SMSGT Mac, an oft commenting Defense Tech reader, has a detailed analysis on the recent Army “extreme dust test” of the M4, XM8, Mk16 and HK 416.
It’s waaay more detailed than I could get into, and my hat’s off to him for his input posted on his blog: Elements of Power. I would strongly suggest taking some time to parse his logic. He’s much more cautious in his approach to the test results and seems to say they’re not yet a “call to action” for a replacement. I’d agree to some extent: the MRAP debate taught us to carefully consider major equipment overhauls…especially when the justification is more emotional that tactical.
But I would say two things: One, the fact that soldiers aren’t “complaining” about the M4 means something, but not much. What do that have to compare the M4 to? It’s not like Soldiers get a chance to use an XM8 in combat. And the fact that SOCOM is going to the Mk16 and Mk17 says something, right? The highest trained operators on the planet don’t want to have anything to do with the M4…and reliability in austere environments plays a big part of that decision.
Also, the argument about stoppages is not new. If there’s a better operating system out there then why not use it? I mean, Colt even has a gas piston reciever they can start building M4s with tomorrow? Is there ANY evidence that system would be in any way WORSE?
Anyway, take some time to look at SMSGT Mac’s dissection. And be sure to come back here and give me your $.02 on what he says.
– Christian
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Now I know there is some opinion out there that gas piston system bring in whole new problems. Can anyone find or is anyone the knowledgable person that contends that while gas piston systems prevent more simple carbon build up that broken gas pistons or high pressure issues or something causes more complex and disabilitating stoppages. I again state that I don’t know but having read something to that extent on this forum I wonder why in the 60k shots fired on all these gas piston systems, did these more complex stoppages occur and if so why didn’t the m4 backers make more of a big deal about the kind of stoppage that occurs? Lastly doesn’t it seem like if gas piston systems allow weapons to last longer due to less heat damage than just replacing all broken m4/m16 uppers with a gas piston upper could be proven to be cheaper in the long run. Less lost firefights less stoppages in the field and more shots fired through the weapon before replacement?
What made the M16 a good weapon when it first came out was the tumbling effect of the bullet that cause real damage.Everybody who operates & has operated an M16 knows how temperamental it is when it comes to keeping it clean,but on top of it now,to have little faith in the bullets that it currently fires to put down an opponent IMMEDITELY,is what makes people adverse to the M16/M4 rifle.Now you know & I know that not everybody who fires an M16 is an expert nor even a sharpshooter.Most everybody is a marksman,& a lot probably just barely made marksman.The AK-47 is considered a good weapon because anybody can pick it up & just pray & spray to their hearts delight & more than likely hit someone & bring them down IMMEDIATELY.To say “aim for the chest(like the heart),” not everybody is going to be able to do that.Using the M16 for most people is like putting a surgeon’s tool into the hands of a combat medic fresh out of school.Now I know that there are some damn good medics & corpsmen out there,but none of them are expected to be brain surgeons or heart surgeons.The soldier just wants a big bullet that they know that no matter where they hit the enemy,he will IMMEDIATELY go down.Whats so hard to understand about that? Also,please tell me where the money &/or time currently is for the non-combat arms/infantryman to “practice” firing their weapons.I sure hope things have changed since I was in the Army in the 80′s,because the only times I ever fired my weapon was to annually requalify for “marksman.”
I think one of the defense sites had an article on expanding full metal jacket bullets. They weren’t hollow point, and they didn’t tumble so the article proposed they would be legal to use for our war fighters. A 5.56mm expanding bullet would make a bigger hole, and it just costs about what new ammo costs, if that was the only issue then have a look at it, but I think the issue here is stoppages.
I’m sorry,but if I’m a soldier or marine & I fire my personal weapon,then I want “instant gratification.”
So essentially SMSGT Mac is telling us that all we know from this possibly flawed test is that 3 different weapon systems work better than the M4 and that this was an extreme test that overtaxed the tested systems and that 3 systems were still better than the M4. The thing that seems to be the common denominator is that there are several weapon systems around that can perform better than the M4. Oh and clean your M4 and it will work better unless your rifle is not an M4 and that it won’t matter how much you clean it because it will still work better than the M4. Is that correct or did I miss something?
I have a question? During wartime,who is going to referee on whether someone is firing “legal” rounds? Who’s going to throw the yellow flag & call for a five,ten,or fifteen yard penalty for firing a hollow point or tumbling bullet? Does the opposing side get a free throw or a free kick out of it? I know this has nothing to do with stoppages,but I’m just curious.
My hat is off to SMSGT Mac for such a detailed look into the data. My brain hurts, trying to wrap my mind around all of the facts, figures and statistics.
I am no statistician, nor will I ever claim to be, so I can’t make an educated guess at the variables and points that he makes, but from the graphs shown, it does make the M4 look… like the loser. In this test, that is.
