Army releases results from Carbine tests

[BimmerFreak]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/

Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer

Posted : Tuesday Dec 18, 2007 17:41:35 EST

The M4 carbine, the weapon soldiers depend on in combat, finished last in a recent “extreme dust test†to demonstrate the M4’s reliability compared to three newer carbines.

Weapons officials at the Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., exposed Colt Defense LLC’s M4, along with the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416 to sandstorm conditions from late September to late November, firing 6,000 rounds through each test weapon.

When the test was completed, ATEC officials found that the M4 performed “significantly worse†than the other three weapons, sources told Army Times.

Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model. Here’s how they ranked, according to the total number of times each model stopped firing:

• XM8: 127 stoppages.

• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.

• 416: 233 stoppages.

• M4: 882 stoppages.

the results of the test were “a wake-up call,†but Army officials continue to stand by the current carbine, said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, commander of Program Executive Office Soldier, the command that is responsible for equipping soldiers.

“We take the results of this test with a great deal of interest and seriousness,†Brown said, expressing his determination to outfit soldiers with the best equipment possible.

The test results did not sway the Army’s faith in the M4, he said.

“Everybody in the Army has high confidence in this weapon,†Brown said.

Lighter and more compact than the M16 rifle, the M4 is more effective for the close confines of urban combat. The Army began fielding the M4 in the mid-1990s.

Army weapons officials agreed to perform the test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army combat forces to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Coburn is questioning the Army’s plans to spend $375 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009.

Coburn raised concerns over the M4’s “long-standing reliability†problems in an April 12 letter and asked if the Army had considered newer, possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.

John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, who was traveling, said the senator was reviewing the test results and had yet to discuss it with the Army.

The M4, like its predecessor, the M16, uses a gas tube system, which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Some weapons experts maintain the M4’s system of blowing gas directly into the firing mechanism of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication, causing excessive wear on parts.

The other contenders in the dust test — the XM8, SCAR and 416 — use a piston-style operating system, which relies on a gas-driven piston rod to cycle the weapon during firing. The gas is vented without funneling through the firing mechanism.

The Army’s Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004 after tests revealed that the piston operating system significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts. The elite unit collaborated with the German arms maker to develop the new carbine.

U.S. Special Operations Command has also revised its small-arms requirements. In November 2004, SOCom awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace its weapons from the M16 family.

And from 2002 to 2005, the Army developed the XM8 as a replacement for the Army’s M16 family. The program led to infighting within the service’s weapons community and eventually died after failing to win approval at the Defense Department level.

How they were tested

The recent Aberdeen dust test used 10 sample models of each weapon. Before going into the dust chamber, testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to each weapon. Each weapon’s muzzle was capped and ejection port cover closed.

Testers exposed the weapons to a heavy dust environment for 30 minutes before firing 120 rounds from each.

The weapons were then put back in the dust chamber for another 30 minutes and fired another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.

Testers then wiped down each weapon and applied another heavy application of lubrication.

The weapons were put back through the same sequence of 30 minutes in the dust chamber followed by firing 120 rounds from each weapon until another 600 rounds were fired.

Testers then thoroughly cleaned each weapon, re-lubricated each, and began the dusting and fire sequencing again.

This process was repeated until testers fired 6,000 rounds through each weapon.

The dust test exposed the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to during a “systems assessment†at Aberdeen last year and again this summer. The results of the second round of ATEC tests showed that the performance of the M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of lubrication used.

Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in the tests earlier in the summer, the 10 M4s tested had 307 stoppages, test results show, far fewer than the 882 in the most recent test.

in the recent tests, the M4 suffered 643 weapon-related stoppages, such as failure to eject or failure to extract fired casings, and 239 magazine-related stoppages.

Colt officials had not seen the test report and would not comment for this story, said James Battaglini, executive vice president for Colt Defense LLC, on Dec. 14.

Army officials are concerned about the gap between the two tests because the “test conditions for test two and three were ostensibly the same,†Brown said.

There were, however, minor differences in the two tests because they were conducted at different times of the year with different test officials, Brown said. Test community officials are analyzing the data to try to explain why the M4 performed worse during this test.

Weapons officials pointed out that these tests were conducted in extreme conditions that did not address “reliability in typical operational conditions,†the test report states.

Despite the last-place showing, Army officials say there is no movement toward replacing the M4.

The Army wants its next soldier weapon to be a true leap ahead, rather than a series of small improvements, Brown said.

“That is what the intent is,†he said, “to give our soldiers the very best and we are not going to rest until we do that.â€

Col. Robert Radcliffe, head of the Directorate of Combat Developments for the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., said the test results will be considered as the Army continues to search for ways to improve soldier weapons.

