In the spirit of fairness, I’m posting the response to my M4 story by the Army’s Paul Boyce. He posted this in the comments section of the story on Military.com.
Recently Army testing laboratories at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., subjected the M4 carbine and three other weapons to a severe environmental test called the “Carbine Extreme Dust Test.” The lab environment allowed engineers to push the weapons beyond their technical limits to help us understand what is required of weapons on today’s battlefield.
The weapons were exposed to “heavy dusting,” harsh conditions similar to an intense and sustained dust storm, several times for 25 hours. There were ten weapons of each of the four different types of carbines. Each fired 6,000 rounds (60,000 rounds per type). The Army noted all the weapons in the test performed well: the number of stoppages all the carbines exhibited was roughly one percent or less of the total rounds fired by each, meaning the weapons had over a 98 percent reliability rate under these unique conditions. Though the M4 performed exceptionally well, it came in fourth compared to the other three carbines in this particular extreme single-environment (dust as the only condition) testing.
The Army is taking these test results seriously; our Soldiers require and deserve capable, quality weapons. These preliminary results revealed or confirmed several areas for potential materiel improvements to the M4 and the other weapon types in the test.
The M4 is a thoroughly tested and battle proven carbine that meets or exceeds the existing operational requirement. The M4 is one of the most improved pieces of Army equipment: there have been over 390 upgrades since it was introduced into the force. The M4/M4A1 is the only design that is qualified against the current requirements. In a survey by the independent Center for Naval Analysis in December 2006, 89 percent of Soldiers surveyed reported overall satisfaction with the M4. All soldiers surveyed had engaged in a firefight in Iraq in the previous 12 months. In the same survey, only 3 percent experienced a weapon stoppage that caused an inability to engage the
enemy for a significant portion or all of a firefight. Only 1 percent
indicated that the M4 should be replaced.Lastly, 94 percent of M4 users were satisfied with accuracy; 92 percent with range; and 93 percent with rate of fire.
The Army will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the equipment it provides its most valuable asset: our Soldiers. Soldiers in turn have shown confidence in the battle-proven M4.
– Christian
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
So I can now stop crunching numbers to make histograms for the innumerate. Massive real-world experience trumps specialized testing any day….any way.
We now await the possible Jungle and Arctic Al Queda Field Tests.
Been Fun
Does anyone know if this kind of test is part of the standard testing process for new weapons? For example, was something like this done for the transition to M-16 from the M-14, etc?
Also, is this the first time the M-16/M-4 systems have been tested like this?
“In the same survey, only 3 percent experienced a weapon stoppage that caused an inability to engage the enemy for a significant portion or all of a firefight.”
things like this make me want to ask:
“did the survey counted soldiers who died because their weapon jammed?”
i know, this isn’t much of a contribution but, well, it just popped up in my mind.
Marcello
> Massive real-world experience trumps specialized testing any day….any way.
So 500 years from now we’ll still be saying “well the M4 is combat proven so we’re not going to try anything new”
maybe we should have just stuck with the combat-proven P-51 too?
I can’t help but notice that the nice trilogy of 90%+ statistics does not include one for “lethality” or “stopping power.”
I posted this in yesterday’s thread which was part of the Army’s response in 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.”
The article didn’t mention anything about the other weapons’ magazines, but the SCAR and XM-8 both use proprietary magazines with their weapons.
I said this is the last one and I will say it again. I like that the Army is not jumping on replacing the M4 just cause there might be something a little better we can spend a billion dollars on. Sure I would perfer better in everything but I would also like to see lower taxes, and less govt. dept. I love my military, but we spend 10 times what the next guy does already. Now if we can just get them to start being a little smarter with the planes and boats and crap we buy.
why not change to the 6.8 round? The M-4 is a good weapon, but the more lethal M-468 would be a helluva upgrade. As for NATO, who cares? Do you think the Germans, Spanish, Italians and French care about the 4 member nations doing all the fighting and dying in a-stan? Change is good.
I can almost understand why the Army is digging in it’s heels on this.
*Almost*. :-)
If they say “You’re right, it’s time to ditch the M4″ right now, how long will it be until even 1/2 of our front-line divisions have the new assualt rifle? In the mean time, the troops who have M4′s will be using a weapon in which they have no confidence.
That’s gotta hurt morale, and therefore, hurts combat effectiveness. Look for the Army to spin this in terms of “The M4 is super-awesome and we love it, but we’ve decided to go even better and get a super-DUPER new awesome rifle for our troops!”
Am I missing something? How did the guys who buy the weapons not know something needed to be changed with the magazine. Civilians have known that for years. Why do you think MAGPUL is in business. Even with that the M4 still compared miserably to the other weapons. The 416 supposedly had half its failures come off 1 weapon. The 416 is the cheapest, easiest way to get soldiers a weapon they can rely on but the GOV still keeps buying ships that wont float and planes that won’t fly. Ships and planes don’t hold ground.
I agree with the Army here. Not much of a fan of the M4 and M16 rifle series; good weapons as far as they go. But to stockpile another million of so rifles at the couple of thousand dollars they run, while we still have tens of thousands of rifles which are sufficient, it doesn’t make sense.
The SCAR and XM-8 are not ‘revolutionary’ improvements like the M-16 was over its predecessors and, I think, the M4 was over the M1. They are just a little bit better.
