Quoted: Let's keep this in perspective.  Out of 60,000 rounds per model, here is the percentage chance that a given round was going to result in a stoppage(i.e. stoppages/total fired). XM8 - 0.211% SCAR - 0.443% HK 416 - 0.371% M4 - 1.47% In other words, they were all very reliable weapons.  The question is how much do you spend to chase those last few tenths of a percent in reliability.

Using your numbers, the M4 has a 64% chance of getting through a 30 round magazine without stoppages (0.9853^30 = .64), while the XM8 has a 94% chance of getting through a 30 round magazine without stoppages (0.99789^30= .94).

So, those percentage points matter a lot, in this case.

Quoted: Quoted: Let's keep this in perspective.  Out of 60,000 rounds per model, here is the percentage chance that a given round was going to result in a stoppage(i.e. stoppages/total fired). XM8 - 0.211% SCAR - 0.443% HK 416 - 0.371% M4 - 1.47% In other words, they were all very reliable weapons.  The question is how much do you spend to chase those last few tenths of a percent in reliability.   Using your numbers, the M4 has a 64% chance of getting through a 30 round magazine without stoppages (0.9853^30 = .64), while the XM8 has a 94% chance of getting through a 30 round magazine without stoppages (0.99789^30= .94). So, those percentage points matter a lot, in this case.

In these extreme conditions, yes.  But only one aspect of weapon design was measured.  The AR has other advantages over the XM8.  For instance, the whole not melting thing.  This test is only a piece of the puzzle.  

There is NO advantage in purchasing XM8s to replace M16/M4s. Why you ask?  Well there is no caliber conversions that is why



America needs 7.62 again, hence the reason that crazy horse M14s are back on the field.  Only way to fix that is SCAR, Masada, and 416/417 rifles, not XM8s that use a different mag than the rest of NATO.  

ALL HAIL XM8!

Quoted: Why not just give our guys an AK in .223 with a decent barrel, good fitting furniture, a decent optics package and a good trigger.  There, problem solved.

You mean like a Robinson XCR, or FN SCAR, or SIG 550?

Why don't just re-issue the M14?

Quoted: 1 stoppage in 68 rounds fired? Sure doesn't mirror my experiences with the M4.

Big, Big +1.

And while I don't have any experience shooting them in anger, as Mr. 87 has likely had, I doubt I've had more than 10 failures in 5,000 rounds fired.

Of course, I don't give it a sand bath every day either.

John

ETA:  Ammo issues (FTF with good primer strike) was the my leading cause of FTF.

XM8 - 0.211%
SCAR - 0.443%
HK 416 - 0.371%
M4 - 1.47%




Wow, fail. Amazing that both M16 variants scored at the bottom. Hence my reason to never sell of my AK's until they can build something better. Ergonomics are real cool when your dead trying to clear a malf.  

Quoted: XM8 - 0.211% SCAR - 0.443% HK 416 - 0.371% M4 - 1.47% Wow, fail. Amazing that both M16 variants scored at the bottom. Hence my reason to never sell of my AK's until they can build something better. Ergonomics are real cool when your dead trying to clear a malf.

Speaking of FAIL, it seems you can't read. The 416 did the second best in the test.

when the hell will people quit asking for 'leap ahead' technologies? FFS, all that ever does is increase costs and move the FOC date further to the right.

Why is no one demanding the next, leap-ahead automobile? Because only government wants to do shit that way.

As sooon as they change guns, the next war will be fought in either Artic or Swamp conditions.   Remember Asscrackistan? They wanted us to drop the M4 in favor of M16 rifles. Now they want to drop the rifles in favor of M4 type carbines. Geeez.

It's not like the Army or the Ordinance Department don't have a history of rigging firearms tests to get the results they wanted. Can anyone say AR10, M14, FN-FAL, AR15 (later M16) and the list goes on and on and on and on.

I still believe the Magpul Masada should have been added to the equation. Wrote, called, e-mailed and faxed by congressional delegation AND Colorado's. Only one response or acknowledgment: from Sen. Lisa Murkowski, AK (R).

