AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/21/2012 3:54:05 AM EDT
|
I don't have one. I just found them on Colt's new and improved on line catalog, as in learning that they are now marring their lowers M-4 (period - no more LEO only crap. I've always wanted a monolith upper anyway.
Tell me about that Colt guys. |
|
I am anti-piston AR-15 after attending an Advanced M-16 Armorers Course taught by Ken Elmore of S.A.W. (Ken worked for Colt for 10 years and is still a Colt distributor).
The piston added to an AR-15 causes "piston carrier tilt" which CANNOT be fixed or avoided in an AR-15, despite what people say (a piston in a weapon originally designed as a piston, i.e. AK, FAL, M1, etc. is OK). Colt's "Articulating Link Piston" is supposed to fix the piston carrier tilt, but it doesn't. Back in '07 Colt sent out flyers about the Colt 1020 piston AR which was never produced... Buy a 6940 
MHO |
|
Quoted:
"piston carrier tilt" which CANNOT be fixed or avoided in an AR-15 But see your wrong because it HAS been fixed. Ever hear of anti tilt buffers or anti carrier tilt buffer tubes? What about op rods that ride inside a guide so the carrier cannot physically tilt or be thrown off axis? What about BCG's that have been redesigned with ski's so they don't damage the buffer tube? Please go back to your DI forums then and don't come to the piston forums spreading incorrect facts and straight up lies. Propaganda comes from being biased and doesn't have to come from the news media or government. But if you don't take my words of advice others will come in here in a bit and make you look like a fool too. |
|
Quoted:
I am anti-piston AR-15 after attending an Advanced M-16 Armorers Course taught by Ken Elmore of S.A.W. (Ken worked for Colt for 10 years and is still a Colt distributor). The piston added to an AR-15 causes "piston carrier tilt" which CANNOT be fixed or avoided in an AR-15, despite what people say (a piston in a weapon originally designed as a piston, i.e. AK, FAL, M1, etc. is OK). Colt's "Articulating Link Piston" is supposed to fix the piston carrier tilt, but it doesn't. Back in '07 Colt sent out flyers about the Colt 1020 piston AR which was never produced... Buy a 6940
MHO wow, what an ignorant comment from Ken if it came from him. There are many piston setups that have showed zero carrier tilt after 10s of thousands of rounds. funny what ignorance breeds |
|
Well this is a dilemma? Rumble Truck seems to know that of what he speaks, as he has foundationalized his information well, and yet The_Evil_ One is ready for a shoot out? Rumble Truck, did you know about this of which The_Evil_One speaks?
See, here's the thing guys. Let's piss off some H&K Owner's too. I don't hate DI guns. Staked my life on them for years and they (mine) never failed me. Of course MINE are always what I consider top shelf (Colt/Noveseke/LMT), but I take reasonable care of them, shoot premium or military ammo (if I can find the .55 gr stuff), and ounce for ounce, inch for inch, I like the package very much. So to honor the SEAL's who dispatched bin-Laden, and because I love CERTAIN H&K Products, and the one I had ended in my former call sign, I bought an MR-556. Thankfully, it remains NIB as I'm out of Nevada on a family medical emergency where it is of course illegal - they all are. But prior to my sudden departure, I played with, and outfitted the H&K, for war, because I REALLY wanted to love it. I don't. The fit, finish, function are premium to the hilt, but it's way bigger, way clumsier, way heavier, way longer, way more aftermarket parts resistant, etc., than I can live with. If COLT makes that platform (6940) that works. I want one. If they don't, I don't. I'll trick out the remaining NIB 6920 that I have with a new Hart Barrel, KAC ff forearm, Magpul CTR, a couple of internal parts swaps and be done with it. All of the other piston manufacturers that I'm aware of (LWRC, etc.) leave me cold. |
|
You need to stick with DI then. The HK MR556/416 is far from the end all be all in piston guns, and compared to my LWRC the fit and finish on Colts are second rate. You seem pretty biased and if you are willing to listen to someone who does not own a piston gun who gives second hand anecdotal evidence over two people who own piston guns and now a third and fourth, you are walking in with your eyes shut. You will be better served with a DI gun. I like Colt rifles. They are definitely milspec but not much more than that.
RumbleTruck, stick with what you know please. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"piston carrier tilt" which CANNOT be fixed or avoided in an AR-15 But see your wrong because it HAS been fixed. Ever hear of anti tilt buffers or anti carrier tilt buffer tubes? What about op rods that ride inside a guide so the carrier cannot physically tilt or be thrown off axis? What about BCG's that have been redesigned with ski's so they don't damage the buffer tube? Please go back to your DI forums then and don't come to the piston forums spreading incorrect facts and straight up lies. Propaganda comes from being biased and doesn't have to come from the news media or government. But if you don't take my words of advice others will come in here in a bit and make you look like a fool too. Damn Dude,.......calm down a bit! While manufacturers have designed fixes for these issues, they are STILL valid design problems! Band-Aids are Band-Aids, the bolt carrier tilt has been "fixed" at the expnse of added friction. Unless the piston operating rod can push the BCG directly rearward, from the center of the BCG, the issue will always have a Band-Aid applied! |
|
Quoted:
What does this added friction effect?
Quoted:
Quoted:
"piston carrier tilt" which CANNOT be fixed or avoided in an AR-15 But see your wrong because it HAS been fixed. Ever hear of anti tilt buffers or anti carrier tilt buffer tubes? What about op rods that ride inside a guide so the carrier cannot physically tilt or be thrown off axis? What about BCG's that have been redesigned with ski's so they don't damage the buffer tube? Please go back to your DI forums then and don't come to the piston forums spreading incorrect facts and straight up lies. Propaganda comes from being biased and doesn't have to come from the news media or government. But if you don't take my words of advice others will come in here in a bit and make you look like a fool too. Damn Dude,.......calm down a bit! While manufacturers have designed fixes for these issues, they are STILL valid design problems! Band-Aids are Band-Aids, the bolt carrier tilt has been "fixed" at the expnse of added friction. Unless the piston operating rod can push the BCG directly rearward, from the center of the BCG, the issue will always have a Band-Aid applied! |
| Obviously a piston would make friction. Doesn't mean that it wasn't designed to take it. I don't understand the bandaid comments, if you have a Jeep that was "designed" from the get go factory the way it is purchased, decided you want to hardcore rock crawl so you double triangulate a 4 link with some lift is this a bandaid too? Apparently some cannot see outside the box I guess. |
|
Basically,.....the location the piston rod contacts the carrier, it is impossible to eliminate the
carrier tilt without imposing additional friction. Many have argued the issue of carrier tilt, it has been made to operate, but more friction is imposed upon the buffer tube. Does it hurt operation? Not in my case. |
Biased? BIASED? Why Sleeper 396 (congrats if that means what I think it means), . . . how could you POSSIBLY, in the wake (no pun intended) of MLK Day even, THINK of me in terms of BIASED  You already KNOW I OWN a piston gun. Just 'cause I haven't SHOT it? At least it's clean for whoever buy's it! And I am biased. My MP-5 is the best sub gun I've ever owned. Same goes for my P-7 (if you've got to hide a handgun on you - I used to have to).
What you guys have done is pushed me into ordering a PWS MK-114 in the morning (Monday). I HAVE shot the hell out of one of those, and (I know there will be controversy) but my buddy's runs like a well tuned SS 396  As for the MR556, there will be guys who love them, that's fine. If no one's convinced Colt's got their proverbial excrement together on theirs, or even if they are, that's fine too. Sometimes I think we/they try to pack too many goodies (piston/ff bbl/etc) into any give platform trying to get it to be everything for everyone and it turns out not being anything for anyone.
