The primary weapon carried by most soldiers into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan performed the worst in a recent series of tests designed to see how it stacked up against three other top carbines in sandy environments.
After firing 6,000 rounds through ten M4s in a dust chamber at the Army’s Aberdeen test center in Maryland this fall, the weapons experienced a total of 863 minor stoppages and 19 that would have required the armorer to fix the problem. Stacked up against the M4 during the side-by-side tests were two other weapons popular with special operations forces, including the Heckler and Koch 416 and the FN USA Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, or Mk16.
Another carbine involved in the tests that had been rejected by the Army two years ago, the H&K XM8, came out the winner, with a total of 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones. The Mk16 experienced a total of 226 stoppages, the 416 had 233.
The Army was quick to point out that even with 863 minor stoppages — termed “class one” stoppages which require 10 seconds or less to clear and “class two” stoppages which require more than ten seconds to clear — the M4 functioned well, with over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds firing without a problem.
“The M4 carbine is a world-class weapon,” said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the Army’s top equipment buyer, in a Dec. 17 briefing at the Pentagon. Soldiers “have high confidence in that weapon, and that high confidence level is justified, in our view, as a result of all test data and all investigations we have made.”
Though Army testers and engineers are still evaluating the data, officials with the Army’s Infantry Center based in Fort Benning, Ga., said they planned to issue new requirements for the standard-issue carbine in about 18 months that could include a wholesale replacement of the M4. But the Army has been resistant to replace the M4, which has been in the Army inventory for over 18 years, until there’s enough of a performance leap to justify buying a new carbine.
“We know there are some pretty exciting things on the horizon with technology … so maybe what we do is stick with the M4 for now and let technologies mature enough that we can spin them into a new carbine,” said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat development at the Army’s Infantry Center. “It’s just not ready yet. But it can be ready relatively rapidly.”
That’s not good enough for some on Capitol Hill who’ve pushed hard for the so-called “extreme dust test” since last spring. Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn placed a hold on the nomination of Army Secretary Pete Geren earlier this year to force the Army to take another look at the M4 and its reliability.
In an April 12 letter to the still unconfirmed Geren, Coburn wrote that “considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon.” He insisted the Army conduct a side-by-side test to verify his contention that more reliable designs existed and could be fielded soon.
Despite the 98 percent reliability argument now being pushed by the Army, one congressional staffer familiar with the extreme dust tests is skeptical of the service’s conclusions.
“This isn’t brain surgery — a rifle needs to do three things: shoot when you pull the trigger, put bullets where you aim them and deliver enough energy to stop what’s attacking you,” the staffer told Military.com in an email. “If the M4 can’t be depended on to shoot then everything else is irrelevant.”
The staffer offered a different perspective of how to view the Army’s result. If you look at the numbers, he reasoned, the M4’s 882 total stoppages averages out to a jam every 68 rounds. There are about 30 rounds per magazine in the M4.
By comparison, the XM8 jammed once every 472 rounds, the Mk16 every 265 rounds and the 416 every 257 rounds. Army officials contend soldiers rarely fire more than 140 rounds in an engagement.
“These results are stunning, and frankly they are significantly more dramatic than most weapons experts expected,” the staffer said.
Army officials say the staffer’s comparison is “misleading” since the extreme dust test did not represent a typical combat environment and did not include the regular weapons cleaning soldiers typically perform in the field.
So the Army is sticking by the M4 and has recently signed another contract with manufacturer Colt Defense to outfit several more brigade combat teams with the compact weapon. Service officials say feedback from the field on the M4 has been universally positive — except for some grumbling about the stopping power of its 5.56mm round. And as long as soldiers take the time to clean their weapons properly, even the “extreme” dust testing showed the weapon performed as advertised.
“The force will tell you the weapon system is reliable, they’re confident in it, they understand that the key to making that weapon system effective on the battlefield and killing the enemy is a solid maintenance program and, just as important, is a marksmanship program,” said Sgt. Maj. Tom Coleman, sergeant major for PEO Soldier and the Natick Soldier Systems Center. “So, you can’t start talking about a weapon system without bringing in all the other pieces that come into play.”
That’s not enough for some who say the technology is out there to field a better, more reliable rifle to troops in contact now.
“It’s time to stop making excuses and just conduct a competition for a new weapon,” the congressional staffer said.
– Christian
{ 75 comments… read them below or add one }
So why doesn’t the Army set up a new competition? They could set the requirements, including a stoppage rate in dust equal or better to the XM8, while adding other requirements appropriate to other theaters of operation.
Regardless of how this all turns out, it is really fantastic to have a U.S. Senator really go to the mattresses on this.
I’m judging Senator Coburn wasn’t very happy with the results either, judging from the comments by the “staffer” (probably Coburn’s Chief-of-Staff)
“But the Army has been resistant to replace the M4, which has been in the Army inventory for over 18 years, until there’s enough of a performance leap to justify buying a new carbine.”
And herein lies the problem. For some reason our defense procurement strategy has bought into the “transformational performance leap” idea and eschews the 80% solution. 80% solutions are feasible, fieldable now and affordable. If we wait to replace the M-16/M-4 until the portable Death Star comes out, we might be waiting until the next millennium.
By comparison, the XM8 jammed once every 472 rounds, the Mk16 every 265 rounds and the 416 every 257 rounds. Army officials contend soldiers rarely fire more than 140 rounds in an engagement.
Army officials say the staffer’s comparison is “misleading” since the extreme dust test did not represent a typical combat environment and did not include the regular weapons cleaning soldiers typically perform in the field.
In other words they’re lowering the bar for testing. With every other piece of military hardware we’ve ever fielded, testing to the extreme was the standard. Machine guns fired tens of thousands of rounds. Body armor is heated, frozen, drowned in oil and salt water before being shot. Vehicles are driven until the engines seize. Brig. Gen. Brown has said before that testing to extremes is the standard, especially during the Interceptor/Dragonskin debate.
