4-20-2008 Colt's grip on military rifle market good for America

[schmedy]

Rifle Testing
Look at testing results, I can say I have no use for the M-16, when in the Marine Corps, I dreaded all the cleaning involved just from going to the range, it is a super dirty weapon from that gas sustem, I would have loved a piston driven rifle like the HK416.


HK416 removal
Stupid at best. It is also stupid for the DoD to think there should be one type of rifle for all branches even though every branch of the military has a specific mission. That is what you get from having politicians making the weapons choices instead of the people who use it. This type of things goes on all the time for all the equipment used and is sad.

 

[K1052]

The military has been holding its breath for some new whiz-bang infantry weapon (OICW as an example) instead of replacing it's rifles with any of the fucking myriad of more reliable/capable weapons that are available off the shelf from either HK or FN.

It could be worse I guess, we don't have to contend with the SA-80/L85.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Negative. The bullet only has as much energy as does the rifle pushing back against you.

Wrong. Incorrect Newtonian physics. The rifle has as much momentum as the bullet but it has much less energy. If you had a rifle with infinite mass, it would gain zero energy after firing a bullet. If the rifle had a mass equal to the bullet, it would gain an equal amount of energy as the bullet (ignoring all the energy that goes into sound, heat, etc).

 

[yuppiejr]

The AR15/M16 is a fine weapon platform for the most part, obviously blowing fouled gasses into the chamber of a weapon will require more cleaning but with chrome lined chambers and barrels this is less than issue than it was with the first generation Vietnam era rifles.

As for the modern modes of failure, I'm aware of a few fairly common ones along with their root causes:

- Overloading magazines (I know it's common practice for some units to load 31 rounds in their 30 round magazine particularly if they are loading from loose packed ammo vs stripper clips) or using dirty/damaged mags. Overloading even aluminum or steel mags can cause permanent failure of the magazine over time by placing excessive pressure on the feed lips or spine welds causing them to warp out of spec.
- Over lubrication (in dusty conditions less is more, particularly with a gas operated design like the M16)
- Wrong combination of cartridge and barrel for a given mission (twist rate, barrel length and bullet weight are key considerations)

The last point is particularly acute when you are dealing with a cartridge that was designed to utilize speed + fragmentation to cause maximum damage in lieu of bullet size/weight like a larger battle rifle. The standard M16 uses a 20" barrel while the M4 carbine uses a 14.5" barrel which translates into lower bullet velocity when using the same ammunition. At short ranges where a carbine is intended to be effective it's not a big deal, at longer ranges it becomes a liability as the bullet beyond 200 yards is usually not going fast enough to fragment and will simply leave a small entrance/exit wound on it's way through a target. When striking a target within it's effective range the projectile is designed to yaw and break into pieces causing a much larger wound than one would expect from such a small bullet. Most accounts I've read of troops having problems with fragmentation on impact out of their M4's in Iraq involved longer range encounters with the enemy.

For those griping about cleaning the AR15/M16 goes, it really isn't that big a deal... as long as you have the proper gas tube mops available it's about 10 minutes worth of work including time required to strip + clean the bolt/carrier/firing pin, clean the barrel, lubricate and reassemble... and that's from an untrained civy who learned how from a book. If you don't have 10 minutes to clean your rifle properly after a trip to the range you really should take up another hobby.

.. as far as the topic of this thread goes, I recall the same fact that another posted alluded to earlier regarding the M4 contract with Colt - there was some hook that Colt got an exclusive lock up in the contract after an NDA violation by a branch of the armed services. It was pretty much win-win for Colt and the taxpayer versus a giant cash settlement (though I'd be curious what the length of the contract was..). Seems like this is another "ooh got the evil government is screwing us" thread based on, once again, presenting only part of the truth. I'm not fan of non-compete contracts but at the same time I've run my share of sourcing events in the IT world and can tell you there are times when even with a field of prospective vendors only one or two has the chops to actually deliver once you start tearing into a company's financial health, manufacturing capacity and quality control standards.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
The AR15/M16 is a fine weapon platform for the most part, obviously blowing fouled gasses into the chamber of a weapon will require more cleaning but with chrome lined chambers and barrels this is less than issue than it was with the first generation Vietnam era rifles.


