Thanks for the link Joe!
NOTE! Follow the link below to see the vid and the story.
Read the story here...and if you know what the weapon was that outperformed the M4 hit me up!
NOTE! Follow the link below to see the vid and the story.
Read the story here...and if you know what the weapon was that outperformed the M4 hit me up!
i bet on short barreled hk416... Just look sons of guns or ultimate weapon : they put the hk in mud, in sand, in dirt andstill firing with no issue.
ReplyDeletethe US Army has committed a fundamental mistake. they're using a FUCKING CARBINE! as a battle rifle! the USMC needs to dump the follow the leader attitude and do like the Canadians. start buying M-16A4's with adjustable buttstocks....do that and be done with it and give Marines across the board rifles again!
Deletedoes colt make both the M16s and the M4s? whats their justification for using M4s as battlefield rifles?
ReplyDeletethe US Army would deny it but it stems from Shiniseki trying to make the entire Army feel elite. berets was one step and the other was giving everyone the "special ops" M4 even though it was totally inadequate to the task. that stupidity has bled into the civilian market. i don't know why full size AR-15's with collapsible buttstocks hasn't caught on but thats the way to go.
DeleteEspecially when squeezing every last meter of range and velocity out of it at the distances found in Afghanistan where time and time again, M4 was found lacking in reliability and outranged. There is a reason why DM rifles, M240G and (along with Carl Gustavs) were added back into squads and platoons.... 5.56 fired out of short barrels was inadequate.
Deletesomehow I deleted out Mk48 MGs as well
DeleteNever underestimate Big Army's willingness to submarine tests it doesn't want.
ReplyDeletethe 'parallel' track and the requirement for the price limit to be under the cost of M4A1 of a few hundred bucks doomed it.
Of course, with the promising results of new careless ammunition and the LSAT gun, perhaps they are looking for something better in the near future. With the strangehold on money, though, that won't happen. Sorry, Army, you're not getting new caseless weapons. And since you torpedoed the carbine competition, you are stuck with M4s.
Claims like this without details about how the tests were performed are useless. One variable in particular can skew the results and that involves magazines. Magazines quality plays a huge part in reliability and if one weapon was using Government issue magazines and the other wasn't then that can cause a significant difference in reliability.(we all know that the Mil-spec mags are not the best magazines available for use in the M4 even with the most recent changes in the followers). As for the Ammo change this guy talks about, yes there was a change, but that was because the military is in the process of going to the M855A1 from the M855. The change in ammo had nothing to do with the carbine test as the change was already in process. Of course the M855A1 was optimized for the M4 as that is the standard rifle in use in the Army, to do otherwise would be stupid. If carbine "C" did not perform as well with the M855A1 cartridge then that would in fact pose a problem for the Army as the M855A1 is the new standard cartridge.
ReplyDeletewait. you can't toss out the issue between failures so easily. how many troops you know that take care of their mags? how many of them rotate them, don't fill them to the brim and at least have carriers that protect them somewhat from the elements?
Deleteas far as the ammo issue i found that curious. what you're saying makes perfect sense but it sounds like they were looking for a point of failure for the competing weapons to slant the testing toward the current firearm. its sounds rationale the way you state it but the reality is that if the manufacturers were optimizing their weapons toward the M855 and not the M855A1 then the Army cheated.
