Khornet
August 1, 2007, 07:07 AM
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,143790,00.html?ESRC=navy.nl
Army plans M4 sand-test comparisons
If you enjoyed reading about "Army plans M4 sand-test comparisons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RNB65
August 1, 2007, 09:25 AM
The tests, which will be conducted at the Army's Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland, will include three other rifles some say are better constructed to withstand the grueling environmental conditions often found in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Army has a long history of rigging gun tests to get the results they want. You really think this is going to be any different? My prediction: The M4 will pass with flying colors and be declared the greatest infantry carbine ever made.
The Army has a long history of rigging gun tests to get the results they want. You really think this is going to be any different? My prediction: The M4 will pass with flying colors and be declared the greatest infantry carbine ever made.
DogBonz
August 1, 2007, 09:29 AM
We shall have to keep an eye on these tests and see what the outcome is.
benEzra
August 1, 2007, 09:35 AM
I hope they run tests under varying lubrication conditions. I have a hunch that a lot of the dry-sandy-conditions failures result from the doctrine that the gun should be almost dry in sandy conditions. It would seem to me that lubricating the heck out of it would be a better approach; yes, dust will get in the oil and cause some wear, but dusty oil lubricates a lot better than dust alone.
dstorm1911
August 1, 2007, 10:45 AM
the problem with dusty oil is that it builds up as the "dust" collects/sticks to the oil and actually out here in Arizona its not just dust that ya will get being collected but actual sand grains as the oil keeps the sand from falling free of the action....... its not wear thats the problem its the grains of sand actually jamming up the rifle while someone is shooting at you preventing you from protecting yourself that is the problem......... gun don't go boom = your dead wear or accelerated wear etc... is a non issue as they aren't collecting the guns they are trying to fight with em, dust in oil = gummed up action and again gun don't go boom this was exactly why the British added Snd cutouts in the bolts of their L1A1 rifles they learned the lesson the hard way in Africa about dust and sand accumulation in desert conditions
MechAg94
August 1, 2007, 10:45 AM
Are they going to use the same type of sand found in Iraq?
RNB65
August 1, 2007, 10:52 AM
Are they going to use the same type of sand found in Iraq?
Probably not. Read comment #2 above. They're going to carefully choose the type of sand that causes the M4 the least amount of trouble. :)
Probably not. Read comment #2 above. They're going to carefully choose the type of sand that causes the M4 the least amount of trouble. :)
The Deer Hunter
August 1, 2007, 11:51 AM
The Army has a long history of rigging gun tests to get the results they want. You really think this is going to be any different? My prediction: The M4 will pass with flying colors and be declared the greatest infantry carbine ever made.
And the AK-47 won't fire a round.
And the AK-47 won't fire a round.
Eightball
August 1, 2007, 11:53 AM
For those people who are wondering, and too lazy to click the link:
The shoot off will test the capabilities of the M4/M16 operating system against three other rifles: the Heckler and Koch-built HK416, the FNH USA-designed Mk16 SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle and the previously-shelved, H&K-manufactured XM8 carbine.
The sand tests will include 10 samples of each weapon through which engineers will fire 6,000 rounds. Each weapon and loaded magazine will be exposed to "extreme dust" for 30 minutes then test fired with 120 rounds, Chyma said.
"Each weapon will be wiped down and lubricated every 600 rounds with a full cleaning every 1,200 rounds," Chyma added. "The firing, collection of data and analysis of data is expected to take approximately five months.""Extreme dust" my ***. That has "objective" written all over it. Sounds like the cleaning requiems are chosen around when they know for certain they need to clean the AR before it breaks.
The shoot off will test the capabilities of the M4/M16 operating system against three other rifles: the Heckler and Koch-built HK416, the FNH USA-designed Mk16 SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle and the previously-shelved, H&K-manufactured XM8 carbine.
The sand tests will include 10 samples of each weapon through which engineers will fire 6,000 rounds. Each weapon and loaded magazine will be exposed to "extreme dust" for 30 minutes then test fired with 120 rounds, Chyma said.