For now, he said the Army will stick with the M4, because soldier surveys from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to highlight the weapon’s popularity among troops in the combat zone.

“The M4 is performing for them in combat, and it does what they needed to do in combat,†Radcliffe said

[molonlabetn]

Interesting to note that the M4 had 239 'magazine-related' stoppages...

Doesn't the SCAR and HK416 use the same magazines? Methinks the playing-field was a bit uneven...

Even so, all they have proven is that 40-year older designs marginally under-perform newer ones in specific conditions... depending on the criteria, of course, since they could have included an AK-variant and gotten even fewer stoppages... but overall the most accurate, user-friendly platform is very likely the basic AR.

Was this a waste of money, or is the military actually going to use these results for requisition of new infantry weapons?

[BimmerFreak]

Interesting to note that the M4 had 239 'magazine-related' stoppages...

Doesn't the SCAR and HK416 use the same magazines? Methinks the playing-field was a bit uneven...

Even so, all they have proven is that 40-year older designs marginally under-perform newer ones in specific conditions... depending on the criteria, of course, since they could have included an AK-variant and gotten even fewer stoppages... but overall the most accurate, user-friendly platform is very likely the basic AR.

Was this a waste of money, or is the military actually going to use these results for requisition of new infantry weapons?

The test was:

1. A COMPLETE waste of time and money

2. Initiated by someone in Congress, not by someone that has/is/will ever carry any of these in combat.

3. Conducted in unrealistic terms and conditions, and im sure driven by the desire to discredit the M4/M16

4. Did I mention a complete waste of time and money?

The reality is this:

All of the 16 year old kids on ARFCOM and some members of Congress are convinced that hoards of U.S. Servicemembers are dying in the streets because of weapons malfunctions.

This is not true.

Most of the deaths from Operations Iraqi/Enduring Freedom today are from:

IED attacks

Non-Combat related vehicle accidents

Suicide

Helicopter crashes

We have moved from a role of Direct Action, to a more static role where we are conducting more presence patrols than combat patrols.

Even during the height of direct combat with the enemy, the only real documented weapons failures that led to the death of soldiers was from The Lost Convoy.

The unfortunate death of the these soldiers was not failure of their M16s (they were ADA Support guys, so didnt have M4s) was:

1. Leadership failure. Inability to navigate from point A to point B without getting lost.

2. Leadership failure. Not stressing the importance of proper weapons maintenance.

Bottomline: Those weapons failed because the support soldiers (read: traditional "in the rear with the gear" types) have historically not stressed combat skills, but were more concerned about a soldiers ability to do their primary skill. ie: cook, fuel handler, typist.

Good news: The Army recognized the flaws and errors in this thinking, and have since then adopted the "everyone is a rifleman" concept.

This, with the realization that no one operates in a rear echelon capacity in todays non-linear battlefield has made EVERY leader and soldier wake up to the reality that they could be called upon to use their rifle at any moment.

In conclusion, I would like to see the number of soldiers that have died in combat because their properly maintained and equipped M4/M16 has failed when needed.

I don't want to hear the speculation or "what my buddy told me" but real numbers pulled from official AARs.

I am willing to bet that there are more deaths by suicide than from failed weapons in Iraq.

/Rant

[creeky]

(I have never been in the military so forgive if this sounds stupid.)

Good news: The Army recognized the flaws and errors in this thinking, and have since then adopted the "everyone is a rifleman" concept.

Hasn't that been the postion of the Marines forever? The "everyone is a rifleman" mentality.

I thought it was interesting that the piston driven ARs didn't prove themselves to be "the greatest advancement" that they are marketed and bragged about being.

In one article I read an officer had commented that the M4 was overall well suited for the current conditions. That are complete (and costly) change over would be a waste of money. That when a better design with noticable advantages comes to light they would be more than willing to change over.

(I paraphase of course.)

[BimmerFreak]

(I have never been in the military so forgive if this sounds stupid.)

Hasn't that been the postion of the Marines forever? The "everyone is a rifleman" mentality.

I thought it was interesting that the piston driven ARs didn't prove themselves to be "the greatest advancement" that they are marketed and bragged about being.

In one article I read an officer had commented that the M4 was overall well suited for the current conditions. That are complete (and costly) change over would be a waste of money. That when a better design with noticable advantages comes to light they would be more than willing to change over.

(I paraphase of course.)

Yep, the Marines have always pushed that concept.

[TGO David]

We have moved from a role of Direct Action, to a more static role where we are conducting more presence patrols than combat patrols.

Because the American military is obviously a police force and not a combat force. I could go on a rant about why this irritates me, but I won't because I'd just be armchair quarterbacking it.

Instead I'll post this.

