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

[Slamfire]

The thing to keep in mind is that this test was only run to humor a Congressman, and are not part of any solicitation for a new service rifle or carbine. I suppose the issue could become enough of a political football that Congress could order the US military to open bidding for, and adopt, a new rifle, but I don't suspect that's likely unless some Democratic hopeful wants to try and make some political mileage off the issue.

As a comment, there are two fundamentals with procurement spending; maximize dollars to the contractor and avoid scandals.

What likely happened before the test results were made public was that Colt and the Military M4 Project Manager were given a “read ahead” copies. In defense procurements the military becomes the advocate for the Contractor. So both Colt Lobbyists and the M4 Project Manager were probably on the Hill doing preemptive damage control. The Military Project Manager is fighting the battle with view graph technology, Colt Lobbyists are doing the same but with sweeteners: campaign contributions. Campaign contributions are extremely powerful motivators on Capital Hill. If the Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham “Bribe to Benefit Ratio” holds true, about $100,000 of campaign contributions will buy you $100 million in defense contracts. Without a doubt Colt lobbyists have been dropping sugar plums of $10K, $50K contributions in the offices of Strategic Congressman, with the promises of more.

Once a contractor is being fed from public tax dollars, it is extremely difficult to cancel or divert the money. In this case, you have this corporate entity, Colt, that has at least $375 million of M4 procurement dollars to use to defend their cash flow.

Considering that any replacement rifle will not be a revolutionary advancement over the existing rifle, and the amount of non tax payer dollars it would take to buy sufficient Congressman to force change, well you can bet that nothing substantive is going to happen.

There will be some hand waiving. Some improvements, like a new paint job. Or maybe a committee will be set up to make recommendations.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Interesting that Colt is proposing a new magazine and new barrel as improvements after these tests. One advantage of a new longer-life barrel is you could also use a new barrel extension that would allow you to redesign the bolt as well. Radius the lugs at the base and redesign the extractor and you could probably improve reliability substantially. Of course then the problem is you have two different lines of non-compatible parts that look very similar and can be easily mismatched.

I don't really see where giving the M4 a hammer-forged, longer-lasting barrel is going to be a big help when the bolt is still failing at about the same point the current barrel lasts. I guess a new bolt is cheaper than a new barrel; but other than that.

Of course the real problem is how much money do you want to spend for a <1.4% improvement in a fairly extreme environmental test (600rds fired with no cleaning in 2.5hr sandstorm)? On the other hand, if you are the guy having stoppages every other mag then an FN SCAR or HK416 sounds nice.

Weapon-wise I think the XM8 is still a loser though. Developmental issues aside, just the fact that it introduces a whole new proprietary mounting system for accessories means you not only have to buy a new rifle and all the parts; but you lose compatibility with the massive assortment of existing accessories.

I also think that direct impingement has little to do with the issue here; especially since Colt already has a piston upper and instead of promoting that as a solution they are suggesting a new barrel and magazine.

 

[Jeff White]

There won't be any replacement for the M16/M4 series until a new weapon comes along that is such a dramatic improvement that it justifies the cost involved.

All the sputtering and blather on the internet about who's personal favorite rifle should arm the US military is immaterial. The M16 has done it's job (despite some early teething problems) well enough for the last 40 years.

The XM8 failed the desert tests melts in high temps, never fielded. The HK416, 6 MOA accuracy, front sight bases fall off.. The SCAR - unknown, not fielded yet.

Will a new caliber be enough to get the military to spend the money? Maybe, but I doubt it. Insurgents aren't exactly popping back up and sticking their tongues out at the Soldiers and Marines who shoot them with 5.56. Just like the M16/M4, it's doing an adequate job.

I would extremely surprised if this last test or any other test is enough to cause a change. In fact I am lobbying my congressman not to approve spending my tax money on a change until there is a significant improvement in technology that makes the money well spent.

I don't know why anyone gives anything they read in Army Times or any of the military times newspapers) any credibility. Several years back they were bought out by Gannett, the same people who bring us that giant of objective news reporting, USA Today. Since then their reporting and editorial policy has not supported the troops.

Jeff

 

[GunTech]

The Russians have a saying "Perfect is the enemy of good enough".

Since the rifle is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things in the Big Army, the M4/M16 is going to be around for a long time for all the reasons cited by the previous posters, and the fact that the military is about as conservative is any organization can be. The M16/M4 may not be perfect, but it is 'good enough'.

