Army plans M4 sand-test comparisons

[PercyShelley]

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!

 

[Outlaws]

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.

 

[trbon8r]

I wonder what Senator Coburn and the HK marketing department will say if the M4 performs best of all the weapons in the test?

 

[wacki]

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!

 

[Langenator]

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.

 

[Owen]

Has HK broken ground on their plant yet? Last I heard, they had stopped all work when XM8 was killed

 

[peyton]

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

 

[Eightball]

Oh, the FDA will not let us ship any moondust home, too many dangerous ingredients in it.

So, they just let you wallow in it instead?

 

[Ithaca37]

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

 

[Geno]

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]

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 . . .

 

[jerkface11]

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]

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.

 

[Expertowgunner]

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]

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/

 

[Langenator]

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.

 

[Ithaca37]

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).

 

[HorseSoldier]

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.

 

[Owen]

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.

 

[romma]

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

 

[Tony Williams]

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.

 

[SpeedAKL]

My internet-sarcasm meter typically sucks, so does the military really have standard-spec dirt?

 

[Owen]

yes, there is standard dirt. Its a mixture of different screen sizes of silicate sand.

 

[Langenator]

For the Dragonskin fanboys...

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINDINGS ON DRAGON SKIN BODY ARMOR

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]

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.