By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Dec 17, 2007 9:25:16 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 Center 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 becaus 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.

I like mine, but is this the end of the M4/M16?

Who knows.

Max

It's just a ploy to get the XM8 back into the running.  

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: It's just a ploy to get the XM8 back into the running.  [://

Oh God, I hope not,  You know there is some bureaucrat that made his life off of that project.  We could have equipped every rifle and carbine with a gas piston upper for what the gov't dumped on that wasteland.  Has anyone else noticed, since less soldiers are getting killed in the sandbox, the less reports of our dreadful weapons systems on the news.  Just food for thought.

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.

What I thought, too.

Quoted: Has anyone else noticed, since less soldiers are getting killed in the sandbox, the less reports of our dreadful weapons systems on the news.  Just food for thought.

Fewer dire reports, or just less news for that matter, PERIOD.

oops..... www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=651475, second place is just the first loser

mike

on the range heavy coats are generally used, in the field dry lube is used. This two type of lubes being used on a rifle can create issues. I tell my guys to sick to one brand/type and only one brand/type.

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.

XM8: 127 stoppages

Quoted: on the range heavy coats are generally used, in the field dry lube is used. This two type of lubes being used on a rifle can create issues. I tell my guys to sick to one brand/type and only one brand/type.

Tell "your guys" to use a generous amount of lubrication on their weapons before you plant them with any further bad advice.

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.  

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.

I don't know if I would call 1 round failing out of every 68 "very reliable."

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.

Like my Saiga?  Sure.  I know I like it.

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.   I don't know if I would call 1 round failing out of every 68 "very reliable."

That would be 1.47 rounds out of every 100, in very bad conditions.

Here's a novel idea:  Instead of going to a whole 'nuther rifle, why not just design more improvements to the existing rifle that can make it more reliable.

I'd be awful interested in seeing how a few piston setups would fare (LMT Piston, LWRC, etc), in addition to the Masada.

Quoted: 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.   I don't know if I would call 1 round failing out of every 68 "very reliable." That would be 1.47 rounds out of every 100, in very bad conditions.

1.47 out of 100 is the same as 1 out of 68

Quoted: 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.   I don't know if I would call 1 round failing out of every 68 "very reliable." That would be 1.47 rounds out of every 100, in very bad conditions.

1.47 out of 100 is the same as 1 out of 68.

Compare that to 1 out of 474 for the XM8.

There is the arguement for the piston design. Now someone just needs to make a piston setup that will easily retrofit the already excellent M4 and sell it.

Quoted: Quoted: 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.   I don't know if I would call 1 round failing out of every 68 "very reliable." That would be 1.47 rounds out of every 100, in very bad conditions. 1.47 out of 100 is the same as 1 out of 68. Compare that to 1 out of 474 for the XM8.

Haha... Teen Talk Barbie says "Math is hard!"

Too bad the Masada wasn't ready to participate in the sand test.  Out of these choices I'd personally take the SCAR.

Quoted: Quoted: on the range heavy coats are generally used, in the field dry lube is used. This two type of lubes being used on a rifle can create issues. I tell my guys to sick to one brand/type and only one brand/type.   Tell "your guys" to use a generous amount of lubrication on their weapons before you plant them with any further bad advice.

what is the basis of your claimed vast repository of knowledge, Einstein?  With so much acrimony flowing through your post it would help wo know if you are a Colt Engineer or just another guy with an opinion, which will be duly ignored.

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.

Valmet M76 in .223.

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. Valmet M76 in .223.

Why stay with the deficient cartridge, how about Sig 551 or 552 in 6.8 or 6.5?

Quoted: Here's a novel idea:  Instead of going to a whole 'nuther rifle, why not just design more improvements to the existing rifle that can make it more reliable. I'd be awful interested in seeing how a few piston setups would fare (LMT Piston, LWRC, etc), in addition to the Masada.

Dude thats what the 416 is....

Thats very poor performance out of the M4. A stoppage every three mags or less.

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 know something like a high quality Valmet would probably fit the bill. But Im actually hoping the SCAR comes out on top.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: on the range heavy coats are generally used, in the field dry lube is used. This two type of lubes being used on a rifle can create issues. I tell my guys to sick to one brand/type and only one brand/type.   Tell "your guys" to use a generous amount of lubrication on their weapons before you plant them with any further bad advice. what is the basis of your claimed vast repository of knowledge, Einstein?  With so much acrimony flowing through your post it would help wo know if you are a Colt Engineer or just another guy with an opinion, which will be duly ignored.

from the article posted above:

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.

tests have shown time and time again that weapons run better when lubricated. full of oil and sand is better then full of sand.

own a 4-wheeler or dirtbike? do you NOT lubricate it since it will be used in sand, dirt, and mud?

882 out of 60,000 rounds is 1.47%

And what is a "stoppage"?

Is this something a tap on the FA can solve to get it into battery?  Or is it something that requires disassembly?

It's one test out of eleventy-billion.

Run them all head to head in ALL of the tests and then see where they stand.

Then give em to Soldiers and Marines to test how they like them and how well they shoot with them.

