Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: Mid-Length gas system "More reliable" than Carbine Length gas system?!?!

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,028
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    EricCartmann,

    As DocGKR alluded to, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. There is a large amount of data available on this very question which contradicts your statement.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    10,780
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by EricCartmann View Post
    You guys can throw all the mumbo jumbo you want. Bottom line is reliablilty. I have talked to a couple of Armorers that have stated there is no more rate of failure for a M4 than a M16.
    Armorer doesn't really mean much other than one sat through a class and successfully passed the test at the end. Many armorers are like modern car mechanics. Some car mechanics don't have an understanding of how a modern engine works and probably couldn't even tell you each of the 4 strokes of a 4 stroke engine. Nowadays many are correctly called technicians. They just see a SES light on (service engine soon) and then break out their code reader. If if indicates say a code for the oxygen sensor, many mistakenly replace the oxygen sensor (thinking that the code indicated that it was bad). Oxygen sensors do get lazy (and can set a code) but instead of testing everything that can effect the said oxygen sensor they just replace it. They never thought of checking for the root cause, which could be fuel injection and ignition among other things. A code reader doesn't tell you what's wrong with the car it just tells you what's being effected and essentially where to start looking and testing.

    This is seen the the gun world too with armorers, some can visualize how the entire system is supposed to work. Others just have a technical manual that has a diagnostic chart on what to check 'if this happens'. These guys don't understand why it works and view it as FM technology (f**king magic).

    Any armorer who thinks that a M4 has nor more problems than a M16 is ignorant.
    Chief Armorer for Elite Shooting Sports in Manassas VA
    Chief Armorer for Corp Arms (FFL 07-08/SOT 02)

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,857
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by David Thomas View Post
    This post seems to have drifted off course from the original post, but I have been thinking about UMC03's original statement as to the CAR and midlength systems tonight. More on point, I have been thinking about his definition of "reliable" and the cracked S&W thread with this post in particular:



    At what point does "reliable" equal "durable"and vice versa.

    I know there is considerable overlap with those words, but I do not think it has to be 100%. The same way accurate does not always equal precise. For instance, is it accurate to say that the CAR (properly set up) is just as reliable as the midlength, but it just has a shorter service life?

    If we take durability out of the equation and assume that every carbine is set up properly with the correct springs, heavy buffers, o-rings, etc... "How is the mid-length gas system 'more reliable' than the carbine length gas system?"
    Within the logistics world , there's the discipline of RMA (Reliability, Maintainability, Availability). The measures that would separate the M4 from the M16 would include MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) and MTBCF (Mean Time Between Critical Failure).

    Dependability is a function of the MMD (Mean Mission Duration), but I couldn't guess how the government specs that requirement on small arms. I don't know if it's total rounds fired or a sustained rate of fire for a specified time limit, but from a total rounds fired standpoint there's enough evidence that unarguably demonstrates that certain sub-assemblies or LRU's (Line Replaceable Units) of the system require replacement at increased frequency intervals (bolts, extractors, extractor springs, buffer springs). This goes to your durability point you mentioned above. I think it would be safe to say that a M4 is comparably reliable, but because of the added stresses it places on components, it isn't as durable, and consequently requires more Periodic Maintenance to keep it running (including servicing and replacement of the mags). Lacking an adequate PM schedule, then you start encountering the periodic failures (temporary stoppage, clearable by the operator) and critical failures (weapon down, requires armorer for repair).

    Early on in this site's life there were threads on mettalurgy of bolts and other assemblies, and it was pointed out that some Tier 3 mfg's don't use the same quality of steel as the milspec, etc., etc. The phrase often tossed about was "good enough" aint good enough, and you need to go with what the mil specifies. Well I've always thought that what the mil specified wasn't necessarily the "best", it was simply "good enough" to meet their specified requirements at the time for the M-16.

    Now enter the M-4, and what was good enough for the M-16 isn't good enough for the M-4. I aint a wepons engineer, but I've got to believe that some of the wear and breakages observed could be addressed by specifiying new materials and not simply relying on re-use of previously demonstrated "good enough" steels. There are alloys that resist port erosion much better than what's in use today, so conceivably barrels will last longer. There are alloys that could be used in barrel extensions and bolts that would greatly improve the service life of these components. There are better spring materials that maintain consistent dampening and rebound properties over a longer timeframe, greatly increasing the springs useful life. It would be interesting to see if you assembled an M-4 with these types of components, what the resultant failure rates and dependability rates would be.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by EricCartmann View Post
    You guys can throw all the mumbo jumbo you want. Bottom line is reliablilty. I have talked to a couple of Armorers that have stated there is no more rate of failure for a M4 than a M16.
    A couple armorers??? Again, second and third hand info doesn't fly around here.


    C4

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,177
    Feedback Score
    0
    <tangent>
    In regards to the “Double Tap”. Do/can you “call” your second shot? Also, why do you settle for a A/C rather then 2 A's?
    I certainly don't want to speak for gotm4 here, but in my case, I can call the 2nd shot even though I can't see it because i'm usually in mid-blink when it goes downrange. Reason is simply that I've practiced double-tapping enough to know that the second shot almost always goes in the same spot relative to the first shot. So if i call my first, I've got a really good idea where the 2nd will be.

    As to A/C, two shots anywhere on the paper neutralizes the target (it's a game). The A by itself is good enough, but if I was a little over the line or something, the second shot (anywhere ABCD) gives a high degree of confidence the target is neutralized.

    </tangent>

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    104
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by taliv View Post
    <tangent>


    I certainly don't want to speak for gotm4 here, but in my case, I can call the 2nd shot even though I can't see it because i'm usually in mid-blink when it goes downrange. Reason is simply that I've practiced double-tapping enough to know that the second shot almost always goes in the same spot relative to the first shot. So if i call my first, I've got a really good idea where the 2nd will be.

    As to A/C, two shots anywhere on the paper neutralizes the target (it's a game). The A by itself is good enough, but if I was a little over the line or something, the second shot (anywhere ABCD) gives a high degree of confidence the target is neutralized.

    </tangent>
    At what range/distance can you consistantly call your double taps without seeing the 2nd shot?

    I don't know but it seems to me that if one shoots A/C's in a certain time frame, another shooter in the same class will/can shoot 2 A's, within the same time frame.

    on a side note, I know a Army armoror who did not know how to install a FF tube. I did it for him..........

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,177
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm comfortable calling it inside 20' or so. Probably isn't real impressive, but the vast majority of the targets in tactical rifle competitions I've attended have been inside this distance.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,625
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Excellent thread!

    "Addressing the problem of shootings by ban or confiscation of non-criminal's guns is like addressing the problem of rape by chopping off the Johnson of everyone who DIDN't rape anyone while not only leaving the rapists' equipment intact, but giving them free viagra to boot." --Me

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,949
    Feedback Score
    31 (97%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Double tap is one sight pic two trigger pulls.


    C4
    Right before I went to the sandbox in 2003 us lowly E-4s and below were handed off to some AMU guys for some additional marksmenship training while the E-5s and above went did whatever they did, anyways they called those hammertaps and one sight pic per trigger pull doubletaps....

    Good read, maybe this can be stickied, if it isn't already.

    In a real bad shtf scenario wouldn't you want a little more pressure though, all you might be able to scrounge up is some lower pressure stuff and switch out to a C buffer if needed?
    I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. - John Adams

    The AK guys are all about the reach around. - Garand Thumb.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •