View Full Version : Army's IC program
sinlessorrow
01-21-12, 21:05
so found this today and im sorry if it doesnt go here but i couldnt find a general discussion forum and it did have to do with the AR-15
http://www.military.com/news/article/gun-firms-fear-army-carbine-fait-accompli.html
Anyone else sick and tired of the endless trials and tests and competitions which again and again come up with the answer: "Not 'better' enough to justify the expense and complexity of replacing the M4?"
I know I am.
Politically motivated waste of money and assets.
The history of military arms is incrementalism with the occasional "leap forward". It is obvious to all but blind, deaf and dumb that there is no "leap forward" at this time.
sinlessorrow
01-21-12, 21:37
Anyone else sick and tired of the endless trials and tests and competitions which again and again come up with the answer: "Not 'better' enough to justify the expense and complexity of replacing the M4?"
I know I am.
Politically motivated waste of money and assets.
The history of military arms is incrementalism with the occasional "leap forward". It is obvious to all but blind, deaf and dumb that there is no "leap forward" at this time.
it honestly sounds like they just want a piston, from what ive heard the improved M4 is a piston design
TN_Warrior
01-21-12, 21:38
I hate how our government works. After reading that article it makes me sick. If a small company can make an excellent rifle that can beat the performance of a large company than the army should take a risk. It just shows you the little guy can't get ahead with our government.
The history of military arms is incrementalism with the occasional "leap forward". It is obvious to all but blind, deaf and dumb that there is no "leap forward" at this time.
Yep, all the buzzwords in the world like "adaptive, special, advanced, etc. etc. etc." don't change the fact that this whole thing is a colossal waste of time. There is nothing groundbreaking going on.
If you're going to do something on the hardware side, do this:
- Add a DD RISII or similar to the M4. These are already contracted
and in the supply system in SOCOM.
- Go to Geissele SSF's for all M4's. These are already in the system
as well, and kills two birds with one stone. Gets rid of the ridiculous
burst fire setting and will assist soldiers in making hits because of
the improved trigger pull.
- Add an AMBI safety selector.
- Consider looking at a more logical barrel profile.
I don't see any of the above as being difficult. The benefits to these simple modifications will be tangible. You will get a huge increase in functionality, save money, and not have to start over with growing pains that come with any new totally new system, no matter how much testing is done.
When something that is ACTUALLY revolutionary comes out, then spend the big bucks.
Now, on the software side, which is way more important (I have posted this previously elsewhere but it applies here):
Keep the current M4 or use one configured as I described above, but do a Military wide, intensive re-training on maintenance procedures at the individual soldier level. Make heavy lubrication a standard TTP. Explicitly explain there will be no more scraping of carbon with knives, gerbers, etc. No more damaged multi-piece cleaning rods being dragged through bores and damaging the crown. These are just a few examples, but generally, no more negligence.
Have all M4's thoroughly inspected beyond normal control mechanisms. Countless gas rings and extractor springs need to be replaced on M4's currently in use. Soldiers and unit level armorers are not catching the problems. A few days is all it will take if that is the sole focus of the day, and instructions are clearly laid out.
Start enforcing individual round counts for bolts and barrels. Obviously, it's a bit too late to start on already used bolts and barrels, but from the second one of these items gets replaced, a round count for each item should be maintained. It's not that hard to keep a log of rounds fired.
Armed with the knowledge of how many rounds every bolt, barrel, extractor spring etc has...start replacing these items at prescribed intervals, not just when something breaks.
This would be a good start.
Next, go through every god damn magazine in the inventory. Bad feed lips? Chuck it and replace. Train soldiers not to drop their IOTV's / Plate Carriers from even a few inches when they take them off. This is how so many feed lips get damaged. There are a ton of issued PMAG's already in circulation...keep on replacing USGI mags with PMAGS. If USGI mags are taken care of, they work just fine. Got it. The fact is that the feed lips on PMAGS are more durable, especially when you're fairly regularly diving into the prone and the feed lips are taking impacts.
The sad thing is that all of this shit is already supposed to get done. But it's not. It's going to take an informed general officer or upper echelon CSM to get a major bug up their ass about it to get it done. It will have to be command directed and strictly supervised. Company commanders, 1SG's, and XO's are either too ignorant of what needs to be done or too otherwise engaged to make it happen on their own. A yearly reset at the armory is not enough.
Do all this, and you'll slowly start to see a decrease in jackasses claiming the M4 is unreliable.
While you're at it, ditch the 25M zero (Army). You'll stop seeing complaints of "no stopping power." Hint, jackass, you're snapping rounds over the enemy's head. Aim lower.
Zero the ACOG's and Elcan SpecterDR's at an actual 100M. Stop ****ing trying to do it with the BDC at 25M or 32/36. Zero the Aimpoints and EOTECH'S at 100M too. Explain the new trajectory to everybody.
I realize the 100M zero will be contentious and a lot of people will advocate something else. I don't want this to become the central point of contention here. It's just my own take on things.
The M4 needs a hammered barrel. I like mid. I like nitride. That's not the important part. Make it last 20,000 rounds and make a 20,000 round bolt to match. Get a MOE grip with a lube bottle in it. Put a high efficiency flash suppressor on them. Hajji has NODs.
The M4 doesn't have a reliability problem it has a service life problem. Either make them last longer or throw them out more often.
Edit: Stop proofing bolts and barrels. Make them to the standard and don't subject them to that abuse. It shortens the bolt life 40%.
BrigandTwoFour
01-22-12, 00:06
From a cost vs benefit perspective, this just isn't going to go anywhere. Nothing out there is going to do anything significantly better enough to be worth the cost of retraining 40 years of doctrine, supply chains, and gunsmithing know-how. At best, the little improvements could be considered, like redesigning a lower to be fully ambi and retrofitting the inventory.
At this point, the only real advancements are going to be in ammunition design. If we figure out some new and revolutionary way to rethink ballistics and ammunition, then that will drive a totally new firearm design.
wilson1911
01-22-12, 00:09
How come the article states "Colt LLC", when most of the AR's are made by FN ???
DeltaSierra
01-22-12, 00:15
How come the article states "Colt LLC", when most of the AR's are made by FN ???
Oh, maybe because Colt has the contract for the M4?
As far as I know, FN only has a contract to produce the M16A4 for the USMC. FN doesn't have a contract to produce any M4 carbines for the US military - only Colt Defense does.
kaltesherz
01-22-12, 00:18
As frustrating (more like infuriating) as the search for a new carbine is, compared to what the Army did for uniform and camo selection it's still childs play.
Army asked for a universal camo, Crye gave them Multicam, Army rejected it for UCP (ACU), refused to admit it screwed the pooch, then after YEARS and spending ungodly amounts of money getting EVERYTHING in UCP for all TA-50, they finally test it and find Multicam far superior. Then, after they start issuing it to units in Afghanistan (which took waaaay too long) and seeing it's success, they put out for a new competition for not one but THREE new camos despite the fact that Multicam still ****ing WORKS. Seriously?!?
Sorry, just had to get that out.
Rant off.
sinlessorrow
01-22-12, 00:20
The M4 needs a hammered barrel. I like mid. I like nitride. That's not the important part. Make it last 20,000 rounds and make a 20,000 round bolt to match. Get a MOE grip with a lube bottle in it. Put a high efficiency flash suppressor on them. Hajji has NODs.
The M4 doesn't have a reliability problem it has a service life problem. Either make them last longer or throw them out more often.
Edit: Stop proofing bolts and barrels. Make them to the standard and don't subject them to that abuse. It shortens the bolt life 40%.
i agree for the military i think batch testing is plenty and those should be disposed of since like you stated have a 40% reduced bolt life.
batch testing works for the car industry to a 99.9% rate
i think instead of getting a new carbine, make the current ones better.
the Block II M4A1 is on the right track with a FF rail and such as well as auto instead of that shitty burst mode.
Ah, your tax dollars at work. This is what you get when every military fiefdom gets a say in how the dollars are spent. Every piece of Army equipment suffers from this bureaucracy. Seriously, the Army budget needs to be cut in half. Half of the Generals in the Army need to be retired. There are no less than 5 activities that R&D, validate and approve Army equipment. COTS, COTS, COTS. Let the Tier 1 units buy what they want. If it is good (and cost effective) let the rest of the SOF community give it a try. If the Rangers like it (and it is cost effective), let the 82nd have it, then push it out to the 101st and 10th Mountain. If the item has problems, the 'beta testers' in divisional combat units will figure it out. THEN, push this stuff out to the rest of the force of about 1 million bubbas. What we do now let a small committee of pin heads and pencil necks (at PEO Soldier, Natick, the AMC unit in Hood, ATC, and some mo' folks) decide what to field to the force and then we field it en mass on one massive contract only to learn millions of dollars latter that they made the wrong call and a good COTS solution was staring us in the face all along.
RioGrandeGreen
01-22-12, 00:48
Let it be known that of that day forward Aocake is promoted to Sergeant Major of the Military of Small Arms Training.
With respect,
RGGreen
I hate how our government works. After reading that article it makes me sick. If a small company can make an excellent rifle that can beat the performance of a large company than the army should take a risk. It just shows you the little guy can't get ahead with our government.
No. The the Army should not "take a risk" on its primary service rifle.
BrigandTwoFour
01-22-12, 00:57
Sadly, the idea of COTS doesn't sit too well with a lot of brass.
I know the navy finally figured it out with the latest and greatest submarine, when they realized they could use COTS to build a state-of-the-art sub with all the latest and greatest tech without the cost of a Seawolf because not every part had to be specially designed.
In the USAF, I've run into more problems than I care to think about with "specialized equipment" that has been requested, designed, tested, certified, and then finally fielded. Yet, by the time they field it, it's completely broken and obsolete. In my career of the nuclear world, we were just recently given handheld computers to load crypto devices that are called state of the art. They run on a ten year old version of windows mobile and fail more than they should. The system they replaced was paper keytapes leftover fromthe 70's.
