"It depends what point you are trying to make. If you are making the point that the M4 is a bad design, then the 10% failures are irrelevant as evidence unless you can show that the complexity of the design somehow causes the higher defect rate in manufacturing. If you are simply trying to show that rifles that are not manufactured correctly are entering service, then your hypothetical numbers would support that argument; but a 90% success rate shows that the basic design is sound when executed properly."
My point was about statistics in general related to anecdotes. A sound design is all relative to what the application is. If when exposed to sand there is a hypothetic 10% chance that it will enter a certain place on a gun to cause it to jam that is not a defect or manufacturing issue but a design issue in relation to a sandy environment.
"If you mean this link:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...roversy-03289/ - that isn't data. It is a collection of Internet articles about the M4 - and not an objective one either. Read the USNI Proceedings article on the Battle of Wanat and the actual CNA Study that I linked to in your now closed thread and then come back and read that article and look at all it DOESN'T say when it discusses both of those. And it sometimes misreports the details it does cover."
The article does in fact present data that is referenced. The USNI link didn't turn anything up but an error screen but i got sidetracked before checking the other so haven't had a chance to read it yet. I do plan to.
"Reliability involves much more than just the design of the weapon, as I've been pointing out. If I give you an M4 with a worn extractor spring, brass shavings in the ejector hole and an eroded gas port - you aren't going to get a lot of reliability from it. Now is that a problem with design or is the problem elsewhere in the system?"
Sure, but the rate at which parts wear is a consideration for a weapon's reliability and durability. Every machine needs maintenance but how much it needs is certainly a factor, ecspecially for a military weapon. Again, wether or not the AR needs 'too' much for its use is a judgement call. But if another platform needs less that is definitely an advantage.
"This is a different issue entirely than what I am talking about. I'm not talking about the individual soldier cleaning the weapon; I am talking about how the Army deals with normal wear and tear on the weapon. With all of the talk about magazines being a major failure point, does it shock you to learn that it was only within the last year that the Army introduced a gauge to determine whether the feed lips of an M16 magazine were in spec? Doesn't that seem like a point we would have sorted out earlier in the 50yr history of the rifle?"
I was actually referring to both types of maintenance because both can be difficult to achieve in a conflict. Wrong or right, I've heard so many times that the AR is reliable "IF you remember to....." I read a story about how in the Chosen Reservoir the only way the american soldiers could get their garands to not freeze up was to remove every drop of lubricant. Of course jams increased but it was better than not being up to cycle at all. My point is the fewer "IFs" needed the better the rifle for combat. For the type of wars we are currently fighting one would think maintenance (armorer type) would not be too terribly difficult. For a WWII type blitzkrieg battle plan it would be a completely different situation.
"Quote:
If a machine's manual calls for impractical maintenance for the intended use I have to question it's use.
OK, since you used this analogy, what part of AR15 maintenance do you feel is impractical?"
That was a general statement as I've never read the M16/M4 manufacturers maintenance manuals used by the military. But i don't think one can argue that the less maintenance needed for a military weapon the better. I would say though that for a large mechanize military such as the US army maintenance is not nearly as difficult as for a guerilla force hiding in the jungle without ready access to spare parts such as extractors.
"In any case, at the personal rifle level, which the OP is considering, many of these issues are irrelevant."
As i've said before, i completely agree.
Tirod: "And then go on to explain an education exists in statistical analysis?"
Huh?
Tirod: "the SCAR apparently does NOT encompass any significant increase in lethality, or hit ratio improvement."
That is a straw man agruement. Regardless of wether or not it is true that the SCAR is more reliable, increased reliability is what was being sought. Increased lethality is for the most part a bullet choice matter and a different subject. Although the SCAR's ease of conversion is certainly a plus. As far as hit probability I don't think that was even mentioned and if so i can't see why as the AR platform has more than adequate accuracy and controllability.
"What the SCAR fanboys are saying is that SOCOM knows it does a better job, but won't buy it anyway because they don't want to use it."
From everything i've read, SOCOM wanted the SCAR16 but decided there were more important things to spend their own money on upon learning purchase would come directly from their own budget. I'm sure the Navy would love to have all the newest best attack planes but keeping those ships afloat costs money.
