivor" that the Author noted that they (SEAL Team 10) often spotted terrorists meticulously cleaning their weapons.

A Pakistani coworker of mine said the standard AK cleaning procedure over there involves gasoline, tooth brushes, motor oil and a cleaning rod.

AK's aren't the unstoppable force that many make them out to be. I've owned a few varients, and have experienced stoppages on many occasions.

Not picking a fight just respectfully disagreeing

I think they have access to nearly as much ammo as a US force. Afterall, they've got thousands/millions? of AK's and the black market for arms and ammo is a booming business. Especially when Russia supplies weapons to the enemies of America

If a Pakistani coworker of mine started reciting AK cleaning procedures, I would run......

pretty much this, they still clean their AK's just like the Russians do.

This is true, and I've seen pics of guys boarding the landing craft with their rifles in these bags. However, I've seen far more pics of guys with "bare" rifles coming ashore, be it D-Day or in the Pacific. Either the bag wasn't universally used or it came off pretty damn quick!

Although unlikely in today's modern potential battlegrounds, this "beach landing" scenario is indeed an interesting one. Wet sand......ugh! Don't think a gas piston would help with that scenario.

I agree and I personally believe by taking a rifle/carbine that needs "less" maintenance (supposedly) and putting it into service only reinforces bad habits of not keeping weapons clean. No matter if it's an AK, M4, piston M4, FAL, whatever. Some soldiers are already lax when it comes to regular maintenance and the Army proposes to give them a carbine that needs even less so they can go even longer without cleaning? To me, again, this reinforces bad decision making, bad habits and even worse, falsely placed faith in a weapon that may or may not be functional because someone decided to skip a few cleaning sessions because "it doesn't have to be cleaned as often."

Point is, all weapons needs maintenance, cleaning and lubrication no matter what the flavor is. Even if one of the piston carbines wins the Army's ICC and is shown to be the 36DD tits on top of a 22 inch waist, it still has to be cleaned! Maybe it fires a few more rounds between malfunctions, but regular maintenance is still required and necessary as you stated.

Not going off on you by any means as I agree with everything you said, but it kills me to see people buying things like the Failzero BCGs because "it doesn't have to be lubed!" or soldiers getting a GP replacement for the M4 that "works even when dirty!" All rifles, AK, AR, G36, FAL, G3, M14, etc have to be cleaned and lubed to some degree. Some cleaned more than others. Some a little more often than others. But all require cleaning and lubrication to the mechanical parts to keep good function. And I see far too many people placing faith in a weapon that supposedly doesn't need maintenance as often as others. Everyone has a "solution" for the M4 "problem" these days in terms of reliability. And the piston versions are another "solution." Biggest problem with the DGI M4? People keep falling back on the Wanut battle when talking about the reliability of the M4. The questions not asked were "were the carbines old with worn out parts?" "Were the magazines in good shape?" and "What specific malfunctions were happening?"

"The M4 jammed at Wanut!" Did they get some peanut butter with that jam? What kind of malfunctions were happening? Failure to feed? Failure to extract? Failure to fire? I'm sure the after action report took these things into consideration, but just weren't reported or were omitted on purpose.

All we got was the M4 as being shit sorry weapons that failed our people in contact. No answers to those questions when those with agendas are reporting the "debacle." Because they aren't asking the right questions. How many of the "jams" were magazine related? (which is a simple, cost effective fix). I've seen some of the magazines downrange and trust me, if there was ever a clear and evident cause for malfunctions it's the magazines. Dirty, old and worn out mags keep getting issued when replacements should have been put into the system long before.

"Were the extractors in good shape with springs that didn't need replacement?" Again, a cheap fix and one that Colt was reportedly trying to get the Army to buy into for years.

"Was the buffer and spring in good repair?" Another relatively cheap fix.

"What were the maintenance and inspection schedules?" Every week? Every day? Once they arrived at the FOB and not again? Again, a question that should have been asked and/or was never reported. Just that the weapons were maintained and inspected. But not how often.

And others like to fall back on the Army dust test in which they took brand new HK 416s, FN SCARs and XM8s and pitted them against...M4s they grabbed from whatever weapons rack they found them on as the Army Times reported. So you take an M4 off the rack with God only knows how many rounds already through it, no idea how well it was maintained and pit it against brand new off the line weapons for a "test?" Sure, let's take a 1986 NASCAR Ford Thunderbird that drove every race on the schedule and race it at Daytona against this years brand new cars. It'll finish, but probably not going to be as good as the entries that haven't been driven hard and put up wet.