I'm after a battle weapon. Free float, sub moa, etc. in a sledge hammer type package would be cool, but? I personally have this ff phobia thing going on, II think because I have a new (to me) NF 1-4x24 NTX in a La Rue detachable mount for my 14" Noveseke upper. That's not "the good one" but the cheapest N-4 that he makes out of an M-249 LMG barrel. Well the last time we went shooting with my PSW friend, was the first time I ever shot that scope (learning experience) on the N-4. And long story short by the time I finally found paper with it and quasi zeroed it, we were about done. So I dumped a full 30 rd mag into my target at 100 yards as fast as I could pull the trigger and settle on the bull with the scope again. When we went up to retrieve our targets, and it was not premium ammo either, the group was off center but you could every round under the top of a Gatorade bottle cap. So maybe sometime we go just a little anal for nothing. BUT, it makes for good dialogue. I've definitely enjoyed the discussion, thanks for the input. But keep talking, I'll keep reading. You guys are entertaining the hell out of me, Just one more issue to me on the H&K, it's magazine sensitive. It does ok with GI mags, of which I have tons, so, . . . ? That's kind of , "who care's" for me. But I know there are a lot of P-Mag devotees out there. So factor THAT into the dialogue. And that was Rain Berry Gatorade, I don't really know that you could get the same results with some other flavor 
|
|
EvilOne,
Remember this is a tech forum... As others have posted, the issues with piston AR's HAVE NOT been fixed. the anti-tilt carriers, Colt's "Articulating Link", etc. merely mitigate the piston tilt. To what extent, I cannot tell you, but it certainly does not eliminate it. faawrenchbender was accurate. Most casual shooters with piston AR's most likely won't have a problem - the piston problems, like wear and/or gouging of the receiver extension and possibly wear/stress on the lower receiver, will be seen most in FA guns and guns with lots of rounds through them (.mil, LE, competition, etc.). |
|
Quoted:
Biased? BIASED? Why Sleeper 396 (congrats if that means what I think it means), . . . how could you POSSIBLY, in the wake (no pun intended) of MLK Day even, THINK of me in terms of BIASED You already KNOW I OWN a piston gun. Just 'cause I haven't SHOT it? At least it's clean for whoever buy's it! And I am biased. My MP-5 is the best sub gun I've ever owned. Same goes for my P-7 (if you've got to hide a handgun on you - I used to have to).
What you guys have done is pushed me into ordering a PWS MK-114 in the morning (Monday). I HAVE shot the hell out of one of those, and (I know there will be controversy) but my buddy's runs like a well tuned SS 396 As for the MR556, there will be guys who love them, that's fine. If no one's convinced Colt's got their proverbial excrement together on theirs, or even if they are, that's fine too. Sometimes I think we/they try to pack too many goodies (piston/ff bbl/etc) into any give platform trying to get it to be everything for everyone and it turns out not being anything for anyone.
I'm after a battle weapon. Free float, sub moa, etc. in a sledge hammer type package would be cool, but? I personally have this ff phobia thing going on, II think because I have a new (to me) NF 1-4x24 NTX in a La Rue detachable mount for my 14" Noveseke upper. That's not "the good one" but the cheapest N-4 that he makes out of an M-249 LMG barrel. Well the last time we went shooting with my PSW friend, was the first time I ever shot that scope (learning experience) on the N-4. And long story short by the time I finally found paper with it and quasi zeroed it, we were about done. So I dumped a full 30 rd mag into my target at 100 yards as fast as I could pull the trigger and settle on the bull with the scope again. When we went up to retrieve our targets, and it was not premium ammo either, the group was off center but you could every round under the top of a Gatorade bottle cap. So maybe sometime we go just a little anal for nothing. BUT, it makes for good dialogue. I've definitely enjoyed the discussion, thanks for the input. But keep talking, I'll keep reading. You guys are entertaining the hell out of me, Just one more issue to me on the H&K, it's magazine sensitive. It does ok with GI mags, of which I have tons, so, . . . ? That's kind of , "who care's" for me. But I know there are a lot of P-Mag devotees out there. So factor THAT into the dialogue. And that was Rain Berry Gatorade, I don't really know that you could get the same results with some other flavor
Right on, sorry about being lippy. You will be happy as hell with your purchase. You are close on the name too. But wrong on the brand and car, I used to have a Mustang GT, it was my life when I hated guns because I was around them so much. It looked completely stock=slow as hell but at the time of joining this wonderful place of infotainment, it made 396hp to the wheels. When I sold it last month, it made 552rwhp. |
|
@ mcso749
Yes the gas and Operating rod contact the BCG in the same place the difference is that the DI key bleeds gas off out the side of the BCG which in essence is not only a lateral force but also a downward force canceling out any tilt. If the BCG didn't have the gas ports then it would also experience tilt with no where for the gas to go. The only way to reduce tilt is to lower the contact point closer to the center mass of the BCG, which is a redesign of the gun (examples ACR and SCAR) First post by the way. 
|
|
Quoted:
EvilOne, Remember this is a tech forum... As others have posted, the issues with piston AR's HAVE NOT been fixed. the anti-tilt carriers, Colt's "Articulating Link", etc. merely mitigate the piston tilt. To what extent, I cannot tell you, but it certainly does not eliminate it. faawrenchbender was accurate. Most casual shooters with piston AR's most likely won't have a problem - the piston problems, like wear and/or gouging of the receiver extension and possibly wear/stress on the lower receiver, will be seen most in FA guns and guns with lots of rounds through them (.mil, LE, competition, etc.). You really want to go with this? Let me ask you a few questions...how many rifles have failed because of carrier tilt? Now how many DI rifles have failed to lack of lube? How many rifles have broke...buffer tube from carrier tilt? How many times during the dust test in the scar trials did the piston systems stop (HK416, SCAR..etc) compared to the Mighty DI Colt? • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. It has 4x the failure rate...proper maintenance...nothing in a fire fight you cant ask for a time out to clean your weapon! How many DI rifles in a combat situation would fail if pulled from the water and shoot? [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU[/youtube] How many marines were found dead next to their DI rifles in vietnam with a cleaning rode stuck in the barrel or other issues of stoppage? There are many design...this isnt a DI or nothing crap anymore. In november the Army has issued a trial like the scar to replace the DI rifle. Do to overwhelming combart data that has shown in numerous reports that the DI rifle has failed during combat operations the Army is in the process of replacing the DI rifle. I know they have been trying to replace the M4/M16 for years. But remember, Colt for years has lobbied in washington and lined the pockets of many senators, congressmen and military brass to keep the colt made M4 in service. More info: http://www.defensereview.com/the-u-s-armys-next-carbine-hello-gas-pistonop-rod-enhanced-m4m4a1-carbine-type-ar-ar-15-goodbye-direct-gas-impingement-dgi-operation/ There is a better mouse trap, one that less effected by the environment, requires less maintenance to remain functional. What should strike you in this article is that the mighty Colt...is now going Piston! Enhanced M4 is a colt piston for the military. Will it win...with the amount of lobbying colt does on washington...probably. It is time our guys got the best and most reliable platform. But it might win because it can simply be retrofit in the field by replacing the upper! I have both a DI (KAC SR15E3) and a Ruger SR556C. I like them both and I prefer my KAC for the weight and balance but my SR556C runs cleaner, fires a bigger variety of ammo (Wolf, Tula, Silver Bear) and is as accurate...well as accurate as I am. My KAC is finished beautifully and when properly maintained and feed the right ammo functions perfect. However if tomorrow became Armageddon I will grab my ruger. I know if doesnt need the amount of lube my KAC does (it can run damn near dry!), it can function if brought out of the water and fired immediately and it will work with more types of ammo! But it isnt as impacted by dust, mud, dirt...etc either more over It is less environmental temperamental! This DI or nothing Kool-Aid is getting old. Many systems currently have no signs of carrier tilt! LWRC, SIG, PWS, HK416/MR556, the list goes on. Carrier tilt is a non-issue...show me one report of a rifle that failed or broke from excessive carrier tilt...one! Other parts on a rfile will fail long before your buffer tube will break! Oh and the argument about stoner system was never designed for a piston is false...he presented 2 systems to the military the AR-18 was a piston version. The military opted for the DI because it was cheaper! Not to mention stoner invented the DI system...where as the piston was not his invention...so which one do you think he was push? The M16 (XM16E1) was untested and caused the loss of life for a lot of US vietnam war soldiers. The numbers are estimated near 10k during vietnam, that is one of every fve soliders died because of a design flaw or malfunction of this platform!! His design lacked forward assist, they didnt provide cleaning kits (later they did) and much more! This rifle has had numerous congressional hearing over its reliability. The good thing about DI is because it has been around and in service for so long we know what it needs and where it will fail and more so when it will fail. 62 changes have been made to the DI platform since the XM16E1 used in vietnam. The M16/M4 have served us pretty well overall but it is time to move on! In the long term the bigger argument needs to be for a better round! Like a 6.5mm or 6.8mm! I can discuss this for hours...but that is for another time! http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/ |
|
Quoted:
@ mcso749 Yes the gas and Operating rod contact the BCG in the same place the difference is that the DI key bleeds gas off out the side of the BCG which in essence is not only a lateral force but also a downward force canceling out any tilt. If the BCG didn't have the gas ports then it would also experience tilt with no where for the gas to go. The only way to reduce tilt is to lower the contact point closer to the center mass of the BCG, which is a redesign of the gun (examples ACR and SCAR) First post by the way. Great point however....LWRC, Sig, and other have redesigned their BCG to have channels in the back end...helping float the BCG in the buffer tube as air is sent thru it. Their design works well and cause none of the tilt issues that others have. Now PWS does this different for the piston system is long stroke instead of a short stroke..fo one the mass or weight of the design is moved back towards the grip and also pushed or travels flat...no tilt. At any case...carrier tilt with or without it doesnt seem to effect the guns ability to function nor does it effect the guns accuracy. The wear in the buffer tube will take far longer to break than the barrel or other parts. If you are using this gun as a recreational one you will never suffer from enough carrier tilt to break your gun or buffer tube! Just not going to happen. Carrier tilt is such a non issues. A bolt will break before it is a problem, a barrel will wear out before it is a problem..everyone bitches about it but no one has shown and discussed it stopping or impairing the rifles function. It is a moot point at best! You dont like Piston...dont buy one you dont like DI dont buy one. I have both and like them in different ways but I understand the design of both. DI has problems that is why the Piston design is being so heavily considered. Our spec op guys use the 416 because they cannot have failure! Bin Laden can attest to that. I am not a 416 fan...but it is merely because of the weight. Fit and finish and function are incredible! But the weight to me is unacceptable! Just my 2 cents and owning and using both give me some creditability here. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
