View Full Version : why the controversy
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 01:28
I am hoping this does not turn out to be a DI vs piston thread, that is not my goal, I also searched and couldn't find any info on this matter.
So I am wondering, why is there so much controversy behind the Stoner system, I understand what happened in Vietnam had alot to do with it, but why is it that 40 years later there is so much misinformation about the system out there?
why does every politician who wants to make a name for himself say the system is getting soldiers killed and is horrible?
I mean for being a society that has a wealth of knowledge on the internet that you can look up information about anything, why are so many still so stupid when it comes to this system?
Blankwaffe
02-21-12, 01:39
I don't see the negative comments about the Stoner DI system because I don't read that kinda nonsense.As to the early on issue with the M16,that was a desk driven policy issue the ended up in the field IMHO.
Otherwise I'd say its leanings toward attempts at pet projects which is closely related to money.
Whats the old saying,believe nothing you hear and trust only half of what you see.
Freedoooom
02-21-12, 02:18
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
Is there some sort of gentleman's agreement between the Taliban and the US that they must wait for them to clear the jam before they shoot?
When the facts are that a lubed up gun in sand tests as much as a non lubed gun in the same circumstances, why would you choose the first one?
Money is not an object, they are going to spend $120million each on a jet every other country that was involved in its development no longer wants, its because the procurement system is a miserable mess of people in charge wanting to make up for that other 30% when they retire.
Again, not excessive direct experience with DI rifles, but I have read a lot of the negative press.
I am guessing you are talking about the platforms reliability, correct?
My 2 cents is that it all stems from user error. Instead of realizing lack of competence as a user, people started blaming the platform. And if the right journalist caught wind of this criticism, it is easy for that kind of negativity to get legs of it's own.
Also, people buy into it, if it supposedly comes "directly from the soldiers in the field". Even people who have no first hand knowledge, and they start spouting it off as fact.
Most people generally do not know very much.
I see it with the HK416 in my battalion as well. Both officers and NCO's having issues that they attribute to the weapon, when it is actually their own fault.
outrider627
02-21-12, 02:33
Because people are idiots. Working fast food taught me that everyone is an idiot until they prove otherwise, and guns attract a lot of idiots.
Of course, when you have a bunch of idiots around a lot of guns, either at a gun store or a gun show, all the Super Special Ops Top Secret Delta Sniper Kill Team 6 stories come out about how the AR15 is unreliable and blah, blah, blah. Of course, people who are new to guns and don't know any better, believe the stories and keep spreading them for years to come.
The simple truth is that most people don't care to research beyond what they hear from others. They accept it as truth. People like us who come to forums to learn are a small part of the gun community, and even smaller is number of us who avoid all the bullshit forums.
...for being a society that has a wealth of knowledge on the internet...
Because it is a complete fallacy there is a wealth of knowledge on the internet. There is not. There is an overdose of information on the internet. Very little knowledge. For everything you know, there are at least ten webpages with information to prove you wrong. In this very thread, there is reference to the sand test which was proven to performed unfairly, yet it's findings are presented as fact.
We know the AR system has a piston. Yet folks talk about how it "needs a pistion". Eugene Stoner, the inventor of the AR gas system wrote in the original patent that it's not a conventional direct impingement system. Yet people still insist that it is.
People want to believe their leaders are doing something. In order to look like they are doing something, politicians fling feces at the wall until they find something that sticks. In this case, they have a target and that's the AR. People keeping flinging new rifle designs at it hoping they'll find something that sticks so they can be the new hero.
Take a look at what happened at Wanat. Our soldiers were out-numbered, out-gunned and surrounded. They fired M4s at our enemies until those carbines finally failed. 49 Americans and 24 Afghanis fought off as many as 200 enemy. Fingers were pointed at the M4s that were fired till they turned white hot and failed while ignoring the fact they were used in an attempt to return and surpass the volume of fire from four times as many enemy weapons.
Everybody wants to be a hero and save the world. If they can get their flung-pu to stick, they'll run with it
polymorpheous
02-21-12, 03:10
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
Is there some sort of gentleman's agreement between the Taliban and the US that they must wait for them to clear the jam before they shoot?
When the facts are that a lubed up gun in sand tests as much as a non lubed gun in the same circumstances, why would you choose the first one?
Money is not an object, they are going to spend $120million each on a jet every other country that was involved in its development no longer wants, its because the procurement system is a miserable mess of people in charge wanting to make up for that other 30% when they retire.
4x more likely huh?
4x more likely huh?
That guy clearly doesnt know what hes talking about. Its a lot closer to 4.38 times more likely to "jam."
The only thing I've actually seen as a big problem is the part where water in your gas tube = explosion. Aside from that I've not seen much unreliability.
Companies do say "Well, an op-rod driven piston gun runs cleaner" because it does. What happened is they marketed it to be a bigger factor than it really was, and folks clinged to it.
Another issue clinged upon was the fact the bolt group doesn't get hot in an op-rod piston driven system. The fact that was pointed out so boldly before is that the AR-15 is and always has been a piston system... it's just simply that the piston is rolled into one with the bolt and the gasses to operate it are sent back into it via tube. If you think about this, all it means is the AR-15 platform is super efficient and that Stoner's design was genius.
vicious_cb
02-21-12, 03:53
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
Is there some sort of gentleman's agreement between the Taliban and the US that they must wait for them to clear the jam before they shoot?
When the facts are that a lubed up gun in sand tests as much as a non lubed gun in the same circumstances, why would you choose the first one?
Money is not an object, they are going to spend $120million each on a jet every other country that was involved in its development no longer wants, its because the procurement system is a miserable mess of people in charge wanting to make up for that other 30% when they retire.
I think you need to read more and post less. Not exactly making a good impression with your first couple of posts.
I completely disagree. Tests conducted in a vacuum are not the same as tests conducted in actual, real deal field conditions.
If we want to get some data that means anything, that is how it should be.
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
Is there some sort of gentleman's agreement between the Taliban and the US that they must wait for them to clear the jam before they shoot?
When the facts are that a lubed up gun in sand tests as much as a non lubed gun in the same circumstances, why would you choose the first one?
Money is not an object, they are going to spend $120million each on a jet every other country that was involved in its development no longer wants, its because the procurement system is a miserable mess of people in charge wanting to make up for that other 30% when they retire.
polymorpheous
02-21-12, 05:04
The only thing I've actually seen as a big problem is the part where water in your gas tube = explosion. Aside from that I've not seen much unreliability.
Companies do say "Well, an op-rod driven piston gun runs cleaner" because it does. What happened is they marketed it to be a bigger factor than it really was, and folks clinged to it.