"Each weapon will be wiped down and lubricated every 600 rounds with a full cleaning every 1,200 rounds," Chyma added. "The firing, collection of data and analysis of data is expected to take approximately five months.""Extreme dust" my ***. That has "objective" written all over it. Sounds like the cleaning requiems are chosen around when they know for certain they need to clean the AR before it breaks.
Sergeant Sabre
August 1, 2007, 12:36 PM
"Extreme dust" my ***. That has "objective" written all over it. Sounds like the cleaning requiems are chosen around when they know for certain they need to clean the AR before it breaks.
I think the 600 round figure is more like a worst-possible-case scenario, in which the rifle can't be cleaned to to continuous contact.
Speaking from experience, 600 rounds is an enormous number to fire in a single engagement, without a break in contact that would allow a brief field-strip and wipe down. 120 rounds is the "standard" load for one man.
I think the 600 round figure is more like a worst-possible-case scenario, in which the rifle can't be cleaned to to continuous contact.
Speaking from experience, 600 rounds is an enormous number to fire in a single engagement, without a break in contact that would allow a brief field-strip and wipe down. 120 rounds is the "standard" load for one man.
Bobarino
August 1, 2007, 02:07 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=290006
fletcher
August 1, 2007, 02:08 PM
And the AK-47 won't fire a round.
:(
:(
High Planes Drifter
August 1, 2007, 02:44 PM
This is interesting. If the Army does decide to replace the M4/M16, then would be the time to also adapt a new cartridge if they were interested in doing so.
ArmedBear
August 1, 2007, 02:47 PM
Ah, but the Army just completed an extensive study in 2004, where they found that the 5.56x45 was as effective in combat as the 7.62x51.
Why would they need to replace a cartridge that works so perfectly?
Why would they need to replace a cartridge that works so perfectly?
Navy_Guns
August 1, 2007, 02:52 PM
What? You think there is a conspiracy theory for a sand and dust test? Not likely... Given that this is going on at Aberdeen, I'd bet money that they will be following the procedures listed in MIL-STD-810F per the method listed in section 510.4... I'd post the whole standard (if you want to be bored to death) but it's 539 pages.
And, believe it or not, they have a RECIPE on how to make the proper kind of DIRT for these tests. We can even requisition Mil-Spec DIRT for use in these tests, and it isn't dirt cheap!
And, believe it or not, they have a RECIPE on how to make the proper kind of DIRT for these tests. We can even requisition Mil-Spec DIRT for use in these tests, and it isn't dirt cheap!
owen
August 1, 2007, 02:55 PM
i'd suspect the NATO D14 test regimen
fletcher
August 1, 2007, 02:56 PM
I'm more concerned with them leaving the AK out of the test than anything. It seems that it would at least be worth testing, even if it didn't prove to be more reliable in the conditions they present.
ArmedBear
August 1, 2007, 02:57 PM
We can even requisition Mil-Spec DIRT for use in these tests, and it isn't dirt cheap!
I'm sure there is VERY expensive mil-spec dirt. And I'm sure the makers mil-spec dirt don't skimp on the Christmas presents to congresscritters.
I'm sure there is VERY expensive mil-spec dirt. And I'm sure the makers mil-spec dirt don't skimp on the Christmas presents to congresscritters.
TX1911fan
August 1, 2007, 03:01 PM
I don't think the average American is going to support the US adopting the rifle used by the majority of the people who want to kill us, and have wanted to kill us since that rifle's inception. Just a hunch, I could be wrong.
ArmedBear
August 1, 2007, 03:06 PM
I'm more concerned with them leaving the AK out of the test than anything. It seems that it would at least be worth testing, even if it didn't prove to be more reliable in the conditions they present.
It would be interesting to test everything in the general class of firearms that civilians have found to be more reliable when dirty, for that matter.
If the M4 happens to equal or beat the FN and HK guns, what about some of the others?