1 stoppage in 68 rounds fired?

Sure doesn't mirror my experiences with the M4.

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.

They tried the light vs heavy lube thing. Heavy lube increased reliability substantially.

Quoted: 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.   I don't know if I would call 1 round failing out of every 68 "very reliable." That would be 1.47 rounds out of every 100, in very bad conditions.

Mean rounds between stopages works out to be ~68 rounds.

Quoted: Here's a novel idea:  Instead of going to a whole 'nuther rifle, why not just design more improvements to the existing rifle that can make it more reliable. I'd be awful interested in seeing how a few piston setups would fare (LMT Piston, LWRC, etc), in addition to the Masada.

HK did this, it's called the 416.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: on the range heavy coats are generally used, in the field dry lube is used. This two type of lubes being used on a rifle can create issues. I tell my guys to sick to one brand/type and only one brand/type.   Tell "your guys" to use a generous amount of lubrication on their weapons before you plant them with any further bad advice. what is the basis of your claimed vast repository of knowledge, Einstein?  With so much acrimony flowing through your post it would help wo know if you are a Colt Engineer or just another guy with an opinion, which will be duly ignored.

For a guy getting good advice, you're getting awfully pissy.

I wonder how come they didn't try some of the other off-the-shelf alternatives.

Quoted: I wonder how come they didn't try some of the other off-the-shelf alternatives.

I think they limited themselves to rifles that were either in use or were being tested by the Army. I don't understand why the XM-8 was there other than they had a couple lying around and decided to see how they'd do for comparison.

Quoted: Quoted: I wonder how come they didn't try some of the other off-the-shelf alternatives. I think they limited themselves to rifles that were either in use or were being tested by the Army. I don't understand why the XM-8 was there other than they had a couple lying around and decided to see how they'd do for comparison.

So what do you think, sir? XM8 it is?

Quoted: Quoted: It's just a ploy to get the XM8 back into the running.  [:// Oh God, I hope not,  You know there is some bureaucrat that made his life off of that project.  We could have equipped every rifle and carbine with a gas piston upper for what the gov't dumped on that wasteland.  Has anyone else noticed, since less soldiers are getting killed in the sandbox, the less reports of our dreadful weapons systems on the news.  Just food for thought.

Did the XM8 fire all it's rounds before it melted?

Quoted: I think they limited themselves to rifles that were either in use or were being tested by the Army. I don't understand why the XM-8 was there other than they had a couple lying around and decided to see how they'd do for comparison.

...or because some folks have invested a lot of time and effort into getting the XM-8 out there and they aren't ready to let it die yet.

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?

Quoted: Here's a novel idea:  Instead of going to a whole 'nuther rifle, why not just design more improvements to the existing rifle that can make it more reliable. I'd be awful interested in seeing how a few piston setups would fare (LMT Piston, LWRC, etc), in addition to the Masada.

I agree with that idea. Why get rid of all the perfectly good M16-derived parts and know-how out there when all you really need is an improved upper?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wonder how come they didn't try some of the other off-the-shelf alternatives. I think they limited themselves to rifles that were either in use or were being tested by the Army. I don't understand why the XM-8 was there other than they had a couple lying around and decided to see how they'd do for comparison. So what do you think, sir? XM8 it is?

I think the SCAR has the greatest potential since it is still in the development stages. It will be interesting to see what FN does.

It would have been really interesting to see how the Masada would have faired.

FUCK THE XM8, pile of plastic shit.






SCAR first, 416 second.

Quoted: Quoted: I think they limited themselves to rifles that were either in use or were being tested by the Army. I don't understand why the XM-8 was there other than they had a couple lying around and decided to see how they'd do for comparison. ...or because some folks have invested a lot of time and effort into getting the XM-8 out there and they aren't ready to let it die yet.

Maybe.

I wonder if the XM-8's real advantage was not using STANAG magazines?

I also wonder if the HK's advantage over the SCAR was magazine related.

I really have to see if I can fanagle a report somehow.

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

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?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valmet_M76

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_95

Quoted: Maybe. I wonder if the XM-8's real advantage was not using STANAG magazines?

That might well be it. The old mags are known to cause all sorts of problems if they aren't in top condition.

I really have to see if I can fanagle a report somehow.

It would be an interesting read.

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe. I wonder if the XM-8's real advantage was not using STANAG magazines? That might well be it. The old mags are known to cause all sorts of problems if they aren't in top condition.

If I remember correctly, the government asked for samples from the manufacturers. I would think that would include magazines.

Quoted: If I remember correctly, the government asked for samples from the manufacturers. I would think that would include magazines.

Huh....now that's something I hadn't thought about before.

With pistol trials I would expect FRTS to include magazines, but I'd never really considered the mag situation with rifles.

If H&K sent their proprietary magazines with the 416s, the ones that have springs that wear out in no-time flat....it might explain the 416's placing.

I actually heard from a little birdie that there were some folks in HK management that have actively sought to sabotage the 416 program because it was stealing thunder from the G36 and similar products.....

Things that make you go Hmmm.......