And then the troops complaining about how inferior a weapon the M16/M4 is. Many, if not most, have no comparison to judge this decision making. Most have only known the M16/M4 and rely on others telling them how much it sucks when compared to other systems. I remember talking with one of my troops once and hearing them say "The M16 is shit. We should be carrying AKs." So I ask if they ever fired an AK. "No, but so-and-so said the M16 sucked and the AK was better." Most soldiers only get the opportunity to fam fire an AK, thirty rounds maybe and they base the decision their issued rifle sucks on this? Sorry, but I am not buying it. The majority of the Army is content with their issued weapon. Something like 83% IIRC. So the other 17% bases their decision on what? What they heard? What they were told? Do they own an AK or a G36 or a SCAR and base their decision on independent tests and a side by side comparison shoot off? Or are they just unhappy and bitch about the M4 because they can?

I'm not anti-piston by any means. I own a piston AR and it could end up being better and more reliable than the current M4. Frankly, I don't have enough rounds out of it (yet) to make a good comparison as to whether or not they will stand the test of time. But still, one thing overlooked in the supposed "reliability" of the piston systems...the parts (bolt, chamber, BCG in general) are still in close tolerance and sand/dust/debris will cause malfunctions no matter how uber awesome the system is. You get enough grime and dirt into an AK and it'll malfunction as well, no matter how many urban legends (as I have yet to find a person who's actually done so except the reports of "I heard of a guy who did it") we hear about AKs being buried in the dirt for twenty years and firing off a full magazine when uncovered.

On the same note, I'm also not pro-M4. If we have a more reliable system in the works that will be better, not marginally, not statistically, but an overall improvement on the M4 system, I'm all for adopting it. I want the best rifle/carbine in the hands of our military (which I won't see until after I'm retired) when they go into harm's way. If that's a gas piston AR, let's spend the money and do it. If it means improvements to the M4, spend the money and do it. But give our nation's military the best tools to do the job and quit fucking around with rigged competitions, multiple studies, surveys, someone's favorite because the manufacturer promised them a job after retirement and biased reporting. Shit or get off the pot folks and make a damn decision.

Give us the best weapons to perform our mission and come home alive.

Remember these guys are religious zealots.
They bow to Mecca 5 times a day as part of their belief.
Most likely when they are trained they are taught that the weapon is some kind of tool of Allah and should be treated as such.

Joe

You know... thats what I thought until he explained to me why his family back in Pakistan "unofficially" has 6 of them - one for each member of the family.

Apparently his family has had run-ins with the Pakistani Taliban, whom occupy the mountians a short distance from his home. His aunt was shot in the shoulder by a stray round during a firefight between the Pakastani army and insurgents.

Not sure if my coworker is blowing smoke up my ass or if its true... but it sure makes for a good story.

Wow , that's pretty cool. I guess the AK is truly part of the culture "over there." Like one guy stated earlier, it's like a religious tool from allah. lol

@grand

Excellent post.

Couple of things, someone posted on LF that visited Wanat just days before and said their weapons maintenance was very poor, cleaned maybe once a week. That combined with using them like M249's is jut askin for troubles.

Then we had the dust test that was set up, theres no denying it. All the rifles were fresh off the lig, hand picked for the test. The issue is the M4's were just taken off some Army rack with no idea as to their age or how many rounds they had seen. The test was flawed.

You make a great point abou the cleaning issues. There really are alot o people who dont clean their rifles, lets not forget those that believe they should use NO lube because it attracts sand if you put lube on your rifle. The white glove inspection doesnt help either.

This post shows just how poorly some rifles are kept, then we wonder why they jam when we need em.
Dirty ar's

I do believe pistons are the future because i see no reason to ever use the stoner system in anything other than the M16FOW's.

That said i have yet to see a piston system offer any true advantages over a maintained M4. When that day happens we should switch, but i dont think that day has come yet.
At most pistons offer a small incremental upgrade in the extreme situations of "i fire 1,000+ rounds in the desert and cant clean for a week" basically an unrealistic cenario.

During the dust test, when the burst mechanism did not recycle and give a full 3 round burst it was counted as a failure to fire, hence they were never able to replicate the test after being informed of that error in testing

I respect an AK particular weapon for what it was designed for - cheap mass production and to be shot by untrained peasants/conscripts with minimal maintenance. There's a really good book about there titled "AK47" that I would highly recommend to fellow ARFCOM'ers that goes into the weapon's history and a little bit of comparison with the M16 platform.

