View Full Version : M4 Carbine Test
MrMilspecer
11-02-10, 23:34
Have you seen this ? Still think Carbines are inferior ? http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/01/12/world/asia/1247466496261/m-4a1-firing-test.html
ehcarl2983
11-02-10, 23:48
What's this supposed to prove?
wolf_walker
11-03-10, 00:00
Poor gun.
And an AK would have caught fire and continued to function correctly.
:p
Black Wrench
11-03-10, 02:10
Counted 30 mags at what i'm assuming is 30 rnds ea. 900 rnds not bad. Makes me wanna go shoot. I wish I had that many rounds to blow on nothing. There is a video on the bottom that shows the barrel blowing out at 535 rnds.
What's this supposed to prove?
that a carbine is not a MG :p
devildogljb
11-03-10, 04:40
This to prove what exactly? And as frens stated the m4 is not a machine gun thats what the m240 and the m249 is for. But a good video over all but not exactly sure what the video and you are trying to prove.
Poor gun.
And an AK would have caught fire and continued to function correctly.
:p
Only due to the lower velocity of the 7.62x39 round, and the larger bore diameter. Lower velocity projectiles transfer less heat to the barrel. Also, smaller projectiles have more surface area and thus have more area of friction to cause more heat. AKs chambered in 5.56 and 5.45x39 have similar heat generation and barrel failure rates.
MrMilspecer
11-03-10, 09:43
Well im trying to get the point across that the M4 is not a weak antiquated design as some claim. The only reason it stopped running is becouse it melted the gas tube. I heard it was replaced and the M4 shot fine and was still accurate. I think it held up well to more abuse than I would ever do to a semi auto. I think its a great design thats tough as nails. IMO
The rate of fire really slowed down there towards the end.
ehcarl2983
11-03-10, 10:27
Well im trying to get the point across that the M4 is not a weak antiquated design as some claim. The only reason it stopped running is becouse it melted the gas tube. I heard it was replaced and the M4 shot fine and was still accurate. I think it held up well to more abuse than I would ever do to a semi auto. I think its a great design thats tough as nails. IMO
You brought this same issue up here to me just a few hours ago:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=803747#post803747
Maybe we misunderstood eachother... but I'm not claiming the M4 is weak or antiquated. An AR15 with a carbine length gas system vs. a midlength gas system differ in only 3 ways that I know of. Standard handguard length, gas tube length, and gas port sizing. If any of the SME's would like to correct me I'm still trying to build my knowledge of internal specs.
I like my BCM 14.5 Middy not because I think it is a superior overall design. It's 99.9% the same. From my research on here, test firing a friends, and purchasing my own, I have found that they have a softer recoil. I like this.
What's this supposed to prove?
That the M4 carbine is a righteous weapon and anyone who thinks they can make it better better look for a new line of work...
Yea for one a M4 isnt made as a machine gun to go fire off almost a thousand rounds consistent on full auto.
What i see in this video is a bad*ss carbine thats ripping through rounds with no issues at all until the end.
Personally its still one of the best rifles ever made bar none.
MrMilspecer
11-03-10, 11:05
Yea for one a M4 isnt made as a machine gun to go fire off almost a thousand rounds consistent on full auto.
What i see in this video is a bad*ss carbine thats ripping through rounds with no issues at all until the end.
Personally its still one of the best rifles ever made bar none.
I agree. Just want to let people know that get caught up in gas tube length, buffers ect. Buy a top tier M4 and their tough as nails and run great.
RogerinTPA
11-03-10, 12:07
That Vid has been around for quite a while now. Nothing new.
Dirtyboy333
11-03-10, 18:59
Only due to the lower velocity of the 7.62x39 round, and the larger bore diameter. Lower velocity projectiles transfer less heat to the barrel. Also, smaller projectiles have more surface area and thus have more area of friction to cause more heat. AKs chambered in 5.56 and 5.45x39 have similar heat generation and barrel failure rates.