Another issue clinged upon was the fact the bolt group doesn't get hot in an op-rod piston driven system. The fact that was pointed out so boldly before is that the AR-15 is and always has been a piston system... it's just simply that the piston is rolled into one with the bolt and the gasses to operate it are sent back into it via tube. If you think about this, all it means is the AR-15 platform is super efficient and that Stoner's design was genius.
The bolt carrier group does not get hot in a standard AR.
I've pulled BCG's out of uppers immeadiately after magdumps to demonstrate this.
Suwannee Tim
02-21-12, 05:33
....Is there some sort of gentleman's agreement between the Taliban and the US that they must wait for them to clear the jam before they shoot?....
Yes. When ever anyone's gun jams everything stops. The US soldiers bring out the smokes, the Taliban brews some tea. They enjoy the smokes and the tea, catch up on the latest news..... A lot like NASCAR under the yellow flag.
.....So I am wondering, why is there so much controversy behind the Stoner system......
Because the rifle is the longest serving US military rifle ever. Because it has been in the hands of Granddad, Dad and Son. Because there are two kinds of people (at least among the crowd I run with) those who have one (or more) and those who want one (or more). With this much interest and exposure there is going to be a lot of discussion and controversy. If Stoner had designed the AR as a piston and DI never happened we would be arguing about something else.
The bolt carrier group does not get hot in a standard AR.
I've pulled BCG's out of uppers immeadiately after magdumps to demonstrate this.
Really? I never tried (obviously) Very good data point. I'm going to try it out some time just so I know for myself. Thanks!
Suwannee Tim
02-21-12, 05:52
I wanted to learn first hand the advantages and disadvantages of both piston and DI and bought both. Over the last two years and twenty thousand rounds or so I have come to the conclusion that, for most applications, there is not enough difference to make a difference.
jonconsiglio
02-21-12, 06:27
Edit - You know, I went back and read that 4x post and actually have no clue what he's even talking about. At first I thought it was that one single test where the Colt didn't do well, but I don't know.
If he's saying DI is 4x more likely due to that one failed test, well there you have the basis for stupid arguments.
I wanted to learn first hand the advantages and disadvantages of both piston and DI and bought both. Over the last two years and twenty thousand rounds or so I have come to the conclusion that, for most applications, there is not enough difference to make a difference.
Oh there is a difference; I've seen a SF Soldier with a LMT piston upper that broke while in a fire fight, he was disgusted and put his M4 upper back on when he got back to my COP. This was summer of ’09 and though I was aware of some politicians criticizing the M4 I didn’t know there were companies making piston uppers and convincing Soldiers that it was better. That incident is the reason I’m on this board and learning about my weapons, how they are made, and who makes them. I’ve had a few conversations with Colt’s VP for QC over an issue I had with my Colt to insure that the same problem didn’t make it to issued M4s. Milspec and military testing mean something.
I think it’s quite simple and I have been amused at how many people get upset on this forum about it, if all you want is a range gun get a $599 kit, if you need to trust your life with it there are only a few to choose from and you should stay with what's proven.
.
I think a Piston gun is better...eventually...just not one retrofitted to fit under the handguards of an AR.
My nephew is in MARSOC and in 2010, he was given 6 SCAR's and 36K rounds for him and his guys to evaluate. Four days later, they returned the SCAR's and said they'd keep their M4's. He told me the SCAR came up short compared to the M4 for what "they use their guns for" (mission). That is a clue...
I don't think people on M4C "hate" piston guns, I just think they are knowledgeable enough that when all of the real features of both guns are weighed up, piston guns come up short against AR's. Plus I don't think M4C members give guns "cool points" like most people do when evaluating them.
If the most "perfect" piston gun came out tomorrow for the same money as a quality AR, I would maybe eventually someday possibly get one BUT it would not be my "go to" gun, mainly because of parts.
But maybe it's just me...
.
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 08:30
Edit - You know, I went back and read that 4x post and actually have no clue what he's even talking about. At first I thought it was that one single test where the Colt didn't do well, but I don't know.
If he's saying DI is 4x more likely due to that one failed test, well there you have the basis for stupid arguments.
Hes refferin to the fall '07 extreme dust test 3 that had the M4 with nearly 900/60000 stoppages, guess he missed the summer '07 test where the M4 had 330/60000 stoppages where 50% was magazine related.
All that said it was a test in a vacuum that in no way represented real world circumstances, the rifles were only cleaned once every 600 rounds
ForTehNguyen
02-21-12, 08:31
Really? I never tried (obviously) Very good data point. I'm going to try it out some time just so I know for myself. Thanks!
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=51218
pic links are broken though since its an older thread
During the Magpul Dynamics Course in November (Tucson, AZ) I fired just around 2100 rounds in 3 days. About 30-40% of those were suppressed. I used FrogLube only and the only cleaning I did consisted of a wipe down of the BCG at the end of day 2.
The weather was cold (in the mid 40's-50's up to high 60's) by the end. I had ZERO malfunctions or stoppages.
I was firing in semi-auto only. Ammo was a mixture of Federal AE223, M193 and PMC Bronze Line.
Hes refferin to the fall '07 extreme dust test 3 that had the M4 with nearly 900/60000 stoppages, guess he missed the summer '07 test where the M4 had 330/60000 stoppages where 50% was magazine related.
All that said it was a test in a vacuum that in no way represented real world circumstances, the rifles were only cleaned once every 600 rounds
jonconsiglio
02-21-12, 09:11
Hes refferin to the fall '07 extreme dust test 3 that had the M4 with nearly 900/60000 stoppages, guess he missed the summer '07 test where the M4 had 330/60000 stoppages where 50% was magazine related.
All that said it was a test in a vacuum that in no way represented real world circumstances, the rifles were only cleaned once every 600 rounds
Yeah, I had a reply posted about that stupid test and using that ONE example as a basis for an argument. Then I reread his post and there is no subject to it, just comments as if we know what he is referring to. Silliness.
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
Well, if he were to actually miss with the first shot and his gun then "jammed", he'd likely take a knee and allow the second to engage since it's very unlikely he's working alone. If working alone, which I can't even see where this would be the case, you'd transition to your secondary… He may transition in a group as well. Surely though, you're already aware of this.
When the facts are that a lubed up gun in sand tests as much as a non lubed gun in the same circumstances, why would you choose the first one?
What does this even mean? Lube is needed in dusty environments - http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_carbine_lubrication_070716/
The fact remains that DI has been working just fine and will continue to. Some, like Larry Vickers believe the piston does fill a niche though for SBR's under full auto fire and suppressed use. In most cases where there have been failures, they would have likely experienced the same failures with a piston AR. It's not a cure-all.
Also, that test, you know that single test that result in 883 (give or take) stoppages for the M4 was against piston rifles of a different design. Most of those failures came from ONE of the Colt rifles, it was not consistent across the rifles used.