EvilOne, Remember this is a tech forum... As others have posted, the issues with piston AR's HAVE NOT been fixed. the anti-tilt carriers, Colt's "Articulating Link", etc. merely mitigate the piston tilt. To what extent, I cannot tell you, but it certainly does not eliminate it. faawrenchbender was accurate. Most casual shooters with piston AR's most likely won't have a problem - the piston problems, like wear and/or gouging of the receiver extension and possibly wear/stress on the lower receiver, will be seen most in FA guns and guns with lots of rounds through them (.mil, LE, competition, etc.). You really want to go with this? Let me ask you a few questions...how many rifles have failed because of carrier tilt? Now how many DI rifles have failed to lack of lube? How many rifles have broke...buffer tube from carrier tilt? How many times during the dust test in the scar trials did the piston systems stop (HK416, SCAR..etc) compared to the Mighty DI Colt? • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. It has 4x the failure rate...proper maintenance...nothing in a fire fight you cant ask for a time out to clean your weapon! How many DI rifles in a combat situation would fail if pulled from the water and shoot?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU
How many marines were found dead next to their DI rifles in vietnam with a cleaning rode stuck in the barrel or other issues of stoppage? There are many design...this isnt a DI or nothing crap anymore. In november the Army has issued a trial like the scar to replace the DI rifle. Do to overwhelming combart data that has shown in numerous reports that the DI rifle has failed during combat operations the Army is in the process of replacing the DI rifle. I know they have been trying to replace the M4/M16 for years. But remember, Colt for years has lobbied in washington and lined the pockets of many senators, congressmen and military brass to keep the colt made M4 in service. More info: http://www.defensereview.com/the-u-s-armys-next-carbine-hello-gas-pistonop-rod-enhanced-m4m4a1-carbine-type-ar-ar-15-goodbye-direct-gas-impingement-dgi-operation/ There is a better mouse trap, one that less effected by the environment, requires less maintenance to remain functional. What should strike you in this article is that the mighty Colt...is now going Piston! Enhanced M4 is a colt piston for the military. Will it win...with the amount of lobbying colt does on washington...probably. It is time our guys got the best and most reliable platform. But it might win because it can simply be retrofit in the field by replacing the upper! I have both a DI (KAC SR15E3) and a Ruger SR556C. I like them both and I prefer my KAC for the weight and balance but my SR556C runs cleaner, fires a bigger variety of ammo (Wolf, Tula, Silver Bear) and is as accurate...well as accurate as I am. My KAC is finished beautifully and when properly maintained and feed the right ammo functions perfect. However if tomorrow became Armageddon I will grab my ruger. I know if doesnt need the amount of lube my KAC does (it can run damn near dry!), it can function if brought out of the water and fired immediately and it will work with more types of ammo! But it isnt as impacted by dust, mud, dirt...etc either more over It is less environmental temperamental! This DI or nothing Kool-Aid is getting old. Many systems currently have no signs of carrier tilt! LWRC, SIG, PWS, HK416/MR556, the list goes on. Carrier tilt is a non-issue...show me one report of a rifle that failed or broke from excessive carrier tilt...one! Other parts on a rfile will fail long before your buffer tube will break! Oh and the argument about stoner system was never designed for a piston is false...he presented 2 systems to the military the AR-18 was a piston version. The military opted for the DI because it was cheaper! Not to mention stoner invented the DI system...where as the piston was not his invention...so which one do you think he was push? The M16 (XM16E1) was untested and caused the loss of life for a lot of US vietnam war soldiers. The numbers are estimated near 10k during vietnam, that is one of every fve soliders died because of a design flaw or malfunction of this platform!! His design lacked forward assist, they didnt provide cleaning kits (later they did) and much more! This rifle has had numerous congressional hearing over its reliability. The good thing about DI is because it has been around and in service for so long we know what it needs and where it will fail and more so when it will fail. 62 changes have been made to the DI platform since the XM16E1 used in vietnam. The M16/M4 have served us pretty well overall but it is time to move on! In the long term the bigger argument needs to be for a better round! Like a 6.5mm or 6.8mm! I can discuss this for hours...but that is for another time! http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/ Bravo to you sir! My issued M4 served me well but I would much rather have had my LWRC hands down! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
EvilOne, Remember this is a tech forum... As others have posted, the issues with piston AR's HAVE NOT been fixed. the anti-tilt carriers, Colt's "Articulating Link", etc. merely mitigate the piston tilt. To what extent, I cannot tell you, but it certainly does not eliminate it. faawrenchbender was accurate. Most casual shooters with piston AR's most likely won't have a problem - the piston problems, like wear and/or gouging of the receiver extension and possibly wear/stress on the lower receiver, will be seen most in FA guns and guns with lots of rounds through them (.mil, LE, competition, etc.). You really want to go with this? Let me ask you a few questions...how many rifles have failed because of carrier tilt? Now how many DI rifles have failed to lack of lube? How many rifles have broke...buffer tube from carrier tilt? How many times during the dust test in the scar trials did the piston systems stop (HK416, SCAR..etc) compared to the Mighty DI Colt? • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. It has 4x the failure rate...proper maintenance...nothing in a fire fight you cant ask for a time out to clean your weapon! How many DI rifles in a combat situation would fail if pulled from the water and shoot? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU
How many marines were found dead next to their DI rifles in vietnam with a cleaning rode stuck in the barrel or other issues of stoppage? There are many design...this isnt a DI or nothing crap anymore. In november the Army has issued a trial like the scar to replace the DI rifle. Do to overwhelming combart data that has shown in numerous reports that the DI rifle has failed during combat operations the Army is in the process of replacing the DI rifle. I know they have been trying to replace the M4/M16 for years. But remember, Colt for years has lobbied in washington and lined the pockets of many senators, congressmen and military brass to keep the colt made M4 in service. More info: http://www.defensereview.com/the-u-s-armys-next-carbine-hello-gas-pistonop-rod-enhanced-m4m4a1-carbine-type-ar-ar-15-goodbye-direct-gas-impingement-dgi-operation/ There is a better mouse trap, one that less effected by the environment, requires less maintenance to remain functional. What should strike you in this article is that the mighty Colt...is now going Piston! Enhanced M4 is a colt piston for the military. Will it win...with the amount of lobbying colt does on washington...probably. It is time our guys got the best and most reliable platform. But it might win because it can simply be retrofit in the field by replacing the upper! I have both a DI (KAC SR15E3) and a Ruger SR556C. I like them both and I prefer my KAC for the weight and balance but my SR556C runs cleaner, fires a bigger variety of ammo (Wolf, Tula, Silver Bear) and is as accurate...well as accurate as I am. My KAC is finished beautifully and when properly maintained and feed the right ammo functions perfect. However if tomorrow became Armageddon I will grab my ruger. I know if doesnt need the amount of lube my KAC does (it can run damn near dry!), it can function if brought out of the water and fired immediately and it will work with more types of ammo! But it isnt as impacted by dust, mud, dirt...etc either more over It is less environmental temperamental! This DI or nothing Kool-Aid is getting old. Many systems currently have no signs of carrier tilt! LWRC, SIG, PWS, HK416/MR556, the list goes on. Carrier tilt is a non-issue...show me one report of a rifle that failed or broke from excessive carrier tilt...one! Other parts on a rfile will fail long before your buffer tube will break! Oh and the argument about stoner system was never designed for a piston is false...he presented 2 systems to the military the AR-18 was a piston version. The military opted for the DI because it was cheaper! Not to mention stoner invented the DI system...where as the piston was not his invention...so which one do you think he was push? The M16 (XM16E1) was untested and caused the loss of life for a lot of US vietnam war soldiers. The numbers are estimated near 10k during vietnam, that is one of every fve soliders died because of a design flaw or malfunction of this platform!! His design lacked forward assist, they didnt provide cleaning kits (later they did) and much more! This rifle has had numerous congressional hearing over its reliability. The good thing about DI is because it has been around and in service for so long we know what it needs and where it will fail and more so when it will fail. 62 changes have been made to the DI platform since the XM16E1 used in vietnam. The M16/M4 have served us pretty well overall but it is time to move on! In the long term the bigger argument needs to be for a better round! Like a 6.5mm or 6.8mm! I can discuss this for hours...but that is for another time! http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/ Well, your screen name certainly fits... Actually, the "extreme dust trial" has been debunked. The vast majority of the "stoppages" were due to a failure to understand the burst cam operating as designed, for better or for worse. Repeat trials conducted under the same conditions have shown that the M4 Carbine is no more significantly prone to stoppages than any of the other weapons tested. Please show me these "numerous reports" of the M4 failing in combat. Military reports. No tabloid (anything from Military Times counts as such) bullshit, but actual documentation of M4 failures. Careful analysis of the Wanat documents shows inconsistencies like reports of barrels going "white hot," almost impossible to do without melting the gas tube first, making the smaller points of details suspect. Not to take away from the soldiers at Wanat and their sacrifice - but the report does not appear to be accurate reporting - and most likely a knee jerk response issued because an investigation needed to be issued after such a horrible incident to "explain" it. The Individual Carbine trials and "M4 replacement?"  Get back to me when anything is actually *issued*. You were probably waiting with baited breath for the XM8 to go online, and before that, you probably believed that the OICW would be in troops' hands by 2007. I don't know how old you are, but back in the day, you probably thought the M16A2 was on the verge of replacement by the ACR, and that the G11 was the best military small arm ever created. Were you following the Stoner 63 with baited breath when the SEALS carried them to Vietnam? Just *knowing* the M16 was about to be replaced, too?