Saying the M4 did fine because we don’t fire that many consecutive rounds is saying “it meets the minimum, therefore its fine.” The same with saying “well if you clean it regularly it works.” While I’m not saying a soldier should be exempt from cleaning his weapons, there are rifles out there that can reliably fire hundreds of rounds without needing to be cleaned.
Frankly, having been a reliability engineer, and without verifiable complaints from the users in the field, I would not form an opinion on this until I studied the supporting data. For starters, I’d need to know the failure distribution, the specific conditons under which the failures occurred, and failure modes (‘jam’ is a failure, a mode is a ‘how’ that has a ‘why’) to even begin to understand if there is a problem, and if there is a problem is it with the weapon or the way it is employed. If there is a problem, is there a fix that is easier and cheaper than buying new weapons?
While history is rife with examples of Army ‘Not Invented Here’ syndrome, unless there is good evidence that Army weapon evaluators WANT to field problem weapons, I see no reason to doubt the testers at this time.
I would love for the military to not spend so much money. We spend 10 times what the next closest guy, China (Which includes their national represive police force in the figure). So to that end I like the idea of going ahead with the M4 that they already have. It works, works well and does what we want.
Now having said that, I have a problem with them not replacing the m4 while they buy a billion fracken mine protected trucks we don’t need and 1/4 billion dollar planes that but us 2 or 3 gens of fighters ahead of everyone else for 6.5x the cost. (F-15c/d is 29m, f-22 is 187m). Or crazy expensive airborn lazers (I mean if we can’t mount them on sharks what’s the point), etc. etc. etc.
If we want to save money in the military spending, I am all for it. But if we are going to spend more on one plane than it would cost to replace almost every rifle in the service with something even a little bit better then we have our heads on backwards.
i have a great idea to extend the reliability of the M4: Stop prosecuting grossly mis-managed wars in the desert.
> For starters, I’d need to know the failure
> distribution, the specific conditons under
> which the failures occurred, and failure
> modes (‘jam’ is a failure, a mode is a ‘how’
> that has a ‘why’) TO EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND
> IF THERE IS A PROBLEM
nonsense
weapon A jams 7 times as frequently as weapon B
that is a problem, regardless of any distributions, conditions or modes
now that sort of stuff might be important to determine HOW to resolve the problem, but 7x the failure rate is PLENTY sufficient to state ‘there is a problem’
I am also a professional Reliability Engineer, and have attended Ranger, Airborne schools and served in Mech Infantry.
The requirements of a rifle are more than reliability, and certainly more than reliability in an incredibily dusty artificial environment firing over 50 times the usual engagement.
Yes, the rifle should go “bang”. That is only the first part. The bullet should also hit what you aim at. The M-16 series is highly accurate due to its radical reduction of moving masses. The much maligned direct gas system provides greater accuracy. The HK-416, and the HK-8 add gas pistons which shake the system as they are brought to a stop, and operating rods which can buckle. Now there is a failure mode that will send a rifle to the armorer.
The AK series is reliable, but because of the very reliable long recoil system, is not accurate. Too much is moving. The Russians are working on systems of compensating motion.
The biggest problem with the M-4 is not mentioned in the article. The little 5.56mm bullet needs to strike flesh at greater than 2500 feet per second, so that the bullet will fragment. If it doesn’t it will swap ends, and exit the back side of the enemy causing little damage. If the bullet doesn’t strike brain, spine, or heart, the enemy will continue to fight. If the bullet strikes at greater than 2500 feet per second, it will fragment, and leave a baseball sized hole in the target, and the enemy will bleed out. This doesn’t suddenly stop someone, but after a few minutes he will lose conciousness.
Lavousier, the French Scientist who invented “Oxygen” (rather than dephilogistated air” was sentenced to die on the Guillotine. His last experiment was blink his eyes as long as possible after the blade fell. A friend was permitted to time this evidence of consiousness. He blinked for 16 seconds.
The M-4 only has 2500 feet per second velocity out to about 50 meters (with M855 rounds). The M-16 with a 20 inch barrel meets this criteria out to 225 meters. The M-249 meets this out to 300 meters due to its longer barrel. The M-249 is used to provide fire support out to 800 meters. The M-16 can get routine hits (as shown at Camp Perry) out to 600 meters. At that distance, the lethality is much reduced. Of course at that distance it would be smart to call in mortar fire, if you can. 120 mm mortars are heavy, but their lethality is top notch.
When mortars, artillery and air support are available, long distance riflery is not really that important, but the ability of the rifle to hit at long distances means that it doesn’t contribute to misses at short distance. What does contribute to misses at short distance is movement of the target, decoys, and adrenalin. After about 20 seconds the adrenalin kicks in, and the firers find motor skills are gone. No, you can’t train to overcome adrenalin, but you can train yourself to not be afraid (a situation that is literally a kind of insanity).
No, the 5.56mm round is not much less lethal than other rounds. Back in 1898 T. Roosevelt rather famously went up Kettle Hill outside Santiago, Cuba. He noted that the Spanish 7mm Mauser rounds of that time would kill men hit in brain, spine, or heart, but men hit other than those places got better, and amazingly quickly. As for penetration, he was looking around an 11 inch tree, when the tree was penetrated by a bullet, filling his ear with sawdust. I recommend his book as a primary source, and as a companion piece a book by Lt. Parker “With the Gatlings in Cuba”.
One way to get around the bullet velocity limitations of a short barrel at range is to lengthen the barrel (from 14.5 inches on the M-4 to 20 inches on the M-16A4) but that makes life difficult for mechanized soldiers getting inside and out of vehicles. A single snag at the wrong time can fill an armored box with an inadvertant burst. That drives us to look at a bullpup configuration, with the magazine closer to the shoulder than to the pistol grip, like the Steyr AUG, used by Austria and Austrailia among others. Getting a decent trigger on a bullpup has historically been a problem, and the trigger connection becomes another potential failure mode.