As far as the IC goes. IMO, the best way would be to get together a team of competent end users to discuss the shortcomings of the current system, and issue a RFP to fix those shortcomings. In the end, that keeps most of the parts supply still relevant and only requires some moderate retrofitting- for a much reduced cost over fielding an entirely new weapon system.
Sadly, the idea of COTS doesn't sit too well with a lot of brass.
I know the navy finally figured it out with the latest and greatest submarine, when they realized they could use COTS to build a state-of-the-art sub with all the latest and greatest tech without the cost of a Seawolf because not every part had to be specially designed.
DoD or GD?
Seriously? A piston? I agree, this is about as retarded as ACUs.
I wouldn't want to carry any mass produced other weapon into combat. Yeah an extended rail/gas system would be nice and I can think of a few other small upgrades but still...
variablebinary
01-22-12, 05:46
My opinion is the amount of money spent on trials, or whatever should result in something tangible instead of just vanishing and never being heard of again.
Otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time and money.
Issue me a weapon. I really don't care what it is, but don't bullshit me and say we have no budget for training when you blow millions on stupid solicitations that go no where.
The history of military arms is incrementalism with the occasional "leap forward". It is obvious to all but blind, deaf and dumb that there is no "leap forward" at this time.
Agree (with the first part). However, you don't get those leaps forward, or even many increments, without constant trial and error in the R&D of new weapons. That's how we got the AR platform to begin with. We saw a need to improve on the previous platform, and someone came up with a leap forward. Then lots of increments to what we have now. By constantly trying to improve, we may get more increments, we may get a leap forward, or we may get nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I understand A LOT of money gets wasted in our system. I get that. But saying there's no leap forward at this time would only serve to limit or discourage those who may come up with that leap forward during the process.
You don't get a much better platform by saying there's no way it'll happen.
Agree (with the first part). However, you don't get those leaps forward, or even many increments, without constant trial and error in the R&D of new weapons. That's how we got the AR platform to begin with. We saw a need to improve on the previous platform, and someone came up with a leap forward. Then lots of increments to what we have now. By constantly trying to improve, we may get more increments, we may get a leap forward, or we may get nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I understand A LOT of money gets wasted in our system. I get that. But saying there's no leap forward at this time would only serve to limit or discourage those who may come up with that leap forward during the process.
You don't get a much better platform by saying there's no way it'll happen.
You're talking complete shit. Small arms "leap forwards" have ALWAYS been the result of private development, without the assistance of government intervention. In fact, government attempts to fund or incentivize progress have historically met with disaster.
There is ample history of governments/military resisting obvious improvements, but trust me, that ain't now.
All we are doing is pissing away oceans of money to no good end.
USMC_Anglico
01-22-12, 08:34
it honestly sounds like they just want a piston, from what ive heard the improved M4 is a piston design
The improved M4 is basically an M4A1 as issued to SOCOM with a FF rail (piston may or may not happen down the road as an additional PIP). Only took the Army around 10 years to get with the program SOCOM has been on.
That is your gov't hard at work.:rolleyes:
You're talking complete shit.
Compelling arguement.
As to the rest of your statement, I understand what you're trying to say. I just disagree slightly. Without a demand for something, there's no real incentive for the private market to come up with new ideas.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot of BS and waste. Just saying that looking for improvements is how you get them. The stupid requirements and stipulations they put on the companies that submit for a contract may be all sorts of ****ed up right now, but in general, an intrest in better designs is not a bad thing.
I don't think piston is the way to go with this platform. And I don't think they'll have that leap forward with this concept. And I wish they wouldn't limit the competition so much. But looking to improve is not a bad thing. Even if it doesn't lead to a leap forward right now. Eventually, something probably will replace this platform. Whether the current push to improve it spurs that replacement will only be known in the distant future.
Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Have a beer on me. I'll have to owe ya.
I don't think we get much value added from a piston system. Piston AR's are not that great. Given all of the lights, lasers and optics used I think we need to lighten the rifle - not add more parts to it.
While you're at it, ditch the 25M zero (Army). You'll stop seeing complaints of "no stopping power." Hint, jackass, you're snapping rounds over the enemy's head. Aim lower.
When you say 25m zero, do you mean that they zero for 25m specifically, or is that on an 'adjusted/compensated' 100m zero @ 25m? (I know nothing of Army procedure.)
I think you have some very sound ideas on how to improve on what's already in use. That could save a lot of money, so you know it will never happen. :D
In my career of the nuclear world, we were just recently given handheld computers to load crypto devices that are called state of the art. They run on a ten year old version of windows mobile and fail more than they should. The system they replaced was paper keytapes leftover fromthe 70's.
My dad retired from the USAF in 1982, he was with (what used to be known as) the 90th FMMS. A couple of years ago, he attended a missileer reunion at F. E. Warren. He remarked that 'things haven't advanced as much as I would have expected over the past two decades.' You would think that our nuclear defenses would get a little more priority than that.
BrigandTwoFour
01-22-12, 11:14
My dad retired from the USAF in 1982, he was with (what used to be known as) the 90th FMMS. A couple of years ago, he attended a missileer reunion at F. E. Warren. He remarked that 'things haven't advanced as much as I would have expected over the past two decades.' You would think that our nuclear defenses would get a little more priority than that.
Not to drift too far off topic, but this is a perfect example of the government not wanting to put money into systems that seem to me working well enough.
I think most citizens would be horrified to see the state of our launch facilities. During my time of nuclear alert in the 12th MS (2007 - 2011), our communication systems still ran on 10 inch floppy disks, our targeting computers have a fraction of the processing power of my iPhone, and a lot of the electrical systems that keep the launch centers running are on the verge of catastrophic failure because nobody has made the required circuit breaker since 1967.
Applying this to small arms, I don't think there is a perceived big enough flaw that requires an an entirely new platform. Are there weapon systems out there that perform marginally better than the AR in certain respects, sure. Are they a big enough improvement to warrant a complete replacement? In the eyes of the government, no.
What I keep coming back to is smaller incremental developments that can incorporate some of those features into the AR. Various coatings (NiB), ambi safeties like the BAD-ASS, ambi mag releases that also lock the bolt back, ambi bolt releases, etc. These items could be incorporated into the existing system for a drastically reduced cost.
Until there is a completely different way of approaching ammunition and ballistics, I just don't see there being enough reason to switch platforms.
GeorgiaBoy
01-22-12, 11:19
When you say 25m zero, do you mean that they zero for 25m specifically, or is that on an 'adjusted/compensated' 100m zero @ 25m? (I know nothing of Army procedure.)
I think you have some very sound ideas on how to improve on what's already in use. That could save a lot of money, so you know it will never happen. :D
The Army/USMC uses a 25 meter to replicate a 300 meter zero. However, it's not a great zero and can be inconsistent. I prefer a 100 true (verified, not compensated) zero for work over 200 yards and a 50 yard zero for CQB ranges.
RogerinTPA
01-22-12, 11:49
Agreed, whole heatedly.
However...I lay the blame squarely on the leadership. The mid-level and senior NCOs who continue to perpetuate the BS of the past of maintaining the M16FOW and Company grade Officers who hang on the every word about all things weapons related, repeating the BS, ad-nauseum. The NCO Corps are the trainers who should be SMEs on anything they train. Hearsay and the rumor mill, needs to be killed off, and doing what the actual operator's manual states, strictly adhered to. Leadership that does not have a written reference to draw and to refer soldiers to, should not come out of their collective mouths.
On marksmanship. A training and scoring system should be developed to reward "accuracy & shot placement" (COM & Head shots = Expert rating) as opposed to just "hitting" anywhere on the target surface.
It has always been and always will be a training issue.
Yep, all the buzzwords in the world like "adaptive, special, advanced, etc. etc. etc." don't change the fact that this whole thing is a colossal waste of time. There is nothing groundbreaking going on.
If you're going to do something on the hardware side, do this:
- Add a DD RISII or similar to the M4. These are already contracted
and in the supply system in SOCOM.
- Go to Geissele SSF's for all M4's. These are already in the system
as well, and kills two birds with one stone. Gets rid of the ridiculous
burst fire setting and will assist soldiers in making hits because of
the improved trigger pull.
- Add an AMBI safety selector.
- Consider looking at a more logical barrel profile.
I don't see any of the above as being difficult. The benefits to these simple modifications will be tangible. You will get a huge increase in functionality, save money, and not have to start over with growing pains that come with any new totally new system, no matter how much testing is done.
When something that is ACTUALLY revolutionary comes out, then spend the big bucks.
Now, on the software side, which is way more important (I have posted this previously elsewhere but it applies here):
Keep the current M4 or use one configured as I described above, but do a Military wide, intensive re-training on maintenance procedures at the individual soldier level. Make heavy lubrication a standard TTP. Explicitly explain there will be no more scraping of carbon with knives, gerbers, etc. No more damaged multi-piece cleaning rods being dragged through bores and damaging the crown. These are just a few examples, but generally, no more negligence.
Have all M4's thoroughly inspected beyond normal control mechanisms. Countless gas rings and extractor springs need to be replaced on M4's currently in use. Soldiers and unit level armorers are not catching the problems. A few days is all it will take if that is the sole focus of the day, and instructions are clearly laid out.
Start enforcing individual round counts for bolts and barrels. Obviously, it's a bit too late to start on already used bolts and barrels, but from the second one of these items gets replaced, a round count for each item should be maintained. It's not that hard to keep a log of rounds fired.
Armed with the knowledge of how many rounds every bolt, barrel, extractor spring etc has...start replacing these items at prescribed intervals, not just when something breaks.
This would be a good start.