And I doubt that any soldier or Marine has been killed due to stoppage. The hajjis don’t fight stand up, or not enough, to get that perfect $#%@ed moment when your rifle jams in a fire fight and someone dies. COuld be wrong, but I doubt anyone actually has.
> And I doubt that any soldier or Marine has been killed due to stoppage.
1. do you honestly believe this?
2. do you honestly believe that’s a good excuse?
after all the billions and trillions spent, i’m not going to begrudge them another billion to get a reliable weapon
Check your facts Vercingetorix. It happened a lot in Vietnam and some instances in Iraq/Afghan.
That goes back to the first time someone used firearms in war, people die because their weapon malfunctions.
We need a new round with better penetration and stopping power to combat future improvements in personal body armor.
I say a 6.8mm round or something similar and a weapon like the Masada. Or the POF system. Another poster said things earlier about accuracy issues and breakages due to the piston. I say BS to that. Some of the most accurate weapons had long stroke piston systems.
A slower acting system will help as with the POF. Lower cyclic rates on full auto and slower less violent actions mean less wear and tear on parts, the M4 is notorious for wearing out parts due to high cyclic rates and too fast an action. Yet they are pretty accurate.
I wish people would get their facts straight.
It’s rather amazing how many ways the internet seems to have had an affect on the U.S. Military. And nor I do recall any conflict of the past, in which the public has had such a vocal desire & determination to ensure that their troops (sons & daughters) be given the best equipment possible. Hopefully, in the end this will all help to serve that Private or Sergeant, in the middle of God knows where, and keep them alive.
“And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda”
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=GlYynHmE8b0
New revolution in assault rifles? The next quantum leap in assault rifles? Thats what we’re waiting for before we replace a faulty rifle? Come on,give me a break? “Don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain,” that’s what these “technocrats” are saying when confronted with the truth. The truth is that there are no “cutting edge super weapons” coming,none whatsoever.Let me tell you why,our factories that will build them are closed & the molds destroyed(for both old AND new weapons),the workers to man the “phantom” factories are not there,the companies that would operate the “phantom” factories are foreign owned(like say China owned?),Congress will not fund it,Sec.Defs. like Rumsfeld or Cheney will strangle it in its cradle before its ready to be fielded(anybody remember the Crusader Howitzer & Comanche Helicopter,or the soon to be strangled Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter?).Have I left anything out?
Oh yes,& I am not holding my breath waiting for the new upgraded M109A6-PIM howitzer with the Bradley Chassis to come out either.
Hey, Big Daddy, like I said, not a big fan of the M16 and the derivatives because of the reliability issues. I’ve had issues with the rifle myself. And of course, I know about Vietnam and the “black rifle” issues. That never should have happened. Full stop.
Now we do have the M4s and we have to live with them. We all know that replacing the Stoner design just will not happen. And if it somehow does happen, it is going to come out of some other pile other than the crap we don’t need. The Senators will pile on the pork, we’ll get the eleventy-hundredth C-130 the services didn’t ask for, and the rifles will come out of training expenditures or something else that is vital.
In a perfect world, yes, replace them. But this is the Pentagon, and they’re AFU.
And if I was wrong about casualties due to rifle stoppage, like I said, I haven’t heard any recent deaths in the current war, but I’m not exactly ghoulishly checking the death rolls–and will not, thank you–for causes of death. And having a more reliable weapon does not necessarily mean that those casualties would not have happened. Sometimes Mr. Murphy just plays Duck, Duck, Goose and there’s no rhyme or reason for it.
Again, the weapon system has already been chosen. Lowest bidder and all. Call your Senator. The Army isn’t going to get it done, because they haven’t for the last 40 years or so.
One of the problems with statistics is that if a weapon jams and then soldier gets killed, a statistician could write it off as the soldier kept a filthy weapon. This skews the real-world data. A dead soldier can’t testify about the maintanance procedure for his weapon.
RE: Massive real-world experience trumps specialized testing any day….any way.
So 500 years from now we’ll still be saying “well the M4 is combat proven so we’re not going to try anything new”
maybe we should have just stuck with the combat-proven P-51 too?
————
Nice contextual perversion. The milieu of my statement was obviously the
> I would say that if in the (extremely unlikely)
> event that the technology and battlefield
> environment doesn
We all know this “next big leap” is BS. By this logic, everybody would be still using a german MP-44, since no “big revolution” was made after it.
Hum Being a Non-com i have to say the single most complained about thing is stopping power. the 5.56 NATO is a poor cartridge for the job of long distance shooting short range one shot stops around. The Remington 6.8 SPC or the 6.5 Grendel would be a better round IMHO. The 5.56 NATO is the problem. Not so much the gun. you can swap out the upper on the M4 and make it a M-468 with little trouble, if it is designed right. The dust storm is not the only acid test i would do on those rifles. i would test them on barriers in every conceivable environment because you can never expect a war to be the same twice.
D~W
good article that covers a lot of ground:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/#more
in particular I loves the quote from Colt:
“If we have a change that we think would help the gun, we go to the Army
Oy,giving shitty assault rifles to our troops when far superior ones are available is just “Shande fur die Goyim.”
Not for nothing, but what lube did they use in these tests?
Lube: CLP
Try selling a product to a customer in the automotive world and telling him that 98% of the time it works great. See where it gets you. If there is any question on this, it will get you a RECALL. Typically, no one’s life is on the line. I feel that if the M4 rifle is 98% then two soldiers out of 100 don’t have a weapon when they need it. Who want’s to walk in those shoes.