Say the Mini-14, based loosely -- pun intended -- on the Garand/M14/M1 Carbine designs, or the newer AK-100 in .223, keeps on tickin' long after the M4 starts stickin'. Some civilians who have done tests, semi-formal and infomal, believe this to be the case for either or both guns. Wouldn't the Army want to confirm or deny this? Wouldn't the Army be interested in knowing WHY, if it's true?
That doesn't mean they would ever adopt a funky scaled-down M14, or the AK. The M4 has many other things to recommend it. But couldn't the results inform future designs and specs?
It would be interesting to test everything in the general class of firearms that civilians have found to be more reliable when dirty, for that matter.
If the M4 happens to equal or beat the FN and HK guns, what about some of the others?
Say the Mini-14, based loosely -- pun intended -- on the Garand/M14/M1 Carbine designs, or the newer AK-100 in .223, keeps on tickin' long after the M4 starts stickin'. Some civilians who have done tests, semi-formal and infomal, believe this to be the case for either or both guns. Wouldn't the Army want to confirm or deny this? Wouldn't the Army be interested in knowing WHY, if it's true?
That doesn't mean they would ever adopt a funky scaled-down M14, or the AK. The M4 has many other things to recommend it. But couldn't the results inform future designs and specs?
Bartholomew Roberts
August 1, 2007, 03:42 PM
It would seem to me that lubricating the heck out of it would be a better approach; yes, dust will get in the oil and cause some wear, but dusty oil lubricates a lot better than dust alone.
Yes, that was the result that NSWC Crane reached when they conducted dust and lubrication tests on the AR15 using various lubricants. Here is an online version of the report hosted by Militec (http://www.militec1.com/lubetest5.html).
They determined that even though more dust stuck to the wet lubes, the wet lubes allowed the dust to migrate out of critical functioning areas.
Yes, that was the result that NSWC Crane reached when they conducted dust and lubrication tests on the AR15 using various lubricants. Here is an online version of the report hosted by Militec (http://www.militec1.com/lubetest5.html).
They determined that even though more dust stuck to the wet lubes, the wet lubes allowed the dust to migrate out of critical functioning areas.
sacp81170a
August 1, 2007, 04:14 PM
That's been my experience while training in the desert and mountains of Arizona and Wyoming. If you use enough CLP so that you get a slight "splatter" on the first round, you've got it just about right. After a few years of trying to keep an M-16 functioning "dry" in the dust, snow and cold of Wyoming I finally saw the light.
Creeping Incrementalism
August 1, 2007, 04:30 PM
Say the Mini-14, based loosely -- pun intended -- on the Garand/M14/M1 Carbine designs, or the newer AK-100 in .223, keeps on tickin' long after the M4 starts stickin'. Some civilians who have done tests, semi-formal and infomal, believe this to be the case for either or both guns. Wouldn't the Army want to confirm or deny this? Wouldn't the Army be interested in knowing WHY, if it's true?
I've done a fair bit of informal shooting in the Mojave desert in windy conditions, and the Mini-14s I shot always jammed up before the AKs, which actually didn't hardly jam at all until they start wearing out. The M1As jammed up more quickly too. Personally I think that's Ruger & Springfield quality issues, though, more than any design issue. Only AR I've seen shot a lot was cobbled together by my friend (who had no gunsmithing experience) for a stripped lower and assorted parts assemblies, and I don't think its jammed once yet.
I've done a fair bit of informal shooting in the Mojave desert in windy conditions, and the Mini-14s I shot always jammed up before the AKs, which actually didn't hardly jam at all until they start wearing out. The M1As jammed up more quickly too. Personally I think that's Ruger & Springfield quality issues, though, more than any design issue. Only AR I've seen shot a lot was cobbled together by my friend (who had no gunsmithing experience) for a stripped lower and assorted parts assemblies, and I don't think its jammed once yet.
fletcher
August 1, 2007, 04:33 PM
It would be interesting to test everything in the general class of firearms that civilians have found to be more reliable when dirty, for that matter.