RogerinTPA
02-21-12, 09:20
If people would take a few minutes out of their lives and do some research, instead of going off on some misinformed tangent, there wouldn't be controversy. When it comes up, especially with elected officials, other gun forums, or new members here at M4C, it's either misinformed ignorant bullshit being repeated, or jumping on a band wagon for a false crusade...just to grab a headline.
Reagans Rascals
02-21-12, 09:29
During the Magpul Dynamics Course in November (Tucson, AZ) I fired just around 2100 rounds in 3 days. About 30-40% of those were suppressed. I used FrogLube only and the only cleaning I did consisted of a wipe down of the BCG at the end of day 2.
The weather was cold (in the mid 40's-50's up to high 60's) by the end. I had ZERO malfunctions or stoppages.
I was firing in semi-auto only. Ammo was a mixture of Federal AE223, M193 and PMC Bronze Line.
can I ask what was your specific setup for that course? Seems like its the way to go
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
Is there some sort of gentleman's agreement between the Taliban and the US that they must wait for them to clear the jam before they shoot?
When the facts are that a lubed up gun in sand tests as much as a non lubed gun in the same circumstances, why would you choose the first one?
Money is not an object, they are going to spend $120million each on a jet every other country that was involved in its development no longer wants, its because the procurement system is a miserable mess of people in charge wanting to make up for that other 30% when they retire.
Wait..... What? Where did any of this even come from?
1. BCM 11.5" SBR CHF Barrel w/ AAC 18T mount.
2. M4 upper receiver with feedramps.
3. BCM BCG with Colt M4 extractor spring and McFarland gas rings.
4. BCM Gunfighter charging handle.
5. BCM lower receiver with Colt LPK.
6. Vltor A5 system with H4 buffer and green Springco spring.
7. AAC M4-2000 suppressor.
can I ask what was your specific setup for that course? Seems like its the way to go
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
Is there some sort of gentleman's agreement between the Taliban and the US that they must wait for them to clear the jam before they shoot?
When the facts are that a lubed up gun in sand tests as much as a non lubed gun in the same circumstances, why would you choose the first one?
Money is not an object, they are going to spend $120million each on a jet every other country that was involved in its development no longer wants, its because the procurement system is a miserable mess of people in charge wanting to make up for that other 30% when they retire.
Dude, we won't put up with these types of comments. If you have hard facts to back this up present them here or else stick to things you know and don't comment on things you don't.
jonconsiglio
02-21-12, 12:22
In Freedoom's (I refuse to add the extra o's) 17 posts, half have been arguing about the advantage of a piston but not citing anything but that one dust test. He did this in the Army IC Program thread and the DI vs Piston thread.
In his defense, he does think the zombie reticle is a somewhat good idea though… :rolleyes:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Posting opinion as fact without stating one quality source or one personal experience is just juvenile.
This site is pretty good about not allowing this kind of nonsense, which is why many members here are experienced and in the industry and stick around. Leave this emotional attachment to an idea crap for the other sites.
I've made this simple observation before, but the more experienced a shooter is, whether civilian, LE or military, the less likely they are to want to move away from the DI ARs.
In Freedoom's (I refuse to add the extra o's) 17 posts, half have been arguing about the advantage of a piston but not citing anything but that one dust test. He did this in the Army IC Program thread and the DI vs Piston thread.
In his defense, he does think the zombie reticle is a somewhat good idea though… :rolleyes:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Posting opinion as fact without stating one quality source or one personal experience is just juvenile.
This site is pretty good about not allowing this kind of nonsense, which is why many members here are experienced and in the industry and stick around. Leave this emotional attachment to an idea crap for the other sites.
I've made this simple observation before, but the more experienced a shooter is, whether civilian, LE or military, the less likely they are to want to move away from the DI ARs.
I like that southpark episode that explains that 25% of all people everywhere are actually retarded. The instant reaction is to insist it's got to be higher than 25% but it's not. It's just that those 25% are louder, on the internet more, and the worst part... They look just like us! Oh scary!
Anyhow... Knowing that statistic helps me get by day to day. When I read troll posts I know how to handle it. Chalk it up to 25% and keep moving.
While I agree that there is a lot of unjustified and unwarranted criticism of the DI system, the same bias is shown here when it comes to criticism of piston systems.
Take the example of the SF soldier and his LMT breaking during a firefight. While not a ringing endorsement, it cannot be used as a de facto argument for discrediting all short-stroke piston systems on the AR platform.
There are enough anecdotal stories of users of DI systems needing help with their system or failing during matches or range sessions on this board, to paint the same picture of the DI system, if someone is inclined to see it that way.
I also do not see the reason for this contention. I do not think that an AR short stroke piston system will ever outright replace the original Stoner design, or it's variants. Also, IIRC, the HK416 is the only system that set out to improve the M4, and it works very well. I do not know where the replacement kits or new piston builds arose from.
I will hopefully be moving to the US in a couple of years, and if everything works out I will have a status allowing me to own firearms, due to the nature of the education I am seeking. I wouldn't think twice about getting a DI AR system, regardless of my belief in the HK piston system, for example.
Actually been looking at different rifles these last few days, and I realized that I have A LOT to learn about the vast range of options out there, even from the more reputable manufacturers.
That is the real strength of the well established AR platform, I think, that there is an abundance of parts available allowing every opportunity to customize the rifle to suit ones specific needs or preferences.
While I agree that there is a lot of unjustified and unwarranted criticism of the DI system, the same bias is shown here when it comes to criticism of piston systems.
Take the example of the SF soldier and his LMT breaking during a firefight. While not a ringing endorsement, it cannot be used as a de facto argument for discrediting all short-stroke piston systems on the AR platform.
.
Artic you carry the HK416 right? The HK416 proves my point about a milspec tested and proven platform, it's the exception.
My responses in bold. I will speak your language including poor punctuation and rambling incoherent sentence fragments...BTW you misspelled freedom.
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
NOPE!
Is there some sort of gentleman's agreement between the Taliban and the US that they must wait for them to clear the jam before they shoot?
:confused:
When the facts are that a lubed up gun in sand tests as much as a non lubed gun in the same circumstances, why would you choose the first one?
Whirlpool, orange, lawnmower, inflated new dog, roll it up damn it!!
Money is not an object, Uhhhh...Money BIG object...they are going to spend $120million each on a jet every other country that was involved in its development no longer wants, its because the procurement system is a miserable mess of people in charge wanting to make up for that other 30% when they retire. Again, 30%, arbitrary bag, for with candle wax, in the summer!
I had a bit of fun at your expense. My advice, clear your JAM, and your malfunction read more, come here to learn, not to teach the professionals. This site is filled with people who know their shit. You do not...at least yet. Listen to what they have to say.
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 14:04
Arctic1 the main problem with civilian Ar-15's is everyone and their mama makes on now days. Alot of people cheap out and get DPMS, RRA, etc those are 99% of the times that you see someone having issues and failing in courses. A quality brand like Colt, DD, BCM wont have issues generally.