If you are an infantryman in the middle of battle and have issues, you may disagree. But you don't have any influence on those kinds of decisions.

 

[Greg Bell]

Jeff,

The XM8 failed the desert tests melts in high temps, never fielded. The HK416, 6 MOA accuracy, front sight bases fall off.

Do you have any actual test results that show the melting or the 6 moa accuracy? Any links? I have searched far and wide and all I can find is an endless circle of hearsay.

 

[Onmilo]

All I am going to say is that 30 years ago we used to laugh at some of the articles that were placed in Army Times magazine.
The military knows that many, many different people read this rag and they are well aware of how to dispell misinformation and what advantages it can provide to combat troops.

For all the blah, blah, the M4 works extremely well and the troops like the rifle.
Add an M203 grenade launcher and they like them even better.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Do you have any actual test results that show the melting or the 6 moa accuracy? Any links? I have searched far and wide and all I can find is an endless circle of hearsay.

I can say that the 416s a portion of my unit has issued are 4-5 MOA weapons, at best, with M855 green tip. That's based on some guys testing four 416s issued to their ODA at 100 and 200 meters against an M4A1 as a control (which was about a 1.5-2 MOA weapon when tested). Groups were tighter with Mk 262, but were still about twice what the M4 was doing.

I don't have a link to that, but that's first hand experience, not "my sister-in-laws' hairdressers' boyfriend's cousin over in Iraq . . ." kind of stuff. Kind of like the HK mags, everyone was initially excited by the latest and greatest German kit, and then significantly less impressed when actually used.

 

[Jeff White]

Do you have any actual test results that show the melting or the 6 moa accuracy?

I know someone who was working on the XM8 project for HK, quit HK in disgust and went to work for DOD, he had personal knowledge of the entire program. So you might say I got it first hand. I'll get on AKO and see if I can find you the report on the failed XM8 tests.

I also know people in units that use the HK416. They complain it's at best a 6 MOA weapon and that the front sight bases work loose.

You might want to go over to www.lightfighter.net and do a search on the HK416 in the primary weapons forum. You'll find posts by people who actually shoot people in the face with them, verifying the problems with accuracy and the front sight bases.

Jeff

 

[Greg Bell]

I can say that the 416s a portion of my unit has issued are 4-5 MOA weapons, at best, with M855 green tip. That's based on some guys testing four 416s issued to their ODA at 100 and 200 meters against an M4A1 as a control (which was about a 1.5-2 MOA weapon when tested). Groups were tighter with Mk 262, but were still about twice what the M4 was doing.

Again, this kind of anecdotal evidence isn't totally valuless, but it brings up a lot of questions. Like, why would Delta force adopt a rifle that was less accurate than a WASR ? Seems unlikely. I appreciate it but I would like to see something more formal if you have it.

I don't have a link to that, but that's first hand experience, not "my sister-in-laws' hairdressers' boyfriend's cousin over in Iraq . . ." kind of stuff. Kind of like the HK mags, everyone was initially excited by the latest and greatest German kit, and then significantly less impressed when actually used.

That is interesting. Because a lot of folks are explaining away the M4's miserable showing by saying that it was unfair that the 416 had the HKHR mags.



Jeff,

. I'll get on AKO and see if I can find you the report on the failed XM8 tests.

I would appreciate that. Because I have been hearing this claim with increasing frequency, yet I have never seen any non-anecdotal evidence.

I also know people in units that use the HK416. They complain it's at best a 6 MOA weapon and that the front sight bases work loose.

Seems hard to believe that Delta got fooled this bad.



Again, does anyone have any links or actual reports showing the melting issue or the 6 moa accuracy of the XM-8 or 416?

 

[Jeff White]

That is interesting. Because a lot of folks are explaining away the M4's miserable showing by saying that it was unfair that the 416 had the HKHR mags.

HK has delivered some magazines that were just crap. It happens to all manufacturers, even HK.

I would appreciate that. Because I have been hearing this claim with increasing frequency, yet I have never seen any non-anecdotal evidence.

Is it anecdotal that the program was in fact canceled? THe XM8 was rolling along, the HK political machine was printing articles in Army Times speculating which brigade would get them to test in combat in Iraq, then the testing moved to Dugway where it failed the tests.

Seems hard to believe that Delta got fooled this bad.