I agree. A 10/20-gun free-for-all test would be very interesting.
I agree. A 10/20-gun free-for-all test would be very interesting.
Caseless
August 1, 2007, 06:49 PM
Interesting...the initial M16/M4 only test did prove the rifle version is more reliable than the carbine.
PercyShelley
August 1, 2007, 07:56 PM
I wrote my congressional representative, asking them if they could consider lobbying to include the masada in these tests.
That said, regardless of whether the methodology of the tests is objective, rigged or reasonable, does anyone think that any of the small arms presented will perform significantly differently? Fine dust screws up firearms, full stop. Not only that, fine dust has stopped tanks before by gumming up the treads. It is the bane of all machinery, and a machine like a firearm, which must necessarily expose its internal components to dust through the barrel and ejection ports seems inevitably prone to dust-failures.
I could be wrong about this, of course, and maybe the XM8 or SCAR will prove far more dust proof than the M-4, but the 416? Come on! Dust doesn't care if your gun is DI or gas-piston!
That said, regardless of whether the methodology of the tests is objective, rigged or reasonable, does anyone think that any of the small arms presented will perform significantly differently? Fine dust screws up firearms, full stop. Not only that, fine dust has stopped tanks before by gumming up the treads. It is the bane of all machinery, and a machine like a firearm, which must necessarily expose its internal components to dust through the barrel and ejection ports seems inevitably prone to dust-failures.
I could be wrong about this, of course, and maybe the XM8 or SCAR will prove far more dust proof than the M-4, but the 416? Come on! Dust doesn't care if your gun is DI or gas-piston!
Outlaws
August 1, 2007, 08:24 PM
Dust doesn't care if your gun is DI or gas-piston!
No, but a foreign company with a brand new manufacturing facility stateside does.
Money talks.
No, but a foreign company with a brand new manufacturing facility stateside does.
Money talks.
trbon8r
August 1, 2007, 10:55 PM
I wonder what Senator Coburn and the HK marketing department will say if the M4 performs best of all the weapons in the test? :evil:
wacki
August 1, 2007, 10:56 PM
The Army has a long history of rigging gun tests to get the results they want. You really think this is going to be any different? My prediction: The M4 will pass with flying colors and be declared the greatest infantry carbine ever made.
proof plz!
proof plz!
Langenator
August 2, 2007, 03:46 PM
I wrote my congressional representative, asking them if they could consider lobbying to include the masada in these tests.
The Masada hasn't even been fully tested by MagPul at this point; I doubt if it's ready to get abused by the .mil.
Now, replacing the XM8 with the Robinson XCR would seem reasonable, given that the XM8 has already been cancelled.
I think they need to do a variant called the "Ranger Sand Test"-subject the test rifles to the sand regimen, then give them to a company of Rangers along with a couple truckloads of ammo and instructions to try to melt them.
The Masada hasn't even been fully tested by MagPul at this point; I doubt if it's ready to get abused by the .mil.
Now, replacing the XM8 with the Robinson XCR would seem reasonable, given that the XM8 has already been cancelled.
I think they need to do a variant called the "Ranger Sand Test"-subject the test rifles to the sand regimen, then give them to a company of Rangers along with a couple truckloads of ammo and instructions to try to melt them.
owen
August 2, 2007, 03:50 PM
Has HK broken ground on their plant yet? Last I heard, they had stopped all work when XM8 was killed
peyton
August 2, 2007, 10:49 PM
I will be happy to send 5 lbs of the Iraqi sand (better known as "moondust" ) that we took out of a computer. Sand or dirt varies greatly bt region. Why, I do not know, but it is important to test realistically for the environment you will be operating in. Oh, the FDA will not let us ship any moondust home, too many dangerous ingredients in it.
peyton
peyton
Eightball
August 3, 2007, 03:14 AM
Oh, the FDA will not let us ship any moondust home, too many dangerous ingredients in it.:scrutiny: So, they just let you wallow in it instead?