Colt has said several times that the only reason they developed a piston op rod was because their customers demanded it. Oh, this was in the 1970s, by the way. Nevertheless, recently, they re-opened it, again, in response to customer demands, and spent years developing as mature a system as they could, rather than racing to the market with a half-baked design requiring customers to run T&E and several revisions to the design. Once they announced that it was ready for production, all of the customers who'd been demanding it suddenly wouldn't put their money where their mouths were, and Colt declined to produce them unless someone bought enough of them to justify tooling up for them - because they don't see them as a really necessary development. If you wanna pay for enough, they'll make 'em, otherwise they're content to keep them in their catalog, but never produce them. Not what, if anything's changed recently - the 6940P could still just be "ready for production," or a distributor may have ordered the requisite quantity. ~Augee |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
EvilOne, Remember this is a tech forum... As others have posted, the issues with piston AR's HAVE NOT been fixed. the anti-tilt carriers, Colt's "Articulating Link", etc. merely mitigate the piston tilt. To what extent, I cannot tell you, but it certainly does not eliminate it. faawrenchbender was accurate. Most casual shooters with piston AR's most likely won't have a problem - the piston problems, like wear and/or gouging of the receiver extension and possibly wear/stress on the lower receiver, will be seen most in FA guns and guns with lots of rounds through them (.mil, LE, competition, etc.). You really want to go with this? Let me ask you a few questions...how many rifles have failed because of carrier tilt? Now how many DI rifles have failed to lack of lube? How many rifles have broke...buffer tube from carrier tilt? How many times during the dust test in the scar trials did the piston systems stop (HK416, SCAR..etc) compared to the Mighty DI Colt? • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. It has 4x the failure rate...proper maintenance...nothing in a fire fight you cant ask for a time out to clean your weapon! How many DI rifles in a combat situation would fail if pulled from the water and shoot? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU
How many marines were found dead next to their DI rifles in vietnam with a cleaning rode stuck in the barrel or other issues of stoppage? There are many design...this isnt a DI or nothing crap anymore. In november the Army has issued a trial like the scar to replace the DI rifle. Do to overwhelming combart data that has shown in numerous reports that the DI rifle has failed during combat operations the Army is in the process of replacing the DI rifle. I know they have been trying to replace the M4/M16 for years. But remember, Colt for years has lobbied in washington and lined the pockets of many senators, congressmen and military brass to keep the colt made M4 in service. More info: http://www.defensereview.com/the-u-s-armys-next-carbine-hello-gas-pistonop-rod-enhanced-m4m4a1-carbine-type-ar-ar-15-goodbye-direct-gas-impingement-dgi-operation/ There is a better mouse trap, one that less effected by the environment, requires less maintenance to remain functional. What should strike you in this article is that the mighty Colt...is now going Piston! Enhanced M4 is a colt piston for the military. Will it win...with the amount of lobbying colt does on washington...probably. It is time our guys got the best and most reliable platform. But it might win because it can simply be retrofit in the field by replacing the upper! I have both a DI (KAC SR15E3) and a Ruger SR556C. I like them both and I prefer my KAC for the weight and balance but my SR556C runs cleaner, fires a bigger variety of ammo (Wolf, Tula, Silver Bear) and is as accurate...well as accurate as I am. My KAC is finished beautifully and when properly maintained and feed the right ammo functions perfect. However if tomorrow became Armageddon I will grab my ruger. I know if doesnt need the amount of lube my KAC does (it can run damn near dry!), it can function if brought out of the water and fired immediately and it will work with more types of ammo! But it isnt as impacted by dust, mud, dirt...etc either more over It is less environmental temperamental! This DI or nothing Kool-Aid is getting old. Many systems currently have no signs of carrier tilt! LWRC, SIG, PWS, HK416/MR556, the list goes on. Carrier tilt is a non-issue...show me one report of a rifle that failed or broke from excessive carrier tilt...one! Other parts on a rfile will fail long before your buffer tube will break! Oh and the argument about stoner system was never designed for a piston is false...he presented 2 systems to the military the AR-18 was a piston version. The military opted for the DI because it was cheaper! Not to mention stoner invented the DI system...where as the piston was not his invention...so which one do you think he was push? The M16 (XM16E1) was untested and caused the loss of life for a lot of US vietnam war soldiers. The numbers are estimated near 10k during vietnam, that is one of every fve soliders died because of a design flaw or malfunction of this platform!! His design lacked forward assist, they didnt provide cleaning kits (later they did) and much more! This rifle has had numerous congressional hearing over its reliability. The good thing about DI is because it has been around and in service for so long we know what it needs and where it will fail and more so when it will fail. 62 changes have been made to the DI platform since the XM16E1 used in vietnam. The M16/M4 have served us pretty well overall but it is time to move on! In the long term the bigger argument needs to be for a better round! Like a 6.5mm or 6.8mm! I can discuss this for hours...but that is for another time! http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/ Well, your screen name certainly fits... Actually, the "extreme dust trial" has been debunked. The vast majority of the "stoppages" were due to a failure to understand the burst cam operating as designed, for better or for worse. Repeat trials conducted under the same conditions have shown that the M4 Carbine is no more significantly prone to stoppages than any of the other weapons tested. Please show me these "numerous reports" of the M4 failing in combat. Military reports. No tabloid (anything from Military Times counts as such) bullshit, but actual documentation of M4 failures. Careful analysis of the Wanat documents shows inconsistencies like reports of barrels going "white hot," almost impossible to do without melting the gas tube first, making the smaller points of details suspect. Not to take away from the soldiers at Wanat and their sacrifice - but the report does not appear to be accurate reporting - and most likely a knee jerk response issued because an investigation needed to be issued after such a horrible incident to "explain" it. The Individual Carbine trials and "M4 replacement?" Get back to me when anything is actually *issued*. You were probably waiting with baited breath for the XM8 to go online, and before that, you probably believed that the OICW would be in troops' hands by 2007. I don't know how old you are, but back in the day, you probably thought the M16A2 was on the verge of replacement by the ACR, and that the G11 was the best military small arm ever created. Were you following the Stoner 63 with baited breath when the SEALS carried them to Vietnam? Just *knowing* the M16 was about to be replaced, too?
