SCAR vs. M4 vs. HK416 vs. XM8 Dust Tests Released - M4 Loses Badly

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
14,613
Location
Texas
First of all, my apologies for the source (Army Times and Matthew Cox, who apparently has never had a single bad thing to say about an HK product in his "journalism" career); but this was the first article I'd seen discussing results:

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

Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Dec 17, 2007 9:25:16 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 Center 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.(BR: I'd like to see Larry Vicker's comments on that statement. My understanding is that the HK416 was developed for a fairly specific role.) 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. (BR: I'm sure the plastic barrel trunion melting, the other problems, or the fact that HK received millions of dollars for the XM23 program and came out with a glorified G36 as the major development played no role in the decision :rolleyes:)

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 becaus 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.”

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.

A couple of interesting things: in earlier tests, the M4 had 307 stoppages which still puts it behind the other rifles; but represents a marginal difference over 60,000 rounds.

239 mag related failures? That is more failures than any other rifle had by itself and they all (minus XM8) use the same magazine. There something unusual here. Unless the other rifles have a noticeably slower cyclic rate to allow marginal mags more time to function, I don't see how you can have that many mag related failures when all of the rifles (except the XM8) use the same mag.

More data (Thanks to Ekie at AR15.com):

www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_carbine_lubrication_070716/

Combining the two tests it looks like this:

XM8: 127 stoppages (winter test)

MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages (winter test)

416: 233 stoppages (winter test)

M16A4: 507 stoppages (2,124 stoppages with light lube) (summer test)

M4: 678 stoppages (9,836 with light lube) (summer test)

M4: 882 stoppages (winter test)

So...307 or 507? Seems like a typo in one of these articles.
 
Very interesting. The Army just does not spend a lot of dollars doing this type of development testing, on already developed and fielded equipment, unless a pressing problem has been identified.

So there may be more field complaints about the dust sensitivity of the M4 carbine than what is being released to the public.

And, based on the posted reports of guys from Iraq, lubrication is not desirable in an M4/M16. At least if my impressions are correct, seems they are reporting wiping the bolt carrier group off and putting them back unlubricated. But this test, everything is heavily lubricated.

And Colt gets a $375 million dollar sole source contract on the M4 for 2009!. Profits galore!!
 
The Army just does not spend a lot of dollars doing this type of development testing, on already developed and fielded equipment, unless a pressing problem has been identified.

Or unless Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma places a hold on the nomination of the new Secretary of the Army until such tests are conducted. That is what happened here - the linked article also discusses it.

And, based on the posted reports of guys from Iraq, lubrication is not desirable in an M4/M16.

Every dust test I've seen results on (this is the third) says that rifles with light or no lube have more trouble than rifles that are more heavily lubed. Note the M4/M16 dust tests from this summer - about 4x the number of stoppages with light lube in M16 and over 14x the number of stoppages with light lube in the M4.

It would be interesting to see hot the HK416, SCAR and XM8 do with light or no lube. Also be interesting to see a second dust test since it looks like a fairly large variance on the M4 between the Summer test and the Winter test (a difference of 210 stoppages).
 
The best dust tests are going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no faith in the ability of testers to create realistic conditions that resemble actual combat conditions.
 
It would be interesting to see hot the HK416, SCAR and XM8 do with light or no lube. Also be interesting to see a second dust test since it looks like a fairly large variance on the M4 between the Summer test and the Winter test

And it would be interesting if after all this data collecting, if anything changes.

I think the answer will be, "Yes Sir, we conclusively proven that our weapon was the worst by half, and we are doubling our production to compensate!"
 
Thats one test. No one is going to be willing to change weapons in the middle of a shooting war. You'll have to replace weapons, change training, logistics, etc.

Note that the XM8 did best with stoppages, but has a nasty habit of melting under sustained fire. This is an improvement?
 
The more I think about it, the more I think the magazine related stoppages are enlightening. Note that the rifle that did best in avoiding dust-related stoppages had a totally new magazine design.

The SCAR and the HK416 did better; but both of those use magazines that while STANAG compatible are improved over the standard USGI magazine. I wonder if they allowed the SCAR and HK416 to use the improved mags or did everyone use USGI mags?

It does seem pretty clear though that the M4/M16 is less reliable in the dust environment. Although from a practical perspective, it means that if you get into a firefight in a duststorm where you fire 600rds in ammo, you'll have about 10 stoppages with an M4, 2-6 stoppages with SCAR or HK416, and 1-2 stoppages with the XM8 (assuming this data translates into the real world accurately).

I would still feel comfortable carrying an M4 since firing twice the amount of ammo I can carry with me in the middle of a 2.5hr sandstorm with no additional cleaning or lube seems like a fairly extreme test; but it does look like the newer rifles are more reliable.
 
Interesting. Thank you.