Next, go through every god damn magazine in the inventory. Bad feed lips? Chuck it and replace. Train soldiers not to drop their IOTV's / Plate Carriers from even a few inches when they take them off. This is how so many feed lips get damaged. There are a ton of issued PMAG's already in circulation...keep on replacing USGI mags with PMAGS. If USGI mags are taken care of, they work just fine. Got it. The fact is that the feed lips on PMAGS are more durable, especially when you're fairly regularly diving into the prone and the feed lips are taking impacts.
The sad thing is that all of this shit is already supposed to get done. But it's not. It's going to take an informed general officer or upper echelon CSM to get a major bug up their ass about it to get it done. It will have to be command directed and strictly supervised. Company commanders, 1SG's, and XO's are either too ignorant of what needs to be done or too otherwise engaged to make it happen on their own. A yearly reset at the armory is not enough.
Do all this, and you'll slowly start to see a decrease in jackasses claiming the M4 is unreliable.
While you're at it, ditch the 25M zero (Army). You'll stop seeing complaints of "no stopping power." Hint, jackass, you're snapping rounds over the enemy's head. Aim lower.
Zero the ACOG's and Elcan SpecterDR's at an actual 100M. Stop ****ing trying to do it with the BDC at 25M or 32/36. Zero the Aimpoints and EOTECH'S at 100M too. Explain the new trajectory to everybody.
I realize the 100M zero will be contentious and a lot of people will advocate something else. I don't want this to become the central point of contention here. It's just my own take on things.
Yep, all the buzzwords in the world like "adaptive, special, advanced, etc. etc. etc." don't change the fact that this whole thing is a colossal waste of time. There is nothing groundbreaking going on.
If you're going to do something on the hardware side, do this:
- Add a DD RISII or similar to the M4. These are already contracted
and in the supply system in SOCOM.
- Go to Geissele SSF's for all M4's. These are already in the system
as well, and kills two birds with one stone. Gets rid of the ridiculous
burst fire setting and will assist soldiers in making hits because of
the improved trigger pull.
- Add an AMBI safety selector.
- Consider looking at a more logical barrel profile.
I don't see any of the above as being difficult. The benefits to these simple modifications will be tangible. You will get a huge increase in functionality, save money, and not have to start over with growing pains that come with any new totally new system, no matter how much testing is done.
When something that is ACTUALLY revolutionary comes out, then spend the big bucks.
Now, on the software side, which is way more important (I have posted this previously elsewhere but it applies here):
Keep the current M4 or use one configured as I described above, but do a Military wide, intensive re-training on maintenance procedures at the individual soldier level. Make heavy lubrication a standard TTP. Explicitly explain there will be no more scraping of carbon with knives, gerbers, etc. No more damaged multi-piece cleaning rods being dragged through bores and damaging the crown. These are just a few examples, but generally, no more negligence.
Have all M4's thoroughly inspected beyond normal control mechanisms. Countless gas rings and extractor springs need to be replaced on M4's currently in use. Soldiers and unit level armorers are not catching the problems. A few days is all it will take if that is the sole focus of the day, and instructions are clearly laid out.
Start enforcing individual round counts for bolts and barrels. Obviously, it's a bit too late to start on already used bolts and barrels, but from the second one of these items gets replaced, a round count for each item should be maintained. It's not that hard to keep a log of rounds fired.
Armed with the knowledge of how many rounds every bolt, barrel, extractor spring etc has...start replacing these items at prescribed intervals, not just when something breaks.
This would be a good start.
Next, go through every god damn magazine in the inventory. Bad feed lips? Chuck it and replace. Train soldiers not to drop their IOTV's / Plate Carriers from even a few inches when they take them off. This is how so many feed lips get damaged. There are a ton of issued PMAG's already in circulation...keep on replacing USGI mags with PMAGS. If USGI mags are taken care of, they work just fine. Got it. The fact is that the feed lips on PMAGS are more durable, especially when you're fairly regularly diving into the prone and the feed lips are taking impacts.
The sad thing is that all of this shit is already supposed to get done. But it's not. It's going to take an informed general officer or upper echelon CSM to get a major bug up their ass about it to get it done. It will have to be command directed and strictly supervised. Company commanders, 1SG's, and XO's are either too ignorant of what needs to be done or too otherwise engaged to make it happen on their own. A yearly reset at the armory is not enough.
Do all this, and you'll slowly start to see a decrease in jackasses claiming the M4 is unreliable.
While you're at it, ditch the 25M zero (Army). You'll stop seeing complaints of "no stopping power." Hint, jackass, you're snapping rounds over the enemy's head. Aim lower.
Zero the ACOG's and Elcan SpecterDR's at an actual 100M. Stop ****ing trying to do it with the BDC at 25M or 32/36. Zero the Aimpoints and EOTECH'S at 100M too. Explain the new trajectory to everybody.
I realize the 100M zero will be contentious and a lot of people will advocate something else. I don't want this to become the central point of contention here. It's just my own take on things.
I agree. It's getting better at basic training due to the Special Warfare Group and the Small Arms Master Gunners course, but we have done a very poor job at teaching this new info, hell I've found most people haven't even read FM 3-22.9 dated Aug 08 and there is a new one in the works, my battalion (AC/RC training BN) is trying to get a draft copy.
LTC Griffin, US Army Infantry
The Army/USMC uses a 25 meter to replicate a 300 meter zero. However, it's not a great zero and can be inconsistent. I prefer a 100 true (verified, not compensated) zero for work over 200 yards and a 50 yard zero for CQB ranges.
Now it makes sense for me. I knew if you zeroed for 25m it would shoot high at 100m (I used a compensated zero target wrong the first time :p ) but I didn't know why they would zero at 25m. Thanks for the info!
I wish people would stop spouting drivel like, "FACT: PMAGS are more reliable than GI mags, PMAGS are more durable, etc." They're not. I've got several almost new PMAGS with missing feedlips. They also stop feeding when it's really cold out. I have trouble free functioning since I stopped using Pmags several years ago. Before anyone says that the experiences I have are from older versions of the mags, it's not true. It's all BS that I've observed on co-workers' mags, recently.
sundance435
01-22-12, 16:54
I wish people would stop spouting drivel like, "FACT: PMAGS are more reliable than GI mags, PMAGS are more durable, etc." They're not. I've got several almost new PMAGS with missing feedlips. They also stop feeding when it's really cold out. I have trouble free functioning since I stopped using Pmags several years ago. Before anyone says that the experiences I have are from older versions of the mags, it's not true. It's all BS that I've observed on co-workers' mags, recently.
All things being equal, I don't think anyone can honestly say that there aren't mags out there that may be slightly more reliable than GI mags. Not to say GI mags aren't reliable, but there are improvements, which is pretty much the exact same situation with the M4.
There is no system out there or close to fielding that is THAT much better than the M4 to justify switching. The next big change in small arms is going to be when we go away from traditional ammunition, i.e. "smart rounds", rounds that don't use powder and primers, etc.
My favorite part of the whole article was
"I'm not going to dump half a million to a million dollars for them never to review my rifle," said Steve Mayer of Rock River Arms. :dance3:
I wish people would stop spouting drivel like, "FACT: PMAGS are more reliable than GI mags, PMAGS are more durable, etc." They're not. I've got several almost new PMAGS with missing feedlips. They also stop feeding when it's really cold out. I have trouble free functioning since I stopped using Pmags several years ago. Before anyone says that the experiences I have are from older versions of the mags, it's not true. It's all BS that I've observed on co-workers' mags, recently.
My main point was to inspect your equipment. Put 15 rounds in and give it a whack. Does a round come out? If so, ditch the mag. Shit breaks. Making sure the magazines are functional is clearly more important than whether they're USGI aluminum or PMAGS.
I think we'll agree that the most common complex malfunctions we see are double feeds, exclusively caused by faulty magazines.
From my own observations, USGI mags are more likely to fail the above test after repeated impacts on the feed lips from "IMT," or in the real world, going prone in a hurry. It is my opinion that the polymer used in PMAGS is less prone to spreading open from impact than aluminum.
I have not experienced cold weather issues like you described. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've not seen it.
But really, my point about moving to PMAGS was probably the least important point I made.
sinlessorrow
01-22-12, 18:20
My main point was to inspect your equipment. Put 15 rounds in and give it a whack. Does a round come out? If so, ditch the mag. Shit breaks. Making sure the magazines are functional is clearly more important than whether they're USGI aluminum or PMAGS.
I think we'll agree that the most common complex malfunctions we see are double feeds, exclusively caused by faulty magazines.
From my own observations, USGI mags are more likely to fail the above test after repeated impacts on the feed lips from "IMT," or in the real world, going prone in a hurry. It is my opinion that the polymer used in PMAGS is less prone to spreading open from impact than aluminum.
I have not experienced cold weather issues like you described. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've not seen it.
But really, my point about moving to PMAGS was probably the least important point I made.
i prefer lancer AWM's:dirol:
that said, here is the reason i think the trials are stupid.
last time we had this the army did their "extreme dust test" the M4 had 863 minor stoppages out of 60,000 rounds, now in the test they used the standard stuff. im pretty sure i read they did not lube the rifles at all during the testing(something we all know the ar-15 needs).
even that alone is a 98% pass rate for the rifle, had they lubed the rifles and used something like PMAGS or lancers, i bet those 863 would have been much lower
my point is, even if a piston design allows you to go 2,000 rounds without lube or cleaning, whats the point for a military rifle? that woudl be about a 99% pass rate.
you have time to clean your rifle and we have a dust cover for a reason, clean, lube, and close the dust cover and the rifles will be fine, is that 1% stoppage decrease worth the money we are spending?
i dont think so
RogerinTPA
01-22-12, 19:53
My favorite part of the whole article was
:dance3:
They should have invested the money on fixing the shit thats wrong with their current production ARs instead...Just sayin.
Without a demand for something, there's no real incentive for the private market to come up with new ideas.
