My only question is, what other weapons has he handled besides FN? Has he handed the XM8, HK 416, HK G36, XCR, Masada,....etc? I have read dozens of user reviews on a weapon system in which a couple of months later they get ahold of a competator's product and they do a 180. Basically, they don't have enough experience with enough weapon systems to give a really valuable opinion. For example, a Clint Smith review would be VERY helpful.
Just for reference:
Army press release:
Army tests carbines for the third time in extreme dust
Dec 17, 2007
Recently Army testing laboratories at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,
subjected the M4 carbine and three other weapons to a severe environmental
test called the "Carbine Extreme Dust Test." The lab environment allowed
engineers to push the weapons beyond their technical limits to better inform
and understand what is required for the most capable weapons on the current
battlefield. This was the third such test for the Army's carbine of choice,
the M4.
The weapons were exposed to "heavy dusting," similar to an intense and
sustained dust storm, several times for 25 hours. There were ten weapons of
each of the four different types of carbines. Each fired 6,000 rounds
(60,000 rounds per type). Individually, each weapon fired fifty 120 round
cycles with minimal cleaning and lubrication (wiped and lubed every 600
rounds; fully cleaned after every 1,200 rounds). The maintenance performed
during the test was the equivalent to not performing even minimal cleaning
of the weapon until after firing nearly three basic loads of ammunition (a
Soldier's basic load is 210 rounds).
The Army noted all the weapons in the test performed well: the number of
stoppages all the carbines exhibited was roughly one percent or less of the
total rounds fired by each, meaning the weapons had over a 98% reliability
rate under these unique conditions. Though the M4 performed exceptionally
well, it came in fourth compared to the other three carbines in this
particular extreme single-environment (dust as the only condition) testing.
The Army is taking these test results seriously. These preliminary results
revealed or confirmed several areas for potential materiel improvements to
the M4 and the other weapon types in the test. A full analysis of the test
data is expected in several weeks, and the Army will evaluate those areas
that can be improved.
The M4 in particular is a weapon subjected to intense scrutiny and remains
one of the most improved pieces of Army equipment: there have been over
390 improvements since it was introduced into the force. But it has become
one of the most popular weapons in the Army inventory: every post-combat
survey taken in the last several years shows an almost 90% approval rating
for the M4 among Soldiers. Official requests and "operational needs
statements" from the combat zones show the M4 as the weapon of choice for its size,
weight, versatility and performance.
Soldiers shared their comments about the M4 in recent surveys. "The M4 was
an extremely dependable weapon system," writes a 10th Mountain Division
(Light Infantry) command sergeant major who served in Afghanistan. "We
operated at extreme elevations (10,000 feet) along with extreme climate
changes from one end of the spectrum to the other. I cannot remember any
occasions where an M4 malfunctioned or failed to perform."
A 10th Mountain first sergeant writes "Of all the weapons that I have fired
in the Army, I like the M4 best."
Similar comments come from other Army divisions. "The 101st has no issues
with the M4 and, as a matter of fact the Soldiers of all MOS's to include
cooks, mechanics, administrative clerks and nurses are getting very
proficient with the M4," writes a 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
command sergeant major.
"While I am confident in the reliability, accuracy and effectiveness of the
M4 in today's fight because of what Soldiers tell us, we're never satisfied
with good enough," said General Dick Cody, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff.
"We will look at the test results when they are complete and assess any
needed adjustments to the M4. We will also determine if our requirements
need to change for this weapon."
"The Soldier in the field is our number one priority," Secretary of the Army
Pete Geren said. "And that means testing our equipment to the highest of
standards so that we can understand and improve their performance in the
harshest of conditions. Our commitment is to continue to field the best
equipped and best trained fighting force in
the world."
Results:
XM8: 127 stoppages/malfunctions
Mk16 SCAR-L: 226 stoppages/malfunctions
HK416: 233 stoppages/malfunctions
M4 Carbine: 882 stoppages/malfunctions
Robinson Arms apparently tried to duplicate this test with the XCR and they got a stoppage rate of 188. I don't have any confirmation of this though. They attribute it to the bolt assembly design which uses a more robust three lug system which seems to handle dust and debris in the action better. The HK 416, Masada, and FN SCAR use the traditional 8 lug rotating bolt which tends to not engage in a solid lockup with debris in the action. The XM8 has a 6 lug bolt with a similar gas system design to that of the XCR which as you can see by the testing seems to be more reliable.
Just one man's opinion, but I think the XM8 was a better choice over the SCAR. The only problem with the XM8 was that it needed a redesigned forend in aluminum alloy due to melting forend problems with the polymer. Polymer acts as an insulator, not a conductor of heat as alloys do, so barrel heat was getting trapped and causing parts to melt under high volumes of fire.
. He had no idea when they would be available. He did mention that it was the finest weapon he has ever shot