For those griping about cleaning the AR15/M16 goes, it really isn't that big a deal... as long as you have the proper gas tube mops available it's about 10 minutes worth of work including time required to strip + clean the bolt/carrier/firing pin, clean the barrel, lubricate and reassemble... and that's from an untrained civy who learned how from a book. If you don't have 10 minutes to clean your rifle properly after a trip to the range you really should take up another hobby.

Ultimately "Don't shit where you eat"
I'm a big fan of gas-piston rifles, and plan on getting a piston driven upper for my next AR.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
The AR15/M16 is a fine weapon platform for the most part, obviously blowing fouled gasses into the chamber of a weapon will require more cleaning but with chrome lined chambers and barrels this is less than issue than it was with the first generation Vietnam era rifles.


For those griping about cleaning the AR15/M16 goes, it really isn't that big a deal... as long as you have the proper gas tube mops available it's about 10 minutes worth of work including time required to strip + clean the bolt/carrier/firing pin, clean the barrel, lubricate and reassemble... and that's from an untrained civy who learned how from a book. If you don't have 10 minutes to clean your rifle properly after a trip to the range you really should take up another hobby.

Ultimately "Don't shit where you eat"
I'm a big fan of gas-piston rifles, and plan on getting a piston driven upper for my next AR.

The direct gas system has been a problem from day one for a variety of reasons. It is long past due for replacement.

M16/M4 civilian copies are just fine for hanging in your gun rack at home and taking to the range/hunting once in a while but are outdated for a military service rifle. Those weapons are subject to a hell of a lot more abuse and wear than any civilian is likely to incur on theirs. The worst that happens on the range if you do have a stoppage is that you take a minute to clear it, in the field you could be dead in the next few seconds.

I'd be pissed too if someone was taking away my 416 and handed me a M4 instead.

 

[yuppiejr]

I found this interesting:

In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon was fired for 6,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.[3][4] The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 6,000 total rounds, the MK16 SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages. The results have been thrown into question due to the M4 scoring 307 jams in a previous dust chamber test conducted only a few months before with the same conditions and lubrication.

XM8: 127
SCAR Light: 226
HK416: 233
M4: *882 / 307

I'd generally say the M4 should be re-tested for purpose of evaluation based on the extreme swing between the results of the two tests if one is to derive anything meaningful from the test. If you consider the results of the previous M4 test valid it's interesting to see that the SCAR / HK416 didn't score THAT much better while the XM8 was a runaway winner. Mind you the XM8 is also still a prototype weapon with some weight, ergonomic and function issues to sort out (melting handguards, for example).

Keep in mind that the venerable H&K MP5 submachine gun and G3 rifles are based on a direct blow-back system that introduces waste gas directly to the fluted chamber in order to eject a spent cartridge and cycle the action (the CETME rifles that were popular on the suplus market a few years back were similar). These are widely used by both civilian and military agencies throughout the world like the M16/M4/AR15. There are certainly advantages to a piston design in terms of isolating waste gas from the chamber area, but they also tend to introduce a lot of mechanical recoil and a gas system that is still prone to fouling (nowhere else for the deposits to go but inside of the piston..) - just in a different place in the firearm (gas tubes on your AK/SKS for example). There are pluses and minuses to both direct gas operated and piston based designs - I think if you introduce enough dust or fine sane pretty much any firearm with reasonably tight manufacturing tolerances is going to have problems. Thus the AK/SKS are such wild successes worldwide, not always particularly accurate but they will pretty much always go "bang" no matter how badly you treat them.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
I found this interesting:

In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon was fired for 6,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.[3][4] The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 6,000 total rounds, the MK16 SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages. The results have been thrown into question due to the M4 scoring 307 jams in a previous dust chamber test conducted only a few months before with the same conditions and lubrication.