Now that I've thrown a turd into the proverbial punch bowl, I will say that I'm pretty shocked the XM8 and SCAR did so well for such immature weapons systems. If they're that new and perform that well, how capable would they be with nearly 50 years of development and product improvement?

Quoted: I have not been in the Army but does even the Army recommend that soldiers use a "heavy coat of lubrication" on the M4's?  I was under the impression that most soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere used very little lubricant or used dry lubricant in their weapons.  If this is the case, it seems like they are trying to engineer the results of the test the way they want by using the M4's in a condition that they would not normally be used in because it is known to cause problems.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why not just give our guys an AK in .223 with a decent barrel, good fitting furniture, a decent optics package and a good trigger.  There, problem solved. Galils? What weapon system was it that the Israeli's were using instead of Galil's? Oh that's right the M16

Not quite. Yes, they used the M16, but they did so because it was cheap. They also sued the AK47s that were captured in Lebanon by the railcar load. Don't confuse the Israelis as using only the best simply because it is the best. Remember their ill-fated use of the FN-FAL that was problematic at best and, even after it was modified to meet the Israelis' needs, never really quite got over it's sensitivity to sand and dust.. Chances are, the Israelis do use only the best and most reliable weapons, but chances also are that they use a particular weapon because it is cost-effective and it is the training and high degree of maintenance that wins the day for them.

Also don't forget that they also recently began replacing M4s with the locally-designed and -produced Tavor.

I love my AR15, but man... yeah I want an HK416 and Masada.

Im amazed that despite the testing showing the M4 as being more lacking reliability wise they 'still stand behind it' *scratches head*

Quoted: 1 stoppage in 68 rounds fired? Sure doesn't mirror my experiences with the M4.

Unless I misread the article, they blocked the mussel and dust cover. Open those back up and the % of failure is not so big I imagine.

Now someone needs to do a test on dry lube versus keeping the M4 wet as a bitch in heat.

You reach a critical mass of sorts with all that lube holding onto dirt and it begins to fail. The dry lube of course contributes to galvanic corrosion but takes a fair amount of time before any damage is really done.

The graphite lube is working for some folks in the box.

Quoted: Im amazed that despite the testing showing the M4 as being more lacking reliability wise they 'still stand behind it' *scratches head*

There's a little more involved overall than just which rifle is a small bit better when choked with dust and sand in conditions probably far beyond what might be typically found in desert warfare. The test failed to take into account lots of other things that are very relevant to combat too. The M4 is probably much less fragile than some of those other weapons, particularly the XM8. The M4 also has a tendency to not melt in combat unlike the XM8.

The M4/M16 family of weapons has a lot going for it. Overall, it's still a very reliable weapon. But it has years of service and a record in combat in multiple environments from jungle to desert to frigid mountain warfare. It is a known quantity.

I believe in the piston driven HK416 design. I think it will prove to be superior. Therefore I hope that this is the route we take with a new weapon system. It will address the major reliability issue often cited with the AR/M16. But it will leave intact most of the rest of the weapon that is very proven. That way we aren't fielding and working the bugs out of a totally new and untested system. We'll just be improving an already good one. This would be a much more sound approach if you ask me.

Quoted: Quoted: Im amazed that despite the testing showing the M4 as being more lacking reliability wise they 'still stand behind it' *scratches head* There's a little more involved overall than just which rifle is a small bit better when choked with dust and sand in conditions probably far beyond what might be typically found in desert warfare. The test failed to take into account lots of other things that are very relevant to combat too. The M4 is probably much less fragile than some of those other weapons, particularly the XM8. The M4 also has a tendency to not melt in combat unlike the XM8. The M4/M16 family of weapons has a lot going for it. Overall, it's still a very reliable weapon. But it has years of service and a record in combat in multiple environments from jungle to desert to frigid mountain warfare. It is a known quantity. I believe in the piston driven HK416 design. I think it will prove to be superior. Therefore I hope that this is the route we take with a new weapon system. It will address the major reliability issue often cited with the AR/M16. But it will leave intact most of the rest of the weapon that is very proven. That way we aren't fielding and working the bugs out of a totally new and untested system. We'll just be improving an already good one. This would be a much more sound approach if you ask me.