Another way to increase lethality for a short barrel at shorter ranges would be to use a lighter bullet for a higher muzzle velocity, such as the 55 grain US M193, rather than the 62 grain M855. This gives up some very long range performance, in return for higher lethality at shorter range.
I, myself have a patent for a rifle operating system that permits an extreme bullpup: in 7.62 it would use a 24 inch barrel in a 30 inch rifle, in 5.56 it would use a 25 inch barrel in a 30 inch rifle. This uses a variation of the delayed blowback to eliminate the indirect gas system and permit a quick change barrel. I would implement it with a dual magazine and a straight down ejection path. I use a highly redundant cable for the trigger-sear connection, and put that cable in tension to avoid the buckling failure mode.
The Army Ordinance is, to my mind, over interested in long range engagements. If your infantry is sited in a 1000 meter field of fire, well, your infantry is not well sited. You would be better putting a tank or armored assault gun there (like the WWII German Stu-III). To get the long range engagement (like with the 25mm dismounted cannon they are now developing) you end up ruining the other requirements: light weight and ammuntion capacity.
For best stopping power at 50 meters or less, a 12 gauge shotgun should be the choice. Each round can put out 25 each 30 caliber projectiles (#1 shot) If you need an armor piercing capability, a 12 gauge shaped charge would be able to penetrate 7 inches of Rolled Homogeneous Steel.
For patrols in particular, night patrols, a silenced .45ACP would be advantageous.
why is there talk about the M4 being underpowered when is was designed as a carbine, which is naturally DESIGNED to a smaller lower velocity weapon in the first place?
Or you could just use M262 MOD 0 bullets. They're REALLY good at up to 700 meters.
There is no reason, NO REASON I SAY!, for our fighting men and women to not have the very best individual weapon in the world. Anything less is criminal. Shoot ‘em out in the most grueling conditions know to man: Dust, Moisture, Heat and Cold, soak ‘em in solvent, soak ‘em in grease, soak ‘em in water, run over it with a hummer, it should still fire every time, accurately and with enough kinetic force to kill with a center of mass shot every time. Winner take all and the devil take the hindmost (M-4).
Simple really.
Well, here’s some other poop on the story. Depends on what you think of the source:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1077
RE: weapon A jams 7 times as frequently as weapon B….that is a problem, regardless of any distributions, conditions or modes
“Nonsense” back at you, or more maturely put: “It depends”.
Medical research scaremongers make their living getting grants to investigate ’causes’ of cancer that are trivial to the point of being in ‘the noise’. ’7 times an insignificant amount’ can still be ‘insignificant’, OR it could be worrisome –and that was my point: you can’t tell from the data as it was provided.
I’ll root around on the problem after work and model some distributions. Could be fun.
Just want to express my thanks & appreciation for Don Meaker’s posting. Informative, not argumentative & open about his own financial interest. Postings like this are much too few & far between on the ‘net.
RE: weapon A jams 7 times as frequently as weapon B….that is a problem, regardless of any distributions, conditions or modes
“Nonsense” back at you, or more maturely put: “It depends”.
Well if one weapon fired 100 rounds before jamming and the other weapon fired 700 rounds before jamming I would want to have the weapon that was more reliable in the fire fight. You’ve got to read the whole article and see what they determined.
Brilliantly illuminating post Don, wish there were more posts of that quality on here.
I agree with Don, if you need a rifle that handles longer range engagements, GET a rifle designed for longer engagement ranges (Like a designated marksman rifle).
I agree with Don.
> ’7 times an insignificant amount’ can still be ‘insignificant’
not when your life or the lives of your buddies could depend on a bullet firing every single time you pull the trigger
i’m sorry, there is no way to spin a 7x greater failure rate as no big deal
this isn’t statistics, this is life and death
The whole thing comes down to money, the Army or the Procurer of weapons probably is getting something for buying from Colt. Get rid of the corruption and get our men and women the best available. I can’t believe all of this political bullshit. Get them the best available weapon no matter what the cost and screw the Colt Firearms Co. and the guy or gal that is supposed to buy weapons. Why not put him on the lines and see how he feels when his M-4 jams. I bet he would start looking for a replacement real quick, before he got sent back. Thank You Senator Coburn for trying to do something about this. Seems like after all the support talk from the other Senators they would want to do something about it, oh yea they’re busy campaigning,so they can keep getting they’re lucrative saleries, and pay-offs. Any way lay off of the poltics and get them the best avaiable.
Was there ever an official detailed explanation released for the cancellation of the XM8?
The only thing i’ve ever read was about “Noncompliance” issues. That’s not exactly specific.
> Does the m4, as used daily for a long period of time in Iraq, have problems? ie soldiers being put in danger or even merely pissed off that the weapon stops firing at inconvenient moments?
obviously it jams in the field
the ‘problem’ is how do you define what a ‘problem’ is?
it’s easy for a petty bureaucrat to take any number of failures and declare it ‘not a problem’ QED
the question shouldn’t be ‘is the M4 a problem’ as that leaves too much wiggle room*
it should be ‘is the M4 the best’
and clearly it’s not
—————
*wiggle room – see comments by Brig. Gen. Mark Brown:
The M4 carbine is a world-class weapon. Soldiers “have high confidence in that weapon, and that high confidence level is justified, in our view, as a result of all test data and all investigations we have made.”
bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing.
great that he has confidence in it, he doesn’t have to use it
Simple failure rate isn’t a very good metric–a single failure in the first 10 rounds is far worse than several failures after 500 rounds. Whatever metric is selected should take into account the average number of real-world rounds fired between cleanings, the 99th percentile number of rounds fired between cleanings. A rifle that is 99.99% reliable for the first 300 rounds, but fails every third round after 500 is probably better than one that is 99% reliable in the first 300 and maintains this rate out to 6000 rounds.
