M4 "Loses" Dust-test

[Dport]

I just threw all my ARs out.

Where is your trash can located, exactly?

[Dport]

The Big Army does NOT want the real test results to be seen--the dog and pony show by Brown and the other usual suspects today was a joke.

If that's what happens when they dress up the numbers, I'd really like to see the detailed reports.

Anyone know why the SCAR had that many failures? Mag related, problem child, or something else?

[Dport]

I just got copes late last week of a couple, I wish I could share it but, its a confidential report as of now. I hope you understand.

I assume that there will be some design improvements to the SCAR based on the report?

[John_Wayne777]

Now granted it been a long time since I took Stats classes in university - but IIRC the sample size (N) is suppose to equal greater than 32 for a "better" (here is me not being currenent is stats) accurate rate in the test.

I swear to god....if he starts talking about regression lines I'm going to be forced to stick my chrome plated Taurus in my mouth and end the pain.....

[Robb Jensen]

I swear to god....if he starts talking about regression lines I'm going to be forced to stick my chrome plated Taurus in my mouth and end the pain.....

Don't do it dude, not even for that itch in the top of your mouth that only a front sight can scratch to satisfaction!

[Heavy Metal]

Would have been nice to have used the same magazines in all weapons, would have eliminated one variable.

[SinnFéinM1911]

Would have been nice to have used the same magazines in all weapons, would have eliminated one variable.

Why?

If a system is built to work with a proprietary mag, why use a different? All of the other weapon systems have to be compatible with the standard "GI" mags. But they are not primary on these weapons. There are no variable to eliminate if you follow the manufacturers directions and procedures for their own weapon system.

[Heavy Metal]

Why?

If a system is built to work with a proprietary mag, why use a different? All of the other weapon systems have to be compatible with the standard "GI" mags. But they are not primary on these weapons. There are no variable to eliminate if you follow the manufacturers directions and procedures for their own weapon system.

If they are all STANAG compatible, then using stanag magazines in all would seperate the differences between the weapon itself and any inprovements in the magazine. If we are attempting to prove one rifle is significantly than another, it helps when we aren't alos muddying the picture by trying to test competing STANAG magazine designs at the same time.

When one is attempting to ascertain a trend, it is beneficial to eliminate as meny variables as possible.

Even better would be to use something totally outside the system like PMAGS in all of them. This would isolate the effects of the magazine from the weapon design as this magazine is organic to none of the above.

We all know if the army was to adop the SCAR or the 416, they would continue to run it with the same low-bid magazines they have been using forever.

[Renegade]

No surprise newer designs performed better.

[jmart]

I'd be interested in knowing the distribution of the failures WRT heat and # of rounds since last application of lube. If evenly distrubuted, oh well. But if the majority of failures occurred late in the 600 round cycle between lube applications, then you've ID'd a trend to where a change in TTP's is warranted. If heat is a failure contributor though, then you need to engineer a heat sink or something along those lines. Still, 1.47% failure rate aint bad and 30 minutes exposures to dust like that are a pretty rough environment.

Another thing I'm curious about is gas port erosion. Each weapon saw 6,000 rounds. I can easily see the ports eroding across the test's duration, and reliability at the end of the test could have been impacted.

Does anyone know if there's been any attempts to incorporate sand cuts into AR carriers and/or bolts? If so, any gain in reliability noted? Any unintended consequences?