Patently false, because private sector is better at forecasting the next iterations/generations of any given thing, is more flexible and more able to foot the risk of developing same. They're verrrry good at the if this/then that game.
Name any small-arms procurement program you care to, or ancillary gear for same program, and I bet that I and any number of other folks can probably point to COTS solutions that were on-deck and basically ready to go prior to the companies asked to compete were requested to send bid-samples for source-selection.
All based on the possibility of demand, not the existence of it. Gov't is too inflexible and slow for private industry to NOT speculate, and trust their talent to produce winners for developing trends.
That's putting aside how hordes of zombie-apocalypse-prep morons will buy up just about anything.....
sinlessorrow
01-23-12, 19:40
Patently false, because private sector is better at forecasting the next iterations/generations of any given thing, is more flexible and more able to foot the risk of developing same. They're verrrry good at the if this/then that game.
Name any small-arms procurement program you care to, or ancillary gear for same program, and I bet that I and any number of other folks can probably point to COTS solutions that were on-deck and basically ready to go prior to the companies asked to compete were requested to send bid-samples for source-selection.
All based on the possibility of demand, not the existence of it. Gov't is too inflexible and slow for private industry to NOT speculate, and trust their talent to produce winners for developing trends.
That's putting aside how hordes of zombie-apocalypse-prep morons will buy up just about anything.....
dug up the army M4 extreme dust test powerpoint and thought this was interesting
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9z0kZs2YpZg/R3seWbcGmKI/AAAAAAAAAKI/l8qvBq6S-eE/s400/EDT-6.jpg
apparently a large number of stoppages from the fall testing was the burst mode on the M4 not completing its rotation and firing less than 3rnds(not real stoppages) so why fix what isnt broke
dont show the piston people this though theyll just die knowing the M4 outperforms the HK416
It really a mute point, with the current budget crisis they are not going to be able to purchase a new weapon. How will they justify it went all the other major combat systems will be on the chopping block. Hell they are not even funding replacements for the combat losses now!:rolleyes: This current admin is hell bent to defund every part of our military for Social programs. God for bid they are not removed in the next election.:bad:
The Army/USMC uses a 25 meter to replicate a 300 meter zero. However, it's not a great zero and can be inconsistent. I prefer a 100 true (verified, not compensated) zero for work over 200 yards and a 50 yard zero for CQB ranges.
Yeah but the problem is in today's battlefield you're never going to know when you'll be using either. 1 minute you're pulling outer security so Afghans can raid an HME lab and the next second you're shooting at a PKM 500m away. I just leave mine at the 100m zero always.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9z0kZs2YpZg/R3seWbcGmKI/AAAAAAAAAKI/l8qvBq6S-eE/s400/EDT-6.jpg
dont show the piston people this though theyll just die knowing the M4 outperforms the HK416
Too late... :help:
XM8 will keep my faith in piston rifles. AFAIK in Summer test M4 was "wet" re-lubed all the time, while Fall test was "dry" test. I wonder how "piston" guns would preform if Summer test would include them.
I think I will live after all :D
dug up the army M4 extreme dust test powerpoint and thought this was interesting
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9z0kZs2YpZg/R3seWbcGmKI/AAAAAAAAAKI/l8qvBq6S-eE/s400/EDT-6.jpg
apparently a large number of stoppages from the fall testing was the burst mode on the M4 not completing its rotation and firing less than 3rnds(not real stoppages) so why fix what isnt broke
dont show the piston people this though theyll just die knowing the M4 outperforms the HK416
First, according to that chart, the M4 experienced a total of 305 stoppages compared to the HK416s total of 233. That is 30% more stoppages for the M4 than the HK416. This hardly constitutes the M4 outperforming the HK416 as you claimed in your post.
Also, please explain to me how this chart illustrates that they incorrectly counted failures to fire less than three rounds with the M4 as stoppages, along with a reliable source confirming this claim.
I think the numbers in that chart are off. Here is a link to the dust test prior to the one where the M4 competed with the HK416, SCAR, & XM-8:
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_carbine_lubrication_070716/. In it, the M4 experienced 678 malfunctions, not the 305 that the comparison chart you posted asserts. This was the test where they compared a heavily lubed M4 against one not properly lubed and the guns experienced 678 total malfunctions.
Here is the breakdown of malfunctions in the later comparative dusttest where the M4 fared worse:
• XM8: 127 stoppages.
• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
• 416: 233 stoppages.
• M4: 882 stoppages.
Even if you take the figure from the earlier test of 678 malfunctions instead of the 882 of the later test, the M4 still has almost 3 times the malfunctions as the HK416.
The bottom line is that the Army's most elite unit chose the HK416 over the M4 in extensive comparative tests and still uses it. If the HK416 offered no real advantage to the M4 or had as many issues as some people claim, it would have been a flash in the pan and never chosen over the M4 or kept in service.
Here are some of the things that this board's SMEs have said about the HK416:
Some recent military shooting demonstrated that the HK416 exhibited substantially greater reliability and 3-4 times the durability of a Colt M4, with significantly less need for maintenance.
Military units with the latitude to test and choose literally any system...M4, Sig 55X, AK, WHATEVER....spent millions of dollars to determine that this was the best rifle. No lowest bidder that meets the standard, no Congressman trying to get dollars to his district, just simple performance at any cost. This gun (the 416) won. It was truly the best.
4) A Colt 6920 is a very good gun ( I used one for a long time while instructing) and is just fine for most civilian and LE users - just keep it lubed
5) I recommend a piston AR for the following;
a) barrel length less than 14.5 inches
b) extensive full auto fire
c) wide variety of ammo being used
d) suppressed use
6) I hope the HK416 & 417 will be available to civilians and individual LE officers someday - I have campaigned tirelessly for this since the 416 was introduced
7) The 416 would be my first choice in a 5.56mm assault rifle if given the option
8) I have seen alot of ammo shot out of a 416 (probably more than anyone in the USA) - and in my experience it is MORE accurate than a DI AR - I have seen a 10 inch 416 shoot minute of angle from a machine rest at the factory after being fired 12,000 rds during a lot acceptance test - I, like others who witnessed it, would never have believed it is I had not seen it myself
9) The spec ops users of the 416 I train and know love the gun except for the weight (it has a fairly heavy barrel under that rail system) - HK is offering a lighter profile barrel as an option now
sinlessorrow
01-24-12, 11:20
ed if you dont count the magazine stoppages(which lets face it PMAGS and lancers would cut out 99% of) you have 159 stoppages for the M4 in the summer and considering colt contracted contracted a DOD-certified testing agency, Stork East-West Technology Corporation in Jupiter, Florida to do the same testing and came out with only 111 stoppages something to me seems odd about the fall testing. also that picture i posted comes from the army's own powerpoint
also isnt army times and military times the guys who are like the national enquiror? cause in the link the M4 with light lube had 9,836 stoppages, sounds pretty BS to me
Colt also states that ATEC's testers were unfamiliar with the M4s' 3-round burst configuration which, depending on the position of the cam, will sometimes fire 1 round or a 2-round burst before firing a 3-round burst. This unfamiliarity, said Colt, led to single rounds and 2-round bursts being counted as stoppages. With the exception of the M4s, all other weapons tested were fully automatic with no 3-round burst provision. Further, Colt points out that the test itself did not meet Mil-Spec 810F and "was not repeatable."
In response to what Colt described as "the premature media reporting" of the raw test data, Program Executive Office Soldier suggested that Colt conduct its own extreme dust test. So Colt contracted a DOD-certified testing agency, Stork East-West Technology Corporation in Jupiter, Florida, to conduct its own dust test according to mil-spec guidelines. In this test of ten M4 carbines, which was conducted under a protocol identical to that used in Extreme Dust Test 3, only 111 stoppages were reported. from http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat
ed if you dont count the magazine stoppages(which lets face it PMAGS and lancers would cut out 99% of) you have 159 stoppages for the M4 in the summer
I don't buy this. Magazine stoppage as used in the test is a vague and undefined term and can reflect on a problem with the gun itself. It can also include a round not being stripped fully from the magazine resulting in a failure to feed. This could be a problem magazine or it could be the gun itself not being able to chamber the round, which is an issue with the gun.
and considering colt contracted contracted a DOD-certified testing agency, Stork East-West Technology Corporation in Jupiter, Florida to do the same testing and came out with only 111 stoppages something to me seems odd about the fall testing.
The Colt contracted testing strikes me as odd and questionable.
They retested the Colt M4 alone under what they claim were similar conditions, but really were of their own creation. There is no telling what differences in the testing created those results by a company paid by Colt to restest a Colt gun that fared poorly in other tests.
It was not the same people testing the gun at the same facility under the same conditions.
A gun that produced 678 malfunctions in a previous dust test, then 882 malfunctions in a prior one, now yields an amazingly low 111 malfunctions when tested by a company paid by the manufacturer?
Further, they did not retest any of the other manufacturers' carbines that did better than the M4, so you cannot draw a fair comparison sinc ethe other competitiors were not retested under the identical circumstances.
You can't just retest one brand of carbine without the others and declare it the winner on a test that it previously came in last.
also that picture i posted comes from the army's own powerpoint.
I would like to see a link to the Army's own powerpoint so I can examine the context of the numbers you exerpted.
Also isnt army times and military times the guys who are like the national enquiror? cause in the link the M4 with light lube had 9,836 stoppages, sounds pretty BS to me.
They were reporting publicly released test results. The results of light lube vs. heavy lube indicated many more issues with guns that were lightly lubed, which produced 678 as opposed to 9,836 in the same test.
Colt also states that ATEC's testers were unfamiliar with the M4s' 3-round burst configuration which, depending on the position of the cam, will sometimes fire 1 round or a 2-round burst before firing a 3-round burst. This unfamiliarity, said Colt, led to single rounds and 2-round bursts being counted as stoppages.