Well said.  Plus, it would be fitting to have the next evolution of the AR come from Stoner's AR-180 gas system, even if the current incarnation was designed by a bunch of Germans.  

And REM700PSS is all smiles...

I tried telling you all that in the beginning...but no!  All everyone said is "Oh...the M4 is just as relieable...blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore"

You can all form a big line behind ass and start kissing it now.  

Quoted: Im amazed that despite the testing showing the M4 as being more lacking reliability wise they 'still stand behind it' *scratches head*

Its the dreaded "vote of confidence."  For example, a sure sign that a football coach is about to be fired and replaced is when the Team President/Athletics Director holds a press conference and says to the media, "we have full faith in this coach and there are no plans to replace him, we are proud to have him as our coach and we are convinced he is the man to lead this program forward."

When they say that, it translates to "get your resume' out, schmuck face, 'cause as soon as the season ends you are outta here."

Here's an example:
St. Louis Rams give Linehan a vote of confidence

Correct me if I'm wrong here:

The 416 "reliability boost" comes from that fact that the gas driving the system and the accompanying carbon is vented into the handguard. In exchange for removing the carbon from the receiver, you get 5 (or is it 6?) more moving parts.

Moving parts break.

So in exchange for deleting the simple maintenance task of removing powder fouling. You get the rather more complex and expensive task of replacing peened/bent/broken gas system parts. You also get the added vibration of a piston gas system which has a tendency to hurt accuracy. More than a little.

I just can't see a 416 as being all that big of an improvement. If its an improvement at all.

Scar in 6.8, please please please replace the M4.

Quoted: Why not just give our guys an AK in .223 with a decent barrel, good fitting furniture, a decent optics package and a good trigger.  There, problem solved.

Because we are Americans

Because we like accuracy

Because we like fast mag changes

Because the idea of using the same commie weapons as the Liberian cross dressers makes us sick

Because there's nothing wrong with an M4



Just my opine

Quoted: 1 stoppage in 68 rounds fired? Sure doesn't mirror my experiences with the M4.

What is your experience with the M4 in an extreme dust test?

Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong here: The 416 "reliability boost" comes from that fact that the gas driving the system and the accompanying carbon is vented into the handguard. In exchange for removing the carbon from the receiver, you get 5 (or is it 6?) more moving parts. Moving parts break. So in exchange for deleting the simple maintenance task of removing powder fouling. You get the rather more complex and expensive task of replacing peened/bent/broken gas system parts. You also get the added vibration of a piston gas system which has a tendency to hurt accuracy. More than a little. I just can't see a 416 as being all that big of an improvement. If its an improvement at all.

Those myths still persist.  
The additional parts do not make the weapon more susceptible to failure and the piston does not hurt accuracy (at least not that anyone can detect in real world tests).  
Consider yourself corrected.

Quoted: Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong here: The 416 "reliability boost" comes from that fact that the gas driving the system and the accompanying carbon is vented into the handguard. In exchange for removing the carbon from the receiver, you get 5 (or is it 6?) more moving parts. Moving parts break. So in exchange for deleting the simple maintenance task of removing powder fouling. You get the rather more complex and expensive task of replacing peened/bent/broken gas system parts. You also get the added vibration of a piston gas system which has a tendency to hurt accuracy. More than a little. I just can't see a 416 as being all that big of an improvement. If its an improvement at all. Those myths still persist.  The additional parts do not make the weapon more susceptible to failure and the piston does not hurt accuracy (at least not that anyone can detect in real world tests).  Consider yourself corrected.

I've shot probably 15 different piston driven rifles. Including ARs. EVERY ONE of them shot quite a bit better with the op-rod removed.

Really simple test... Try it with an M-1/M-14 sometime. You'll be shocked.

