View Full Version : NY Times article from today
The New York Times reported in the article linked below that the Army will be directing Colt to manufacture M4's with the heavier M4A1 barrel.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/m4-and-m4a1-guns/?hp
Probably old news to most of the well-connected board members, but it is an informative piece of journalism from the main stream media for the general population.
DOC
RU hu...
Rutgers much?
blogs are blocked on my network... :'(
care to copy/paste?
ForTehNguyen
01-12-10, 08:50
copy pasted, there are a couple videos there too
The Making of the Military’s Standard Arms, Part II
By C.J. CHIVERS
In a post published here last week, we gave an overview of some of the manufacturing operations at Colt Defense LLC in West Hartford, Conn., the sole-source manufacturer of the M-4 for the Pentagon.
The M-4 carbine, one of the primary rifles used by the United States military, appears destined for a change. After concerns surfaced about rifles overheating in a sustained firefight in 2008 in Afghanistan, the manufacturer and the United States Army are close to agreeing on a modification to the weapon’s barrel that makes the carbine more resistant to the stresses of extended firing.
The pair of videos shown below, taken at Colt Defense’s testing range, capture the thinking.
The first video shows an M-4 being subjected to an intensive sustained firing test. The rifle used is the standard M-4 with a standard barrel. The weapon is secured in a bench and fed one full 30-round magazine after another without rest beyond the time it takes to replace empty magazines with full magazines.
Watch the video closely. After several magazines, the barrel smolders. Then it becomes red hot. After one minute and twenty seconds the barrel it begins to droop between magazines — like a piece of warm licorice. Then comes the catastrophic ending, at one minute and fifty-one seconds and after the 535th round, when the barrel ruptures.
It is worth noting that the test simulates conditions that almost no soldier could face. In it, 18 magazines are fed through the rifle in less than two minutes. Soldiers and Marines armed with an M-4 or M-16 (the carbine’s longer-barreled parent) typically carry seven or so magazines.
Moreover, the M-4 carbine used in the test had been modified to fire fully automatically. As long as the shooter holds back the trigger, the rifle keeps firing until the magazine is empty. Standard-issue M-4s fire only on semi-automatic or a three-round burst setting, not like this.
For these two reasons, it would be impossible for a soldier armed with a standard M-4 to fire as many rounds in such a short period of time — even if he had the ammunition, even if he wanted to. The rifle is undergoing a test similar to running an automobile engine at, say, 50,000 or more r.p.m.s.
Still, when set against the second video, the test has comparative value.
That video shows the same test with an M-4 equipped with a thicker, heavier barrel, which is used on a specialized carbine, known as the M-4A1. This variant is carried by some special operations users.
Naturally, the rifle still overheats. Heat is an unavoidable byproduct of the cartridges’ burning propellant. It cannot be avoided. But look at what happens with the M-4 outfitted with a heavier barrel.
The barrel gets hotter and hotter, and the heat spreads throughout the weapon. The shooter wears a heat-resistant glove even to pull the trigger. Soon the barrel smolders and glows, but it does not droop and does not rupture. At 2:22 the hand guard assembly catches fire. It burns for about two and a half minutes. But the rifle keeps firing, magazine after magazine, until it stops firing on automatic at four minutes and forty-seven seconds, after 911 rounds.
The reason for the stoppage is that the gas tube, which is located under the upper hand guard, has ruptured. The tube is essential. It diverts a portion of expanding gases associated with each discharged cartridge back toward the carbine’s bolt. This excess energy, aided by springs, is converted to the many steps required for automatic or semi-automatic fire.
With the gas tube ruptured, the shooter continues to fire the rifle several times manually. But at this point, more than 900 rounds after the shooting began, the rifle is a red-hot single shot weapon -– and no longer an infantry assault rifle that can perform as intended.
Even if the sort of extreme firing seen in these videos exceeds the rate of fire that can be achieved in combat, the takeaway is clear: increasing the thickness of an M-4’s barrel increases the rifle’s ability to function in sustained, intensive combat.
Colt Defense and the Army have been discussing making the change to a heavier barrel for several months, and appear likely to begin requiring standard-issue rifles to have the barrel previously manufactured for the M-4A1.
If the change is made, the standard M-4 will retain its semi-automatic and burst modes of fire. It will not fire automatically.