Colt, the company who finished last, states this. This seems like a huge attempt at an excuse to me. If this were actually the way the testers were counting the Colt failures, the end number would have been much higher than 882 malfunctions out of 60,000 rounds (6000 rounds fired through 10 samples of each).
Really, this whole thing reads like spin-doctoring to me by people Colt and people who were unhappy with the results.
from http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat
This report that you cited also stated regarding soldiers surveyed about their use of the M4 in combat: "Of these respondents, 173, some 19 percent, reported they had experienced a weapon stoppage during an engagement. And of that number, 31 reported experiencing a large-impact stoppage, meaning that he "was unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage."
I am not saying that the AR/M4 sucks. I have several of them. But I am noticing a high level of excuses and revisionism regarding how it has fared in comparative tests and such, including things that border on conspiracy level stories.
sinlessorrow
01-24-12, 22:49
ed i wonder why it is that military times(who is horribly known for wanting to get rid of the stoner system and making it seem far more horrible than it is) is the only place that has ever mentioned the nearly 10,000 stoppage results, why are they the only ones who ever mention it?
ed i wonder why it is that military times(who is horribly known for wanting to get rid of the stoner system and making it seem far more horrible than it is) is the only place that has ever mentioned the nearly 10,000 stoppage results, why are they the only ones who ever mention it?
The problem of the M16FOW not functioning well without lubrication--especially in desert enviroments has been well documented.
But it has been accepted and discussed on lightfighter:
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/5371055923?r=3951020033#3951020033
The title of the article is "Heavy lubrication shown to improve M16, M4 effectiveness."
Here is the link: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_carbine_lubrication_070716/
And here is the most relevant exerpt: "Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in each phase, the M4 stoppage-rate dropped from 9,836 with light lubrication to 678 with heavy lubrication."
Theses tests were conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, the same place where the later comparative dust tests took place:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
The tests were conducted by the Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. This makes Colt's assertion that they were not familiar with the M4's 3-shot burst mechanism even more questionable.
sinlessorrow
01-24-12, 23:35
The problem of the M16FOW not functioning well without lubrication--especially in desert enviroments has been well documented.
But it has been accepted and discussed on lightfighter:
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/5371055923?r=3951020033#3951020033
The title of the article is "Heavy lubrication shown to improve M16, M4 effectiveness."
Here is the link: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_carbine_lubrication_070716/
And here is the most relevant exerpt: "Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in each phase, the M4 stoppage-rate dropped from 9,836 with light lubrication to 678 with heavy lubrication."
Theses tests were conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, the same place where the later comparative dust tests took place:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
The tests were conducted by the Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. This makes Colt's assertion that they were not familiar with the M4's 3-shot burst mechanism even more questionable.
i get what your saying i just would like a better source other than army/military times, ive never been a fan since they always come across as super biased
My opinion is the amount of money spent on trials, or whatever should result in something tangible instead of just vanishing and never being heard of again.
Otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time and money.
Issue me a weapon. I really don't care what it is, but don't bullshit me and say we have no budget for training when you blow millions on stupid solicitations that go no where.
I wholeheartedly second you on this!
sinlessorrow
01-25-12, 11:15
I wholeheartedly second you on this!
i agree, hopefully something will come of these trials.
everything ive heard is leading to colt winning with their piston entry
Spurholder
01-25-12, 12:06
I would like to see a link to the Army's own powerpoint so I can examine the context of the numbers you exerpted.
Ed,
Google this: ExtremeDustTestBriefv35.ppt
There's a Defense Review link there with the brief for download. This appears to be the same brief I first saw in 2008.
HTH.
Guys guys guys...the reason for all the B.S. And dragging ass is because of Will Hayden's new state of the art AK-whipping Lead slinging industry changing no-nonsense jamming up POS! He's going to Washington! Others need not Apply! He's taking the IC for aure
sinlessorrow
01-25-12, 21:03
Guys guys guys...the reason for all the B.S. And dragging ass is because of Will Hayden's new state of the art AK-whipping Lead slinging industry changing no-nonsense jamming up POS! He's going to Washington! Others need not Apply! He's taking the IC for aure
care to elaborate?
jonconsiglio
01-25-12, 21:06
care to elaborate?
He's making a joke about Sons of Guns and their ridiculous dust proof AR...
Here is a direct link to the power point.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=extremedusttestbriefv35.ppt&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGMQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defensereview.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2FExtremeDustTestBriefv35.ppt&ei=_FshT6f5HsLXtwf9_a2iCw&usg=AFQjCNHG7j7YhESZsbMoJeck4pDNdft7Sw
With the exception of NSW units what SOCOM unit is currently issued the HK416? I always see M4s with SOPMOD I, I 1/2, and II kits but have never seen a 416 in current use.
When comparing my training while in Division (93-97) compared to my current training as a local LE in a mid size department, the Army would be better off spending the resources on improved small arms training and maintenance. I am better trained as a LE than I was as Airborne Infantryman/Combat Engineer.
We spent more time scraping carbon off the bolt tails and not aligning gas rings then we did shooting our weapons. Reloading drills, box drills, nsrs, effective moving/shooting, and all the other things we take for granted were non-existant in regular line units. From what I have seen training recruits who have just gotten out about the only thing that has changed is no more spit shined boots every day. And everyone getting a beret.....
Thanks,
Rob
sinlessorrow
01-27-12, 21:57
i wonder if anything will actually come of this IC though.
ive noticed it seems like recently more and more people want us to get rid of the M4, like as time goes on they feel we should be using a piston.
so who knows maybe this will be the one that gets us to finally leave the stoner system
sounds like its down to
FN scar(diff from standard scar)
HK 416(diff from standard 416)
remington ACR
Adcor BEAR
colt piston M4
John_Burns
01-27-12, 23:47
i wonder if anything will actually come of this IC though.
ive noticed it seems like recently more and more people want us to get rid of the M4, like as time goes on they feel we should be using a piston.
so who knows maybe this will be the one that gets us to finally leave the stoner system
sounds like its down to
FN scar(diff from standard scar)
HK 416(diff from standard 416)
remington ACRA
Adcor BEAR
colt piston M4
Funny but it seems to me more and more people are skipping on the piston fad and actually understanding that DI is simply the better system once you actually run the guns and understand how to make them work.
Big Army might still be 10 years in the past and think the piston will fix issues that are really the result of poor training but most in the know still prefer DI in anything with a barrel over 14 inches.
IMO, the things a new, improved carbine needs to do to be worth it.
1. Increase chances of a typical soldier hitting the target.
2. Increase lethality with out cancelling out #1
3. Decrease weight of the soldier's load without cancelling out #1 and 2
4. Improve ergonomics
5. Decrease firing signature
6. Increase reliability
I've put them in the order of importance, as I see them.
Thoughts?
sinlessorrow
01-28-12, 00:47
IMO, the things a new, improved carbine needs to do to be worth it.
1. Increase chances of a typical soldier hitting the target.
2. Increase lethality with out cancelling out #1
3. Decrease weight of the soldier's load without cancelling out #1 and 2
4. Improve ergonomics
5. Decrease firing signature
6. Increase reliability
I've put them in the order of importance, as I see them.
Thoughts?
the M4A1 does 1,2, and 6 for sure
Freedoooom
01-28-12, 02:06
Funny but it seems to me more and more people are skipping on the piston fad and actually understanding that DI is simply the better system once you actually run the guns and understand how to make them work.
Big Army might still be 10 years in the past and think the piston will fix issues that are really the result of poor training but most in the know still prefer DI in anything with a barrel over 14 inches.
Huh dude? Essentially what you said hydraulic elevators are nice and all but for taller buildings put a key at the bottom of a elevators and use hot gas pressure to lift.
Everyone knows Pistons are more reliable, even Daniel Defense knows this, their DDM4 dirt and water test they didn't allow any dirt to even touch the gun with BCG exposed let alone the bolt locked back and barrel uncovered. Larry Vickers even was pretty hesitant when the rifle was in the water with the dust cover closed and barrel closed.
sinlessorrow
01-28-12, 06:47
Huh dude? Essentially what you said hydraulic elevators are nice and all but for taller buildings put a key at the bottom of a elevators and use hot gas pressure to lift.
Everyone knows Pistons are more reliable, even Daniel Defense knows this, their DDM4 dirt and water test they didn't allow any dirt to even touch the gun with BCG exposed let alone the bolt locked back and barrel uncovered. Larry Vickers even was pretty hesitant when the rifle was in the water with the dust cover closed and barrel closed.
I do believe ive seen it all now, ive seen guns compared to trains, cars and planes but never an elevator....until now, it always amazes me what people will use to support their argument
If you want i can dig up some videos of better submersians
Huh dude? Essentially what you said hydraulic elevators are nice and all but for taller buildings put a key at the bottom of a elevators and use hot gas pressure to lift.
Everyone knows Pistons are more reliable, even Daniel Defense knows this, their DDM4 dirt and water test they didn't allow any dirt to even touch the gun with BCG exposed let alone the bolt locked back and barrel uncovered. Larry Vickers even was pretty hesitant when the rifle was in the water with the dust cover closed and barrel closed.
Ummm, what? Piston or gas has no effect whatsoever when foreign debris or water is involved.
The Douche is strong with this one.....
sinlessorrow
01-28-12, 07:48
Ummm, what? Piston or gas has no effect whatsoever when foreign debris or water is involved.
The Douche is strong with this one.....
Good point, even in a piston if you get a bore obstruction from sand or water, it will cause a KB.
It doesnt matter what gun it is, bore obstruction will kb the rifle, hats why lav taped the muzzle
Ummm, what? Piston or gas has no effect whatsoever when foreign debris or water is involved.
Good point, even in a piston if you get a bore obstruction from sand or water, it will cause a KB.
