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
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.