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

[HorseSoldier]

Thanks for the clarification. So, it looks like the M4 jammed up so bad for 3.4 percent of users that they had no weapon, or had to go to pistols (presuming they had one). 19 percent of them had malfunctions during firefights. Got it.

I think the statistic that only 1% of soldiers surveyed has expressed a desire to replace the M4 (Center for Naval Analysis Dec 06 report) says more about its performance in combat than any amount of armchair statistical analysis.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Thanks for the clarification. So, it looks like the M4 jammed up so bad for 3.4 percent of users that they had no weapon, or had to go to pistols (presuming they had one). 19 percent of them had malfunctions during firefights. Got it.

While we're all getting huffy because the army won't just write a blank check for the newest wunderwaffe from Germany, it probably bears noting that as far as the above statistics go

1) M4 tied with the M16 for the lowest rate of stoppages during combat, beating both the M9 and M249 significantly (26% and 30% with those weapons, respectively).

2) M4 had the lowest rate of major stoppages for those who did experience stoppages (18%), beating the M16 (20%), M9 (38%), and SAW (41%).

In light of that, and given that we all live in a grown up world of limited resources and such, it would seem most prudent to focus first on a replacement for the SAW (kind of, um, exactly like what we're doing) and possibly the pistol before squandering millions of dollars on new rifles/carbines that don't bring major improvements to the table (above and beyond the 33.3 million PEO-Soldier Systems already blew in an unauthorized manner on the XM8).

In any case, I think this whole topic is probably more than a bit premature for discussion since all articles written on the topic seem to be stemming from the same standardized press release, and none of them have access to the actual raw data. The latest rumors as of today seem to be that

• XM8s demonstrated the worst accuracy of all four weapons tested when in good mechanical condition at the start of testing
• The three other weapons had their accuracy degraded to XM8 levels by the end of testing (how accurate these two issues are seems questionable, however, as the army.mil photo of the testing does not suggest any attempt was made to shoot them for accuracy . . .)
• XM8s led the pack in ruptured cases, followed by SCAR
• One of the 10 HK 416s proved itself to be a problem child for some reason, failing early and often. The overall numbers for the 416 skew significantly worse than they would have been had that particular rifle not had some QC issue or whatever was going on.

It will be interesting to see how much of the above is factual, as well as whatever other trends and such are apparent from the actual data. If it's ever publicly accessible.

4. Delta and other special forces groups went out of their way to adopt a gun (the 416) that shoots less accurately than a WASR. Uh huh.

Allow me to note that I'm sorry if reality differs from your take on how things should work, or what the latest article in Guns and Ammo claims.

Everybody in my unit that was issued an HK 416 was equally perplexed by the weapons being sloppy in the accuracy department. The testing I mentioned was run after several people noted poor accuracy when doing assorted combat marksmanship drills on the flat range. So, some SOTIC graduates and/or committe members tested the weapons out at 100 and 200 meters, supported prone, and found that with green tip they couldn't group tighter than 4-5 MOA (versus a 2 MOA M4A1). The weapons shot better with Mk 262 (about 2.5 MOA), though this was still twice as loose, group-wise as the control M4A1.

Summary: The 416s we're issued simply aren't especially accurate weapons, whatever other pluses or minuses they bring to the table. You're welcome to disbelieve all you want since the findings haven't been formally embraced by HK USA and featured on their website or whatever, but that's what we've got here in the real world at the end user level. It's a fine weapon for CQB and typical (< 100 meters) combat ranges, but it's not as impressive for meeting the standard 0-300 meter requirement, not does it seem at all suitable for use as a DMR by simply slapping an ACOG on it and possibly issuing 262, as you can do with the M4/M16 with good results.

 

[Greg Bell]

In light of that, and given that we all live in a grown up world of limited resources and such, it would seem most prudent to focus first on a replacement for the SAW (kind of, um, exactly like what we're doing) and possibly the pistol before squandering millions of dollars on new rifles/carbines that don't bring major improvements to the table (above and beyond the 33.3 million PEO-Soldier Systems already blew in an unauthorized manner on the XM8).

Well, I certainly agree that the SAW, according to the data, needs a replacement. I think SOCCOM has already fielded some alternatives.