I do have to agree that it could put a bad view of the system as well.
I just think at this point there is no reason for politicians or anyone for that matter to still hard on the Stoner sytem, i still see on alot of websites people mentioning vietnam and that M4 extreme dust test(which was a little rigged if you ask me) like they are the be all end all proof the M4 is a bad rifle, yet when thy interview the average joe and they praise the system, those same people will mention how they are not gun enthusiast and dont know better.
Its all a bit rediculious at this day and age
jonconsiglio
02-21-12, 14:06
Arctic1, I appreciate your posts. Keep in mind that our criticisms of the piston AR aren't that it's junk, it's that there's no real benefit in most cases and it's not worth the trade off.
Not too many here trash quality piston ARs reliably, it's that there's so much inconsistency from company to company and no real evidence that it's leaps and bounds better than DI, like some will say without backing it up.
There's no doubt the 416 is a quality weapon in the world of piston ARs, but i don't think there'd npbeen much advantage for the average shooter, soldier, LEO, etc.
I've also heard (not personal experience) from members here that have used the 416 in the military, that it too has its faults.
My responses in bold. I will speak your language including poor punctuation and rambling incoherent sentence fragments...BTW you misspelled freedom.
I had a bit of fun at your expense. My advice, clear your JAM, and your malfunction read more, come here to learn, not to teach the professionals. This site is filled with people who know their shit. You do not...at least yet. Listen to what they have to say.
Well said...
Suwannee Tim
02-21-12, 15:14
Oh there is a difference; I've seen a SF Soldier with a LMT piston upper that broke......
Your post suggests that piston guns break and DI guns don't which is obviously false. For the record I have never rendered an opinion on the longevity or ruggedness aspect though I doubt there is much difference in that regard. The world is full of successful piston designs after all.
Do you know what on the soldier's gun broke?
.....The HK416 proves my point about a milspec tested and proven platform, it's the exception.
The AR was beset by problems after it's introduction. It was "milspec tested" and then proved itself all but a failure. By your standard the military would have rejected the AR and gone back to the M14 which was both "milspec tested" and "proven". Instead the deficiencies were corrected. Good thing too.
My interpretation of your word "proven" is years of field experience and extensive combat use. That a weapon be "proven" cannot be a criterion for adoption because it is only "proven" some time after it is adopted.
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
Uhhh . . . . .
Transitions quickly to his secondary and keeps moving so the rest of his squad can get into the room and help him neutralize the threat.
OR
Panic and pee in his pants
@Todd00000:
Good copy Sir, and I agree that there should be rigorous testing to ensure reliability across a wide spectrum of conditions.
@Jonconsiglio:
Thank you. And I do understand the cost vs. benefit concern regarding short stroke piston systems. And I also see the quality issues involved with so many different companies putting out products.
And I have both heard of and seen issues with the HK416, but mostly they are user induced problems, in addition to excessive wear on the disconnect due to our eco ammo being a bit "hotter", with one breaking during a TIC.
All things break when pushed hard enough.
The AR was beset by problems after it's introduction. It was "milspec tested" and then proved itself all but a failure.
Care to expound on that?
The main issues with the M16 was that the Army altered the propellant from the military specifications, and chose to forego the chrome plating of the chamber. This caused premature corrosion of the chamber and ultimately stoppages.
These issues were fixed with the M16A1, a platform that had an upgraded bolt, buffer, trigger components and a chrome plated chamber. There were few complaints by soldiers after the M16A1 was fielded.
Since its introduction with U.S. forces during the Vietnam War, the M16 rifle and its offspring, including the M4, have been the subject of some controversy, especially related to reports of the weapons' reliability in combat. Initial reports from Vietnam indicated a high incidence of stoppages. These were in fact directly related to the Army's initial decision to alter the ammunition's propellant from military specifications (mil-specs) and to dispense with chrome plating the M16's chamber—an improvement that had become a standard feature of all U.S. military small arms since World War II.
Both decisions led to premature corrosion of the chamber and ultimately to stoppages. Upgrades, including those that improved the manufacturing process and design of the weapon's buffer, bolt, trigger components, and chamber, which would receive a chrome lining, resulted in a much superior M16A1. Troops issued the M16A1 in 1969 and later rarely complained about their weapons. One Marine rifleman did complain in a 1967 letter to his family following the battle for Hills 881 and 861 above Khe Sanh: "We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19. Believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifles. Practically every one of our dead was found with his [M16] torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it."5
Design Enhancements
Not mentioned in the letter was the fact that many of the Marines who fought at Khe Sanh had been issued their M16s only days before the action and probably were unfamiliar with them.
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat
Troops in Vietnam were also told that they did not need to clean their weapons, in addition to the fact that people probably had little time on the platform before going to war. There was also a lack of proper cleaning supplies for the weapon.
There are many sources on the internet corroborating the findings in the Wanat article on early M16 issues.
Again, it is more often than not a user issue, not the tool itself being faulty.
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 15:46
Agreed arctic all things break. Just like you mentioned almost all issues with the DI M4 is magazine and user induced.
Magazines make up a big part of that but thanks to polymer mags those are mostly fixed. Theres still slot of people who believe no lube is better on the M4 and this causes alot of issues as does the people who dont clean their rifles.
At this point the Stoner system has moved past its issues and become a reliable robust military rifle if the user does his part in cleanig
A very good article chronicling the early M16 issues, and what caused them:
http://www.esquire.com/features/ak-47-history-1110
A study on the acquisition of the M16 rifle:
THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE M16 RIFLE
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA460822
(1) So I am wondering, why is there so much controversy behind the Stoner system, I understand what happened in Vietnam had alot to do with it, but why is it that 40 years later there is so much misinformation about the system out there?
(2) why does every politician who wants to make a name for himself say the system is getting soldiers killed and is horrible?
(3) I mean for being a society that has a wealth of knowledge on the internet that you can look up information about anything, why are so many still so stupid when it comes to this system?
(1). depends on who you talk to, operators understand proper maintenance and proper use will beat cool points and the new factor anyday of the week regardless of operation type. your average mall ninja internet commando only gos by what is in the latest tactical magazines and if its on the cover it must be the best weapon ever.
(2) politicians tend to prey on the sympathy vote and use our service men and women to gather support. disgusts me when they do this.
(3) direct impingement is a sound design and has been tested back to when the french first used it in their mas 40/49, it worked great then and that was with corrosive primers. the short stroke gas piston is a tested design in some firearms but im waiting a bit more before i go that route on my AR's. there are duds in both designs due to cheap parts and poor quality control overall.