I wonder if they tested using a variety of dust types. Clay dust? Sandstone dust? Plaster dust - there's a lot of it in my old house. What about that fine sand in Saudi Arabia that won't make good concrete? Sand dust?

I wonder if they used a variety of lubes to drench the test guns? And then tried each gun with each type of dust? In a wide temperature range?

The scientific method can be quite tedious.

John
 
Proving once again that any modern, accurate, long range rifle needs to be maintained after abusive treatment or it may have problems.

Our tax dollars at work.
 
I have a feeling the 416 used HK's High Reliability magazine. They are very good, and in fact, are estimated to cut stoppages by 50% over USGI mags. (I just bought two more at $25 a pop on sale. :D :D :D)
I would think FN might have done the same, because why let HK use a special magazine for the XM8 (and maybe for the 416, albeit an M16 mag). Just have to say their redesign is important to the function. But I don't know much about the SCAR, did FN even make a special M16 magazine for it?
 
Personally I beleive that the toughest reliability test is my own. Give me each rifle for one month. During that time I would do everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) with the rifle, video tapeing the whole thing. The most reliable after one month with me would certainly survives years of combat.
 
Kalashnikov said:
Personally I beleive that the toughest reliability test is my own. Give me each rifle for one month. During that time I would do everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) with the rifle, video tapeing the whole thing. The most reliable after one month with me would certainly survives years of combat.

Let me save the time and guess what the outcome will be....

"They all failed, go with an AK."
 
I have a feeling the 416 used HK's High Reliability magazine.

Since the article only mentions magazine related failures in regards to the M4 and not in regards to any of the other rifles in question, it's impossible to know from the information provided.

I would say using USGI magazines for the M4 but HK mags for the HK 416 or SCAR seems like it introduces a kind of apples and oranges dimension to any hypothetical testing.

They are very good, and in fact, are estimated to cut stoppages by 50% over USGI mags.

My experiences with them would suggest that between new, good condition USGI mags and new, good condition HK mags it's only a few percentage points, if that. I simply have not been overly impressed with the HK magazines we've been issued -- they're heavy, and they fail about like USGI mags on the flat range. They're sufficiently not-so-great that I know a number of guys who scrounged up USGI aluminum mags to use downrange instead of their issue HK mags.

But I don't know much about the SCAR, did FN even make a special M16 magazine for it?

SCAR-L has a standard mag well set up for STANAG/USGI 5.56mm magazines. It can use USGI magazines or anything else designed to run in an M16/M4. Since SOCOM already adopted the HK mags as the new standard issue item, there's no need for FN to seperately develop a new magazine.
 
My experiences with them would suggest that between new, good condition USGI mags and new, good condition HK mags it's only a few percentage points, if that.

I forget the exact number, but I believe the USGI magazine caused failure rate is about 1:5000 and the HK is about 1:10,000. That failure can obviously be anywhere in the course of it, not at all, or more, but with those numbers it is not something you will just notice even if looking for it without a actual focused study. But even then, I don't think those were done in a dust test setting either. But there is no comparison in the construction quality of a USGI magazine and an HK magazine. Love them or hate them, HK made a very good M16/AR15 magazine.
 
Put magpul follower in a GI mag and be happy.

The one advantage I see of the HK over the GI is the lack of a through hole where the mag catch locks. One less place for dirt to get in.
 
I think these tests put the lie to the internet wisdom regarding the XM-8. I have never EVER seen an official report listing any "melting" or jams or any other crap I have read on the net in the last 3-4 years. The XM-8 slaughtered the M4 in reliability testing. I suspect it was home cooking that kept our troops from getting the XM-8, nothing more.
 
I love these tests as they mean absolutley nothing to me, my 'm4' works just dandy. Although I am not in a military environment, I have seen several videos of M4's being thrown into sand water, mud dirt everything and fire just fine.
 
Why are we still trying to re-invent the wheel?

galil.jpg
 
I refuse to say, "I told you so."

40 years later, and the truth finally comes out.

Standing by for all the excuses, and justifications against the present findings of fact and general blathering. Sheesh!

Go figure.

Fred

Much of it redundant, here is the Military.Com's version of the report


Military.Com:

M4 Carbine Fairs Poorly in Dust Test

Military.com | By Christian Lowe | December 18, 2007

The primary weapon carried by most soldiers into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan performed the worst in a recent series of tests designed to see how it stacked up against three other top carbines in sandy environments.

After firing 6,000 rounds through ten M4s in a dust chamber at the Army's Aberdeen test center in Maryland this fall, the weapons experienced a total of 863 minor stoppages and 19 that would have required the armorer to fix the problem. Stacked up against the M4 during the side-by-side tests were two other weapons popular with special operations forces, including the Heckler and Koch 416 and the FN USA Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, or Mk16.

Another carbine involved in the tests that had been rejected by the Army two years ago, the H&K XM8, came out the winner, with a total of 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones. The Mk16 experienced a total of 226 stoppages, the 416 had 233.