Colt has said several times that the only reason they developed a piston op rod was because their customers demanded it. Oh, this was in the 1970s, by the way. Nevertheless, recently, they re-opened it, again, in response to customer demands, and spent years developing as mature a system as they could, rather than racing to the market with a half-baked design requiring customers to run T&E and several revisions to the design. Once they announced that it was ready for production, all of the customers who'd been demanding it suddenly wouldn't put their money where their mouths were, and Colt declined to produce them unless someone bought enough of them to justify tooling up for them - because they don't see them as a really necessary development. If you wanna pay for enough, they'll make 'em, otherwise they're content to keep them in their catalog, but never produce them. Not what, if anything's changed recently - the 6940P could still just be "ready for production," or a distributor may have ordered the requisite quantity. ~Augee The details on the reports are still classified. Only the numbers have been released. You will probably never see the detailed results either for they are too damaging. More over are not in favor of colt...you know the company that lobbies Washington like no other in regards to rifles for they stand to lose the most from those findings! The thing that you should think about is why was the SCAR program dropped...and others like it...could it be because colt dropped the price on the M4 after the results where presented to them...hmmmm? This is nothing short of political. But back to the point about the DI design.. numerous brass have been on newsweek, time, and US News (on the record) and other speaking directly about the fail rate over a number of years. Numerous congressional hearings over its reliability have been done. Numerous servicemen in vietnam have spoke of this first hand...my father-in-law as one of them! Discovery Channel has had pieces (well on rifles in general but spoke of the problems and limitations) on this as well as other public tv. Did you read the piece at DR (I do tend to take his stuff like a grain of salt but still) article about the enhanced m4 that colt is working on per the armys request. He even did an interview with one of the product developers at colt more over why colt is building it...no for consumer demand either...your welcome to look it up! Dont believe me on the stoppage...attend a carbine course (try it in the dessert with the wind blowing! or not)...lube once and see if you get thru a 2-day course...no cleaning either without stoppage....a thousand round course. Try the same with a piston and throw in some mixed ammo as well. I have read the filthy 14 where it went with one application of SLiP 2000...let see how many time that can be repeat...they did it with one rifle. As for the SCAR Competition...it was a high round count test done with a sampling (multiple rifles from each manufacturer). I am yet to see any report of it being debunked! If the rifle in vietnam had no problems why have 62 changes been made to its design? And the scar test was done not in the 70 but in 2004...it failed. I own both...DI and Piston...like them for different reason. The DI rifle is a good design however not a great one. It has its limitation and flaws but so does piston but in different ways. I will still have my DI KAC for I love the quality and balance but I will also have a piston rifle for its reliability. We (a group of us) hope to do an experiment of our own this summer to see from a recreational shooters stand point if a piston is really that much more reliable. I dont think the a piston from a recreational stand point is that much of a big deal...competition maybe...military....absolutely! Just my 2 cents. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/ |
| Just commenting on the supposed problem with the piston hitting the top of the carrier and not in the center. The FN FAL piston hits the top of the FAL's bolt carrier to function, and is an extremely reliable rifle. Some of the guys that own/work for LWRC were originally FAL shooters, and some of the LWRC designs come directly from the FN FAL rifle. I have built, shot and carried the DI rifles for fun and work, and will never go back to DI again. I now own two LWRC rifles and am working on getting a third. |
|
Quoted:
Soapbox if the m4 is so bad why does it have a 90% approval rate by soldiers? Cause most of the people in my platoon are too stupid to know anything about firearms aside from the fact they shoot bullets and you need to have your sights on targets to hit stuff. When people haven't been around firearms and don't know any better it's kind of hard to form an opinion when you haven't shot anything else. I would take my own personal rifle into combat if I could any day of the week. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soapbox if the m4 is so bad why does it have a 90% approval rate by soldiers? Cause most of the people in my platoon are too stupid to know anything about firearms aside from the fact they shoot bullets and you need to have your sights on targets to hit stuff. When people haven't been around firearms and don't know any better it's kind of hard to form an opinion when you haven't shot anything else. I would take my own personal rifle into combat if I could any day of the week. See thats the whole thing, everyone says we need a fool proof system, sounds to me like se have one, if the dimbest of the dumb can use it without trouble isnt that the goal? I mean if morons can keep a gun maintained a gun guy can too A switch a piston will still have a 90% approval rate because there are always those people who find something to bith about, just look at spots on this website I also think clp is a poor lube, it burns off way to fast, the stuff i use lasts for at least 300rnds and it takes only 3 drop |
|
Quoted:
Soapbox if the m4 is so bad why does it have a 90% approval rate by soldiers? Where are you getting that number from? In any case it would not surprise me. Most infantry will shoot their m4 and that is it. Moreover they don't know any better. My best friend loves his...he is a g8 and admits he has not shot any piston platforms to the extent of his di. He knows his weapon in and out, knows when it needs to be cleaned, when it needs to be oil, and his biggest complaint are the magazines. He has servered 5 tours in the sandbox and told me point blank the sand does effect his m4 but they know this so clean appropriately. All this being said with 40 years of service they know this weapons limitations in and out as well. However and these are his words sometime these limitation show up during battle and they can compromise the mission or at least jeordize the safety of soldiers in his unit. He is happy with his m4 but would certainly welcome something that requires less maintenance and isn't as temperamental namely in conditions that are not ideal to the m4. He has served for now 20 years and all of it with a di platform. His limited time with piston systems and lack of battle proven time has made him reluctant however he does strongly admit the m4 is far from perfect and has certainly caused some loss of life due to failure. He is not a big gun guy outside of the corp. So unlike many of us he doesn't have a strong position on the whole di vs GP argument. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soapbox if the m4 is so bad why does it have a 90% approval rate by soldiers? Where are you getting that number from? In any case it would not surprise me. Most infantry will shoot their m4 and that is it. Moreover they don't know any better. My best friend loves his...he is a g8 and admits he has not shot any piston platforms to the extent of his di. He knows his weapon in and out, knows when it needs to be cleaned, when it needs to be oil, and his biggest complaint are the magazines. He has servered 5 tours in the sandbox and told me point blank the sand does effect his m4 but they know this so clean appropriately. All this being said with 40 years of service they know this weapons limitations in and out as well. However and these are his words sometime these limitation show up during battle and they can compromise the mission or at least jeordize the safety of soldiers in his unit. He is happy with his m4 but would certainly welcome something that requires less maintenance and isn't as temperamental namely in conditions that are not ideal to the m4. He has served for now 20 years and all of it with a di platform. His limited time with piston systems and lack of battle proven time has made him reluctant however he does strongly admit the m4 is far from perfect and has certainly caused some loss of life due to failure. He is not a big gun guy outside of the corp. So unlike many of us he doesn't have a strong position on the whole di vs GP argument. Have you considered the fact that his "not being a gun guy" outside the CorpS (he would probably curb stomp you if he saw that if he's like any Marine NCOs I've ever met, particular if he's what I assume you meant - an E8, not a G8) combined with your particularly strong opinion causes him to simply concede to your "soap box preaching" to avoid a protracted argument about something that he really doesn't care that much about? If I knew you in person, I'd probably think it was easier to just let you rant than to bother trying to correct you. Actually, that's what I've done in this thread... Some people have opinions either way on the DI versus GP debate. That's fine, I'm not here to stomp on your personal preferences or the GP system in general. However, I do feel obligated - mainly just to satisfy myself, anyways, why else does anyone post anything on an internet forum - to point out that the vast majority of the reasons that you have stated for your preference are either a) hearsay, or b) from sensationalized, tabloid, commercial websites or worse yet - blogs. These are nothing more than one or another individual's opinions. There is essentially no way to verify the accuracy of information provided in a blog without a works cited and bibliography, and exhaustively going through all of those things to ensure that the reporting is accurate. The internet and blogs in particular have no standard for journalistic integrity, and even less for verifying whether or not an individual is qualified themselves to interpret the qualified sources cited. If you want to read more and discuss things and talk about more than your personal opinion, and claim things like "the Army knows that DI is responsible for unnecessary combat deaths" please provide documentation. DTIC.mil is a good starting point for primary source material, but not the only one. ~Augee |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soapbox if the m4 is so bad why does it have a 90% approval rate by soldiers? Where are you getting that number from? In any case it would not surprise me. Most infantry will shoot their m4 and that is it. Moreover they don't know any better. My best friend loves his...he is a g8 and admits he has not shot any piston platforms to the extent of his di. He knows his weapon in and out, knows when it needs to be cleaned, when it needs to be oil, and his biggest complaint are the magazines. He has servered 5 tours in the sandbox and told me point blank the sand does effect his m4 but they know this so clean appropriately. All this being said with 40 years of service they know this weapons limitations in and out as well. However and these are his words sometime these limitation show up during battle and they can compromise the mission or at least jeordize the safety of soldiers in his unit. He is happy with his m4 but would certainly welcome something that requires less maintenance and isn't as temperamental namely in conditions that are not ideal to the m4. He has served for now 20 years and all of it with a di platform. His limited time with piston