(3) direct impingement is a sound design and has been tested back to when the french first used it in their mas 40/49, it worked great then and that was with corrosive primers. the short stroke gas piston is a tested design in some firearms but im waiting a bit more before i go that route on my AR's. there are duds in both designs due to cheap parts and poor quality control overall.
The MAS-49 is still a different rifle. Certainly, a firearm using a gas piston design or "DI" design does not warrant reliability, or unreliability. There have been unreliable piston rifle designs.
"As a last note, misuse of the term “direct impingement” to describe the Stoner system is
so common that it has confused the issue. A direct impingement system like that of the
AG-42 Ljungman or the French MAS-49 rifle taps gas at the barrel and passes it into the
receiver in a way similar to the M16, (the source of the confusion) but deposits it into a
small, shallow cup or pocket in the carrier. The gas expands there and drives the carrier
to the rear with relatively little pneumatic advantage. The addition of the Stoner internal
piston system provides significantly more pneumatic advantage to the rifle and little of
the blast of escaping gas at the breech end of the gas tube of the earlier rifles."
Stupid responses like this one are the reason for controversy over the DI system. People read crap like this on the internet and believe it.
Uhhh when a system is 4x more likely to jam, what happens when a soldier busts in a door, shoots once misses, gun jams?
Is there some sort of gentleman's agreement between the Taliban and the US that they must wait for them to clear the jam before they shoot?
When the facts are that a lubed up gun in sand tests as much as a non lubed gun in the same circumstances, why would you choose the first one?
Money is not an object, they are going to spend $120million each on a jet every other country that was involved in its development no longer wants, its because the procurement system is a miserable mess of people in charge wanting to make up for that other 30% when they retire.
Freedoooom
02-21-12, 16:26
Hes refferin to the fall '07 extreme dust test 3 that had the M4 with nearly 900/60000 stoppages, guess he missed the summer '07 test where the M4 had 330/60000 stoppages where 50% was magazine related.
All that said it was a test in a vacuum that in no way represented real world circumstances, the rifles were only cleaned once every 600 rounds
Uhhh no.
It was 643 weapons related, and 239 magazine related, which the 2nd most jams came from the 416 at 233, which is still less than the magazine related jams, so empirical evidence points to either magazines being blamed improperly or the DI system exacerbates magazine related problems due to it being a weaker action.
The summer 2007 test, they increased the lube on the M4 and never tested the alternatives with increased lube, so there is no point in bringing it up, they increased the lube on the rifle, and it still ran worse than the piston guns with a lot less lube.
To IraqGunz, you of course used phosphate carrier right? No chrome of course like the M4/M16s in service right?
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 16:38
Freedoom stop speaking of things you know not of.
Ive seen the Army power point, the earlier test in '07 had the M4 come out with 296 stoppages half were magazine related and none of the rifles were new
Hey FREDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM,
What military unit are you currently, or have in the past been, assigned to?
What experience do you have in combat?
How many doors have you kicked in where there was a Taliban fighter behind it?
How many times has the M4/M16 failed you in combat? Where were those instances, what were the failures and who did you report those to?
If you dont have some serious information in the answers to those questions then you should shut up because you dont know what the **** you are talking about!
Your post suggests that piston guns break and DI guns don't which is obviously false. For the record I have never rendered an opinion on the longevity or ruggedness aspect though I doubt there is much difference in that regard. The world is full of successful piston designs after all.
Do you know what on the soldier's gun broke?
The AR was beset by problems after it's introduction. It was "milspec tested" and then proved itself all but a failure. By your standard the military would have rejected the AR and gone back to the M14 which was both "milspec tested" and "proven". Instead the deficiencies were corrected. Good thing too.
My interpretation of your word "proven" is years of field experience and extensive combat use. That a weapon be "proven" cannot be a criterion for adoption because it is only "proven" some time after it is adopted.
Luckily that is where we exist today with proven systems. You are talking about govt. procurement, I never said that, we have the benefit of the good and bad of the govt. procurement system and over 40 years of field testing and improvement. At the time I didn’t care about the details, still don’t, I only cared about a Soldier who risked his and his buddy’s lives with an unproven piece of kit. If all you want is range/hunting/3-gun rifle get whatever you want, but if your life may depend on it then get a known quantity.
Freedoom stop speaking of things you know not of.
Ive seen the Army power point, the earlier test in '07 had the M4 come out with 296 stoppages half were magazine related and none of the rifles were new
It's always possible they lied and fabricated the results. They did it a lot with the M16 and M14 in testing, and there's no absolutely no reason to believe they don't do the same kinds of things today. Tests being done by single organizations often leave little room for objectivity.
I wonder if this thread should get nuked. The DI vs Piston stuff has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.
Suwannee Tim
02-21-12, 17:09
Care to expound on that?....
I don't know that much about it the early problems with the M16. I was making a point about "proving" a weapon, my reference to the early problems was to exemplify that point.
I wonder if this thread should get nuked. The DI vs Piston stuff has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.
I don't understand why folks want to suppress discussions even if the issue has come to the "ad nauseum" point. Don't read it.
jonconsiglio
02-21-12, 17:09
@
@Jonconsiglio:
Thank you. And I do understand the cost vs. benefit concern regarding short stroke piston systems. And I also see the quality issues involved with so many different companies putting out products.
And I have both heard of and seen issues with the HK416, but mostly they are user induced problems, in addition to excessive wear on the disconnect due to our eco ammo being a bit "hotter", with one breaking during a TIC.
All things break when pushed hard enough.
I figured you understood. You seem to be pretty open indeed and again, I appreciate your posts.
Your comment here about the 416 is what seems to be the recurring theme and the point that many are missing. Regardless of the rifle being used, most failures are due to operator error or poor maintenance. If I have the absolute most reliable rifle ever made but I don't take care of it and fire a combat load at 5 times the suggested rate, I will be much more likely encounter stoppages.
So, no matter how great the "other" option seems to be, it likely won't be that great once it's implemented.
jonconsiglio
02-21-12, 17:14
To IraqGunz, you of course used phosphate carrier right? No chrome of course like the M4/M16s in service right?
What are you talking about? What do you mean no chrome like those in service?
Here's what he used. Do you understand what this is?
3. BCM BCG with Colt M4 extractor spring and McFarland gas rings.
I figured you understood. You seem to be pretty open indeed and again, I appreciate your posts.
Your comment here about the 416 is what seems to be the recurring theme and the point that many are missing. Regardless of the rifle being used, most failures are due to operator error or poor maintenance. If I have the absolute most reliable rifle ever made but I don't take care of it and fire a combat load at 5 times the suggested rate, I will encounter failures.
So, no matter how great the "other" option seems to be, it likely won't be that great once it's implemented.
I don't think anybody here was suggesting that the HK416 never fails , or can't fail from lack of care.. We haven't made rifles that never fail yet, but we have made rifles that fail less often then other rifles whether it be lack of care, or other conditions. That's the point. A rifle that didn't have to be maintained or never failed would certainly be an advantage on the battlefield, if it existed.