All I was saying was that the information presented in the video is inadequate to judge the results on. I have now read the article and it is in fact talking about magazine issues something that can be changed by just changing the mil-spec for the magazine. As a trained armorer and a trained and certified gunsmith of 35+ years it has been my experience that magazine issues are far and away the most likely point of failure in any semi or automatic weapon system.(This is not meant to be an appeal to authority, I am just listing my experience level) Many military members are savvy enough to know this, which explains the large numbers of non-GI mags that have been purchased by members of the Military who are deploying. When reading the article I found it more informative about where the difference was in the mean time between stoppages. The article stated that carbine "C" was Superior in class 1 and 2 stoppages but was inferior in class 3 stoppages. The criteria for each class of stoppage is: class 1 - clear-able by operator in 10 seconds or under. class 2 - clear-able by operator but takes more than 10 seconds. Class 3 - requires an armorer to clear. If I were choosing a weapon for combat I would be much more worried about class 3 stoppages than I would be about 1 or 2 because a large number of those stoppages can be eliminated by using higher quality magazines to start with and if it didn't I would be able to get it back into action in a reasonable amount of time, but that is just me, you may feel different. (That is not a jab at you personally, just a recognition of different experiences and opinions) The article states that carbine "C" had 4500 mean rounds between class 3 stoppages, that means that you could expect that roughly every 4500 rounds you could be dealing with having to send your weapon to an armorer for clearing or repair. The M4A1 had the best mean rate of 6000 rounds between those kind of stoppages.
ReplyDeleteI don't consider the change in ammo cheating by the Army because it was well known that the Army was in the process of changing the cartridge before the testing began. since the M855A1 changeover started in 2010.
http://www.army.mil/article/48657/
A failure to prepare for the entirely reasonable possible change in ammo during testing just shows a lack of foresight on the part of the manufacturer. After all, you entered a competition to possibly replace the current weapon with your own, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the Army would want to test the weapons under consideration with the ammo that they would be expected to fire if and when they came into service? As per the article, the Army provided each candidate with 10,000 rounds to calibrate their entries with, the manufacturer of carbine "C" claimed that it was an insufficient amount to do so. If it had been me providing a candidate for the testing I would have been damn sure that I would have tested with every possible standard round before I had submitted it after all it wasn't if the M855A1 was impossible to either get or duplicate beforehand.
i bow to your wisdom.
Deletequestion. do you consider the M4 superior to the M-16A4?
Vince,
DeleteColt lists the effective range for both models that Solomon asks about as 600m. Does your experience bear this out? Although I was out before the A4 version, it would seem that the extra 5.5" of barrel length would count for more effective range than the M4.
Not really on topic but now that the Army has all the recruits it needs, can we go back to the old headgear along with standard issue weapons? Not everybody looks as good as Pat Tillman in a beret (according to my wife!)
I'd say the weapon that outperformed the M4 is the G36 (consistent with test results regarding effective range, accuracy; mag capacity and reliability).
ReplyDeleteWould doubt it's the HK416, which is as flawed as M4 because it is also a carbine !
Last what i heard about the G36 was that it had a lot of problems of its own.
DeleteI've always been a big FN SCAR fan myself. Any chance it was in the competition?
ReplyDeleteYes FN SCAR (L) was in the test ...
DeleteRegarding the issue(s) raised by Vince, I agree with the fact that manufacturers should make sure they have tested their weapons appropriately with all possible types of ammo. However, I share Sol's concern, regarding the reason why the ammo type was changed midway through the testing.
As far as mags are concerned, i would also like to point out that even though the frequency of stoppages can be reduced through use of of mags made by commercial manufacturers, rather than standard STANAG mag or even improved versions of it, there are other reasons that might be responsible for high rate of stoppage registered for M4. Previous tests performed in "sandy/dusty" conditions showed a stoppage rate of about 900 per 60 000 rounds fired in the case of the M4, regardless of stoppage class (either 1,2 or 3). This is about 1 stoppage in every 67 shots fired, which is quite a lot actually. In comparison, two other weapons that were tested showed a stoppage rate of 1 per 472 shots, and 1 per 265. The difference is significant. In the more recent tests (performed under different specifications), the difference again was significant, with stoppages 5 times more frequent for M4 in comparison to "gun C".
Now you have to factor in human elements into the equation as well, just as Sol has said, but the fact remains that the M4 is seriously outperformed by competitors in that regard, and the improvement of mag quality will only partially settle that problem. Besides, competitors can use better mags as well, further reducing their stoppage rate as well.