After looking at Mac’s data, and having followed this story, I hope that the Army and the good Senator (at least there is at least ONE good Senator around ;) ) follow up on this, and do a couple more side by side tests and work out some of the variables, so that the tests have a bit more validity. This seemed to show more of what they didn’t know, or didn’t test for, than what they got in solid, repeatable results. But at least they did something, which is… something. ;)
And something is better than nothing, IMHO.
I also have to comment on one thing that the good SMSGT said: “The M16 (and derivatives like the M4) have brought out more personal opinions and controversy than perhaps anything else in weapons acquisition (for any service of any scale) except perhaps the 9mm vs. 45ACP pistol arguments. I think that the M16/M4 actually IS the most controversial issue of the two, because it usually inspires rhetoric on two fronts: reliability AND stopping power. Both controversies are rooted, I believe, in the fact that there is nothing more personal to the warrior than the weapon the warrior wields
WJS: “clean your M4 and it will work better unless your rifle is not an M4 and that it won’t matter how much you clean it because it will still work better than the M4. Is that correct or did I miss something?” –Nope, that’s what I read out of it, too. You’re not alone. :-)
Roy: “I’m sorry,but if I’m a soldier or marine & I fire my personal weapon,then I want “instant gratification.” — I agree 100%. One shot, one kill, not one shot, one… wound. That’s not quite as intimidating, or as effective, IMHO.
We’ve been complaining about this weapon for years. It all started in Vietnam when the rifle would consistenly jam. What was Colt’s response, a large, in the way, chunk of metal to smack with your wrist so the bolt would finally enter battery. What a joke.
I wish Colt would get a clue, M-16, CAR-15, M-4, etc. etc. Great weapon, but tolerances are way to tight for combat, allowing it to jam, the round is way too fast and doesn’t have any knock down power. During room clearance it’s soo loud we cant here each other yelling orders.
The minute Afghanistan went down, the Army reports had the same complaints, the weapon jams too much and wont knock guys down, even after several hits.
Sorry guys but as I’ve told my people going forward, get rid of your M-4, or anything that used .223cal (or 5.56mm) and grab someones AK-47. Sight it in and use it. For room clearing, go back to a 9mm round or something similar.
Seahunt40
30 years in NAVSPECWAR, retired !
Gas piston systems have two failure modes that are not possible in the M-4/M-16:
1. Operating rod buckling. This is a bigger problem when the gas port is closer to the chamber because the pressure pulse is sharper. It is a bigger problem when the operating rod is longer because the Euler buckling stress if symmetrical, or the secant buckling stress if not symettrical, is proportional to the inverse of the square of the length.
2. Missing the target. The bigger and heavier the operating rod and piston, as a proportion of the total rifle weight, the more the rifle will jump as it moves around and is brought to a stop. The M-16/M-4 have no operating rod, and so do not have any contribution to inaccuracy from this reason.
Why doesn’t someone make an AK-based rifle that has the ability to mount optics/lights/etc. like the M-4?
Reliabilty+Accuracy+Killing Power=Victory
Or maybe someone does, but it’s not someone who’s dropping money in someone else’s pocket in Capital Hill.
SOME very good comments! Disclosure: I know a few of these guys (like Don Meaker). You’re giving me ideas and helping me form opinions completely independent of the ‘Extreme Dust Test’.
I’m sure there’ll be ‘more to come’. – LOL!
and before we carried away with the ‘hand-picked’ vs ‘stock’ arguments, let’s examine the first time this test was run against stock M4s
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289
> One source noted that the first dust test new
> M4s had 9,836 jams in 60,000 rounds
To Nunya,
The Koreans already did this. Look at the “Daewoo” rifle introduced many years ago. Unfortunately it still uses the colt style operating system.
Seahunt40
I still stand by saying that if the soldier & marine had the confidence that their M16/M4 would knock down their opponent first shot,they’d do their best to make sure that it was well maintained.Who knows,maybe the stoppage problem comes from an attitude of “who cares,it ain’t going to stop the enemy anyway,even if it doesn’t jam.”
Isn’t there also a problem with being able to put bayonets on the M4?
Yes Dennis, some of us have seen combat. Several times.
Seahunt40
Nunya,
Many efforts have been made to combine the reliability of an AK based design, with some updates. Two that come to mind (only one of which I have some experiences) are:
Finnish Sako Rk95 TP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_95_TP
Israeli Galil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Galil
The Sakos are built to tighter tolerances than most AKs, making them in theory more accurate; they are ‘pray and spray’ only when used in auto, rather accurate when used as one should use them in single shot mode. The tighter tolerances haven’t reduced reliability, at least they they work well after a nice swim. Optics, reducers, etc. work reasonably. The 7.62 x 39mm round is useful in a place like Finland, where shooting distances are rarely over 300m (except in Lapland), but it’s not a particularly good round beyond that distance, perhaps 400m.