I don't understand why folks want to suppress discussions even if the issue has come to the "ad nauseum" point. Don't read it.
A lot of folks on this forum talk about "signal to noise ratio" and I agree with that sentiment. No offense meant dude. Be cool, have a beer
jonconsiglio
02-21-12, 17:24
I don't think anybody here was suggesting that the HK416 never fails. We haven't made rifles that never fail yet, but we have made rifles that fail less often then other rifles whether it be lack of care, or other conditions. That's the point.
I know that. Sorry if it came out wrong. What I meant was that a lot of those that praise the piston rifles need to understand that it too can and will fail if not taken care of properly. So, in the big picture, a piston M4 will likely not be much of an improvement as operator error will likely still cause failures. That's all I meant.
I've owned a couple piston ARs. Still own a PSD and also have two SCARs. They work(ed) just fine. But, I put many thousands of rounds through DI rifles each year, sometimes 1,500 to 2,000+ rounds over the course of a few days or a week at times in different types of environments. They've all performed about the same for me with regular maintenance. Some have gone a couple thousand rounds with nothing more than a quick wiping of the bolt and some more lube before the day began.
Suwannee Tim
02-21-12, 20:04
A lot of folks on this forum talk about "signal to noise ratio" and I agree with that sentiment. No offense meant dude. Be cool, have a beer
None taken. I see your point. Maybe a better solution would be an "Official Perpetual Piston VS DI" thread, thousands of pages of mostly noise. I think it would be better to let one thread run than generate dozens of threads by shutting down thread after thread. I care about the S/N ratio too. I think the best way to improve it is to encourage noisy folks to be quiet.
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 21:01
I don't think anybody here was suggesting that the HK416 never fails , or can't fail from lack of care.. We haven't made rifles that never fail yet, but we have made rifles that fail less often then other rifles whether it be lack of care, or other conditions. That's the point. A rifle that didn't have to be maintained or never failed would certainly be an advantage on the battlefield, if it existed.
what real world proof do you have that other systems fail less than the M4? sure you can quote the dust test but again its not a real world test, and there is so much doubt going around you have to wonder what happened.
It's always possible they lied and fabricated the results. They did it a lot with the M16 and M14 in testing, and there's no absolutely no reason to believe they don't do the same kinds of things today. Tests being done by single organizations often leave little room for objectivity.
maybe so but today is a far different day than in vietnam times when they lied about the M16, today we have plenty of guys who post nothing but positives about the system, there are 6 pages tacked in technical of members here who have nothing but praises for the system, even overseas where most say it should choke
aren't you the guy who blamed Wanat on the operating system? I am pretty sure you are, let me see here. oh yea you are
Even as far back as Vietnam, the M16 had reputation of overheating easily on fully automatic. So one could partly say the operating system is a culprit. The Marine Corps rejected a sustained fire version of the M16. Aluminum alloys are also not as good with heat resistance as steel is. Chamber pressures of the 5.56x45 are also higher then many rounds like the 7.62x39 and 7.62x51. Plus it doesn't fire from the open bolt. If piston or heavier barrel would have changed the outcome, I don't know.
I never said they didn't experience this issue. They will all cook off and heat up. The question is when?
I never said it failed because it was a DI. It's the whole rifle itself.
if there is one thing ive learned about you esh is that every time you post about the M4 its completely negative and usually false
i honestly never meant for this to turn piston vs di, its just sorta drifted that way
what real world proof do you have that other systems fail less than the M4? sure you can quote the dust test but again its not a real world test, and there is so much doubt going around you have to wonder what happened.
some say the HK416 failures came from one rifle, some say the M4 failures were padded. it gets ridiculousness. fact is people who really use the M4 in combat dont have stoppages when they lube it and clean it. oh and if you didnt hear Arctic1 cleans his 416 during down time like soldiers clean their M4's
aren't you the guy who blamed Wanat on the operating system? I am pretty sure you are, let me see here. oh yea you are
i honestly never meant for this to turn piston vs di, its just sorta drifted that way
"While it's very true that there is a lack of rifle discipline by the commanders, that statement that the M14 works with dirty ammunition while the M16 doesn't, is a hard argument to counter." -J.B Hall
From the book "The Gun CJ chivers"
You can't really get anymore real world then that. I'm sure people here will deny it though.
"A battalion in the 199th Infantry brigade had seventeen rifles blow up on an operation conducted in the muddy terrain and wet weather, and apparently water or mud clogged the barrels."
"In Hotel Company of second battalion, third marines. Corporal Jack Beavers was in a battle in Quan Ti Province on July 7, 1968. The NVA were firing artilery at the Marines, and as the Corporal and crawled to stay alive, his M16 rifle become coated with sand. Later as his platoon assaulted across a rice paddy toward a village, the rifle jammed."
"One investigation early in the year found that during a seven-hour firefight near Chu Lai, Company D of the Firth Battalion , Seventh Calvary suffered so many jammed weapons and some were so severe by the end of the firefight, of the sixty five or seventy M16's fired. "twelve were out of action." The Pentagon noted this was directly related to the inordinate amount of sand which was built up in weapons during the rapid movement through dikes and rice fields."
"When we are inside of sand, when we were in water, when we were in mud situations we had problems with stoppages the weapon wasn't working http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9EUAxzIUy0" Israel Soldier-
"The Soviets went with a stick powder propellant, which burned faster and cleaner then the M16's ball powder. The Soviets had been forced to use poor grade propellants during WW2 and while postwar issue ammo was of better quality, they had taken this into account in the AK's design, in the event that they might be forced to use low grade propellents in the future."-The AK-47 Kalashnikov series assault rifles." Gordon L Rottman.
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 22:32
"While it's very true that there is a lack of rifle discipline by the commanders, that statement that the M14 works with dirty ammunition while the M16 doesn't, is a hard argument to counter." -J.B Hall
From the book "The Gun CJ chivers"
"A battalion in the 199th Infantry brigade had seventeen rifles blow up on an operation conducted in the muddy terrain and wet weather, and apparently water or mud clogged the barrels."
"In Hotel Company of second battalion, third marines. Corporal Jack Beavers was in a battle in Quan Ti Province on July 7, 1968. The NVA were firing artilery at the Marines, and as the Corporal and crawled to stay alive, his M16 rifle become coated with sand. Later as his platoon assaulted across a rice paddy toward a village, the rifle jammed."
"One investigation early in the year found that during a seven-hour firefight near Chu Lai, Company D of the Firth Battalion , Seventh Calvary suffered so many jammed weapons and some were so severe by the end of the firefight, of the sixty five or seventy M16's fired. "twelve were out of action." The Pentagon noted this was directly related to the inordinate amount of sand which was built up in weapons during the rapid movement through dikes and rice fields."