Who is Delta? Aren't those soldiers in a movie with Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin? 6 MOA is adequate for CQB. The HK416 is a special purpose weapon. There might be other weapons in their arms room for other purposes. I don't believe the HK416 was purchased to be an all purpose weapon. SOF can get by with equipping their soldiers through the arms room concept, where the Soldier can select the weapon most appropriate for the mission. The big Army needs a weapon that is adequate for every mission a Soldier might be assigned.

Jeff

 

[Greg Bell]

X2tap

 

[Greg Bell]

Is it anecdotal that the program was in fact canceled? THe XM8 was rolling along, the HK political machine was printing articles in Army Times speculating which brigade would get them to test in combat in Iraq, then the testing moved to Dugway where it failed the tests.

What is your source on it failing the tests at Dugway? I am honestly asking, not trying to push your buttons. I ask this because I remember Senators Dodd, Lieberman, and a host of Congresspeople from Connecticut putting the kibosh on it. Here is my link to Senator Dodd's website. This is what, IIRC, actually lead to the cancellation of the program...

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3270&pr=press/Releases/04/0709_b.htm"]http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3270&pr=press/Releases/04/0709_b.htm"]http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3270&pr=press/Releases/04/0709_b.htm

For Immediate Release
CT DELEGATION CALLS ON BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO OPEN BIDDING PROCESS FOR ARMY'S SMALL WEAPONS PROGRAM
Letter asks Army to explain Colt’s exclusion from XM8 program
July 9, 2004
WASHINGTON—Connecticut’s Congressional delegation today sent a letter to Les Brownlee, Active Secretary of the Army, calling on the Bush Administration to open the bidding process for the Army’s small weapons program. Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman, and Representatives Nancy Johnson, Christopher Shays, Rosa DeLauro, John Larson, and Rob Simmons wrote to Brownlee asking him to explain why Colt Defense LLC of West Hartford was excluded from the Army’s XM8 weapons program.
The XM8 contract was granted to Heckler & Koch GmbH (H&K) of Oberndorf, Germany without a competitive bidding process, which potentially violates several federal procurement regulations and the Buy American Act.
Colt has been producing weapons for the U.S. military for over 150 years and is the producer of the M4 carbine currently used by various American and international forces across the globe. As a result of a 1997 ruling against the Army, the company has an agreement with the United States Army which states that the Army must use its “best efforts” to award small arms research and development contracts to Colt.
“The Army’s decision to replace the M16/M4/M203 with a program exclusively produced by the foreign based H&K may have a devastating effect on Colt,” the letter said. “The company’s business is now predominantly government based and the termination of the M4 carbine would most likely result in the end of Colt. This outcome would have detrimental effects on the Connecticut employees and the US Army, which will need Colt to provide replacement parts for the M4 until it can be completely phased out around the end of this decade.”

It looked a hell of a lot more like Connecticut politicians looking out for a local company than the XM-8 "failing" anything.

Quote:
Seems hard to believe that Delta got fooled this bad.
Who is Delta? Aren't those soldiers in a movie with Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin?

Special operations forces, including "tier one" units such as the Army's Delta Force and the Navy's SEAL Development Group - or SEAL Team Six - have used their own funds to purchase the Heckler & Koch-built 416, which uses a gas-piston operating system less susceptible to failure than Colt's gas-operated design.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Like, why would Delta force adopt a rifle that was less accurate than a WASR ?

Suppressor use.

Also higher general wear and tear when you start using sub-12" barrels. CAG probably doesn't need a higher durability weapon for actual combat operations so much as they need it for their training schedule. When you're shooting more rounds per week or month at home station than most 11B or 0311 Infantrymen shoot in an entire (non-deployed) year, you're going to have a different set of requirements than conventional units. (This is part of the justification for SCAR as well.)

That is interesting. Because a lot of folks are explaining away the M4's miserable showing by saying that it was unfair that the 416 had the HKHR mags.

I've not found new-in-plastic HK mags to be notably more reliable than brand new USGI magazines, personally. The claimed numbers are what they are, but they have not been ovelry impressive on the flat range in my experience.

Seems hard to believe that Delta got fooled this bad.

Like Jeff White noted, a 4+ MOA weapon is entirely adequate for CQB use where it won't make a difference at 100 meters. Being +/- eight+ or twelve+ inches at 200 and 300 meters, though, is a bigger deal.

 

[Greg Bell]

I just sent a message to Larry Vickers, who helped develop the 416 for Delta, to get some clarification on this issue.

 

[RedLion]

Hey everyone I heard of a weapon that has no FTFs or FTEs and was so deadly the Pope banned it!