Hmmm.... I know, that it is marketing material (same as DD video) but watch this to the end, despite music :meeting:
Over The Beach Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU)
As to bore obstruction. My friend managed to shoot lodged bullet with next one when teaching class with my HK MR223 (he tough that he had FTE, cleared and continued to shoot). Damages were limited to muzzle brake and broken firing pin retaining pin. Rifle was functional, he shot it more that day.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/montrala/MR223%20-%20damage/IMAG0130a.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/montrala/MR223%20-%20damage/IMAG0127a.jpg
Of course OTB capability and obstructed bore safety is not because of op-rod design. Using op-rod is just one of factors that can achieve this goal. Actually capability to survive and provide function with no decrease of accuracy (beyond acceptable level) was one of features requested and delivered in XM-8. HK416 shares this ability.
ETA MR series rifles (MR223 and MR556) have elements of OTB capability package, but those are not designed as OTB variants by HK.
Freedoooom
01-28-12, 08:04
Ummm, what? Piston or gas has no effect whatsoever when foreign debris or water is involved.
The Douche is strong with this one.....
Really? :agree:
Please show me at least an expose BCG mud or dirt test of a DI rifle like people do fine with a piston gun.
sinlessorrow
01-28-12, 08:12
Hmmm.... I know, that it is marketing material (same as DD video) but watch this to the end, despite music :meeting:
Over The Beach Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU)
As to bore obstruction. My friend managed to shoot lodged bullet with next one when teaching class with my HK MR223 (he tough that he had FTE, cleared and continued to shoot). Damages were limited to muzzle brake and broken firing pin retaining pin. Rifle was functional, he shot it more that day.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/montrala/MR223%20-%20damage/IMAG0130a.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/montrala/MR223%20-%20damage/IMAG0127a.jpg
Of course OTB capability and obstructed bore safety is not because of op-rod design. Using op-rod is just one of factors that can achieve this goal. Actually capability to survive and provide function with no decrease of accuracy (beyond acceptable level) was one of features requested and delivered in XM-8. HK416 shares this ability.
ETA MR series rifles (MR223 and MR556) have elements of OTB capability package, but those are not designed as OTB variants by HK.
I find it hard to believe he had a squib and still was able to remove it with another bullet and how have a KB.
Ill believe alot, but not that
Really? :agree:
Please show me at least an expose BCG mud or dirt test of a DI rifle like people do fine with a piston gun.
You do realize you do not know enough to even post on this subject, don't you?
I didn't think so.
Please, entertain us with what you think a DI and a "piston gun" are and why, precisely, you think that the motivating force matters when introducing foreign debris to a carbine's action.
I will get some popcorn and something cool to drink while your two functioning brain cells work on this.
sinlessorrow
01-28-12, 08:26
Really? :agree:
Please show me at least an expose BCG mud or dirt test of a DI rifle like people do fine with a piston gun.
Look on youtube for ar15 mud test
Id link it but im on y phone
Freedoooom
01-28-12, 09:11
You do realize you do not know enough to even post on this subject, don't you?
I didn't think so.
Please, entertain us with what you think a DI and a "piston gun" are and why, precisely, you think that the motivating force matters when introducing foreign debris to a carbine's action.
I will get some popcorn and something cool to drink while your two functioning brain cells work on this.
The pistons more sealed use of gas allows for a stonger action and on top of that the BCG doesn't get as hot causing it to expand.
Look on youtube for ar15 mud test
Id link it but im on y phone
I found M4 Torture Test and the gun jams clearly before hes even got probably 15 rounds off and says see it works fine, can't actually decide if he was joking around with the video. Second one that I actually went duh this is what he was talking about, and I saw malfunctions.
sinlessorrow
01-28-12, 09:35
The pistons more sealed use of gas allows for a stonger action and on top of that the BCG doesn't get as hot causing it to expand.
I found M4 Torture Test and the gun jams clearly before hes even got probably 15 rounds off and says see it works fine, can't actually decide if he was joking around with the video. Second one that I actually went duh this is what he was talking about, and I saw malfunctions.
The videos ive seen had no stoppages, one had a bad primer since the firing pin dimpled it, other than that no stoppages, when i get home ill link the videos.
It feels like u looked for videos with stoppages, then again i can find a video of every gun in the world jamming
Also what20,000 psi isnt enough to cycle the bcg in a di? Lets face it heat doesnt affect the bcg, your grasping for straws at this point
I find it hard to believe he had a squib and still was able to remove it with another bullet and how have a KB.
Ill believe alot, but not that
I do not blame you for that, neither I'm a liar here.
Actually I have some 80% confidence that this was the case. I was not present on range when it happened. However I asked about what happened and get info that rifle did not eject empty case, neither feed new one, he charged it again had somewhat stronger recoil on next shot and continued to shoot. Only after shooting he noticed damaged muzzle brake. Damaged firing pin retainer I found when field stripped rifle to check internals. Also this same guy managed to catastrophically KB 2 or 3 ARs (one op-rod and one or two DI) before in some similarly mysterious circumstances. However rifle appeared undamaged he paid for NIB MR223 for me and took old one. AFAIK works well for him now. Bottom line, I do not have strong scientific evidence.
BTT However HKs video (shooting from under water is most impressive to me, two "tests" before were just to prove their point) shows that water is not necessary a problem to modern 5.56 assault rifle. Op-rod rifles does have some strong sides over DI rifles, while do some things worse. I do not believe my HK can ever be as sweet to shoot and as stable as my friends 20" Stag. However using op-rod opens up possibilities to do some certain upgrades that can improve overall rifle capabilities. But "no free lunches" - we gain something, we loose something. Some groups of users agree to give up some things to get other, while other do not want to give up things important to them, while do not see a need for those improvements.
If DI is like RWD cars and op-rod is like FWD cars, then we need AWD cars to bring us all together. But this will not happen anytime soon, until 40W Plasma rifle.
BTT Very interesting read on a subject: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
sinlessorrow
01-28-12, 14:20
That link is jut a bunch of copy pastes from other articles through the years. The one thin i found interesting though is that even colt submitted a piston design that imo sounds interestig and may win.
The colt APC looks very cool
Littlelebowski
01-28-12, 14:26
The pistons more sealed use of gas allows for a stonger action and on top of that the BCG doesn't get as hot causing it to expand.
I found M4 Torture Test and the gun jams clearly before hes even got probably 15 rounds off and says see it works fine, can't actually decide if he was joking around with the video. Second one that I actually went duh this is what he was talking about, and I saw malfunctions.
Let me assure that no one here gives a **** about which videos you've watched despite said viewing making you an expert in your own eyes.
Heavy Metal
01-28-12, 14:33
The pistons more sealed use of gas allows for a stonger action and on top of that the BCG doesn't get as hot causing it to expand.
I found M4 Torture Test and the gun jams clearly before hes even got probably 15 rounds off and says see it works fine, can't actually decide if he was joking around with the video. Second one that I actually went duh this is what he was talking about, and I saw malfunctions.
I have some advice for you. If you wish to remain a non-banned participating member of this forum, insinuating Larry Vickers is a liar is NOT the way to do it!
You are so ****ing far out of your lane, you have corn stuck in your grille.
You need to check yourself before management does it for you.
Please share with the viewing audience you level of experience with the M16 family of weapons and how much experience you have with a piston.
I would also suggest that you do some reading and see exactly what the piston systems shortcomings are.
The pistons more sealed use of gas allows for a stonger action and on top of that the BCG doesn't get as hot causing it to expand.
I found M4 Torture Test and the gun jams clearly before hes even got probably 15 rounds off and says see it works fine, can't actually decide if he was joking around with the video. Second one that I actually went duh this is what he was talking about, and I saw malfunctions.
That link is jut a bunch of copy pastes from other articles through the years. The one thin i found interesting though is that even colt submitted a piston design that imo sounds interestig and may win.
The colt APC looks very cool
It just is good to have them in one place and they seem to update it as things progresses.
Interesting are also quotes from Colt COO:
Colt proposed a piston operated weapon to the Army in the early 1960’s.
and
If we have a change that we think would help the gun, we go to the Army… which is not an easy process, by the way. We spent 20 years trying to get [an extractor] spring changed. They just said ‘well, this works good enough.’
After dust tests Army also said that "it works good enough".
One thing for sure. Taking a stab at a well respected member here with his background is not very smart at all.
Huh dude? Essentially what you said hydraulic elevators are nice and all but for taller buildings put a key at the bottom of a elevators and use hot gas pressure to lift.
Everyone knows Pistons are more reliable, even Daniel Defense knows this, their DDM4 dirt and water test they didn't allow any dirt to even touch the gun with BCG exposed let alone the bolt locked back and barrel uncovered. Larry Vickers even was pretty hesitant when the rifle was in the water with the dust cover closed and barrel closed.
The pistons more sealed use of gas allows for a stonger action and on top of that the BCG doesn't get as hot causing it to expand.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
(gasps for air)
Now... could you explain to me, in the alternate universe you live in, how cars wheels go round and round?
(this should be good. I never realized you could discuss physics with a housecat.)
DeltaSierra
01-28-12, 21:47
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
(gasps for air)
Now... could you explain to me, in the alternate universe you live in, how cars wheels go round and round?
(this should be good. I never realized you could discuss physics with a housecat.)
Stop it already.... You are insulting the intelligence of most housecats...
:haha:
sinlessorrow
01-28-12, 22:34
Stop it already.... You are insulting the intelligence of most housecats...
:haha:
haha, i think housecats are smarter than that guy, they dont need to argue to make you their bitch lol
that said i have found a 50/50 mix of motor oil and ATF seems make a incredible lubricant that lasts longer than the others out there
we need a poll to see who thinks DI or piston is better lol
The Military equipment acquisition system is an Epic Fail! We had better stay with the M4 because if the ACU debocile is any forcast we are likely to end up with a less capable weapon than we already have.