It is time that America adopt the AK-47 as the weapon of choice in combat,this weapon proved itself during exhaustive tests in 1965 at Ft. Ord Calif. during (SAWS) Small Arms Weapon Systems experiments. America must swallow it’s Pride and re-stock this weapon because the Ballastics are far more superior to any weapons of the “World it’s nearly “Malfunction Free”.
It is time that America adopt the AK-47 as the weapon of choice in combat,this weapon proved itself during exhaustive tests in 1965 at Ft. Ord Calif. during (SAWS) Small Arms Weapon Systems experiments. America must swallow it’s Pride and re-stock this weapon because the Ballastics are far more superior to any weapons of the “World it’s nearly “Malfunction Free”.
AK’47? Why should the US army adopt a weapon built on 60 year old technology?
I agree with the guy that said buy a couple fewer F-22′s and re-equip the line dogs with new rifles.
I personally would much rather have a G-3 if we are preferential to geriatric weapon systems.
I used the M4 carbine for years while I was assigned as Security Forces member. During all the time frame that I carried it, went to the range with it, deployed to the desert with it, and fell into the snow and mud, I never experienced any severe malfunctions with the weapon. Keep them clean and servicable and they will function reliably. Don’t get rid of something that has been battle and time proven.
AK-47 is out of the question, and the only reliable AND accurate models are the new AK-101s, but then again those are not American made, so therefore, no one in Congress or the Department of Defense is going to push for it. The XM8, SCAR, and Masada are all great competitors from the looks of it. Hopefully the Army will quit worrying about its weapons contracts and more about what the front line soldiers need: something that’s reliable and more lethal than the 5.56.
What the JASSP should do is to devolve the small arms purchase to the divisions. IE, 10th Mountain can buy all of the M14s it wants if they feel necessary, and 25th ID can use, say, UZIs or P90s, to minimize their loads and maximize firepower in the counter-ambush scenario.
That would be an interesting experiment.
“We know there are some pretty exciting things on the horizon with technology … so maybe what we do is stick with the M4 for now and let technologies mature enough that we can spin them into a new carbine,” said Col. Robert Radcliffe
If I waited for the “next” upgrade to my computer, I’d still be using a 486 PC. Like computers, firearms technology is constantly evolving. Once a need has been identified (which it has!), it should be met with currently available products. A reliable and accurate weapon firing a round with sufficient lethality is needed. There are several candidates for the former (FN’s SCAR or F2000, HK’s HK416, LWRC’s M6A2, POF’s P-416 and the soon to be released Magpul Masada) which can be produced in the USA to avoid the “not made here” syndrome. In regards to the type of round, the 6.5mm Grendel vs. 6.8mm SPC debate has been argued extensively on the web and should be thoroughly officially tested. I think we can all agree that the 5.56mm round is not up to the task!
Very good story, Don. The assault rifle wasn’t invented for nothing and a good .45 or .50 would be a well chosen companion to a weapon that is mostly needed in the 10 – 75 meters range.
I have a question on the lethality of the .22. Was that caliber not deliberately introduced NOT to be lethal, but to “only” wound (severely, at that, with its wobbling ways through human flesh) under the adage: “A kill incapacitates 1 fighter, a wounded fighter takes out at least 3 or 4 more beyond him/herself, makes 5!”
I suppose that’s sound reasoning if your’re fighting a modern army with their medevacs, corpsmen and medics; but now we deal with another type of enemy.
I’d really like to hear your thoughts (and anyone else’s) on this point.
Well, here we go again. For the record, I’ve carried the M-16 for a twenty year career, then went and bought a civilian version as a gift to myself. Why would I do that? After all, the round it shoots cant kill (unless you place the shot); has less power than the AK-47 (but you still have to place the shot with that one too). You have to keep the gun super clean (well, to be honest I’ve always cleaned my when the opportunity presented itself, shot it pretty often and pretty rapidly and never, I repeat, NEVER had a stoppage that required more than a quick pull on the charging handle). And now the weapon cant work in a dusty environment (although that test undoubtedly put more dust in the air than would be found in any real life situation). So lets get rid of it?
I trusted mine in all kind of situations, and trust the civie version now.
I’d say we finally have some conclusive data. The M4 fails more than these 5.56mm rifles. I don’t think anyone is surprised.
My own opinion is that HK keeps pushing these M4 horror stories(I doubt they are true), to justify the HK416 or XM8 to the DoD. XM8, WTF?
Since SOCOM bought FN SCAR L/H, instead of HK, that rifle would be the prudent choice for near term M4 replacements. Otherwise come back in a decade and replace the M4 with a brand new weapon system that uses a heavier bullet. If the Army wants something radical instead, how about a P90 like rifle firing a .223, or finally get around to caseless ammo.
I wonder why they didn’t test some of the boutique 5.56mm rifle makers? Magpul, Knights, DPMS, LW, Sig, Barrett…etc. They tested the XM8 which is only a prototype.
Every test has a certain level of significance (ability to detect a flaw if there is one) and a power (ability to reject fake flaws that are not there)
When the Army accelerated the failure rate with the super dusty environment, that is prima facie evidence that the failure rate in the unaccelerated environment is low.
Other rifles may handle the dusty environment better. Good on them. But reliability is not the only requirement, is it.
The big advantage our 5.56 has over the AK-47 in a meeting engagement is the ability to shoot at known or suspected enemy locations with single fire. It is nice that our men in that scenario don’t have to wait to see the enemy muzzleflashes (meaning that the enemy has gotten the first shot). Rather, most of our men begin shooting at likely enemy locations, so the enemy, no matter if he has fired or now, must leave his firing position, and hide. We can do that because our rounds are smaller, our accuracy is better, and our training is better. After we get fire superiority, we can maneuver to his flanks and rear, and catch the enemy as he attempts to withdraw. That is how our soldiers maintain a 20 to 1 kill ratio against an enemy who routinely breaks all the rules of war.