systems and lack of battle proven time has made him reluctant however he does strongly admit the m4 is far from perfect and has certainly caused some loss of life due to failure. He is not a big gun guy outside of the corp. So unlike many of us he doesn't have a strong position on the whole di vs GP argument. Have you considered the fact that his "not being a gun guy" outside the CorpS (he would probably curb stomp you if he saw that if he's like any Marine NCOs I've ever met, particular if he's what I assume you meant - an E8, not a G8) combined with your particularly strong opinion causes him to simply concede to your "soap box preaching" to avoid a protracted argument about something that he really doesn't care that much about? If I knew you in person, I'd probably think it was easier to just let you rant than to bother trying to correct you. Actually, that's what I've done in this thread... Some people have opinions either way on the DI versus GP debate. That's fine, I'm not here to stomp on your personal preferences or the GP system in general. However, I do feel obligated - mainly just to satisfy myself, anyways, why else does anyone post anything on an internet forum - to point out that the vast majority of the reasons that you have stated for your preference are either a) hearsay, or b) from sensationalized, tabloid, commercial websites or worse yet - blogs. These are nothing more than one or another individual's opinions. There is essentially no way to verify the accuracy of information provided in a blog without a works cited and bibliography, and exhaustively going through all of those things to ensure that the reporting is accurate. The internet and blogs in particular have no standard for journalistic integrity, and even less for verifying whether or not an individual is qualified themselves to interpret the qualified sources cited. If you want to read more and discuss things and talk about more than your personal opinion, and claim things like "the Army knows that DI is responsible for unnecessary combat deaths" please provide documentation. DTIC.mil is a good starting point for primary source material, but not the only one. ~Augee you the man augee, just so you know having talked to someone in the know who works with the military and with SOF(i promised not to mention his name) he says that alot of his SOF contacts actually prefer the new M4A1 SOPMOD Block II over the HK416 for multiple reasons, they admit the HK is cleaner but they also admit its not a problem if you clean at night. the only time they prefer the HK416 is when running in with a short barrel and suppressed for extended periods, all other times they choose the M4, thought that was interesting |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soapbox if the m4 is so bad why does it have a 90% approval rate by soldiers? Where are you getting that number from? In any case it would not surprise me. Most infantry will shoot their m4 and that is it. Moreover they don't know any better. My best friend loves his...he is a g8 and admits he has not shot any piston platforms to the extent of his di. He knows his weapon in and out, knows when it needs to be cleaned, when it needs to be oil, and his biggest complaint are the magazines. He has servered 5 tours in the sandbox and told me point blank the sand does effect his m4 but they know this so clean appropriately. All this being said with 40 years of service they know this weapons limitations in and out as well. However and these are his words sometime these limitation show up during battle and they can compromise the mission or at least jeordize the safety of soldiers in his unit. He is happy with his m4 but would certainly welcome something that requires less maintenance and isn't as temperamental namely in conditions that are not ideal to the m4. He has served for now 20 years and all of it with a di platform. His limited time with piston systems and lack of battle proven time has made him reluctant however he does strongly admit the m4 is far from perfect and has certainly caused some loss of life due to failure. He is not a big gun guy outside of the corp. So unlike many of us he doesn't have a strong position on the whole di vs GP argument. Have you considered the fact that his "not being a gun guy" outside the CorpS (he would probably curb stomp you if he saw that if he's like any Marine NCOs I've ever met, particular if he's what I assume you meant - an E8, not a G8) combined with your particularly strong opinion causes him to simply concede to your "soap box preaching" to avoid a protracted argument about something that he really doesn't care that much about? If I knew you in person, I'd probably think it was easier to just let you rant than to bother trying to correct you. Actually, that's what I've done in this thread... Some people have opinions either way on the DI versus GP debate. That's fine, I'm not here to stomp on your personal preferences or the GP system in general. However, I do feel obligated - mainly just to satisfy myself, anyways, why else does anyone post anything on an internet forum - to point out that the vast majority of the reasons that you have stated for your preference are either a) hearsay, or b) from sensationalized, tabloid, commercial websites or worse yet - blogs. These are nothing more than one or another individual's opinions. There is essentially no way to verify the accuracy of information provided in a blog without a works cited and bibliography, and exhaustively going through all of those things to ensure that the reporting is accurate. The internet and blogs in particular have no standard for journalistic integrity, and even less for verifying whether or not an individual is qualified themselves to interpret the qualified sources cited. If you want to read more and discuss things and talk about more than your personal opinion, and claim things like "the Army knows that DI is responsible for unnecessary combat deaths" please provide documentation. DTIC.mil is a good starting point for primary source material, but not the only one. ~Augee The only argument I need is right here...all sources are sited. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soapbox if the m4 is so bad why does it have a 90% approval rate by soldiers? The Lee Enfield was loved by British soldiers not because it was the best...but because they knew no other... Same with the M-4. if thats the case why do SOF units prefer the M4A1 Block II over the HK 416? i wont post my source but i know what he says is true. there are only a few people here i would tell my source. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Soapbox if the m4 is so bad why does it have a 90% approval rate by soldiers? Where are you getting that number from? In any case it would not surprise me. Most infantry will shoot their m4 and that is it. Moreover they don't know any better. My best friend loves his...he is a g8 and admits he has not shot any piston platforms to the extent of his di. He knows his weapon in and out, knows when it needs to be cleaned, when it needs to be oil, and his biggest complaint are the magazines. He has servered 5 tours in the sandbox and told me point blank the sand does effect his m4 but they know this so clean appropriately. All this being said with 40 years of service they know this weapons limitations in and out as well. However and these are his words sometime these limitation show up during battle and they can compromise the mission or at least jeordize the safety of soldiers in his unit. He is happy with his m4 but would certainly welcome something that requires less maintenance and isn't as temperamental namely in conditions that are not ideal to the m4. He has served for now 20 years and all of it with a di platform. His limited time with piston systems and lack of battle proven time has made him reluctant however he does strongly admit the m4 is far from perfect and has certainly caused some loss of life due to failure. He is not a big gun guy outside of the corp. So unlike many of us he doesn't have a strong position on the whole di vs GP argument. Have you considered the fact that his "not being a gun guy" outside the CorpS (he would probably curb stomp you if he saw that if he's like any Marine NCOs I've ever met, particular if he's what I assume you meant - an E8, not a G8) combined with your particularly strong opinion causes him to simply concede to your "soap box preaching" to avoid a protracted argument about something that he really doesn't care that much about? If I knew you in person, I'd probably think it was easier to just let you rant than to bother trying to correct you. Actually, that's what I've done in this thread... Some people have opinions either way on the DI versus GP debate. That's fine, I'm not here to stomp on your personal preferences or the GP system in general. However, I do feel obligated - mainly just to satisfy myself, anyways, why else does anyone post anything on an internet forum - to point out that the vast majority of the reasons that you have stated for your preference are either a) hearsay, or b) from sensationalized, tabloid, commercial websites or worse yet - blogs. These are nothing more than one or another individual's opinions. There is essentially no way to verify the accuracy of information provided in a blog without a works cited and bibliography, and exhaustively going through all of those things to ensure that the reporting is accurate. The internet and blogs in particular have no standard for journalistic integrity, and even less for verifying whether or not an individual is qualified themselves to interpret the qualified sources cited. If you want to read more and discuss things and talk about more than your personal opinion, and claim things like "the Army knows that DI is responsible for unnecessary combat deaths" please provide documentation. DTIC.mil is a good starting point for primary source material, but not the only one. ~Augee The only argument I need is right here...all sources are sited. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/ ::sigh:: Okay, soapboxpreacher. I'm bored. Let's play, and then I'm done here: The article you linked to: Let's start with the HTML: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/the-m-16-argument-heats-up-again/ I'm a pretty progressive kind of guy, and I recognize that I'm usually in the minority on ARFCOM over that fact. So it's surprising to me that another ARFCOMer is using, of all sources - the NY Times to back up their argument. That's fine - it's not even a publication piece by the NY Times. It's a BLOG post. Okay so, the article itself is really meaningless - but let's evaluate the sources - not cited properly, by the way. Just hyperlinked. The latest controversy followed the leak of an Army historian’s study that described weapons overheating and jamming in a July 2008 battle in Wanat, Afghanistan. Nine American soldiers died in that fight, at a remote post that insurgents almost overran.
The hyperlink here is to another NY Times article about the Battle of Wanat. I have already addressed my feelings on the Wanat report, and how it fails the litmus test of accurate reporting - it was more of a political report than a factual one. Nevertheless, fine. One document source. Similar reports of malfunctions, and concerns that the M-16 and M-4 and their cartridges lack so-called stopping power, have created a sustained set of criticisms about the United States military’s primary small arms.
The attached hyperlink is to: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_M4numbers_080107w/ Army Times. Not a reliable source. Some concerns predated the current wars. One study of the M-4 in February 2001, by the Special Operations Command, concluded that the weapon’s design was “fundamentally flawed” and prone to “alarming failures” when subjected to intense shooting. In 2004 the Special Operations Command contracted for a new rifle, the SCAR, to replace its M-4s.