When the ACU came out I don't know any fello soldier who was like "wow this is the best camoflage ever" The shit don't blend in with anything except maybe that couch (those of you who have seen the picture know what I mean). The had a chance to do it right in the beginning by going with multi cam but were too cheap to pay for the pattern from Crye. Now were stuck with the ACU in garrison, and have paid millions additionally for the Multi Cam pattern for Afghanistan. On top of that they issue us the "Fire Retardant" version which really stands for bio degradable. These pieces of shit fall apart in less than a month. Two to Three washes is it and you need another uniform. Now they are "developing" three more patterns because they realize that one isn't enough! Hello, McFly pull your head out of your ass, of course one pattern isn't enough. All they had to do was give a set or two to some freaking Joes and ask their opinion and they could have saved a billion dollars.
On the subject of the M4. There are most assuridly improvements that could be (should be) made to the system. I disagree that a piston AR is an improvement. We have beaten into a pulp the fact that the AR was never designed to be a piston operated system which is why many piston ARs suffer issues. However a piston weapon system designed as a weapon from the ground up may indeed be better, but do we trust the military procurement system to find us one? I don't. But changes to the M4 system namely a mid length gas system, better magazines, better ammo, would go a long way to improving the performance of the current system.
I agree with a change in the current zero/qual system but to the guy who advocated "head shots" you are surely dilusional if you think joe no matter what his zero with an acog will make head shots at 300 meters. Center mass is the smartest practice for basic rifle marksmanship. Besides you will be hard pressed to find an M4 in the inventory with that kind of accuracy anywhere.
JP
sinlessorrow
01-29-12, 12:16
One thing i always see is that when interviewed there is a 90% approval rate of the M4/M16 by the avg joe.
Now when this is brought up you see the piston guys says well theyre not gun guys so they wouldnt know whats good or not.
Now my problem with this is that if the non gun idiots approve of the system and find no problems with it, if they can make it function 100%, shouldnt the gun guys be able to do so even more?
I mean everyone says you need an idiot proof weapon, well according to interviews thats exactly what we have, yet gun people say theyre votes shouldnt count since theyre notgun people, but they are the exact ones who need a weapon that is easy to maintain.
Just trying to gain some context in regards to the piston scepticism here. As a disclaimer I want to state that I have almost no experience with DI AR's, only having fired a C8 SFW and handled M4/M16s.
I do have a lot of time on the HK416 and some time on HK417.
I know that this is a bit OT, but figured I'd ask since the discussion started. I did some reading of various threads to try to find posts specifying the supposed shortcomings of a piston system.
The reasons I could find were the following:
-Increased weight compared to DI AR's
-Reduced accuracy due to moving parts in contact with barrel, compared to DI AR's
-Increased recoil impulse compared to DI AR's
-Carrier tilt (not yet totally sure what it is, but I have not seen excessive wear in the receiver extension on the rifles I have handled)
-Price (mostly a concern for civilans)
-Customer support/parts availability (mostly a concern for civilians)
Other than that, some posters referred to other issues, but I could not find any specifics.
Does the scepticism towards a piston type AR, include systems like the HK416 and HK417 (and other AR systems built with pistons), or is the scepticism more aimed at add on piston systems?
What other issues than those I listed are present in piston systems?
We, as in the Norwegian Military, have a very good track record with our weapons. Both the 416 and the 417. I have read on different sites that we supposedly have had major issues. This perception was based on a few posts by a single user on AR15, whose uneducated opinions were reposted as hard facts on the firearms blog.
We have had some minor issues with the 416:
-AGR's wiggling to suppressed setting or popping out (the design isn't perfect, but works when maintained properly. HK said to clean it after 1200-1300 rounds, the Defence Logistics Organisation didn't want this as part of 1st line maintenance. After they changed their policy, and we started cleaning the AGR, there have been few issues with this. We are getting a new AGR.
-Disconnectors breaking. This has happened to maybe 80 weapons out of 25000, and is not due to a faulty weapon, but increased stress on the disconnect where the hammer strikes it because of the eco ammo we were using being a bit "hotter" than the M855 used during the tests. We are getting a new two-stage trigger with a hood that protects the disconnect.
-Roll pins with wrong dimensions. Mostly seen on the charging handle latch and buffer. We are receiving new roll pins to switch out the old ones.
The purported cold issues are user induced, and not due to weapon design.
We are seeing very good results in regards to marksmanship and accuracy with the 416, with many soldiers getting hits consistently past 400 meters using only the Comp M4. The limiting factor is the shooters skill level in regards to basic marksmanship and range estimation on UKD ranges.
In actuality, I have seen more issues with the Aimpoint's than I have with our rifles. There are very few reliability issues caused by the weapon's operating design. Most of the issues we have had can be attributed to the eco ammo. And to top it off, we use Break Free CLP. It's the only approved CLP in the Norwegian mil.
The 417's are very accurate, mostly limited by the shooters. There were some teething issues in regards to ammunition, but that got fixed pretty fast. We also had some issues with reticles freezing in extreme cold in the S&B PMII's, and not moving when turrets were turned, and suddenly moving with the following adjustment, and adding the previous adjustment, pulling you way off target for the next shot. This was fixed on the new scopes (switched from Mil-Dot to mils).
I do not have a dog in this fight, just curious seeing as my experiences with a piston system differs from many here. But, take in stride that I went from a roller-delayed blowback G3 to a piston HK416.
One thing i always see is that when interviewed there is a 90% approval rate of the M4/M16 by the avg joe.
Now when this is brought up you see the piston guys says well theyre not gun guys so they wouldnt know whats good or not.
Now my problem with this is that if the non gun idiots approve of the system and find no problems with it, if they can make it function 100%, shouldnt the gun guys be able to do so even more?
I mean everyone says you need an idiot proof weapon, well according to interviews thats exactly what we have, yet gun people say theyre votes shouldnt count since theyre notgun people, but they are the exact ones who need a weapon that is easy to maintain.
I agree 100%, and you don't have to be a gun guy to know when something works.
sinlessorrow
01-29-12, 18:54
IDK how everyone here feels about David Crane, but i read an article of his about the M4 systems and the IC comp, and he stated that his friends in SOF prefer the M4A1 Block II over the 416 most of the time.
he stated the only time they prefer the 416 is when they are using SBR's suppressed, any other time they choose the M4A1, i thought this was interessting.
im in the camp that suppressed SBR's are better as a piston but anything 14.5" and up is better DI
Compelling arguement.
As to the rest of your statement, I understand what you're trying to say. I just disagree slightly. Without a demand for something, there's no real incentive for the private market to come up with new ideas.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot of BS and waste. Just saying that looking for improvements is how you get them. The stupid requirements and stipulations they put on the companies that submit for a contract may be all sorts of ****ed up right now, but in general, an intrest in better designs is not a bad thing.
I don't think piston is the way to go with this platform. And I don't think they'll have that leap forward with this concept. And I wish they wouldn't limit the competition so much. But looking to improve is not a bad thing. Even if it doesn't lead to a leap forward right now. Eventually, something probably will replace this platform. Whether the current push to improve it spurs that replacement will only be known in the distant future.
Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Have a beer on me. I'll have to owe ya.
By demand for something new you mean like the multi billion dollar civilian market for firearms?
Does the scepticism towards a piston type AR, include systems like the HK416 and HK417 (and other AR systems built with pistons), or is the scepticism more aimed at add on piston systems?
By and large the skepticism is about pushing the design limitations of a system to make it do something it wasn't designed for. Piston-based ARs all have the same problems because of the design of the AR platform, not because of the piston. H&K did better than the others because of what they invested in the system to make it better, but it still has problems (to an admittedly lesser degree).
The main question regarding piston systems is the tradeoff: what do you actually get, and what is it's real-world cost. What are the wear parts within a standard AR and what are they in a piston AR? At what intervals do these need to be replaced and at what cost? How do the lifetime costs of a standard AR, an improved standard AR, and a piston AR compare? What will offset the cost of adopting a piston AR vs a better standard AR? Will either improve the shooter's effectiveness in combat (i.e., the ability of the shooter to hit their targets)?
-B
The reasons I could find were the following:
-Increased weight compared to DI AR's
-Reduced accuracy due to moving parts in contact with barrel, compared to DI AR's
-Increased recoil impulse compared to DI AR's
-Carrier tilt (not yet totally sure what it is, but I have not seen excessive wear in the receiver extension on the rifles I have handled)
-Price (mostly a concern for civilans)
-Customer support/parts availability (mostly a concern for civilians)
Other than that, some posters referred to other issues, but I could not find any specifics.
These issues are for the most part issues with piston ARs. The AR platform was designed in the beginning as a DI weapon. The shortcomings arise when genious' attempt to "improve" on a design by making it what it was never ment to be.
Piston driven weapons which were designed with that operation system from the beginning (SCAR, ACR, XCR, AUG) don't have many of these issues.
I doubt very seriously that any piston driven AR platform will ever seriously compete for replacement of the M4, there may however come a time when a piston driven weapon designed as such is adopted in larger numbers across the services but due to the multitude of available parts, and weapons, supply system, and our down sizing I doubt that this will happen in the near future.
JP
CarlosDJackal
01-31-12, 12:06
-Increased weight compared to DI AR's
+ This is generally true. The increased number of parts do add to the weight of the rifle. This also adds to the rifle's complexity and increases the number of possible points of failure.
This is not accurate.
-Reduced accuracy due to moving parts in contact with barrel, compared to DI AR's
+ This is not accurate. I have an 8" piston carbine that I shot a 1/2-inch group at 50-yards using Federal Mk 318 ammo. And that's with a 4MOA Aimpoint micro H-1. One of these days I will mount my Leupold Mk4 on it just to see how it groups at 100-yards with match ammo.
-Increased recoil impulse compared to DI AR's
+ This is somewhat true. The difference is the recoil impulse occurs at the beginning of the extraction phase and not at the end (as in a DI gun). A DI gun's BCG starts moving slowly and reaches it's beak impulse once it gets moving.