As to your analysis of "moving parts:" That "myth" is one of the most basic tenants of engineering. Get a clue.

Quoted: Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong here: The 416 "reliability boost" comes from that fact that the gas driving the system and the accompanying carbon is vented into the handguard. In exchange for removing the carbon from the receiver, you get 5 (or is it 6?) more moving parts. Moving parts break. So in exchange for deleting the simple maintenance task of removing powder fouling. You get the rather more complex and expensive task of replacing peened/bent/broken gas system parts. You also get the added vibration of a piston gas system which has a tendency to hurt accuracy. More than a little. I just can't see a 416 as being all that big of an improvement. If its an improvement at all. Those myths still persist.   The additional parts do not make the weapon more susceptible to failure and the piston does not hurt accuracy (at least not that anyone can detect in real world tests).   Consider yourself corrected.

Consider yourself corrected.  I have both types and the movement of the piston does affect accuracy plus the fact that a piston rifle is a bigger pain in the ass to clean.

The piston operated semiauto/full auto..........a solution looking for a problem.

Quoted: Quoted: XM8 - 0.211% SCAR - 0.443% HK 416 - 0.371% M4 - 1.47% Wow, fail. Amazing that both M16 variants scored at the bottom. Hence my reason to never sell of my AK's until they can build something better. Ergonomics are real cool when your dead trying to clear a malf.   Speaking of FAIL, it seems you can't read. The 416 did the second best in the test.

and you called ME pissy?  you sir are pissyMcDrizzle.  LeakyMcWhizz.  TinkleMcPee.  What do you own stock in this or something?  Again with the acrimony...

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

They should have thrown an AK in the mix for laughs.

Quoted: and you called ME pissy?  you sir are pissyMcDrizzle.  LeakyMcWhizz.  TinkleMcPee.  What do you own stock in this or something?  Again with the acrimony...

Yep, and your post just serves to prove my point.

Quoted: Consider yourself corrected.  I have both types and the movement of the piston does affect accuracy plus the fact that a piston rifle is a bigger pain in the ass to clean. The piston operated semiauto/full auto..........a solution looking for a problem.

Tell me that's a typo....

Quoted: There is NO advantage in purchasing XM8s to replace M16/M4s. Why you ask?  Well there is no caliber conversions that is why America needs 7.62 again, hence the reason that crazy horse M14s are back on the field.  Only way to fix that is SCAR, Masada, and 416/417 rifles, not XM8s that use a different mag than the rest of NATO.

M14s are in the field only as DMRs and then only when a 7.62 AR based system isn't available.  7.62 isn't and shouldn't come back as a general issue caliber.  



Honestly I'm surprised at the results of the test.  I'd be interested to know what magazines were used.  I bet that could have had a lot to do with it.

Quoted: Quoted: XM8 - 0.211% SCAR - 0.443% HK 416 - 0.371% M4 - 1.47% Wow, fail. Amazing that both M16 variants scored at the bottom. Hence my reason to never sell of my AK's until they can build something better. Ergonomics are real cool when your dead trying to clear a malf.   Speaking of FAIL, it seems you can't read. The 416 did the second best in the test.

FWIW, the numbers posted there aren't quite correct.  The SCAR did slightly better than the 416.


• XM8:
127
0.212%  
472.4

• MK16 SCAR Light:
226
0.377%  
265.4

• 416:
233
0.388%  
257.5

• M4:
882
1.470%  
68.0

Quoted: Quoted: There is NO advantage in purchasing XM8s to replace M16/M4s. Why you ask?  Well there is no caliber conversions that is why America needs 7.62 again, hence the reason that crazy horse M14s are back on the field.  Only way to fix that is SCAR, Masada, and 416/417 rifles, not XM8s that use a different mag than the rest of NATO.   M14s are in the field only as DMRs and then only when a 7.62 AR based system isn't available.  7.62 isn't and shouldn't come back as a general issue caliber.   Honestly I'm surprised at the results of the test.  I'd be interested to know what magazines were used.  I bet that could have had a lot to do with it.