Source cited is a Congressional report on the M4's performance motivated by Tom Colburn's agitations. It's faulty for several reasons, but I'll address them after going through the NY Times blog post you cited first. In the ensuing years, data has been mixed. A survey by the Center for Naval Analysis in 2006 found that 75 percent of soldiers reported overall satisfaction with the M-16 and 89 percent with the M-4. But the study also found that 19 percent of the soldiers surveyed had experienced “a stoppage while engaging the enemy.”
Finally a legitimate source! The link is to this page: http://images.military.com/pix/defensetech/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf What this points out, however, is the very real problem with whether or not bloggers are qualified to interpret the data correctly. Our blogger, as we might expect, cited the parts that supported his little blog post, without taking into account the whole paper. Feel free to click and read through it, but it's a report entitled "Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat" by Sara M. Russell. Some good quotes from this paper - gleaned from actually reading it, not trusting a blogger's interpretation of it: Qualification level and soldier training did not have an effect on reported
stoppages. However, confidence in weapon reliability was higher for soldiers in upper qualification levels. Soldiers who had trained with the weapon in an environment similar to theater prior to deployment were also more likely to be confident in the reliability of their weapon. Weapons that were rebuilt were reportedly repaired more often
than non-rebuilt weapons, and those with rebuilt weapons were less likely to be confident in the durability of the weapon. The actual populations
of the weapons used in theater are as follows: M9, 16 percent; M4, 25 percent; M16, 49 percent; and M249, 9 percent. The sample taken for this study shows a similar breakdown: M9, 6 percent; M4, 35 percent; M16, 46 percent; and M249, 13 percent. The specific population chosen for this study explains differences in percentages for the M9 and the M249. That is, only soldiers who had fired their weapon at enemy targets while in theater were selected to participate in this study. Most soldiers meeting these criteria are frontline infantry who are less likely to be issued a M9 pistol and more likely to be issued a M249 light machine gun. Soldiers were most satisfied with the M4 (89
percent) Soldiers were most confident in the reliability of the M4 (80 percent)
and M16 (71 percent) and least confident in the reliability of the M9 (54 percent). As with reliability, soldiers are most
confident in the durability of the M4 (83 percent) and M16 (72 percent) M4 and
M16 users using duct tape and zip cord to attach accessories to their weapon were two and three times more likely to experience a stoppage. Those who were issued a rebuilt M4 were 3.5 times more likely to experience a stoppage. M16 users were consistent and adamant about their desire
to be issued an M4. Reports of weapon stoppages at least one time while engaging the
enemy were 30 percent or less across all weapons. Most stoppages were reported to have a small impact on continuing in the engagement with the weapon. The M9 and M249 were reported to have the most stoppages and the highest resulting negative impact. Compare this sampling of quotes with the conclusions our intrepid blogger apparently took from "reading" the report: The questions are whether the weapon is a step too far toward lightness, and whether its operating system — in which a direct blast of gas from the burning propellant forces a lightweight bolt carrier and bolt to begin the firing cycle — is as reliable as other options, including a slightly heavier, piston-based design.
Not sure where he came up with this out of that. Okay, so the next source he cites... well, it's not even a source. It's an Army PEO Soldier web blog - more a PR organ than an official site, but nevertheless: He also said the rifles are constantly examined for potential improvements, and that the M-4 alone had undergone 62 changes since its introduction in the early 1990s. The most recent change is a new magazine that has been issued this year. The magazine has a stronger spring and a different follower assembly, which the Army says pushes rounds into the path of the bolt more surely and smoothly, and reduces failures.
True, the M4 Carbine has been and continues to undergo upgrades throughout its service life. I should hope that any weapon would. The M4 Carbine was adopted in 1994. A lot has changed in the field of gunfighting since then, and with small improvements, the M4 has kept up, it seems. So, let's discuss the Congressional report: The Army's M-4 Carbine: Background and Issues for Congress By Andrew Feickert, "Specialist in Military Ground Forces." A google search of Mr. Feikert reveals that he was a Special Forces officer in the 1980's, and is a Washington D.C. research analyst for the Congressional Research Service. Okay, not too bad, but it's not exactly credentialed work there, we can only trust in his operational experience in the 80's. His CV lists no advanced degree, and an Amazon search of publications authored by him is limited to other similar Congressional reports. Also, let's understand the nature and purpose of Congressional background reports - they're a general overview document intended to familiarize legislators with no other knowledge of the subject matter with the basic facts of the topic. They're not detailed academic or research reports. So - let's start out with first - the title: "M-4 Carbine." Mr. Feikert uses the terminology "M-4" using the hyphen throught the text. This makes him immediately suspect. MIL-STD-1464A governing Army nomenclature does not indicate the use of hyphens in abbreviated nomenclature. An officer publishing a formal report should at least have the wherewithall to use the correct and to standard nomenclature, that is to say "M4." While it doesn't necessarily put any of his conclusions in question, it does make me question his familiarity and diligence in preparing the report, if something as basic as whether or not the miltiary designation "M4" includes a hyphen or not. Regardless, on to his sources that he cites: Page 1: 1 Matthew Cox, “Better Than M4, But You Can’t Have One,” Army Times, March 1, 2007, and “Competition Sought
for New Army Rifle,” Army Times, April 27, 2007. 2 Ibid. 3 “Major revamp Possible for M4 Carbine”, Army Times, November 22, 2009. Army Times. As a source? Hardly. Page 2: 4 “The Future of US Army Small Arms”, Soldier Systems April 12, 2010.
5 M4 Not Suited to Warfare in Afghan Hills,” Marine Corps Times, May 22, 2010. Soldier Systems and Marine Corps Times, again, commercial and blog sources. 6 Shawn T. Jenkins and Douglas S. Lowrey, “A Comparative Small Analysis of Current and Planned Small Arms
Weapon Systems,” MBA Professional Report, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, December 2004, pp. 29-31. Okay, our first decent source! What does the citation refer to? Reliability can be described as “the probability that an item can perform its intended
function for a specified interval under stated conditions” and lethality as “the killing or stopping power of a bullet when fired from a weapon.”6 The citation is for nothing more than a definition for reliability and lethality. No reference to what the report itself actually said about the issue. The preceeding sentance was about "reports" of unreliability and poor lethality and cited source 5, a suspect source. Alright, fine, next: 7 Information from this section is taken from USSOCOM Study: “M-4A1 Carbine and Related Systems Deficiencies
and Solutions: Operational and Technical Study With Analysis of Alternatives,” February 23, 2001. 8 Ibid., p. 5. 9 Ibid., p. 20. A 2001 SOCOM study done on the M4A1 Carbine. A good source, though I would point out that a google search of said document reveals that it uses the correct "M4A1" nomenclature, and that our author has mistranscribed the title as "M-4A1." Either way, the study did reveal some deficiencies with the M4A1 Carbine as it existed prior to 2001. I've transcribed the entire section here that cites, several times this SOCOM report: USSOCOM M-4A1 Study7 In February 2001, USSOCOM published a study and analysis of alternatives focused on the M-
4A1 carbine used by USSOCOM units. The study concludes that the M-4A1 design was fundamentally flawed—in part due to barrel and gas tube shortening—and that a variety of factors “led to alarming failures of the M-4A1 in operations under the harsh conditions and heavy firing schedules common in SOF training and operations.”8 While USSOCOM concluded in 2001 that the M-4A1 carbine in its current configuration did not meet SOF requirements,9 USSOCOM noted that the shortfalls that they identified had not become evident in conventional Army units that used the M-4, likely due to the “newness” of the weapon and the lower firing schedules of conventional unit training.10 USSOCOM further noted that the M-4 met or exceeded the Army’s specifications for reliability and that the M-4 met the needs of the conventional Army.11 (This extends on to Page 3, citations for 10 and 11 are Ibid for citation 7.) For those that are unaware - the results of this report and studies were some of the "62 modifications" to the M4 platform that are now standard - while I don't have the direct link to the paper itself on hand, I have read it. Either way, this was also the time that SOCOM was having barrel bursting problems in fully automatic fire with government profile barrels, resulting in the adoption of the RO921HB profile barrel in the M4A1, along with the H2 buffer, enhanced extractor and spring, ect. So on to the rest of Page 3: 12 Information in this section is taken from Project Manager Soldier Weapons, “Soldier Weapons Assessment Team Report 6-03: Operation Iraqi Freedom,” July 31, 2003. 13 Ibid., p. 34. 14 Ibid., p. 35. 15 Information in this section is taken from Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) Study: “Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat,” December 2006. CNA is a federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC) for the Department of the Navy. Also good sources - let's see what the citations are for: The assessment stated that the M-4 was “by far the