As for the desert war(s) being mismanaged? We lost more men in Normandy than we have lost in the entire Iraq. I regret the loss of every one of my friends, but that is the price. It is our enemies who chose the means by which Iraq will become free. If we have to kill all the jihadis to do it, that is their choice. If they decide to fight against jihadis, and we can hand over the other half of Iraq’s provinces to local administration, it would please me ever so much.
I am opposed to the war. The Terrorists should surrender immediately.
The AR-15 was designed to a 6 pound weight limit, and a smaller round was the only way to get there. The distance of engagement requried was 460 meters (500 yards) and a high velocity round was the only way to get there. The 5.56mm rounds is just a scaled down .30/06, just as the .50BMG is a scaled up .30/06.
The 5.56mm round is not designed to be less lethal. Rather, it is designed to be more effective by permitting soldiers to shoot more.
The WWI 30-06 round weighed one ounce each, 16 rounds to the pound. basic load was 6 lbs of ammunition or 96 rounds.
The 7.62mmx51 round is 20 to the pound, 6 lbs is 120 rounds.
The AK-47 round is 7.62x39mm, and has about 25
to the pound. 6 pounds is 150 rounds.
The 5.56mmx45 round is about 45 to the pound. 6 pounds gives you 270 rounds.
Thanks for all your complements. (blush!)
SgtMac
Hail and well met!
The 10 second limit is a good definition of “immediate action”. You “Slap” the magazine, “Rack” the slide, “Tap” the forward assist.
If that doesn’t fix it, you have to disassemble your weapon. In an offensive fire fight, you stop to do that and your unit moves away from you. In a defensive fire fight that means you are in as low a hole as you can find, and looking up to shoot (with your pistol) who ever may jump in with you. Either way, you are usually lost to your unit for the duration of the fight.
I was packing an M-14 once, on offensive operations. The firing pin came out of the back of the bolt, bounced off the back of the receiver, and lodged in the trigger mechanism. If you know the M-14, you know that you can’t even perform normal disassembly into 3 groups after that. The trigger mechanism was pinned into the receiver, which in turn cammed the stock to the receiver. I have never had a M-16A1 jam so badly.
All I could do was wave and try to keep up. I didn’t want to be left behind.
> But reliability is not the only requirement, is it.
when the enemy is running right at you it certainly is
if the bullet doesn’t come out, nothing else matters
> The big advantage our 5.56 has over the AK-47 in a meeting engagement is the ability to shoot at known or suspected enemy locations with single fire
the XM8 can single fire too
pray tell what advantage the M4 has over the XM8? (in the technical sense, not the “it’s in mass production now and we have the logistics for it in place” sense)
> By way of illuminating another dimension missing
> in the discussion to date: What is the
> proportion of Class 1 to Class II ‘minor’
> failures for each weapon? Class 1 is highly
> defined as
The problem has always been related to the direct gas system and bullet design that did not present a large enough cross section to kill your target. Hopefully the Big Green Army will listen to the end user shooter. We need a larger diameter bullet at least 115gr bullet. The direct gas impingement system was a great disaster The new operating rod system should be included in the new weapon The Stoner system was great start. It could be improved
with the 6.8mm or 6.5 Grendel ammunition
For you engineers wanting more data, from Stars & Stripes:
“During the recent “extreme dust test” of the M-4 against three special operations weapons, 239 of the 882 weapon misfires were caused by problems with the magazine, not the actual carbine….it’s the guts of the magazine…that includes the spring and small elevator-like shelf where the rounds rest, called the follower…improved magazines will start making their way to troops as early as next fall…troops will know they have the improved magazine because the plastic follower-which is now a very pale green – will be a different color, still to be determined.”
the ignorance and arrogance of macnamara lives on!!!~
The article didn’t mention the other rifles and their magazines, but I know that the XM-8 and SCAR use proprietary magazines. Not sure about the HK416.
good morning
60,000 rounds?
lets see…840 rounds to a metal can. 2 metal cans to a wooden case for 1,640 rounds total. 60,000/1,680 = 37.7 cases of 5.56mm ammo. in almost 40 total service, including deployments to vietnam, operation earnest will, operations desert shield/storm and operation iraqi freedom, where i carried the m16, m16a1, m16a2e3 and m16a4 have i never seen or heard of an individual putting that many rounds through a weapon. there are field manuals, technical manuals and technical pamphlets which schedule or require replacement of barrels, bolts other measurements that keep the platform safe and serviceable in addition to individual user maintenance. all i see here are numbers and not the specific conditions and oversight of the tests except dust. until i do this is all air. It does not seem to be based on any reality I have served in. why not 120,000 rounds?
Where in the firing cycle did the stoppages or malfunctions occur? Were they recoil or ejection that could be gas fouling? Were there double feeds that could be magazine or bolt related issues? How many rounds were fired before the first problem in each of the weapons?
This mathematical average stuff without strict process is nonsense.
gmcm
Interesting and informative reading. Kudos to the good Senator who rightly demands an investigation and solution to the age -old problem of the bureaucrats in Foggy Bottom that put us in harms way with less than the best equipment. Having retired from the military 20-some years ago, I’m way out of the loop on what contenders vie for consideration as a replacement to the Viet Nam-era M-16 technology that apparently is still being used, but out of curiosity, does anyone know how well the Ak-47 would have fared in these tests? Granted, the originals had some problems, but how do the newer versions of the AK compare?
> 60,000 rounds?
> . . .
> i never seen or heard of an individual putting that many rounds through a weapon.
only 6000 were put through each individual weapon
6000 x 10 examples of each weapon = 60000
> why not 120,000 rounds?
apparently 6000 was plenty to show the inferiority of the M4
> Where in the firing cycle did the stoppages or malfunctions occur? Were they recoil or ejection that could be gas fouling? Were there double feeds that could be magazine or bolt related issues?
does it matter?
the current design of the M4 is a problem
it needs to be fixed or replaced
yes or no?