Ithaca37
August 3, 2007, 07:58 AM
The Army has a long history of rigging gun tests to get the results they want. You really think this is going to be any different? My prediction: The M4 will pass with flying colors and be declared the greatest infantry carbine ever made.
proof plz!
Find any Army rifle evaluation, particularly one that includes the AK, and you will see.
Look at this:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A046961&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Read the comparisons carefully and you can see that the evaluation favors US weapons. They list the reliability of the M14 as "Superb" while the AK only gets an "Acceptable rating". Army testing is political, not unbiased. Look at the Dragon skin body armor debate. The army refuses to retest the dragon skin armor, why? The guy was in charge of the body armor testing that evaluated the dragon skin and interceptor got a job at the company that makes interceptor shortly after he selected interceptor as the best.
Or how about the Israeli system called Trophy that stops RPGs. The US won't buy it from them, even though it is operational. Instead, Raytheon is building their own version of it and won't be done until at least 2011. Why wouldn't you at least buy the working system in the meantime?
News story about the controversy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14704366
To see Trophy in operation check out this video:
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/53036/Anti_RPG_System.html
proof plz!
Find any Army rifle evaluation, particularly one that includes the AK, and you will see.
Look at this:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A046961&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Read the comparisons carefully and you can see that the evaluation favors US weapons. They list the reliability of the M14 as "Superb" while the AK only gets an "Acceptable rating". Army testing is political, not unbiased. Look at the Dragon skin body armor debate. The army refuses to retest the dragon skin armor, why? The guy was in charge of the body armor testing that evaluated the dragon skin and interceptor got a job at the company that makes interceptor shortly after he selected interceptor as the best.
Or how about the Israeli system called Trophy that stops RPGs. The US won't buy it from them, even though it is operational. Instead, Raytheon is building their own version of it and won't be done until at least 2011. Why wouldn't you at least buy the working system in the meantime?
News story about the controversy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14704366
To see Trophy in operation check out this video:
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/53036/Anti_RPG_System.html
Geno
August 3, 2007, 08:25 AM
I do not agree with purchasing anything military from a foreign country...not even hats from China...nothing! To that end, we would not need to test against HK, etc. Re: any head-to-head test, I don't trust any "tester". Let's simply poll our current military who carry the rifle(s) in question. They know the facts!
HorseSoldier
August 3, 2007, 10:05 AM
Look at the Dragon skin body armor debate. The army refuses to retest the dragon skin armor, why? The guy was in charge of the body armor testing that evaluated the dragon skin and interceptor got a job at the company that makes interceptor shortly after he selected interceptor as the best.
While I know Dragon Skin continues to loudly proclaim how superior their product is to the media, Congress, and that bald guy on Future Weapons, it is probably worth stating that the USAF Office of Special Investigations bought 500+ sets of Dragon Skin for OSI agents who might be deployed in the war zone. Based on their first hand operational experiences with Dragon Skin, OSI is now conducting a criminal fraud investigation against the company -- apparently the product did not live up to the hype when worn downrange.
Kind of like how bonded metal bullets were the cutting edge in death ray technology a couple years ago, but, when the Army couldn't replicate their claimed performance with independent testing, they sort of fizzled away . . .
While I know Dragon Skin continues to loudly proclaim how superior their product is to the media, Congress, and that bald guy on Future Weapons, it is probably worth stating that the USAF Office of Special Investigations bought 500+ sets of Dragon Skin for OSI agents who might be deployed in the war zone. Based on their first hand operational experiences with Dragon Skin, OSI is now conducting a criminal fraud investigation against the company -- apparently the product did not live up to the hype when worn downrange.
Kind of like how bonded metal bullets were the cutting edge in death ray technology a couple years ago, but, when the Army couldn't replicate their claimed performance with independent testing, they sort of fizzled away . . .
jerkface11
August 3, 2007, 10:35 AM
This is silly. There isn't a rifle that's ENOUGH better than the M16 series to justify a change. Not to mention that there's NO rifle that will stand up to a sandstorm not even an AK or FAL.
fletcher
August 3, 2007, 10:40 AM
They list the reliability of the M14 as "Superb" while the AK only gets an "Acceptable rating". Army testing is political, not unbiased.