Because both the lighter and heavier barrels are machined from identical sleeves of steel (the thicker barrel, in the simplest sense, spends less time on the lathe), the change can be made without increasing the cost per rifle.
The downside is that the heavier barrel would increase the weight of a standard M-4 by five ounces. The Army has all but decided the tradeoff is worth it, and seems to be considering not whether it should require new carbines to be manufactured to this standard, but whether it should retrofit the hundreds of thousands of rifles already in the services’ possession.
“The bottom line is that we are going to do this,” Colonel Douglas Tamilio, who supervises small arms development for the Army, said of the change to new carbines. “We have to get all of the services to buy in, but it adds five ounces in weight and doubles your sustained rate of fire.”
He added, “I think it’s a no-brainer and we’re going to see it in the near future.”
Failure2Stop
01-12-10, 09:23
Dano-
Yup.
Submariner
01-12-10, 11:29
Bob Moran said it best:
"As for the M4 & 5.56, most any of its so-called 'problems' can be solved by proper lubrication and proper trigger control."
I emailed the reporter and suggested he join LF and M4C and read specific threads, this one included, before he writes his next article.
ForTehNguyen
01-12-10, 12:58
M4 carbine should not be used as a M249 SAW
M4 carbine should not be used as a M249 SAW
An M249 SAW should not be used as an M249 SAW!
completely inane and asinine attempt to prove what? address a training issue with a heavier barrel that certainly won't fix a lack of cleaning and lube. ask average grunt how many rds they can go through w/o cleaning before having issues. they don't know, having never done it. or how long before relube.. what rate of fire gets to cook off. how to test magazines for functionality. reasonable cool down times. etc. the average grunt, and for that matter many others you think that would.. have no idea
no one can reasonably hold the posted schedule of fire. the socom guys catastrophic barrel rupture that initially prompted the heavy barrel were inappropriately using their m4's as SAWs, in training...
a heavier barrel, of course, takes longer to heat up... and much longer to cool down. so once you have heated both barrel profiles to cook off point 2/300 rds the heavier one is unsafe for much longer.
want a stronger barrel, use one of the Canadian Colt hammer forged. want the weapon to work, train the kids. want good equipment, see what the smarter kids in uniform are doing. want to stop getting silly equipment jammed down, get rid of John Murtha and the like.
sweet idea, further increase the weight so these new age over burdened, kevlar covered turtles, lumbering pill boxes, can't move or think fast enough in the streets.
Well said.
Dustin
RogerinTPA
01-12-10, 14:44
You'd think things like keeping the weapon properly lubed, how to clear a double feed and tap,rack, bag, would have filtered down to the line units by now.
As most are aware, this is a system wide, floor to ceiling training failure. No slam on the NCO Corps, but weak E-6 and above level, and weak officers, has more to do with upholding older, our dated (often expedient) methods, than progressing to a higher level of training. Basic Training is just that...Basic. Some where along the line, the Basic level of training has been accepted to be enough for war fighting. It is up to the NCOs to teach the newbs the real way to keep a weapon running.
William B.
01-12-10, 15:59
Yeah, I agree about the training issue. I know that us Marines could definitely benefit more if the Corps contracted out our training. A lot of our training sucks, nobody (for the most part) knows how a firearm operates or its capabilities, and a lot of the time the Marine Corps just plain sucks the fun out of shooting and firearms training.
There is an existing/persisting fundamental issue regarding training and maintenance PERIOD.
When I was on contract performing Small Arms Maintenance here recently in the US, the condition of the weapons that we saw was sad. It seemed that we either saw almost brand new weapons come in for inspection or maintenance, or BEAT TO HELL/filthy weapons that needed fundamental upgrading along with regular repair and maintenance.
We performed "Pre-Set" maintenance for companys shipping out overseas. Not one of the hundreds of the M4s, M16s, M9s, 590s, 249s, or 240s that I saw come through for evaluation was lubricated the smallest bit. Not ONE. The closest thing to lubrication I saw was one or two brand new M4s come through that were in next to unfired condition. Most everything was BONE DRY. We had carbines come through along with rifles that were missing buttstocks, receiver extensions, and buffers/springs. Most if not all of the issued Matech BUIS's were installed improperly and damn near rusted/seized into their settings from utter lack of maintenance. 90% of the 203's that came through had gobs of rust/corrosion inside the firing pin/trigger mechanism area.