> How many rounds were fired before the first problem in each of the weapons?
i really love this argument
i call it the ‘magical fairy scenario’
MAYBE the M4 worked perfectly right to the very end when it was just plum wore out and had all its jams in succession
MAYBE monkeys will fly out my butt
they’re both equally probable
it’s a ridiculous and pathetic argument, we all know that’s not what happened so why even say it?
Even “only 6,000 rounds” is too much.
The M-4 is an assault rifle, not a light machine gun.
No one will ever shoot that many rounds out of an assault rifle in any one engagement…How many magazines is that, anyway? How would they carry them to the firefight? In a crate? Using a wheelbarrow? And, it’d take hours to load them…
The main problem, as the Army correctly states, lies in the magazine.
> Even “only 6,000 rounds” is too much.
>
> The M-4 is an assault rifle, not a light machine gun.
ok, so there’s no problem with the M4
> The main problem, as the Army correctly states, lies in the magazine.
what main problem? i thought you were just saying how the test didn’t show a problem?
anyways, if the new magazine magically fixes the problem that we like to pretend doesn’t really exist, great
let’s put it through the same test and see how it does
if the reliability is then in line with the others, i will be satisfied
until it can be proven to be as reliable, i’m not
There is nothing wrong with the M4 weapon. The problem with the M4 is the lubricant.
Secondly, the Army
You might want to mention that to Big Army, Lee. Just recently they reitterated to our unit armorers to continue using a thin coat of CLP in our weapons and specifically mentioned NOT using “dry lubes.”
I CANNOT believe the military is still using CLP!
Dry Film Lube is the superior lubricant. CLP is Stone Age stuff.
I WAS NOT IN THE MILITARY. just wanted to qualify that to the gripers on here. however, i have owned two ar16′s, 1 i put together with army surplus parts. a heavy barreled sniper version. it didnt work quite right, swelled the cases. a gunsmith told me it was just wore out. put a new barrel on, was perfect. if you want to improve on the m16, put more powder in the case. i have a bolt action smith that shoots the 223 at 3300 ft per sec, a poster said the m16 shoots at 2500ft per sec, 1 think my book says 2800 ft per sec. anyway, if you want to create a bad wound, increase velocity. speed kills. accuracy is the same or better.
Back in the ‘Nam (yep, another old poot chimes in) we had the same dust/mud stoppages with the M-16s that the M-4 has now. Yes, guys could clean their weapons more often (if you wanted to in the middle of the bush, halting the whole patrol and doing it silently) and a lot of guys did that under fire (many of their names are on the Wall). The Army said wet lube was just fine but we sent for all the Dry-Slide we could get. As we valued our butts over DOD regs. The Army sometimes gets it wrong: witness the trapdoor Springfield that helped the Indians whip Custer. They had the infrastructure in place for that one too!
I own an M4 and an AK. I love them both but the facts are the facts. The worst AK ever built is still far more reliable then the best M16/M4 ever built. The M4 may be prettier and more accurate but I would take an AK any day of the week. I carried both M16 and M4 for 8 years in the military and they are good weapons but they do need to design a weapon that is garunteed to fire every single time, not just most of the time.
The M-16 and all it’s variants have gone long in the tooth. It’s 22 cal bullet is too slow at 2300 fps, hardly faster than a good rimfire. At 3300 fps, the lethality is so much higher that it is off the charts when compared to the slower speed. I would want a weapon that gave me some knock-down power at any range I could hit with it. The M-14 was that weapon. It could hit anything I put the post on and it knocked down everything I pulled down on.
As for going to a larger round than the .223 to maybe the 6.5 or 6.8 is going in the right direction. I have shot a 243/6mm and they do a job on all game I have put the cross hairs on. It hits like a freight train at closer range and can reach out to almost 1000 yards without the loss of killing power. I have shot bucks from 50 to over 500 yards and they die like they were struck by lightning. So my vote goes to the larger caliber than a .223/5.56 just for the sake of carrying a few more rounds that you probably won’t shoot. Besides, when using the M-14, you could get some ammo from the M-60 and pop them off the belt if you needed more. By that time, the mortars had found the machine gunner or there was enough machine gun ammo to make up for a lack of carrying an extra few mags. And I have never seen or heard of a firing pin coming out of the rear of any M-14. Not that I doubt the writer, but in my time in the Marines, I never saw it.
Amen and Hallelujah Jesus! Boy, there is a lot of religion in this thread.
I don’t know crap about guns. Tanks, planes, all that stuff is interesting. Guns? Rifles? Now my eyes are glazing over. There’s a lot of pseudoscience when it comes to the “common wisdom” of firearms. You’ll find website after website talking about hydrostatic shock, and all kinds of make believe crap.
That’s the problem. We’ve got guys who recoil from the M-16 line of weapons like a vampire confronted by the cross. We get two ‘Nam vets and one says one thing, the other says the exact opposite. We’ve got a guy who sounds like a salesman for Militec.
The reason Congress doesn’t do anything about it is because its impossible to tell who is right and who is wrong on an issue like this. With fighter jets, its easy. “This one can go fast! It evades radar!” It’s harder to tell on rifles. I want our guys to have the absolute best weapons available, but I don’t know who to believe. I’ll tell you that I DON’T buy this “we need bigger bullets, because the M-16 is like shooting someone with a spitwad” crapola. I’ve seen what rifles do to people, and the M-16 seems plenty deadly. We’re not trying to kill pachyderms with these.
I want our guys to have the best that is available, but I don’t want to waste money buying the new thing just because its new, if it doesn’t show some sort of improvement. I remain undecided on the results of this test. It certainly LOOKS bad for the M4, but I’ll await further news before making up my own mind about it.