After reading the above book and owning a few AKs, have no doubt that a quality AK will tolerate shitty third world ammo better than the AR. The AK's long stroke, massive, overgassed piston system provides a lot of leeway when it comes to variations in ammunition quality. I also believe that a quality AK will handle neglect, extreme weather, and dirt/sand/mud contamination better than an AR. Sloppy tolerances, the above mentioned gas system, tapered Russian calibers, and an extremely loose fitting chamber contribute to that.

However, you pay for all of that with mediocre accuracy (3 MOA +), increased recoil, and pretty crappy ergos. I'm also not a fan of the thin, stamped steel receivers of many AK's. My past experience has been that the receivers are fairly easy to bend during rough handling, which will cause the bolt carrier to either bind or jump their rails. I've also found that AK parts aren't quite as interchangeable as DI AR15's.

I see the piston AR as a nice blend of AK-like reliability and AR ergos and accuracy.

Yup. virtually no fouling on the bolt can't be a bad thing. Even if it's "marginal" as some die hard DI fans have said, it's still a better thing to have the gas diverted away from critical parts.

But let me ask you this.

What does the carbon on the bolt tail hurt? Nothing is the answer.

As far as temps go both are very similiar with a 40*f max difference on critical parts

It add more friction and gets asorbed into the oil, requiring more lubrication. Which is another reason why you should always run your AR wet. Use the lube to move dust and dirt, as well as carbon.

But really i don't think piston offers as much advantage over DI when it comes to compaints of dust, sand and dirt. I think the design of a cylindrical bolt carrier moving inside another cylinder tends to bind up with you introduce sand and dirt around it.

Exacty, a cylinder in a cylinder will be more succeptable to sand.

That said carbon on the bolt tail does nothing, lube cannot stay there its impossible after 1-2 shots its burned up, keeping the carrier lubed keeps it pushing through sand and that is where it matters.

Carbon on the bolt tail honestly has no negative effects on the system.

First competition I ever shot had a WWII theme. We had to tape out rifle in a trash bag to simulate exactly that.

As for the article, it always seems as they set out to make the M4 fail during test.

Well alot of quotes there do come from armytimes...you know the enquiror of the gun world
The same people who said the M4 gets you killed after Wanat happened, they left out the important info like how poorly setup the base was and how you cant spray and pray an M4 like a M249 and expect it to not mess up.

True, but I think ADCOR is going on the right track with their additional dust cover on the bolt carrier. Looks to keep the bigger chunks out of the upper and moves it back away from the chamber area. Great idea in principle, but I'm wondering just how well it will hold up to the moon dust downrange. That stuff gets EVERYWHERE! But at least someone was putting some thought into the issue of sand and dirt.

The big Army has tried for years to get the M16/M4 series replaced. First the small arms trials in the 80s in which it was determined nothing offered a great advantage over the issued M16. (including going to a smaller bullet which never made sense to me in any way, shape or form)

Then there was the XM8 debacle in which the big Army decided to single source a rifle for production without a RFP. Every other manufacturer said WTF Chuck and the issue suddenly got dropped.

Then it was the SCAR L which was being put into production with SOCOM. And suddenly you started hearing rumors on how it might be introduced into widespread Army use. SOCOM went back to their M4s for general use after the SCAR L wasn't found to have a big advantage over the M4 except in price. Suddenly the SCAR L dropped onto the back burner.

Some SOC units went to the 416 for SBR work. But what is ignored is they went back to their standard M4s for a conventional carbine. But there was a clamoring for the Army to go to the 416 because it was "better 'cause Special Forces use it" and the fact they only used it for a small portion of their mission was ignored.

Smattering of tests in between to include the dust test debacle.

Now we have the new carbine competition with piston driven systems. Of which several reputable manufacturers (LWRC, Barrett, S&W, etc) decided not to participate. And it's been unusually quiet for an Army program with almost no information coming out. And I'm wondering if these new weapons are performing up to standard or are even more "reliable" than a standard stock M4.

Issue is, big Army continues to look for a replacement and continues to come to the same conclusion. Nothing on the market today offers an advantage over the current system except in price tag. And let's face it, SCAR L's are going for $2000+ on the civilian market (my guess is about $1500 for the .mil contract), 416s are up there in price as well, XM8s will require an entirely new support system to include wholesale replacement of magazines for the system, ADCOR BEAR is up in price as well, probably going to go close to a grand for complete units if a contract is awarded, Remington with the ACR will probably go over a grand per unit as well...