Also i vaguely remember the government fielding a new spaceage weapon that special forces and military advisors loved so much they rushed into service. They told soldiers it was such a new reliable, space-age design it didn't need cleaning! and the rest is history!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

On the cost analysis, I found this Economic Analysis from Naval Postgrad comparing the XM8 costs to the M4 costs.

This study says that the combined optics + weapon cost (since the XM8 doesn't use existing modular accessories) is $800 per unit higher for the XM8.

So how many of you are interested in paying $800 (assuming you can get government pricing) for a <1.4% increase in performance in this specific environment?

 

[Greg Bell]

Actually, didn't the XM8 perform 7 times better?

That paper seems to come out heavily in favor of the XM-8. Although it only finds it to be 2.5 times more reliable.


And it finds the XM-8 to be cheaper overall (the XM-8 is the first figure)...

Rifle $600 $587
Laser Aiming Light $1000
Optical Sight $1200
(One Sight Dual Capability) $330
Weapon Rack Slot $43.83 $21.90
TOTAL $1843.83 $1938.90

 

[PedalBiker]

It's been a long time since I was in the Army, but the M16s that I used ranged from marginal to pathetic, and this was on the range with no dust and proper cleaning and lube. I'd guess that bulk of the problems were due to abused magazines, but I wrote up the design flaws of the gas system as a project for my OBC project.

The only good thing I have to say about them is that they're accurate when built and maintained properly.

 

[Greg Bell]

To cut through all the B.S.. here is the guys conclusion...

In summary, to field an entire UA with the XM8 is effectively less expensive than
upgrading existing equipment to the same capability performance level as the XM8
family. The increase in capability and modernization of the weapons will potentially
save the Army $76.5 million fielding the planned 45 UA’s with the XM8 system over
current systems.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And it finds the XM-8 to be cheaper overall (the XM-8 is the first figure)...

My bad. I didn't catch that the H&K optic also serves as a PEQ-2 so the cost comparison I looked at in the paper isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Costwise the paper claims the XM8 is $$13 more on a rifle to rifle basis and just under $6 million to equip a UA.

So assuming the study is valid, $6 million is the cost for the <1.4% improvement over the M4 for a single unit.

Also note the paper was circa December 2004, some of the assumptions made about the XM8 in that paper have apparently not panned out since then and procurement of the M4 and other accessories have continued.

To put it another way, if you spent $3k (numbers totally random) on an AR/accessories and you can get a 1.4% performance in a dust storm environment by buying an XM8 with equivalent accessories for $2k, you didn't save $1k; because you have already sunk the AR costs.

 

[Greg Bell]

Well, it looks like it was politics (see my above posts) more than anything else that killed the XM-8. That paper you cited rates the XM-8 as 2.5 times more reliable than the M4 system. And that was before the current tests where the gun functioned 7x better.

 

[GunTech]

You expected procurement not based on politics. Time for a refresher course. Read "The Great Rifle Controversy" by Ezell. Eye opening, to say the least, and a good history of the Army rifle from the Garand to the M16.

 

[Greg Bell]

LOL, that is true! Our guys are lucky they aren't still fielding Krags.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That paper you cited rates the XM-8 as 2.5 times more reliable than the M4 system. And that was before the current tests where the gun functioned 7x better.

That paper was also prior to the tests that Jeff White and Horse Soldier discussed where several problems developed. I'd also note that the bibliography of the paper lists Matthew Cox, Army Times, and HK Marketing as sources though it does have some good impartial sources as well. One point being that seems that who it cited is worth looking at for any given statement.

But let's take the paper at it's word... that means that between the paper and the current test the XM8 is between 1% and 1.38% more reliable than the M4 in this specific extreme environment. So let's just grant the HK a pass on arctic, swamp, jungle, temperate, and other environments and stipulate it is at least a 1% improvement there as well. How much is the move from 98.6% to 99.6% worth?

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Murphy's law : your weapon was made by the lowest bidder. Never been more true,

I just want the troops to have the best gear out there even if it is 2x more expensive it's a lot cheaper than our guys dying.

I know someone who was working on the XM8 project for HK, quit HK in disgust and went to work for DOD, he had personal knowledge of the entire program. So you might say I got it first hand. I'll get on AKO and see if I can find you the report on the failed XM8 tests.

I would prefer to hear it from HK, disgruntled workers have been known to say less than accurate things.