"When we are inside of sand, when we were in water, when we were in mud situations we had problems with stoppages the weapon wasn't working http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9EUAxzIUy0" Israel Soldier-
"The Soviets went with a stick powder propellant, which burned faster and cleaner then the M16's ball powder. The Soviets had been forced to use poor grade propellants during WW2 and while postwar issue ammo was of better quality, they had taken this into account in the AK's design, in the event that they might be forced to use low grade propellents in the future."-The AK-47 Kalashnikov series assault rifles." Gordon L Rottman.
so your only proof is vietnam era quotes and future weapons.......:lol:
so your only proof is vietnam era quotes and future weapons.......:lol:
How is it not anymore true then then it is today? What changes to increase the reliability of the M16 since the M16A1 have been made in regards to sand? Is the M16A2,M16A4,M4 more sand proof then the original M16? Who cares what TV show it was from. It's obviously a soldier speaking from experience.
They took out the bird cadge and with the now a2 flash suppeser.
Then why the AK-74.
I don't understand the question.
The flash hider is smooth on the bottom; thats it.
Heavy Metal
02-21-12, 23:00
Aluminum alloys are also not as good with heat resistance as steel is.
No, it's actually much better because Aluminum is a far superior heat sink materal. The upper reciever pulls heat away from the chamber far faster than steel in the same application would. Aluminum is an ideal material for an upper reciever.
jonconsiglio
02-21-12, 23:01
The flash hider is smooth on the bottom; thats it.
11 posts and barely as many words. All today, and not too many make sense.
And no, "smooth on the bottom" is not "it".
SicSemper, please stop posting until you can do so in a manner that conveys a complete thought or question.
Read this, it may help.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=70019
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 23:12
How is it not anymore true then then it is today? What changes to increase the reliability of the M16 since the M16A1 have been made in regards to sand? Is the M16A2,M16A4,M4 more sand proof then the original M16? Who cares what TV show it was from. It's obviously a soldier speaking from experience.
training.
Honestly anything from Future Weapons is crap, that whole show is nothing but advertising for companies plain and simple.
face it the issues with sand are not there anymore, now days we clean our rifles and lubricate them. back in vietnam times the ar-15 was toted as a self cleaning system that did not require lubrication. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
go look up the absolutely huge ammount of threads on this website from member who have been overseas in a sandy environment who never experienced a stoppage due to the operating system
This whole thread has become a steaming pile without any real value.
No, it's actually much better because Aluminum is a far superior heat sink materal. The upper reciever pulls heat away from the chamber far faster than steel in the same application would. Aluminum is an ideal material for an upper reciever.
"Thermal Characteristics. The thermal conductivity of aluminum is about 6 times that of steel. Although the melting temperature of aluminum alloys is substantially bellow that of ferrous alloys, higher heat inputs are required to weld aluminum because of its high specific heat.
High thermal conductivity makes aluminum very sensitive to fluctuations in heat input by the welding process."
http://www.keytometals.com/Article12.htm#
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 23:17
"Thermal Characteristics. The thermal conductivity of aluminum is about 6 times that of steel. Although the melting temperature of aluminum alloys is substantially bellow that of ferrous alloys, higher heat inputs are required to weld aluminum because of its high specific heat.
High thermal conductivity makes aluminum very sensitive to fluctuations in heat input by the welding process."
http://www.keytometals.com/Article12.htm#
the whole aluminum alloy discussion is moot. it stemmed from the Wanat thread where you posted the whole rifle was the issue with them burning out.
fact was the guns were fired like LMG's and the barrels gave out not the rifle.
lets please get this back on topic which is why do people like Esh still quote Vietnam as a way to prove the DI is bad? he has a wealth of actual first hand knowledge on this website yet still quotes issues from 40yrs ago like they exist today
Littlelebowski
02-21-12, 23:20
How is it not anymore true then then it is today? What changes to increase the reliability of the M16 since the M16A1 have been made in regards to sand? Is the M16A2,M16A4,M4 more sand proof then the original M16? Who cares what TV show it was from. It's obviously a soldier speaking from experience.
http://stephenchukumba.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/stay_in_your_lane.jpg
Heavy Metal
02-21-12, 23:21
"Thermal Characteristics. The thermal conductivity of aluminum is about 6 times that of steel. Although the melting temperature of aluminum alloys is substantially bellow that of ferrous alloys, higher heat inputs are required to weld aluminum because of its high specific heat.
High thermal conductivity makes aluminum very sensitive to fluctuations in heat input by the welding process."
http://www.keytometals.com/Article12.htm#
So? You aren't going to get the reciever hot enough to heat damage it. You will toast the barrel or Gas Tube first.
Thermal Characteristics. The thermal conductivity of aluminum is about 6 times that of steel.
Thanks for making my point. Your own post alludes to the fact that aluminum is a superior heat sink. Let's see, both the SCAR and the 416 use AL uppers along with the ACR and the XCR.
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 23:23
http://stephenchukumba.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/stay_in_your_lane.jpg
actually his statement is perfect for this topic, its a prime example of having a wealth of knowledge at his disposal yet he continues to spout Vietnam quotes as truth now days.
this topic was created to discuss why it is that there is still such controversy like that of Esh's statement when having a website like this that should put that kind of stuff down
the whole aluminum alloy discussion is moot. it stemmed from the Wanat thread where you posted the whole rifle was the issue with them burning out.
fact was the guns were fired like LMG's and the barrels gave out not the rifle.
lets please get this back on topic which is why do people like Esh still quote Vietnam as a way to prove the DI is bad? he has a wealth of actual first hand knowledge on this website yet still quotes issues from 40yrs ago like they exist today
You brought it up by quoting me. If you don't want to continue that argument, that's fine.
actually his statement is perfect for this topic, its a prime example of having a wealth of knowledge at his disposal yet he continues to spout Vietnam quotes as truth now days.
this topic was created to discuss why it is that there is still such controversy like that of Esh's statement when having a website like this that should put that kind of stuff down
Alright you wanted modern examples. Here they are.
Gannett’s Army Times magazine also obtained a copy of Project Manager Soldier’s Weapons Assessment Team’s July 31, 2003, report:
“The executive summary said that M16s and M4s “functioned reliably” in the combat zone as long as “soldiers conducted daily operator maintenance and applied a light coat of lubricant.” “
Soldiers had their own comments, however, which were also included in the report and relayed in the magazine article:
3rd ID soldier: “I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too.”
25th Infantry Division soldier: “The M4 Weapon in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan was quick to malfunction when a little sand got in the weapon. Trying to keep it clean, sand free was impossible while on patrols or firefights.”