Big numbers to be talking when compared to $642 per M4. Now I'm all for spending the money if, and that's a big if, they offer substantial improvement over the current M4. Or even the NSW Crane suggested improvements to the M4. Substantial being the operative word here. But let's face it, $642 with maybe another $50-100 in improvements to the TDP for a more reliable DGI carbine? And if the piston driven systems don't perform better than an improved M4, but come with a great price tag with it?

Keep the M4, replace worn/broken parts, add improvements and press on for a fraction of the cost. But getting the Army to change their minds about the small changes? Move a mountain since the other "works okay." Even a $3 extractor spring that will improve the overall performance. It seems the Army is hoping the M4/M16 will fail so they can point their finger and say "see, I told you so" and doing everything in their power to make sure it does.

The big Army is thoroughly convinced it WILL replace the M4 and in turn, the M16 come hell or high water. And you see each and every test so far biased into getting a new rifle/carbine into production. Like the dust test. I stand on my previous comments about the race car analogy. And I'm wondering if some shady shit might go on during the ICC in which random M4s are grabbed from a weapons rack and pitted against the competition. Let's face it, the Army doesn't have a great track record for integrity in these tests so far.

But again, I do hope if they find a suitable and improved carbine over the current M4, it will go into production.

I don't think this is correct, wasn't it a public official that had the "Big Army" have a open
competition with other company's weapons to see how the M4 would fare?

lol..where are you getting this info?

What info are you sayin is wrong and needs siting?

Everythig he stated is what you can find online

I forgot which test it was but the M4 had a insane amount of failures. Didn't it turn out they were using worn out USGI mags...

That was the test with bad mags and absoluetly no lubrication except a slight "put a drop and smear it around" dust chamber test

Whats funny is it took the Army a big test to figure out what the experts had known, more lube is better in a sandy environment

So are you saying that they want the M4 carbine fail in that test?. I think they searched the most foolproofed assault rifle in that test, which again Di gun did not survived well,
Or not as well as did piston guns.

Please, the Test that sen. Coburn demanded was rigged.

The HK416, Mk16, and XM8 were all handpicked for the test knowing there would be a test.

The M4's used were taken off the rack, pre-2006(when crane brought out their extractor upgrade) and had all seen a nice service life with 6 of the M4's well below the 700RPM minimum.

So pitting brand new rifles against 2-4yr old rifles makes a test rigged.

If you read the .ppt you can see the 6 that were below the 700RPM minimum, you can also see most stoppages happened near the 600rnd mark(when they relubed the rifles, considering CLP(or shit lube as i call it) was used its no wonder it burned off, it barely meets mil-spec).

So yes Sen. Coburn wanted the M4 to fail. Lets not forget the fact that when the burst cog didnt fully that was a stoppage when in reality thats a function of the cog.

Funny thing about that test is in the summer the M4 had failures on par with other rifles. Also when colt redid the test with new M4's by a DOD agency they had similar stoppages to the other rifles.

The only test the M4 did horrible in was the one Sen. Coburn demanded.

This is what I don't think is correct.

When the M1903 was replaced by the M1 I'm sure people complained,
when the M1 was replaced by the M14, I'm sure people complained,
when the M60 was replaced by the M240, people complained ( my Drill SGT.),
when the M14 was replaced by the M16 yes, people complained,
M1911 by the M9..and so on..
now, here we are complaining again.
History is so funny

Whatever weapon replaces the M4, people will undoubtedly complain about how and why it replaces it.

But how funny would it be if the XCR won out over all the other competitors!! lol

i wont complain if it offers an upgrade, that said a piston doesnt offer an upgrade over a lubricated M4. just how it is.

when we go to a new caliber or caseless ammo im all for an upgrade.

fact is as long as we are still using the 5.56 a PiP M4 is not only cheaper but will function just as good as any current piston rifle.

Would love to see a new caliber! and a new rifle for it!
maybe a coil gun? how bad ass would that be?

hey im all for it.

give out boys a new caliber and a new rifle and ill sing their praises. but if we go to a new caliber we need a new rifle built around said caliber

I still stand by the fact that as long as we are using the 5.56 a PiP M4A1 is cheaper and will hold its own with the best.

Excepted compared to the M27

completely different roll.

the M27 is not a carbine. its an infantry automatic rifle, its designed to mimic the RPK.

the M27 is designed to be able to have a higher sustained fire rate, just like the RPK has a higher sustained rate than the AK-47. same thing

basically its a rifle for last years war.

Some would disagree with you.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.