IIRC, USN SeaBees are still issued M-14's...

Quoted: ....plus the fact that a piston rifle is a bigger pain in the ass to clean

Larry, I don't know what you consider a "pain in the ass to clean" but I own both and it's like night and day. Not gonna get into the whole heat/accuracy/moving parts debate, but cleaning is HANDS DOWN easier with a piston. I mean really clean, not just the ARFCOM "wipe 'er down and oil". Arms room clean.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is NO advantage in purchasing XM8s to replace M16/M4s. Why you ask?  Well there is no caliber conversions that is why America needs 7.62 again, hence the reason that crazy horse M14s are back on the field.  Only way to fix that is SCAR, Masada, and 416/417 rifles, not XM8s that use a different mag than the rest of NATO.   M14s are in the field only as DMRs and then only when a 7.62 AR based system isn't available.  7.62 isn't and shouldn't come back as a general issue caliber.   Honestly I'm surprised at the results of the test.  I'd be interested to know what magazines were used.  I bet that could have had a lot to do with it. IIRC, USN SeaBees are still issued M-14's...

My uncle was in the SeaBees in the mid80s and they had M-16s.

Ships have M-14s, and Mk18s.

Quoted:  I have both types

Which piston AR do you have?

Quoted: FWIW, the numbers posted there aren't quite correct.  The SCAR did slightly better than the 416.

Speaking of FAIL. Looks like I need to look in a mirror.

I'm told that there was one 416 that had problems and the other nine ran significantly better. Without the report it's just  scuttlebutt.

Quoted: Why not just give our guys an AK in .223 with a decent barrel, good fitting furniture, a decent optics package and a good trigger.  There, problem solved.

Some kind of Galil or Valmet variant ?  That would be nice to see, though it's just a fantasy.  

Quoted: Quoted: 1 stoppage in 68 rounds fired? Sure doesn't mirror my experiences with the M4. What is your experience with the M4 in an extreme dust test?

IIRC, 87GN is an Iraq vet.  I'm pretty sure his experiences with sand and dust are well above and beyond any "extreme dust test".  

Quoted: Quoted: Why not just give our guys an AK in .223 with a decent barrel, good fitting furniture, a decent optics package and a good trigger.  There, problem solved. Because we are Americans Because we like accuracy Because we like fast mag changes Because the idea of using the same commie weapons as the Liberian cross dressers makes us sick Because there's nothing wrong with an M4 Just my opine

Ooh snap

Quoted: Quoted: 1 stoppage in 68 rounds fired? Sure doesn't mirror my experiences with the M4. What is your experience with the M4 in an extreme dust test?

Well I posted a pic of me in a huge sandstorm in Iraq but don't want people to think that I am out to toot my own horn or anything, as some people have suggested to me since I post such pictures occasionally.

Just imagine an ugly Marine (my friend) and a handsome Corpsman (me) on top of a M1114 in a huge ass sandstorm.

Quoted: Correct me if I'm wrong here: The 416 "reliability boost" comes from that fact that the gas driving the system and the accompanying carbon is vented into the handguard. In exchange for removing the carbon from the receiver, you get 5 (or is it 6?) more moving parts. Moving parts break. So in exchange for deleting the simple maintenance task of removing powder fouling. You get the rather more complex and expensive task of replacing peened/bent/broken gas system parts. You also get the added vibration of a piston gas system which has a tendency to hurt accuracy. More than a little. I just can't see a 416 as being all that big of an improvement. If its an improvement at all.

Dont paint things with such a broad brush.

Yes a piston upper has more moving parts, but as found in this test of 60k rounds per firearm type there were less malfunctions with the guns that used more parts. Almost every weapon system used in the military has more moving parts than an M4 but they are still used. A bolt action is almost always more reliable than a semi auto so why not start issuing out 1903A3's again??>

I believe it was Delta that first used the 416/did trial tests with HK to develop the 416. Those guys are shooting enough rounds to wear out a rifle just in training before they even get to take it into combat. I am quite sure if they found the 416 to be more of a headache and not as reliable they would not be using them operationally as they have been.