XM8: 127
SCAR Light: 226
HK416: 233
M4: *882 / 307

I'd generally say the M4 should be re-tested for purpose of evaluation based on the extreme swing between the results of the two tests if one is to derive anything meaningful from the test. If you consider the results of the previous M4 test valid it's interesting to see that the SCAR / HK416 didn't score THAT much better while the XM8 was a runaway winner. Mind you the XM8 is also still a prototype weapon with some weight, ergonomic and function issues to sort out (melting handguards, for example).

Keep in mind that the venerable H&K MP5 submachine gun and G3 rifles are based on a direct blow-back system that introduces waste gas directly to the fluted chamber in order to eject a spent cartridge and cycle the action (the CETME rifles that were popular on the suplus market a few years back were similar). These are widely used by both civilian and military agencies throughout the world like the M16/M4/AR15. There are certainly advantages to a piston design in terms of isolating waste gas from the chamber area, but they also tend to introduce a lot of mechanical recoil and a gas system that is still prone to fouling (nowhere else for the deposits to go but inside of the piston..) - just in a different place in the firearm (gas tubes on your AK/SKS for example). There are pluses and minuses to both direct gas operated and piston based designs - I think if you introduce enough dust or fine sane pretty much any firearm with reasonably tight manufacturing tolerances is going to have problems. Thus the AK/SKS are such wild successes worldwide, not always particularly accurate but they will pretty much always go "bang" no matter how badly you treat them.

The difference is that the roller-delayed blow back system developed for the CETME and later copied over to the G3 was inherently more reliable even though the chamber/bolt/receiver got filthy.

 

[maddogchen]

so what i'm hearing is that there has been little done about the M4 jamming other than blame the soldier for not maintaining the weapon properly? that the M4 is a good weapon but certainly not the best out there and that there are better ones for the same cost.

now i don't know how much it would cost to replace all the M4s or what logistical logjams or costs would be associated with it but I do think the idea that a new rifle should be tested and selected to replace the M4 in the very near future should be considered now.

 

[GrGr]

"Support the War Profiteers"

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
so what i'm hearing is that there has been little done about the M4 jamming other than blame the soldier for not maintaining the weapon properly? that the M4 is a good weapon but certainly not the best out there and that there are better ones for the same cost.

now i don't know how much it would cost to replace all the M4s or what logistical logjams or costs would be associated with it but I do think the idea that a new rifle should be tested and selected to replace the M4 in the very near future should be considered now.

They have improved the jamming proclivity of the M16/M4 over the years, but the design is inherently prone to it. From what I understand, there is a way to substitute the gas design for a piston one without changing the entire rifle -- I think that's what they basically did with the HK416 (I may be confusing articles I read).

Anyway, yes, the weapon is a decent rifle, but technology has surpassed it which is no surprise since it was developed in the '50s, based on the AR-10 development. Revolutionary then, not anymore.

The logistical considerations are rather immense because you have an entire system based on the same rifle, or derivative thereof, for the last 40+ years. I think part of the resistance to replacing the M16/M4 is the institutional lethargy that exists in any large organization with something that has been around for so long. Plus, when you look at the introduction of the M16 into Vietnam, you'll see that soldiers' deaths were directly attributable to the new weapon (jamming, predictably), and there is undoubtedly the perception among the brass, both civilian and military, that you cannot do the same thing today in the middle of a war. If the new weapon failed in any way, the leaders would be excoriated in the press -- the same press calling for the M4's replacement, incidentally.

Keep the 5.56mm round for now but dump the M4 design for something which uses a piston -- let Colt submit a new design based on the M4 and compete for the new contract. Outfit one brigade at a time with the new weapon and gradually replace the M4's -- as the M4s are taken out of units, they can serve as spares for the ones that remain. Perhaps the next SecDef will have the horsepower and willingness to address the situation.