If I'm off base, give me the Secret Signal.

[Guest Hornet Handler]

(I have never been in the military so forgive if this sounds stupid.)

Hasn't that been the postion of the Marines forever? The "everyone is a rifleman" mentality.

I thought it was interesting that the piston driven ARs didn't prove themselves to be "the greatest advancement" that they are marketed and bragged about being.

In one article I read an officer had commented that the M4 was overall well suited for the current conditions. That are complete (and costly) change over would be a waste of money. That when a better design with noticable advantages comes to light they would be more than willing to change over.

(I paraphase of course.)

Yes. We are all basic rifleman. We all go through the same infentry training. Any resident school (NCO, SNCO)is designed to reinforce that training for those of use that don't use squad tactics on a daily basis.

[creeky]

Thanks.

As an "outsider" I had always wondered why all branches didn't approach it the

same way as the Marines did.

[Marswolf]

I'm really not sure what difference it makes who requested the test. The military tested, got back results and has (as usual) decided to ignore the results.

But I do agree that weapons malfunctions really are not a significant problem. Early on, we heard a lot about jamming of M16/M4s and M9s from the fine dust in Iraq. The solution was a change in lubricant and sufficient cleaning.

I've never been thrilled with the M4 from a functionality standpoint. Shortening the gas tube seems to have caused a few problems. But in the current situation where length of the weapon is important, it's a decent compromise.

But if I was making the decisions, I'd be looking for a better weapon and cutting back on M4 buys.

[The Rabbi]

The big advantage of the M4 is that they have them already. They also have the spare parts and trained armorers to keep them going. They would have to be seriously flawed to warrant their replacement, and I havent seen or heard anything that suggests that.

As for "every man a rifleman" I thought we were over that already. The military's own study in 1963 demonstrated that most casualties are not the result of aimed fire.

I suspect this is a paradigm that dies hard. Like the idea that cavalry were immune to machine guns.

[Guest GT_Rat]

Military training has changed a lot since 1963.

[The Rabbi]

Military training has changed a lot since 1963.

But I would bet the results haven't. Most small arms confrontation are still probably 100 yards and under and most depend on volume of fire over accurate shots to resolve. Just a guess on my part.

[Marswolf]

The big advantage of the M4 is that they have them already. They also have the spare parts and trained armorers to keep them going.

That's a good argument for continuing to use muzzle-loaders.

I want the best weapons available for our guys to use.. Not suggesting that you don't want that too.

One thing that has been affirmed from our current middle east excursion is that you really need different rifles for different purposes. I think the old one-gun-fits-all mentality has been demonstrated to be wrong. So throwing into the mix a new weapon - if better - should be fine.

My thinking is that the military should be actively looking for a better short rifle; not digging in their heels in the face of their own tests that show that they have a problem.

[The Rabbi]

This gets back to the "gun shop" mentality that I've mentioned here before. A police force outfitting its officers, or an army outfitting its soldiers has different criteria for "best" from a guy going shopping for a gun. You might pick an H&K over an AR because the H&K is more accurate or shoots better or is more durable. You might pick .308 over .223 because you like the caliber better or whatever.

It isn't like that in a big organization. Availability of parts, ease of training new people, ease of servicing the weapon when it breaks, availability of ammo, all play into the decision. Very few of those will play into your decision to buy an AR over a Robinson Armament or whatever.

In this case the military already has the ammo, spare parts, and trained personnel to field the AR platform. The platform would have to be seriously deficient, or the next platform would have to be fundamentally better--not just incrementally, for them to switch. And i haven't seen it yet.

[Guest GT_Rat]

But I would bet the results haven't.

Actually they have. There was a good documentary on the Military Channel about military training and how it has changed since WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm. The basic gist of it was WWI was 20 guys in a trench/foxhole/revetment with two guys actually shooting to keep the enemy's head down while the rest hid, whereas Desert Storm was 20 guys using squad tactics and accurate fire to take a position.

[The Rabbi]

WW1, Korea, and Vietnam were staffed by draftees. Desert Storm was fought by professional soldiers. Thats probably part of it anyway.

[Guest GT_Rat]

WW1, Korea, and Vietnam were staffed by draftees. Desert Storm was fought by professional soldiers. Thats probably part of it anyway.

The difference was the training. Even Vietnam saw a significant improvement in the number of shooters vs. the number of non-shooters.

[DaveTN]

I don’t see the delivery system being as big a problem as the round that it is delivering.

[Guest gcrookston]

In talking about these results with my brother, son and best bud (who all carried an M4), they're response was "if you take care of it, it takes care of you" and "sucks to be HK right now with all the money they spent advertising". The latter is certainly an interesting observation.