As far as accuracy all a combat weapon needs to be is accurate to minute of man. Even a gun shooting 4MOA will still fall under the M4's max effective range of a point target with enough accuracy to hit the target. Not every soldier needs sniper rifle accuracy, and judging from the quality barrels and range reports on the 416 it is plenty accurate and below the current M4/M16 standards anyways. Its a moot point.

And if I am not mistaken the XM8 is based off the G36 which has been around for a little while now. Its nothing new, and is the standard issue weapon of the German military. I have had the oppurtunity to shoot one of them and although I didnt care for the optics that came attached to the rifle I still found it a rifle I wouldnt mind taking on deployment. We were given a brief on the G36 by a German CSM and he mentioned that the guns must go through a test where they bury the entire weapon in mud for 24hrs, they take it out, and it must fire a mag without any malfunctions and not show any signs of rust. Give or take a little bit on the accuracy of that statement from him, and the high regard almost every German soldier who actually uses the G36 its a fine weapon. As far as the melting issue even if it is true I doubt anyone is going to be firing enough rounds to get to that point. A soldiers basic load is 210 rounds with a bit more than that the norm being carried. I really doubt a soldier is going to be firing enough rounds for that to ever be an issue.

As far as lubing goes on weapons over there we always lubed heavily, and had no issues in all but the sandstorms that you can barely see your hand infront of your face. Most of the time sand really isnt even an issue, and most part of Iraq where we have significant forces are not in a Kuwait like desert with blowing sand dunes. The area we were at was quite green actually, and we never had a sand storm anything remotely bad enough to cause a weapons malfunction.

Now if I were in charge of this project Id run some more tests in other enviromental conditions, give some weapons to combat units recently returned from Iraq and a pile of ammo, and get some real world feedback. I think replacing the uppers only is a good idea, and Im sure HK would love a contract for a few hundred thousand 416 uppers. Do away with the 20" weapon and give everyone the 14.5". Have 10" versions for units who will be doing lots of door kicking.

Quoted: Do away with the 20" weapon and give everyone the 14.5". Have 10" versions for units who will be doing lots of door kicking.

Oh shit, you just extended the life of this thread by another 10 pages.

I have had the chance to play with a HK416. I can say without a doubt that it is the finest weapon I have ever had the privilege to hold and shoot. But I'd have no qualms about deploying with an M4 and don't think any changes are necessary.

Quoted: Quoted: IIRC, USN SeaBees are still issued M-14's... My uncle was in the SeaBees in the mid80s and they had M-16s. Ships have M-14s, and Mk18s.

I remember seeing a news snippet a while back that basically said the M14 was officially phased out of all naval service, besides modified versions for launching lines to other ships or something (basically, it's gone).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1 stoppage in 68 rounds fired? Sure doesn't mirror my experiences with the M4. What is your experience with the M4 in an extreme dust test? Well I posted a pic of me in a huge sandstorm in Iraq but don't want people to think that I am out to toot my own horn or anything, as some people have suggested to me since I post such pictures occasionally. Just imagine an ugly Marine (my friend) and a handsome Corpsman (me) on top of a M1114 in a huge ass sandstorm.

The Shamals in Al Anbar are no joke.  I remember not being able to see more than a foot or so during one.  The worst is when they broke with a rain storm, raining mud like you wouldn't believe.

Quoted: Quoted:  I have both types Which piston AR do you have?

I have an original AR180 and a 180B.  I also have M1 Carbines, M1 Garands, SKSs, and an M14S, all of which are piston driven.

Quoted: Quoted: Consider yourself corrected.  I have both types and the movement of the piston does affect accuracy plus the fact that a piston rifle is a bigger pain in the ass to clean. The piston operated semiauto/full auto..........a solution looking for a problem. Tell me that's a typo....

NO, anything that is piston driven is a bigger pain in the ass to clean.  Lots of parts laying around, etc.