For those singing the praises of the AK-47 as the perfect weapon, even that old thing still needs maintenance. We captured a handful of weapons recently and fired them at our range. The Russian AK-47 I fired (with brand new ammo) blew up in my face. The cover flew back and cut my mouth and the bolt became fused to the receiver. My bad for not letting the armorer check it out first, but I’ve never heard of an M4/M16 misfire causing an explosion.
After 45 years of hunting to competing with the Air Force High Power Team, one thing that I don
The biggest problem I see with today
Jesus X. Crist. Now the “competition” shooters are chiming in.
Fact: most human sized targets are not visible on the battlefield past 300 meters.
Fact: most infantry engagements in Iraq are at 50 meters and closer.
Yet these jokers are bragging about how they can hit a (stationary and giant-sized) target at 1000 yards! Here’s a clue: the enemy isn’t going to stand there motionless while you diddle with your knobs and dials trying to get a hit!
Thus, the comeptition shooters and big bore bigots who want to foist a large caliber dinosaur on out troops have their reality wrong. Competition shooters are why the mutant M-16A2 with its useless target sight and overlong barrel was adopted, instead of the more suitable M-4. And, like Brian said, we aren’t shooting pachyderms here. So knock off the 6.5 or 6.8 or 6.X nonsense daydreams already.
lesseeee….
1 round in 68
that’s about 1 round per 2.7 box of 25 shotshells
1 round per 3.4 20 rd boxes of civ hunting ammo
1 round per 6.8 loads of ext magazine shotgun
1 round per 13.6 5 rd clips of civ hunting ammo
1 round per 13.6 5 rd box civ buckshot/ slugs
1 round per 22.7 legal loads from plugged shotgun
1 round per 34 rd side by side or o/u shotgun
yeah.
A hunter who is is mostly
under no risk of loss to life,
nor extended adverse conditions other than
laws espoused by some DC and California politicians …….
would not tolerate this.
……weapon or ammo.
Even by Robert McNamara’s cost effectivness,
why spend 10′s of thousands of dollars to recruit, train, pay and deploy 1 soldier and then send out without optimimum firepower?
Duh?
Last time I asked, there was little need for long distance rifle firepower such as in the trenches of WWI or the Brits fighting off Zulu hordes. Yes, every soldier and Marine a rifleman, not a sniper.
Or something like that…
Get it right this time. By the way, H&K does have a plant here in the States.
…………..just one dumb old civilian.
I got a chance to review the data from the tests.
One point: Reliability after a clean/lube point is very very high for all. As more and more rounds are fired, the reliability goes down.
Second point. M-4 accuracy is as good as or better than any alternative tested. Accuracy for all weapons degraded.
A bullet is not a magic death ray. Nearly any bullet will stop if the round penetrates brain, spine or heart. Higher velocity bullets fragment: this occurs at a threshold that depends on the bullet design. Yes, the German 7.62 round is very effective at short range because the steel jacket will fragment, and spit lead all over. The Swedish 6.5mm does the same. The old Vietnam war era M-193 (or the newer Swiss bullet that is similar) has a lighter bullet, and so gets a higher muzzle velocity than the M855 round. Having lower sectional density, the lighter bullet bleeds off it velocity faster. From an M-4 the threshold for fragmentation is about 2500, and the threshold for nearly complete fragmentation is 2700 ft per second, and the lighter bullet will be a little more effective a little further.
After the bullet slows down from 2800 or so at the muzzle to 2490 ft per second, it acts as a solid. US 7.62 ball rounds have a thick gilding metal jacket, and act as a solid at speeds less than 2800. That means you can still get fragmentation if you shoot the M-14 to remove your enemy from the bayonet!
The AK-47 has a muzzle velocity around 2400 feet per second. The AK-74 has a much higher muzzle velocity, but the round tends to fragment into two large pieces, or perhaps to only bend, giving it interesting trajectories through the target.
My understanding of brush bucking rounds is that there aren’t any. A fellow runs “the box o’ truth” and has some interesting demonstrations.
I spend over a year living with my M-14. That odd jam only happened once. But you can look into a slot through the top of the receiver, behind the bolt. Dirt can collect there. M-16 has no similar slot.
I would suggest that an accurate rifle at long distance will seldom be the cause for a miss (at the margin) at short distance. That is why we do long range testing. It is the same reason why we do dust tests in environments that are more dusty than anything you will ever see.
I loved my Inland M-16A. I was issued it with a cleaning kit, and we worked well together. The ball powder is preferred by the Army because it is cheap. Why cheap? It is often made from recycled explosive from other applications which has exceeded age limits.
At long distances, use a mortar. Perhaps a .50 Browning. An air strike. 155mm howitzer.
Exposed Target Engagment: For rounds 12 gauge and under, the right answer is to keep shooting at short range until you see the man fall.
No Exposed Target Engagement: At moderate range, you shoot at suspected/likely enemy positions, except where such fire is more likely to hurt your missions (may be occupied by non-combatants or friendly forces). If there are 5 within your sector, you shoot all 5, one after another, to keep the enemy’s head down. You would only change from that if you really truly saw an exposed enemy, then revert to Exposed Target Engagement.
And when Marines suggest they never saw a firing pin come out the back of the M-14 bolt! Well, where I was, I never saw a Marine. So, should I suggest that the Marines are a figment of some sailor’s imagination?
By the way, the firing pin of the M-14, upon assembly, is inserted into the back of the bolt, and held in place by its own spring tension, rather like the extractor of a M-1911A1. Under heavy use, the firing pin heats up, and tension is reduced. You can guess what kind of day I was having…
The reason to fire such a large number of rounds is to get a statistically valid sample.
Suppose they had done 600 rounds each instead of 60,000, which is much closer to the number used in a prolonged engagement.