The frequency of class 3 stoppages is however of concern in the case of "gun C" ...but one has to add that this type of stoppage is the rarest. Now i know, if it still happens while you're using your weapon, you're in trouble ... I suspect it might be related to more complex assembly of "gun C", making the involvement of armourer necessary in some cases.
some extra info, specifically with regard to the M4A1 vs M16A4:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
interesting reading, thx
DeleteSensationalism at its worst. 25% more reliable is meaningless without a baseline. 25% seems like a lot, but it is statistical chicanery.
ReplyDeleteIn those tests, the M4A1 hit 98% reliability. So something that is "25% more reliable" would have been 98.5% reliability.
It isn't surprising that the Army didn't jump on the chance to spend lots of money on a 0.5% increase in reliability, when even the M4 bone stock model won't statistically jam until you get beyond a basic combat load. http://defensetech.org/2007/12/18/army-m4-response/
CDN Army C7A2 rifle. Cold hammer forged 20 inch barrel with adj butt stock, Elcan 3.4x telescopic sight.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/images/weapons/c7a2-automatic-rifle-03.JPG
Never really understand why a standard infantry soldier would be given a 16 inch barrel rifle, especially if the fight is in open country. Close quarters and special mission = yes.
Also the Canadian public can buy a "civilian" version of the C7A2 called a Colt Canada SA20. All specs are the same as the military version except it is semi-auto.
ReplyDeleteThey are expensive $2K, and restricted in Canada due to our gun laws. So one can only take them to the range and home.
Sol, In my view the M16A4 is better than the M4A1 as there were issues in the conversion to a carbine length that mean the M4A1 is more sensitive to ammo changes and does not last as long due to the increased stresses placed on it from the use of the shortened gas tube.
ReplyDeleteWilliam, Colt may claim that both the M4A1 and M16A4 have a effective range of 600 meters but due to the loss of velocity from using a shorter barrel there appears to be a 50 to 100 meter effective range advantage for the M16A4 in my experience.
Hecate, if both the M4A1 and Carbine "C" were using the Mil-Spec mags then you are correct, changing to a better designed mag would help both. If however Carbine "C" were using proprietary mags or after market mags then the M4A1 would more likely benefit more from the change. Not being privy to the testing protocols I can not speak to specifics but it could have gone either way. I stand by my contention that the shorter mean between Class 3 stoppages is still a greater problem in my opinion, particularly because as both you and Sol have correctly pointed out that magazines can be expected to be in less than stellar condition in the real world. I would take exception to the statement that the M4A1 "is seriously outperformed by competitors in that regard", this report is only telling us that the M4A1 is outclassed in 2 of the 3 categories then fails to give us data for us to judge how significant the difference truly is, and unless I missed it, the article says nothing about the other competitors. All in all at this point we have only vague details with no yardstick with which to measure. In conclusion, did the Army fix the results? I don't think any of us have enough information to say yeah or nay. I for one am willing to wait until more information is available before rushing to judgement.
You're right Vince, not enough hard info about these tests, neither protocols nor exact results, to make an objective judgement. Also agree with statement regarding mags, but as you said, we don't know exactly, so at this point, only conjectures. Just for the record, when I mean M4 was outperformed, i was referring just as much to the famous 2007 "Sand and Dust" shoot off test. Now, I realize you might say the negative results for M4 in that test were quite predictable, given the known trouble M4 has with its gas-piston system, requiring more maintenance than competitors regarding sand or dust. The protocol for those tests is public info, so you can have a look and decide for yourself what to make of it. Personally, I think that in extreme conditions, the like of which US forces have encountered in sandbox countries, there is an issue with M4 reliability. Can't say more than that. As for the rest, you're right, let's wait and see when more info is available.
DeleteI just wanted to give everyone that was involved in the discussion on this thread kudos for a job well done. I was impressed with the intelligent well thought out comments expressed and was particularly impressed with the civil manner in which it was conducted. Great job everyone!
ReplyDelete