82nd Airborne Division soldier: “The M4 is overall an excellent weapon, however the flaw of its sensitivity to dirt and powder residue needs to be corrected. True to fact, cleaning will help. Daily assigned tasks, and nonregular hours in tactical situations do not always warrant the necessary time required for effective cleaning.”
75th Ranger Regiment member, SOCOM: “Even with the dust cover closed and magazine in the well, sand gets all inside; on and around the bolt. It still fires, but after a while the sand works its way all through the gun and jams start.”
The 507th Maintenance Company, ambushed outside Nasariyah in 2003 during the opening days of the ground invasion of Iraq, might concur with all of the above. The post-incident report released by the US Army had this to say:
“Dusty, desert conditions do require vigilance in weapons maintenance… However, it is imperative to remember that at the time of the attack, the 507th had spent more than two days on the move, with little rest and time to conduct vehicle repair and recovery operations.”
Heavy Metal
02-21-12, 23:30
The forward asisist
...like Gorillias in the Mist! Or is that Gurellas?
Dust get all over the bolt face.
http://stephenchukumba.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/stay_in_your_lane.jpg
Are you the designated back seat moderator?
A simi auto need stuby rounds. other wise you got FTE. The bolt face is the weakest part.
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 23:38
SicSemper just stop posting, you are not helping the discussion and your making this website like TOS
Esh spend some more time reading
Heavy Metal
02-21-12, 23:39
At this point, I am going to say goodnight Gracie and bow out of the way of IG's impending wraith.
Some of ya'll just don't take the hint very well.
Littlelebowski
02-21-12, 23:44
The stupid in this thread hurts.
Littlelebowski
02-21-12, 23:45
The stupid in this thread hurts.
Oh yeah, that and the uninformed, speaking from someone else's experience.
Freedoooom
02-21-12, 23:48
Freedoom stop speaking of things you know not of.
Ive seen the Army power point, the earlier test in '07 had the M4 come out with 296 stoppages half were magazine related and none of the rifles were new
So now I must prove some sort of negative?
How about you post what you are talking about.
Fact of the matter is, in the same damn testing parameters, the M4 had more supposed magazine related failures than the the piston guns had jams period, that doesn't make much sense does it.
You guys would be arguing against the Hellcat if it were 1942.
Esh.. Since you brought up the problems with dust during the initial invasion I have a couple pictures for you.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/Iraq%202003/iraq032.jpg
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/Iraq%202003/iraq037.jpg
Both of these pictures are from the book 21 Days to Baghdad which features pictures from my company. The first one shows me covering my squad leader (Im on the SAW) and the second is my Lt. These were taken when a squad sized Iraqi Army element tried to flank our position during a huge red sandstorm.
We didnt have any problems with our weapons. Some units, like Jessica Lynch's, did experience problems. The difference is we took care of our weapons because unlike some Soldiers our job revolved around them.
I love it when people spout off the dust tests. I fought through many sand storms during my deployments and had no problems.
sinlessorrow
02-21-12, 23:52
Esh.. Since you brought up the problems with dust during the initial invasion I have a couple pictures for you.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/Iraq%202003/iraq032.jpg
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/Iraq%202003/iraq037.jpg
Both of these pictures are from the book 21 Days to Baghdad which features pictures from my company. The first one shows me covering my squad leader (Im on the SAW) and the second is my Lt. These were taken when a squad sized Iraqi Army element tried to flank our position during a huge red sandstorm.
We didnt have any problems with our weapons. Some units, like Jessica Lynch's, did experience problems. The difference is we took care of our weapons because unlike some Soldiers our job revolved around them.
I love it when people spout off the dust tests. I fought through many sand storms during my deployments and had no problems.
thank you for the posts and great photos. also thank you for your service
Oh yeah, that and the uninformed, speaking from someone else's experience.
Did you just quote yourself? Is that like talking in the fourth person.:D
Arctic1 the main problem with civilian Ar-15's is everyone and their mama makes on now days. Alot of people cheap out and get DPMS, RRA, etc those are 99% of the times that you see someone having issues and failing in courses. A quality brand like Colt, DD, BCM wont have issues generally.
I do have to agree that it could put a bad view of the system as well.
I think this is closer to the truth than most realize. When I hear people looking into piston conversions I always ask "Why?" And most tell me a story of how their waaaay better than milspec dpms/rra/bushy failed on them and so the DI system is flawed. Or they go out and buy a century arms ak and tout about how they never will have to clean it and itll run forever no matter what... Some peoples children
Esh.. Since you brought up the problems with dust during the initial invasion I have a couple pictures for you.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/Iraq%202003/iraq032.jpg
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/Iraq%202003/iraq037.jpg
Both of these pictures are from the book 21 Days to Baghdad which features pictures from my company. The first one shows me covering my squad leader (Im on the SAW) and the second is my Lt. These were taken when a squad sized Iraqi Army element tried to flank our position during a huge red sandstorm.
We didnt have any problems with our weapons. Some units, like Jessica Lynch's, did experience problems. The difference is we took care of our weapons because unlike some Soldiers our job revolved around them.
I love it when people spout off the dust tests. I fought through many sand storms during my deployments and had no problems.
Those quotes were from real soldiers too. Their experiences are just as valid as yours. I have not seen war, but I imagine every soldier has a different experience with their weapon. Just like in Vietnam, there were soldiers that said they loved the M16, where others dreaded it. Of course, maintaining your weapons is important. Even if somebody is disciplined to maintain their weapon, what happens when they don't have the materials to maintain them? Such situations can and do happen today, and have happened in the past. In a situation where a soldier is cut off from cleaning supplies, a weapon that is less reliant on lubrication may be a benefit to some soldiers.
sinlessorrow
02-22-12, 00:20
Those quotes were from real soldiers too. Their experiences are just as valid as yours. I have not seen war, but I imagine every soldier has a different experience with their weapon. Just like in Vietnam, there were soldiers that said they loved the M16, where others dreaded it. Of course, maintaining your weapons is important. Even if somebody is disciplined to maintain their weapon, what happens when they don't have the materials to maintain them? Such situations can and do happen today, and have happened in the past. In a situation where a soldier is cut off from cleaning supplies, a weapon that is less reliant on lubrication may be a benefit to some soldiers.
if you are cut off you can make due with a T-shirt and some motor oil. I actually prefer Motor oil for my lubricant of choice
polymorpheous
02-22-12, 00:20
The stupid in this thread hurts.
This, and many other threads as of late.
.
Speaking as of late, does anyone else hear those TOS banjo's playing in the background...??
Maybe it's just me...
.
I'm done here. I've overstayed my visit. I thank the staff and members of M4carbine.net for letting me frequent this establishment. And yes, just to get it out of the way, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out."
.
Speaking as of late, does anyone else hear those TOS banjo's playing in the background...??
Maybe it's just me...
.
I can imagine you hear it quite well where you're from.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.