And being in 1966, it only emphasizes that point. I wouldn't think they would dare list the AK as better than the M14 at that time. Granted the cold war is over, but since that weapon is still the "rifle used by the majority of the people who want to kill us" as TX1911fan said, I wouldn't push the thought aside of similar treatment this time around.
And being in 1966, it only emphasizes that point. I wouldn't think they would dare list the AK as better than the M14 at that time. Granted the cold war is over, but since that weapon is still the "rifle used by the majority of the people who want to kill us" as TX1911fan said, I wouldn't push the thought aside of similar treatment this time around.
Expertowgunner
August 3, 2007, 05:18 PM
Well, from what i have seen about the dragonskin, it beats the intercepter armor hands down. Intercepter armor uses outdated technology and decreases the survivability of the soldier. HAVE YOU SEEN THE FUTURE WEAPONS EPISODE ON DRAGONSKIN!? Any armor that can take 10 rounds of armor piercing from a ak and a m4 and still keep ticking is unbelievable. not to mention surviving a point blank blast from a grenade. Weapons, armor, helmets, etc are selected because of money and politics, not overall quality and performance. (AKA the trials for the sidearm of the U.S. Sidearm in the 80s, the beretta can go to hell, go to hell, and burn for all eternity)
Ithaca37
August 3, 2007, 05:42 PM
it is probably worth stating that the USAF Office of Special Investigations bought 500+ sets of Dragon Skin for OSI agents who might be deployed in the war zone. Based on their first hand operational experiences with Dragon Skin, OSI is now conducting a criminal fraud investigation against the company -- apparently the product did not live up to the hype when worn downrange.
I am not familiar with this, so I can't comment on it. However, don't you think it is fishy that the guy in charge of evaluating body armor gets a job with the company that was chosen? I sure do.
And being in 1966, it only emphasizes that point. I wouldn't think they would dare list the AK as better than the M14 at that time. Granted the cold war is over, but since that weapon is still the "rifle used by the majority of the people who want to kill us" as TX1911fan said, I wouldn't push the thought aside of similar treatment this time around.
Exactly. Read this article:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
I am not familiar with this, so I can't comment on it. However, don't you think it is fishy that the guy in charge of evaluating body armor gets a job with the company that was chosen? I sure do.
And being in 1966, it only emphasizes that point. I wouldn't think they would dare list the AK as better than the M14 at that time. Granted the cold war is over, but since that weapon is still the "rifle used by the majority of the people who want to kill us" as TX1911fan said, I wouldn't push the thought aside of similar treatment this time around.
Exactly. Read this article:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
Langenator
August 4, 2007, 11:54 AM
don't you think it is fishy that the guy in charge of evaluating body armor gets a job with the company that was chosen? I sure do.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Army acquisition officers get jobs with defense contractors for the same reason ex-Congresscritters/state legislators become lobbyists-because they've got tons of contacts with the people who make the decisions that can make money for the company.
I've known several Army officers who went into acquisitions purely for the reason that they know they can retire at 20 years and get a fat 6-figure job with a defense contractor the very next day.
And I'm pretty sure the Future Weapons crew didn't subject their Dragonskin vest(s) to the same battery of extreme heat/cold tests that the Army did-and these tests were the ones that caused the glue holding the armor 'scales' to delaminate.
Oh, and I'll add that the reason I would include the XCR in the test, but not the Colt entry into the SOCOM competition is that the FN SCAR already beat out the Colt (and, IIRC, the HK entry as well) but I'm not sure the XCR got a fair shake when they forgot to include BFAs in with their test weapons.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Army acquisition officers get jobs with defense contractors for the same reason ex-Congresscritters/state legislators become lobbyists-because they've got tons of contacts with the people who make the decisions that can make money for the company.