When I inquired as to how long and why these had not been fixed, remedy'd, or PMCS'ed by the appropriate 45B the answer was that "Today's 45B is Too Busy" doing other tasks that were assigned to him/her that are not really within the scope of their originally intended individual assignment/duties. As for how long they were in this condition the question was dodged outright. Basically they (the 45Bravo's) were tasked to some other BS job and cannot perform their duties because of their other "Overriding" responsibilities (Paperwork was a favorite reason)..
Couple this lack of fundamental repair with the neglect that was witnessed, and the overall condition of the weapons - and you get to thinking that people are either too stupid/lazy to maintain their gear, or that they have not been trained adequately. True individual PMCS seems to be a thing of the past.
I Really don't even want to start on the subject of "Over Issue" as it pertains to weapons basic components (Sights, handguards, and buttstocks).
Overall it seems that the last thing the Army wants to do is to train their soldiers. They would rather they spend big $$$ on repairs and beating dead horses than correctly address any real issue. I cannot count how many times that I was "Informed" by current and former 45Bravo's that they were specifically instructed NOT to memorize or make a concerted effort to retain what was taught to them because "Things change all of the time". Even them possessing an to an up to date TM was questionable. The "Word of God" was that M4s and M16s were to be run DRY because while firing the lubricant "Attracts" the sand and dust like a magnet and "Cements" the weapon solid - causing "Malfs'". It didn't help that most of the former and current 45B's I met were less than up to date and interested in their job. For most it seemed a Novelty/Status type position. A decent # were as dense as wheel chocks. Asking them to explain in detail how the Gas Impingement system on the M4/16 family of weapons operates resulted in a large number of dubious and nonsensical answers.
As for the Marines they seem to have a better structure as to how and what level their 2111's are allowed to perform maintenance and repairs to their small arms. The 2111's in general that I have met seemed to be much more on the ball than a large portion of the 45B's I met.
When I was on site doing repairs with GD our daily rate to perform the services we offered was somewhere around $180,000 a day if we checked, fixed and tested 1500 weapons a day or 1. That is a lot of $.
One would think that a bean counter somewhere would realize the $ going out the window and push for an appropriate training/institutional fix.
One could only hope..
--->APB
Heavy Metal
01-12-10, 19:16
Years ago I learned that the Army was afraid to truly embrace small arms and the Ethos associated with it. They were too afraid of the lowest common demoniator so everybody had to be punished by the dumbed-down standards. They were afraid if they truly taught someone to shoot, they might hurt somebody.
If I could cram one word down the Army's collective throat it would be LUBRICATION.
The myth of lube causing jams is like the myth of needing to clean the M-16 three times in spite of if it was well-done once.
piggly_wiggly
01-12-10, 19:29
Let's conduct an M4 shoot-full-auto-till-failure test bare-handed wearing a t-shirt... and setup the light so that it obscures part of the barrel from the camera... LOL... engineers...
I'm glad someone read the memo by the second test
:rolleyes:
I couldn't help but thinking about how much better the test could have been if it was filmed with a high res camera.
An M-4 with a piston gas system would have been a good addtion to the test.
William B.
01-12-10, 20:43
I can understand it if the manufacturer is testing their weapons to these extremes, but it would take a real idiot to neglect his M4, use it as a SAW in combat, and then complain about its reliability.
APB, I've got a good one for ya. On my last tour in Iraq I inquired about the 45B MOS, being that I am getting older now and old injuries are staring to nag at me, big time. It was explained to me that the 45B tops out at E-4 and that E-5 up were a different MOS, and in my state a dead end move. So you have interested technical types that know weapons fairly well, and have civilian schooling that would greatly benifit this MOS getting turned off due to zero advancement oportunities and slots. Our squadron 45B was put to great use changing tires in the motorpool and any weapons problems we had were handled by the Marine shop. When I was in the Kentucky Guard, I know of another very qualified individual that ran into the the same wall.
Come on now, everyone knows that it is far more important to give state mandated sensitivity training, suicide prevention, EO and other PC crap classes all day instead of actually teaching the kids to do their jobs, and all the little things that will help them do so along the way.
Luckily my chain tries it's best to make time for the important stuff as well, but it is getting harder.