Based on the larger test, the expected result would be 9, 5, 4 and 1 minor stoppage(s) for each type of gun respectively, and 1 major stoppage in one type of gun. But, a slight statistical fluke of just one or two stoppages different from the long run average could produce the wrong result to rank the guns in reliability, and random chance says that flukes of this magnitude are very common when you are dealing with numbers this small and rare events. Indeed, the type of gun that would have suffered a major stoppage would have been virtually random and provided no useful information to the testers.
If you are going to the trouble of doing a test, why not spend a few extra dollars to get a sample size large enough to get an undisputably accurate result.
I’m a civilian, and quite frankly, my knowledge of weapons is such that the more technical information provided in the test does not mean anything to me.What I want to know is this: are my heroes in the 173rd Airborne Brigade who are in the Korengal Valley tonight equipped with the BEST weapon that the American people can provide for them? Yes or no? I don’t want to hear any more bullshit from the Pentagon or the politicians. Do my Sky Soldiers have the best weapon available? Would you send your son to the Korengal Valley toting an M4?
If we are talking about AK-47 why should we only talk about the not so accurate Soviet one? There are several more advanced AK-47 based weapons.
One of the best “copies” is the Finnish Sako Rk 95 TP. Extremely reliable AND accurate. Israeli IMI Galil was actually copied from Finnish Rk 62, the forefather to Rk 95.
I have A civi M4 to set zero 250yds to 300yds. I only have 50yds zeroing range, I would like to know how many inches above or below bulleyes on paper using SS109 rounds and 55grm,
Thank You
Redeye
I have A civi M4 to set zero 250yds to 300yds. I only have 50yds zeroing range, I would like to know how many inches above or below bulleyes on paper using SS109 rounds and 55grm,
Thank You
Redeye
i dont understand where there getting this universal support for the M4. yea sure it can work if you maintain the hell out of it, but not everyone does. and honestly how can the army continue to state that they field the absolute best in the world for their soldiers after this test.
i think the rifle needs to be replaced now and not just with a band aid upper reciever like the 416. personally i would like to see the new magpul masada in the running for a replacment.
Billions of dollars are spend on high tech equipment, but at the end of the day it is the foot soldier who is doing all the ground work. Dangerous and deadly ground work where these troopers risk their lives so that we can live free. They deserve the best rifle and equipment.They have loved ones waiting for them to come home alive.The M4 is good but there are better rifles like the LWRC rifles or the Masada Rifle. My opinion is that the US army should adopt the LWRC, a complete all American manufactured weapon system. If not, the Masada
So I’ve read through this entire thread, and here’s what I’ve gotten from it.
“The 5.56 ammo is crap”, I’ve killed a deer with a .22 long rifle.. so the 5.56 is probably just fine for killing people. Thats just my opinion though.
“The M4 is crap.”, I’ve never shot one. But; if any of my guns jammed after 2 clips(thats the average for the M4 in that test), I’d have long ago gotten rid of it. I also don’t buy the Army’s explanation of “Its the clip!”. The M4 has been in use for decades, after being in service for that long… ALL, not some, but ALL, flaws which are not incorporated into its basic design, should have been removed from the weapon. What this means to me is that if it continues to have this many problems after all these years of service and incremental upgrades.. is that its problems are completely resting with its basic design.
Hey Mike if you have never fired the weapon, and refer to the magazine as a “clip” I urge you to reserve our comments. The direct impingement system is not necessarily the best operating system. However, in 19 years of my experience with the M16/M4 a little cleaning and lubing make the difference. If an operator can’t keep his weapons clean he is a liability to his team regardless of the weapon. The latest improvements, short stroke piston, heavier grain bullet, and heavier caliber round will ensure the most ergonomic system developed will continue well into this century. By the way…you are a knucklehead.
I’ve had experience with the M16A2 family of rifles in training, and some were pretty beat up. Only one malfunction per sixty or so rounds in a high dust environment seems pretty low, once the rifle starts getting dirty, it malfunctions quite a bit. Older rifles are a lot less reliable. The best thing might be to field some of the various competing rifles in combat and see how they hold up. I’m not even going to touch on the topic of a different round. Need to find something reliable and durable, then get the right round to do the job.
…I'm glad I found this because it just proves we have an incompetent bureaucracy. If the standard military rifle (whether M4 or M16-both suck) have major stoppages and perform the worst in any test, some thing is wrong.
I suggest taking all of the money that is allocated for the fancy high-tech crap and change both the M16 AND the M4.
Because the reason that Al Qaeda is able to blatantly attack US outposts is because they have a better rifle than us. To those who say no, I say why is the AK-47 still in use 60 years later? I've had war veterans agree with me that the M16 was garbage.
If you need to find a better gun, just have an open competition and whoever develops the best gun for the lowest price wins, plain and simple. Some suggestions could be: FN FAL, G36, FAMAS, Beretta AR70, Howa Type 89, Steyr AUG, or L85 A1
What could possibly go wrong with an M4/M16A2/M16A4?
M4 and M16A2/M16A4 firearms require continual attention to cleaning and wear of the action, auto sear, ejection port cover, extractor, bolt catch, bolt gas, buffer retainer, and hammer springs; retaining pin; firing pin; bolt carrier group; bolt carrier assembly; trigger assembly; barrel; and dents, damage, and separation of magazine well, walls, feed, and feed lips.
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with rifle or carbine assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.
When cleaning and lubricating your weapon in a a hot, extremely dry, dusty and dirty environment requires the use of a dry lubricate such as Hornady One Shot Cleaner and Lubricate, Militec-1 Lubricate, Smooth Kote Lubricate, or one as such not CLP!
I don't think it's the M4's fault. I think it's the 5.56mm NATO's fault. Or specifically, the M855 cartridge. I think they should change the lubricant of the rifle and the cartridge to a M262 MOD 0. The M262 has decreased accuracy at around 600-700 meters, but the longest combat engagements in Iraq are around 50-300 meters. That's where the M262 cartridge shines.