The Army was quick to point out that even with 863 minor stoppages -- termed "class one" stoppages which require 10 seconds or less to clear and "class two" stoppages which require more than ten seconds to clear -- the M4 functioned well, with over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds firing without a problem.

"The M4 carbine is a world-class weapon," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the Army's top equipment buyer, in a Dec. 17 briefing at the Pentagon. Soldiers "have high confidence in that weapon, and that high confidence level is justified, in our view, as a result of all test data and all investigations we have made."

Though Army testers and engineers are still evaluating the data, officials with the Army's Infantry Center based in Fort Benning, Ga., said they planned to issue new requirements for the standard-issue carbine in about 18 months that could include a wholesale replacement of the M4. But the Army has been resistant to replace the M4, which has been in the Army inventory for over 18 years, until there's enough of a performance leap to justify buying a new carbine.

"We know there are some pretty exciting things on the horizon with technology ... so maybe what we do is stick with the M4 for now and let technologies mature enough that we can spin them into a new carbine," said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat development at the Army's Infantry Center. "It's just not ready yet. But it can be ready relatively rapidly."

That's not good enough for some on Capitol Hill who've pushed hard for the so-called "extreme dust test" since last spring. Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn placed a hold on the nomination of Army Secretary Pete Geren earlier this year to force the Army to take another look at the M4 and its reliability.

In an April 12 letter to the still unconfirmed Geren, Coburn wrote that "considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon." He insisted the Army conduct a side-by-side test to verify his contention that more reliable designs existed and could be fielded soon.

Despite the 98 percent reliability argument now being pushed by the Army, one congressional staffer familiar with the extreme dust tests is skeptical of the service's conclusions.

"This isn't brain surgery -- a rifle needs to do three things: shoot when you pull the trigger, put bullets where you aim them and deliver enough energy to stop what's attacking you," the staffer told Military.com in an email. "If the M4 can't be depended on to shoot then everything else is irrelevant."

The staffer offered a different perspective of how to view the Army's result. If you look at the numbers, he reasoned, the M4's 882 total stoppages averages out to a jam every 68 rounds. There are about 30 rounds per magazine in the M4.

By comparison, the XM8 jammed once every 472 rounds, the Mk16 every 265 rounds and the 416 every 257 rounds. Army officials contend soldiers rarely fire more than 140 rounds in an engagement.

"These results are stunning, and frankly they are significantly more dramatic than most weapons experts expected," the staffer said.

Army officials say the staffer's comparison is "misleading" since the extreme dust test did not represent a typical combat environment and did not include the regular weapons cleaning soldiers typically perform in the field.

So the Army is sticking by the M4 and has recently signed another contract with manufacturer Colt Defense to outfit several more brigade combat teams with the compact weapon. Service officials say feedback from the field on the M4 has been universally positive -- except for some grumbling about the stopping power of its 5.56mm round. And as long as soldiers take the time to clean their weapons properly, even the "extreme" dust testing showed the weapon performed as advertised.

"The force will tell you the weapon system is reliable, they're confident in it, they understand that the key to making that weapon system effective on the battlefield and killing the enemy is a solid maintenance program and, just as important, is a marksmanship program," said Sgt. Maj. Tom Coleman, sergeant major for PEO Soldier and the Natick Soldier Systems Center. "So, you can't start talking about a weapon system without bringing in all the other pieces that come into play."

That's not enough for some who say the technology is out there to field a better, more reliable rifle to troops in contact now.

"It's time to stop making excuses and just conduct a competition for a new weapon," the congressional staffer said.
 
The new test for the m4 works out to a 1.47% stoppage rate.Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems pretty good to me, for a dust STORM type environment, really.Aside from say, submergance in mud or water, I cant imagine a worse environment for ANY item, firearm or not.I'm also curious that close to 1/3 were caused by the magazine, too.Seems like it would be fairly easy to do something simple to fix that issue, like extra strong springs, or looser tolerances to accomodate sand in the mag, or eliminating ANY openings of ANY size in the mag (I'm thinking of sealing/eliminating the removeable floorplate here)....
Dont know, just seems like the people you here from who are/have ACTUALLY used the m16/m4 in Afghanistan/Iraq arent having problems as bad as the test indicates, and most seem to speak pretty highly of them in general (with the exception of some occassional dislike for 5.56 NATO, which, if it IS really a big issue, service-wide, is easy to fix by new uppers, or even going to ar-10's for even larger calibers).
Just tossing this out, as I have never been in combat (we Navy folk are alergic to bullets/being shot at :neener:), never fired an m4, m16, or ar-15 (I'll be firing my new m4 if the rain ever stops here...:cuss:), so I'm just speculatin' based on intuition, and heresay from the internet of people who claim to have BTDT (which I personally have no way of knowing if they are being truthful or not...but I really hope so.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top