Interesting....I never thought of it that way....learn sumthin new everyday on this site!!! Quick question though, What do you mean by the smaller projectiles have more surface area? I would have thought it would have been the opposite.. what am i missing?
Dirtyboy333
11-03-10, 19:01
I agree. Just want to let people know that get caught up in gas tube length, buffers ect. Buy a top tier M4 and their tough as nails and run great.
agreed
Originally Posted by ehcarl2983 What's this supposed to prove?
That the M4 carbine is a righteous weapon and anyone who thinks they can make it better better look for a new line of work...Or ... that some guys already have a better line of work than I do.
Interesting....I never thought of it that way....learn sumthin new everyday on this site!!! Quick question though, What do you mean by the smaller projectiles have more surface area? I would have thought it would have been the opposite.. what am i missing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio
Given the same shape of any geometric shape, as you increase volume your surface area goes down. When surface area decreases, you get decreased heat transfer(heating/cooling) and decreased surface friction. This is why thinner barrels heat up and cool faster than thicker barrels.
A smaller caliber bullet of similar length to a larger caliber bullet will transfer more heat to the surrounding barrel than a larger caliber bullet because of kinetic energy transfers to it through friction, and results in heat energy. The US Army did experiements with this towards the end of Vietnam.
However, increased velocity plays a larger role to heating up a barrel than the caliber size.
That the M4 carbine is a righteous weapon and anyone who thinks they can make it better better look for a new line of work...
=============================
So...the M4 cannot be improved??
.
That was awesome - would love to see this against the piston conversions - sorry for the pun, but that would heat-up-the-debate.
Seriously, I would love to partake in one of the agency/mil tourture tests. Even comparison between LW and heavy barrels, different lengths, etc.
=============================
So...the M4 cannot be improved??
.
Not necessarily. For instance, I think mid-length gas is an improvement. And it's possible that different coatings may be an improvement as well, but...
The M4 has evolved to its current refined state as kind of a paragon of rifle technology. From here on out, until some revolutionary improvement comes out, I think we can only think in terms of slight improvement for great expenditure of effort, and/or trade-offs for extremely specific specializations.
This is why there is such frustration by the semi-technically competent as to why we just can't replace it with something "better".
variablebinary
11-03-10, 22:15
I would say that test says positive things about the M4 more than anything else
Though I do wonder if that M4A1 has a "SOCOM" heavy barrel or government profile barrel. I would be really impressed if a gov't profile barrel ate that much abuse
Black Wrench
11-03-10, 22:18
I would love to partake in one of the agency/mil tourture tests. Even comparison between LW and heavy barrels, different lengths, etc.
Exactly, I would love to test all of the different M4 combinations with all the dif specs. That would be bad A$$
Not necessarily. For instance, I think mid-length gas is an improvement. And it's possible that different coatings may be an improvement as well, but...
The M4 has evolved to its current refined state as kind of a paragon of rifle technology. From here on out, until some revolutionary improvement comes out, I think we can only think in terms of slight improvement for great expenditure of effort, and/or trade-offs for extremely specific specializations.
This is why there is such frustration by the semi-technically competent as to why we just can't replace it with something "better".
===============
120mm,
I agree on the coatings. I think this is the area for the most room for improvement. I work with Gas Turbines. 15 years ago we had to have maintenance every 8000 hrs (once a year). New coating extended the cycle to 12,000 hrs. Then, 16,000 about 10 years ago and right now with just a new high performance coating on the blades, we are at 24,000 - 3 years. And all of these improvements came from just a thin coating on turbine blades that is subjected to 2000+ degrees/150psi pressure day in and day out. Very extreme duty.
I think it is a matter of time before the BCG, inside the Upper, and possibly the barrel could be improved with just a coating. Looks like we're in the infancy stage now but it is just a matter of time before some individual/company finds multiple applications for the M4 that could improve it substantially.
But it looks like some people don't think the M$ can be improved, so...
.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.