I've known several Army officers who went into acquisitions purely for the reason that they know they can retire at 20 years and get a fat 6-figure job with a defense contractor the very next day.
And I'm pretty sure the Future Weapons crew didn't subject their Dragonskin vest(s) to the same battery of extreme heat/cold tests that the Army did-and these tests were the ones that caused the glue holding the armor 'scales' to delaminate.
Oh, and I'll add that the reason I would include the XCR in the test, but not the Colt entry into the SOCOM competition is that the FN SCAR already beat out the Colt (and, IIRC, the HK entry as well) but I'm not sure the XCR got a fair shake when they forgot to include BFAs in with their test weapons.
Ithaca37
August 4, 2007, 12:22 PM
they've got tons of contacts with the people who make the decisions that can make money for the company.
You just proved my point. The decision making process is not strictly based on honest testing performance, but rather on politics (i.e. knowing the right people as you put it).
You just proved my point. The decision making process is not strictly based on honest testing performance, but rather on politics (i.e. knowing the right people as you put it).
HorseSoldier
August 4, 2007, 01:17 PM
Well, from what i have seen about the dragonskin, it beats the intercepter armor hands down. Intercepter armor uses outdated technology and decreases the survivability of the soldier. HAVE YOU SEEN THE FUTURE WEAPONS EPISODE ON DRAGONSKIN!?
I've seen that guy Criss Angel cut himself in half on television, too. I don't think he's really walking around in two pieces.
Again, whatever the manufacturer claims and the miracles of television report -- USAF OSI is looking into filing criminal charges against the company for fraud, and that's based on that organization's experience with the product.
I am not familiar with this, so I can't comment on it.
Mentioned in Army Times a few issues back in (yet another) article about body armor.
I do not agree with purchasing anything military from a foreign country...not even hats from China...nothing! To that end, we would not need to test against HK, etc.
As an end user of that equipment, I'd much rather have the best, rather than "the best American designed" option, if the two are not the same thing.
Since anything we adopt is required to be made here in the US anyway by law, we could adopt 100% foreign designs and the American working man and woman will still have a job building them. I guess the executives and stockholders at places like Colt might lose out, but I'm quite sure they'll still do fine in the long run.
I've seen that guy Criss Angel cut himself in half on television, too. I don't think he's really walking around in two pieces.
Again, whatever the manufacturer claims and the miracles of television report -- USAF OSI is looking into filing criminal charges against the company for fraud, and that's based on that organization's experience with the product.
I am not familiar with this, so I can't comment on it.
Mentioned in Army Times a few issues back in (yet another) article about body armor.
I do not agree with purchasing anything military from a foreign country...not even hats from China...nothing! To that end, we would not need to test against HK, etc.
As an end user of that equipment, I'd much rather have the best, rather than "the best American designed" option, if the two are not the same thing.
Since anything we adopt is required to be made here in the US anyway by law, we could adopt 100% foreign designs and the American working man and woman will still have a job building them. I guess the executives and stockholders at places like Colt might lose out, but I'm quite sure they'll still do fine in the long run.
owen
August 4, 2007, 01:27 PM
As an end user of that equipment, I'd much rather have the best, rather than "the best American designed" option, if the two are not the same thing.
I agree with that, and I'm in the defense industry. If you want american companies to have the best designs, than you need to open them up to foreign competition, and independent testing.
I agree with that, and I'm in the defense industry. If you want american companies to have the best designs, than you need to open them up to foreign competition, and independent testing.
romma
August 4, 2007, 03:02 PM
C,mon?? Why no love for the M-16/M-4?? Are they really that bad?
(Sorry,first post since coming back from vacation)
BTW, proud owner of a Bushmaster XM-15
(Sorry,first post since coming back from vacation)
BTW, proud owner of a Bushmaster XM-15
Tony Williams
August 5, 2007, 03:04 AM
Doc2005 said:
I do not agree with purchasing anything military from a foreign country...not even hats from China...nothing! To that end, we would not need to test against HK, etc. Re: any head-to-head test, I don't trust any "tester". Let's simply poll our current military who carry the rifle(s) in question. They know the facts!