Thank God nobody expressed this opinion…yet,but for anybody out there who believes & SAYS that to prevent stoppages you need to “clean your M16/M4 better” & to knock down the enemy,you need to “aim better,” I say that you are an absolute idiot.You are an absolute idiot,a paid stooge for Colt(which really sucks if you are also still employed by the Pentagon),or you are an arrogant asshole who thinks that our soldiers,sailors,airmen,& marines are just “expendable” Goyim Serfs who need to be “thinned from the human herd.” Its you who needs to be removed from the gene pool.
Sorry, did not mean to come of like no-one here knows what they are talking about.
Just wanted to see if the confidence level in these weapons have gotten to the point where they are being abandoned whenever possible by the people it matters most to…
No mechanical device is going to be perfect. I am not saying that the other tested weapons are the “perfect” choice. Revolvers and AK’s can jam up as well. However, if there is a system that requires less maintenance overall and less lubrication and is more reliable than wouldn’t it be prudent to go with that? I personally think the HK416 idea is the most cost effective as upper replacements would cost way less than a whole new system. We know how good HK’s stuff is they turned that dog of a rifle the L85/SA80 into something approaching the reliability of the M16 so that has to count for something. Go with that until the laser blaster comes around because even at 3rd it was off the shelf and still kicked the M4′s keister. I’ve seen AR’s mess up because I didn’t put a dab of oil in the right spot. That is just ridiculous.
I wonder just how much easier it is to clean the other weapons as well. We all know what a pain in the arse it is to clean the m16/m4 esp after lubing it so it doesn’t jam. I fully agree with christian on the lack of anything to compare it to as contributing to the minimal complaints as the m4 is an upgrade from the m16. Call me cynical but other than waiting for the next great improvement in combat weapons it seems the Army doesn’t really want to invest in all the retraining and experience gathering it will take to reach the same efficiency with the m16/m4 family that has been in service for over a generation for a nominal gain in performance with a new weapon.
I just hope the new rifle doesnt go the same way the “SOCOM 45″ went. What a P.O.S. that was !!!
Seahunt40
The report on the dust test also provided accuracy figures. The XM-8 had twice the error when the test started. The M-4 was very slightly more accurate than the others, but not much. As they wore out, all became less accurate, and nearly all wore out to about the same level.
If it was me, I would look at a new rifle with the following requirements:
1. Bullpup configuration, with total length less than 30 inches, and barrel length of 24 inches (1 in 7 inch rifling), to give the standard or heavy weight 5.56mm rounds the extra velocity that makes it a perform at its best, and cut the length down for greater safety when getting in and out of vehicles.
2. Ejection path that permits left or right handed firing.
3. Locking or delay mechanism physically separated from combustion gasses.
4. Pistol grips front and rear
5. Ability to change ammunition to 5.56mmX45, 7.62mmX51, to 12 gauge (18mmX76) with a change of barrel and magazine. This allows the soldier to configure his weapon to his expected conditions
6. over 2000 rounds between stoppage, and over 4000 rounds between malfunction requiring armorer repair.
7. Shoot from a rest to 2 mils at 100 meters (a mil is about one inch at 100 yards)
8. Built in Thermal and optical sights
9. Integration with GPS, compass, 800 meter laser rangefinder, and a text messenger RF communication link to permit soldiers to silently report contact, and silently call for guided support fires.
Sounds great Don except for #9. That little computer would add 3 or 4 pounds to the rifle. Land Warrior already has a palm pilot-like device that does something close to that. I’m nowhere close to an industry expert, but I believe the desired weight for a rifle with a loaded magazine is no more than 8 pounds. The optics, flashlights, and lasers we use now bump that up to about 10 pounds.
True TB,
He was laughed at by a couple people. One fellow did suggest thought, that now the solder in question had “a real weapon, not a toy”.
I am not going to debate whether he made the right choice, but what interested me was how quickly he abandoned his M-16 for somthing else. If he truly trusted the weapon, and had confidence in it, he would not have been so quick to grab somthing else.
Isn’t this an issue of trust? Trusting a weapon with your life?
Christian,
Regarding “what do the soldiers have to compare it to?” is a good question. Personally, I’m given to trust them on this; the SA80 was near-universally hated by a generation of British soldiers who were arguably had less non-military shooting experience than their American counterparts.
Nevertheless I remain ambivalent. My experience is that the M-16 family chokes in conditions of dirt, dust, and mud that AK derivatives are said to shrug off (not having had a Kalashnikov in those situations, I can only go by what we all hear).
Hey Don,
Why 2000 Rounds between stoppages? (vs. 500, 1000, etc) I mean, yeah set something high like that as an objecitve design goal to explore the feasibility, but what is the realistic requirement from both an achievable technology and military need POV?
Remember, I know how you think: any number you come up with usually has a basis. So fess up! LOL