The result is it carries enough momentum into the end of the action spring's compression which results in muzzle flip. A piston gun's peak impulse is experienced at the very beginning and it gradually looses its momentum as the action spring reaches its compression. This is why most piston guns' recoil impulse is more linear and reduces or eliminates any muzzle flip.
It's akin to shooting a .40 S&W and a .45 ACP through handguns that are of the same mass and design.
-Carrier tilt (not yet totally sure what it is, but I have not seen excessive wear in the receiver extension on the rifles I have handled)
+ I have not seen this even with any of my piston rifles. This include a 10.6" carbine that has over 14,000-rounds through it. Carrier tilt occurred in the first piston guns because the operating rod pushes against the gas key which is moments above the BCG's CG. This results in a force that is vectored somewhat downward which in turn makes the BCG want to tilt in the same direction (downward).
-Price (mostly a concern for civilans
+ Generally true.
-Customer support/parts availability (mostly a concern for civilians
+ Just like anything else, it seems to depend on which manufacturer you are dealing with and what type of a situation you're in and timing. For example, I've had excellent CS from Glock except for a period of about a year a few years ago when they were restructuring.
Case in point: a certain mod in M4C hates LWRCI and its CS. I've been dealing with them for about 4 years now and have had nothing but excellent service. Most recently, I purchased a pre-2008 upper that has had two previous owners who are the only ones who would know how many rounds they have put through it and under what circumstances.
I was having issues grouping with it and contacted the LWRCI CS. After asking me some questions, they sent me a FedEx shipping label so that I can return the upper to them for their evaluation at no cost to me. This upper is almost 5-years out of the factory and has had multiple owners. They might end up charging me for any repairs or upgrades, but the fact that they were willing to pay for the shipping right off the bat says volumes in my book.
YMMV.
Case in point: a certain mod in M4C hates LWRCI and its CS.
Replace this word with "member," and it becomes accurate while remaining...uhh....I'll say unique...in its intensity and longevity.
We've got enough folks beating the patently false "M4C hates piston guns" drum without falsely pointing at the moderators and staff.
A SF Soldier on my COP in '09 in Afghanistan had an LMT piston upper break on him in combat, he put his M4 back on and never looked back. Trying to fit a piston into an area it was not designed for is a bad idea.
Thanks for the replies, guys.
Like I said, I have very limited time on a DI AR. I do however have a lot of time on the HK416, and I do not identify with many of the shortcomings that this rifle, and AR piston systems in general, supposedly have.
One reason I started posting my experiences, and the experiences of the guys I work with, is due to some very blatantly erroneous accounts from norwegian soldiers on the HK416. A lot of this was taken as gospel by people not impressed with pistons, and the result was me seeing many references to the norwegian issues with the weapon. a lot of the stuff I have seen posted had me going "WTF?"
And, for the record, I am not beating any drums. I have no dog in the DI vs. Piston fights. My "motivation" is to correct the impressions that have surfaced regarding our experiences with the HK416. I am thus interested in hearing specific problems that users on this forum have experienced, so maybe I can become aware of a real issue. And I am curious as to what the actual experience with the system is, for some members here, who are saying that the HK416 has many issues (maybe not this thread, but in others).
Like I have stated, the issues we have had are minor, except for one disconnect breaking during a TIC in Afghanistan (the issue is ammo related), and they are being remedied by HK as we speak. As in HK provided replacement parts for free, and our armorers are installing the new parts.
My professional opinion is that the HK416 is very a reliable weapon system, having proved itself for us in a variety of operational environments, and temperatures ranging from -50C to +60C.
sinlessorrow
01-31-12, 15:46
Thanks for the replies, guys.
Like I said, I have very limited time on a DI AR. I do however have a lot of time on the HK416, and I do not identify with many of the shortcomings that this rifle, and AR piston systems in general, supposedly have.
One reason I started posting my experiences, and the experiences of the guys I work with, is due to some very blatantly erroneous accounts from norwegian soldiers on the HK416. A lot of this was taken as gospel by people not impressed with pistons, and the result was me seeing many references to the norwegian issues with the weapon. a lot of the stuff I have seen posted had me going "WTF?"
And, for the record, I am not beating any drums. I have no dog in the DI vs. Piston fights. My "motivation" is to correct the impressions that have surfaced regarding our experiences with the HK416. I am thus interested in hearing specific problems that users on this forum have experienced, so maybe I can become aware of a real issue. And I am curious as to what the actual experience with the system is, for some members here, who are saying that the HK416 has many issues (maybe not this thread, but in others).
Like I have stated, the issues we have had are minor, except for one disconnect breaking during a TIC in Afghanistan (the issue is ammo related), and they are being remedied by HK as we speak. As in HK provided replacement parts for free, and our armorers are installing the new parts.
My professional opinion is that the HK416 is very a reliable weapon system, having proved itself for us in a variety of operational environments, and temperatures ranging from -50C to +60C.
its kind of one of those things that if youve been used to the DI system going to a piston honestly does not bring anything to the table.
the main difference is where the fouling ends up, if you keep a DI lubed it wont fail, neither will the HK.
one thing i do know is that alot of SOF guys in the US do prefer the new M4A1 SOPMOD Block II(or thats what ive heard from someone in the know)
you also have to think with SOF groups liking the M4A1 they pretty much show that a maintained AR is a good one.
the thing about these trials is that even if a rifle does prove to be more reliable, lets say it has 80 stoppages vs. the 150 of a DI does that warrant the amount of money it will take to re arm everyone with a new rifle, train people on a new system, train armors, and acquire spair parts for it?
it doesnt, thats why the trials are pointless IMO. soldiers are happy with their M4's having a 90% approval rate and the few things that they mentioned should be improved have been with the new M4A1 and the SOPMOD Block II.
these trials just spend money better spent somewhere else. like i said, coming from someone with contacts who are SOF he says they prefer the new M4A1's outfitted with Block II stuff
IDK how everyone here feels about David Crane, but i read an article of his about the M4 systems and the IC comp, and he stated that his friends in SOF prefer the M4A1 Block II over the 416 most of the time.
he stated the only time they prefer the 416 is when they are using SBR's suppressed, any other time they choose the M4A1, i thought this was interessting.
David Crane also once claimed that the Marines were going to the Glock in .45 GAP.
He also wrote an article that appeared in the Fall 2009 issue of Surefire Combat Tactics advising the Secret Service Counter Assault Team on how to set up their ARs with such brainstorms as using LEMAS ammo, or changing the rifling to of their ARs to 1 in 14" twist in order to make 55 grain loads more lethal.
sinlessorrow
01-31-12, 21:35
David Crane also once claimed that the Marines were going to the Glock in .45 GAP.
He also wrote an article that appeared in the Fall 2009 issue of Surefire Combat Tactics advising the Secret Service Counter Assault Team on how to set up their ARs with such brainstorms as using LEMAS ammo, or changing the rifling to of their ARs to 1 in 14" twist in order to make 55 grain loads more lethal.
Thts gOod to know thats why i posted it as a question.
Thts gOod to know thats why i posted it as a question.
What I mentioned was the tip of the iceberg since it was off topic from this thread and would take a lot of space.
Here's a thought, Larry Vickers, the SME who helped with the design and fielding of the HK416 project and spearheaded its adoption bythe most elite unit in the US Army--the first unit to use it who is still using it--has his own ask the SME section on this messageboard.
sinlessorrow
01-31-12, 22:17
What I mentioned was the tip of the iceberg since it was off topic from this thread and would take a lot of space.
Here's a thought, Larry Vickers, the SME who helped with the design and fielding of the HK416 project and spearheaded its adoption bythe most elite unit in the US Army--the first unit to use it who is still using it--has his own ask the SME section on this messageboard.
oh yeah i know, i asked him what a good alternative to the HK was since im not pleased with the crappy civilian version we got
sinlessorrow
02-23-12, 19:20
I have a question, I Have no problem with the M4 and i see alot here dont think we need a piston gun like HK416 but what i want to know is what changed? I read this thread archived
https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-9789.html
In it most people talked about how we need a new rifle and the M4 is not good enough. What changed? This is an honest question, I just dont want to start a new thread
I didn't read every post in that thread, but those that I did read spoke of the magazines being a weak link. Most posts I read were pro M-4 or dripped of sarcasm, such as MarkM's post that he was going to throw out all his ARs. (not a direct quote)
justin_247
02-24-12, 02:19
I have a question, I Have no problem with the M4 and i see alot here dont think we need a piston gun like HK416 but what i want to know is what changed? I read this thread archived
https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-9789.html
In it most people talked about how we need a new rifle and the M4 is not good enough. What changed? This is an honest question, I just dont want to start a new thread
Nothing changed, other than the fact that problems with newer systems sometimes take some time to materialize.
Long time army buddy, who concluded his career at Ft Bragg, with many trips to both Iraq and Afg said he saw advantages to the 416, but none to change the carbine that the line soldier carries/employs over the long haul. I think Larry V says something similar on this site.
Why hasn't their been any thought given to a receiver with the exo coating or some sort of nano composite coating as an alternative? The piston can't be the ONLY way to get an increase in reliability.
...the military will ALWAYS look for "Improvement" no matter the expense or whether or not there is really any improvement gained at all...it's the nature of the beast. :(
...the military will ALWAYS look for "Improvement" no matter the expense or whether or not there is really any improvement gained at all...it's the nature of the beast. :(
There is improvement to be gained. The question is, is that best achieved by improving upon the M4, or adopting a new platform?
sinlessorrow
02-25-12, 12:09
There is improvement to be gained. The question is, is that best achieved by improving upon the M4, or adopting a new platform?
I think the cheapest and easiest way would be improving the M4, even now the army still uses the RAS. I think a big improvement would be getting everyone a Block II setup
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.