preferred individual weapon across the theater of operations”13 and recommended in the “near
term replace the M-16 with the M-4 as the standard issue weapon.”14 Citation 15 is a reiteration of the CNA study I've already discussed above in a "bullet point" format that I won't bother to transcribe, and closing with this paragraph: Although M-4 critics cite this report as evidence of unsuitability of the M-4, it might also be
interpreted as a favorable report on the M-4’s overall reliability and acceptance by soldiers. The “larger bullet” recommendation for lethality purposes may, in fact, be a valid recommendation based on observations from Iraq and Afghanistan, but the “bigger bullet debate” has been a source of contention for many small arms experts ever since the Army adopted the 5.56 mm M-16 during Vietnam in lieu of the 7.62 mm M-14 rifle. Page 4: 16 For additional information on U.S. Special Forces, see CRS Report RS21048, U.S. Special Operations Forces
(SOF): Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert. 17 USSOCOM Study: “M-4A1 Carbine and Related Systems Deficiencies and Solutions: Operational and Technical Study With Analysis of Alternatives,” February 23, 2001. 18 Matthew Cox and Kris Osborn, “M4,In Their Sights,” Defense News, February 25, 2008. 19 Scott R. Gourley, “Soldier Armed: Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifles,” Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) Army Magazine, May 1, 2006. 20 “US SOCOM Awards Contract for SCAR Development,” Jane’s International Defense Review, January 2008, p. 26. 21 FNH USA is the U.S.-based sales and marketing entity for the Belgium-based FN Herstal S.A. 22 Scott R. Gourley, “SCAR Evaluation Nears Conclusion,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, March 19, 2009, p. 12. 23 Information in this section is from Joshua Kucera, “SOCOM Selects New Assault Rifle,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, February 5, 2005, p. 8. Mr. Feikert begins by citing himself in citation 16. Citation 17 is again from the SOCOM report discussing problems with the M4A1 that we've already discussed. In the meantime since both this report was written and 2001 when the cited report was written, SOCOM has evaluated and fielded the MK 16 MOD 0, and decided on divestiture in favor of the M4A1 Carbine. Citation 18 - Defense News, commercial blog. Citation 19 - discussion of the FN SCAR, and MK 16 MOD 0 specifially, I've addressed this. Same with citation 20, 21, 22, and 23. Page 5: 24 Information in this section is taken from Matthew Cox, “75th Rangers Will Take Scar Into Combat,” Defense News,
May 11, 2009. 25 Information in this section is from Matthew Cox, “Competition Sought for New Army Rifle,” Army Times, April 27, 2007. 26 Matthew Cox, “Army Tests of Rival Carbines Postponed,” Army Times, September 20, 2007. 27 Matthew Cox, “New Carbines Outperform M-4 in Dust Test,” Army Times, December 17, 2007. 28 Information in this section is from Matthew Cox, “Giving M-4 Failures an Alibi,” Army Times, December 29, 2007. 29 Information in this section is from a briefing given to CRS by Colt Defense, LLC on July 14, 2009. Citations 24-28 are all from commercial blogs and "yellow journalism" of the "xx-branch Times" type. Citation 29 is in defense of the M4 Carbine, but as listed, it's provided by Colt, a commercial entity, so decidedly suspect and biased if we're being impartial. Page 6: 30 Information in this sections is from the U.S. Army Infantry Center Small Arms Capabilities Based Assessment
provided to Congress on January 21, 2009. 31 Defilade is defined as protection provided from hostile fire provided by an obstacle such as a hill, ridge, or bank; a vertical distance by which a position is concealed from enemy observation; or to shield from enemy fire or observation by using natural or artificial obstacles. This section is nothing more than an overview of Army standards and evaluation criteria, and have little to do with reliability assessments. Page 7: 32 Matthew Cox, “U.S. Army Asks Industry for an M-4 Replacement,” Army Times, October 6, 2008 and Matthew Cox,
“Army Solicits Industry for M-4 Replacement,” Army Times, September 29, 2008. Army Times "sources." 'nuff said. Page 8: 33 Information in this section is from Matthew Cox, “Program Reviews Could Affect Carbine Search,” Army Times,
April 25, 2009. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Scott R. Gourley, “Soldier Armed: Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifles,” Association of the U.S. Army (continued...) Citations 33-35, Army Times. Citation 36 - about the SCAR. And thus ends the report. An analysis of a) the blog post you provided me, and b) the major sources used in the blog report suggests that the information is decidedly suspect. The only source anywhere there that is both reliable and legitimate that suggests that the M4 is systemically flawed: 1. Is about the M4A1, and suggests that the M4 Carbine is more than sufficient for conventional forces in its existing configuration. 2. Is now over a decade old, and the recommendations of the report have been followed and applied to currently issued weapons. Furthermore, the organization (SOCOM) that drafted that report has since financed the development from the ground up of a specific weapon system for their use, that has gone into production, been fielded, and is now being rejected in 5.56MM format (though the MK 17 remains popular) in favor of the very weapon system the report was about. I guess in the end, this might've been a wasted effort on my part - you're a preacher, apparently. I'm an academic. I guess I have a higher burden for factual evidence than you do. Anyways, have fun, guys. And my advice? Buy what you like, you'll have more fun than you can handle either way!
~Augee |
| And I thought I had a soapbox to preach on...I still stand by the fact that the M4/M16 after 62 changes still has its issues. It is not perfect no weapon system is. However there is always room for improvement...hence the 62 change...I will leave you with this...is the piston the 63rd? Lets put this to bed...we will not know what happens for another 3 years until the IC test is completed and all the politics about it are sorted out...which could be even longer than that! |
|
Here is the thing on the 6940 from my perspective. Put simply the rail is to short and because it a mono you are screwed. I had one for a bit and it is a great gun that offers Colt reliability and is surprisingly accurate. MOA or better rifle. The accuracy impressed me if I'm being honest about it. However when I was trying to set up my rifle I simply didnt have enough room, and it also compromised my shooting grip. I have found 9' +/- to be the minimum rail that I need but that is certainly preference.
I run LMT MRP's and really like them. They are very reliable, very accurate, mid gas, monolithic upper, SOPMOD stock, quick caliber and barrel change and backed by one of the best companies in the industry. I just added this yesterday to the MRP collection (I have also run LWRCI M6A3 pistons). I think one would serve you very well. Solid carrier with ramps to avoid tilt, and a very simple piston to work on. It also has multiple settings for shooting with a can. Definitely worth checking out. 
|
|
I find it humorous that there is still anti-piston shenanigans happening in the piston forum.
But anyway, if carrier tilt cannot be fixed in external driven AR-15's, then why do so many builds not show signs? On mine I have no shaved metal or visibly worn spots in my upper receiver along the carrier rail, receiver extension or bolt carrier. Is the damage microscopic? The only worn spots are from the charging handle and cam pin. ETA: I run my build suppressed, so my build should have double the wear if carrier tilt was present, right? 
|
|
Quoted:
I find it humorous that there is still anti-piston shenanigans happening in the piston forum. But anyway, if carrier tilt cannot be fixed in external driven AR-15's, then why do so many builds not show signs? On mine I have no shaved metal or visibly worn spots in my upper receiver along the carrier rail, receiver extension or bolt carrier. Is the damage microscopic? The only worn spots are from the charging handle and cam pin. ETA: I run my build suppressed, so my build should have double the wear if carrier tilt was present, right? http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/chrisq_01/SU1BRzA4NDUuanBn.jpg http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/chrisq_01/100_2615.jpg http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/chrisq_01/100_2613.jpg http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/chrisq_01/100_2614.jpg What manuf isthat? Its odd they left the gas exaust holes there in a piston carrier |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I find it humorous that there is still anti-piston shenanigans happening in the piston forum. But anyway, if carrier tilt cannot be fixed in external driven AR-15's, then why do so many builds not show signs? On mine I have no shaved metal or visibly worn spots in my upper receiver along the carrier rail, receiver extension or bolt carrier. Is the damage microscopic? The only worn spots are from the charging handle and cam pin. ETA: I run my build suppressed, so my build should have double the wear if carrier tilt was present, right? http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/chrisq_01/SU1BRzA4NDUuanBn.jpg http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/chrisq_01/100_2615.jpg http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/chrisq_01/100_2613.jpg http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/chrisq_01/100_2614.jpg What manuf isthat? Its odd they left the gas exaust holes there in a piston carrier Osprey Defense. One reason could be if somebody left the gas rings in the bolt. There would need to be a pressure relief somewhere. |
| Holes might help with water or blown bolt face, the kink does make a rotation force that is better distributed by more area, why are all these hackjob carriers not externally broached so they keep contact rails along the carrier to support that piston wack. Look at that photo of the bg, see the shiny on the rear interrupted carrier guide. This makes the systems that could stay together with gas key attachments, maybe long strokes but I would not bet on an attached key, much preferred, HK has them, I guess PWS has them. |
AR Sponsor