Hmm. Well, if you threw out the foreign guns in the US Army they'd have no infantry MGs and no handguns....
As far as polling existing users are concerned, a problem is that they may not have a basis for comparison because they may only have hands-on experience with the weapons they carry and use. Now if you can find people with extensive combat experience with several different weapons in the same class, then they would definitely be worth listening to.
I do not agree with purchasing anything military from a foreign country...not even hats from China...nothing! To that end, we would not need to test against HK, etc. Re: any head-to-head test, I don't trust any "tester". Let's simply poll our current military who carry the rifle(s) in question. They know the facts!
Hmm. Well, if you threw out the foreign guns in the US Army they'd have no infantry MGs and no handguns....
As far as polling existing users are concerned, a problem is that they may not have a basis for comparison because they may only have hands-on experience with the weapons they carry and use. Now if you can find people with extensive combat experience with several different weapons in the same class, then they would definitely be worth listening to.
SpeedAKL
August 5, 2007, 06:54 PM
My internet-sarcasm meter typically sucks, so does the military really have standard-spec dirt?
owen
August 5, 2007, 07:24 PM
yes, there is standard dirt. Its a mixture of different screen sizes of silicate sand.
Langenator
August 6, 2007, 01:21 AM
For the Dragonskin fanboys...
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm)
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) announced today that it has determined that the Pinnacle Armor, Inc. bulletproof vest model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01, is not in compliance with the requirements of OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) voluntary compliance testing program for bullet-resistant body armor. Effective immediately, this body armor model will be removed from the NIJ list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements. Pinnacle Armor, Inc. is the maker of "dragon skin" body armor.
NIJ, OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period.
Long story short: Dragonskin is no longer certified as Level III by DOJ.
And Ithaca, what you were saying implied a quid pro quo-project manager approves purchase of a certain product, manufacturer gives project manager a cushy job. That may not have been what you meant, but that's how it came across.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/2007/NIJ07057.htm)
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) announced today that it has determined that the Pinnacle Armor, Inc. bulletproof vest model SOV 2000.1/MIL3AF01, is not in compliance with the requirements of OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) voluntary compliance testing program for bullet-resistant body armor. Effective immediately, this body armor model will be removed from the NIJ list of bullet-resistant body armor models that satisfy its requirements. Pinnacle Armor, Inc. is the maker of "dragon skin" body armor.
NIJ, OJP's research, development, and evaluation component, has reviewed evidence provided by the body armor manufacturer and has determined that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the body armor model will maintain its ballistic performance over its six-year declared warranty period.
Long story short: Dragonskin is no longer certified as Level III by DOJ.
And Ithaca, what you were saying implied a quid pro quo-project manager approves purchase of a certain product, manufacturer gives project manager a cushy job. That may not have been what you meant, but that's how it came across.
PercyShelley
August 6, 2007, 01:31 AM
The Masada hasn't even been fully tested by MagPul at this point; I doubt if it's ready to get abused by the .mil.
Some Magpul rep mentioned on Arfcom that they would love to be in the test. I wouldn't have made the suggestion otherwise.
Seriously though, if someone could come up with a firearm that didn't mind dust, it would have implications for all machinery exposed to blowing grit, not just guns. Winborne grit screws stuff up, and if anyone can find a way around that, then their massive fortune will be entirely deserved.
Some Magpul rep mentioned on Arfcom that they would love to be in the test. I wouldn't have made the suggestion otherwise.
Seriously though, if someone could come up with a firearm that didn't mind dust, it would have implications for all machinery exposed to blowing grit, not just guns. Winborne grit screws stuff up, and if anyone can find a way around that, then their massive fortune will be entirely deserved.
If you enjoyed reading about "Army plans M4 sand-test comparisons" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