What do you expect from an Army who's head HMFIC is more worried about diversity than dead and wounded soldiers at Ft. Hood.
:confused::confused::confused:
The myth of lube causing jams is like the myth of needing to clean the M-16 three times in spite of if it was well-done once.
Can anyone tell me if this myth came about during our recent experiences in the sandbox? Because I was Active Duty Army from 90-97 and we always lubed the piss out of our M16A2s. And yes, I was taught the cleaning 3 times thing.
Heavy Metal
01-12-10, 22:19
The three time cleaning thing is vestigal to the old corrosive ammo days. There has been no Corrosive ammo issued for a long time.
The no lube thing comes from turning them in to the arms room nearly dry to prevent dust from sticking to the weapon. Heaven forbid you should have a spec of dust but rust was OK.
Heavy Metal
01-12-10, 22:20
BTW, a bud of mine recently back from Iraq said they told him to use two drops of WD-40, at least his Chain did. I shit u not!
When I was finishing up in Ft. Jackson doing NAICT they wanted ALL lube cleaned off the weapons prior to shipping out. They told us that any lube on the weapon would attract dirt/sand/powder/what ever causing the weapon to not work. This was told by Army DI to us Sailors. That was in 2008 and I'm sure it hasn't changed. That didn't make sense to me then and still doesn't.
Dan
Gotta agree with Heavy Metal on this one. Lube depends on the environment. In a humid climate a light coat of lube can prevent rust. Excessive lube will attract dust.
As far as WD-40 in Iraq, I’ll tell you that sometimes commercial products are easier to lay hands on at the PX than CLP through the supply system.
William B.
01-14-10, 12:11
BTW, a bud of mine recently back from Iraq said they told him to use two drops of WD-40, at least his Chain did. I shit u not!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't WD-40 a degreaser? I was under that impression, but the WD-40 website says it lubricates as well.
http://www.wd40.com/faqs/#a97
http://www.wd40.com/faqs/#a99
No WD-40 is not a degreaser it is in fact a rust inhibitor. I was told that the name WD-40 stands for “Water Displacement-40”. It works well around the house but there is much better alternatives for weapons.
William B.
01-14-10, 13:03
No WD-40 is not a degreaser it is in fact a rust inhibitor. I was told that the name WD-40 stands for “Water Displacement-40”. It works well around the house but there is much better alternatives for weapons.
You're right. In the FAQ's it says it stands for "Water Displacement-40th Attempt." It still doesn't sound like a remotely decent weapon lube, though.
Heavy Metal
01-14-10, 13:07
You're right. In the FAQ's it says it stands for "Water Displacement-40th Attempt." It still doesn't sound like a remotely decent weapon lube, though.
It isn't, especially for an M-4 type weapon. It is very poor.
William B.
01-14-10, 14:16
It isn't, especially for an M-4 type weapon. It is very poor.
Yeah, I had a buddy when I was a kid who used WD-40 to "lubricate" the ball bearings in his skateboard wheels.
RogerinTPA
01-14-10, 20:23
WD-40 is a good lube for a lot of things, just not firearms as a primary lubricant. I use it to break loose crud in the chamber, upper and lower, before the real cleaning starts. It is really too light a lube to be reliable for long duration, without constant reapplication, except for in an emergency and that's all you got. Balistol, which is also light, is much better for weapons, for lube and cleaning and EPA friendly. I'll continue to use WD40 for degreasing until I finish off the can, then go strickly with Balistol. Any motor oil, the heavier the better, is better than both of the light lubes mentioned IMHO.
no one can reasonably hold the posted schedule of fire. the socom guys catastrophic barrel rupture that initially prompted the heavy barrel were inappropriately using their m4's as SAWs, in training...
That was always the story that I heard as well, from Dean Caputo, about how these tests came about. Some SOCOM guys were basically screwing around and running M4s waaaaay beyond any reasonable rate of sustained fire, and (surprise!) got some failures to occur. This would be known as "willful misuse of the product" in other professional realms.
They then brought these "failures" to the attention of Colt, who then did these tests. This is sort of like running a Honda Civic flat out at 7000 rpm in top gear for 3 hours and then wondering why it's smoldering and dying afterwards. The solution is - get a Ferrari if you need to drive that fast.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.