The latest rumors as of today seem to be that
XM8s demonstrated the worst accuracy of all four weapons tested when in good mechanical condition at the start of testing

I would guess that the rumors probably come from the anti-HK, pro M4 crowd that has made up all manner of stuff to excuse away the M4s poor performance. I know I am a broken record on this, but lets see some objective, non "trust-me" evidence from people who don't have a dog in the hunt.

Hey, I heard a rumor that the M4 actually performed significantly worse than reported. Much, much, much worse. But since the brass wants to keep the M4 they cooked the books.

4. Delta and other special forces groups went out of their way to adopt a gun (the 416) that shoots less accurately than a WASR. Uh huh.
Allow me to note that I'm sorry if reality differs from your take on how things should work, or what the latest article in Guns and Ammo claims.

No reason to make it personal. All I am asking for is something objective.

Summary: The 416s we're issued simply aren't especially accurate weapons, whatever other pluses or minuses they bring to the table. You're welcome to disbelieve all you want since the findings haven't been formally embraced by HK USA and featured on their website or whatever, but that's what we've got here in the real world at the end user level.

Just show me a report or something That is all I ask. We know what the concrete data shows, and it ain't great for the M4.

Surely the fact that the rifle is basically a bullet hose would have made it into some sort of report. To be fair, the more realistic claim of 2.5 moa is much more believable than the 6 moa that some were reporting earlier.

 

[Greg Bell]

I think we can all agree on this: For whatever reason, the M4 will continue to be our troops rifle (well, except for special forces).

For what it is worth (and I am sure very little to the M4 crowd, here is what Larry Vickers, former Delta Force operator who helped devevelop the 416 for Delta says...

My 2 cents;

no surprise on the results - we should have had a new service rifle in the 1980's - 40 years plus with essentially the same weapon is lunacy - the Air Force damn sure ain't fielding front line fighter aircraft that is 40 plus years old - on that note just a few less aircraft would pay for new rifles across the board

take an M4 and change the gas system (HK416) and change the mag to a different/better design and that is a good place to start for a new weapon

last thought - big Army ain't gonna do jack **** about this unless congress forces them - if you believe in the cause call your congressman and demand a program to field a new rifle testing all available candidates

be safe

Larry Vickers

 

[HorseSoldier]

Surely the fact that the rifle is basically a bullet hose would have made it into some sort of report. To be fair, the more realistic claim of 2.5 moa is much more believable than the 6 moa that some were reporting earlier.

Now you're selectively reading/quoting. 4-5 MOA with issue M855 ammunition. They were only capable of 2.5 MOA with match-grade Mk 262 ammunition, which improved M4 groups significantly as well (they were still about half what the HKs could manage). This would be great if they were only used with Mk 262 ammo, but, internet rumors aside, most guys even in SOF units are still shooting green tip.

Just show me a report or something That is all I ask.

Sorry, I've outlined what was done. This wasn't a DOD funded study, just end users sorting out what the kit can and can't do.

You raise an interesting point, though. On their website HK states in their description of the HK 417 that it can do 1.3 MOA with M118LR, but they make exactly zero statements regarding accuracy of the HK 416 in the entry for that weapon. Seems a bit curious. I can't find any claim of specific accuracy for the 416 anywhere in the promotional material I've seen from HK, actually.

Larry Vickers' has written a nicely detailed history of the 416's R&D process and merits. He puts out several specific statistics for increased longevity of the weapon, and decreased fouling. But he makes zero mention of accuracy potential for the weapon at all, much less a specific MOA figure or anything.

Ken Hackathorn wrote a review/description of the HK 416 (PDF is at Larry Vicker's website) and claims something less than 2 MOA, but that's with 75 grain Hornady TAP. And if you look at the included photo in the article, that claim looks a bit optimistic and definitely relies on an "I dont' count flyers" approach to things. No testing with USGI ball ammo at all, however.

Actually, though the HK 416 is supposed to be the best thing going, I am not aware of any published accuracy tests whatsoever involving mil-spec ammunition. Interesting.

So, anyway, like I say, you can believe me or not based on my actual experiences with the weapon system in question, but I think it's sort of interesting that so far as I can tell, no one else out there has actually tried testing accuracy with the thing shooting M855 ammo . . . or their results were not deemed suitable for print in either HK promotional or the typical rah-rah gun rag article. And, if there is some study I'm not aware of that contradicts what I'm saying -- maybe we've got a bad batch of barrels on ours, or something (since the control M4A1 was doing about 2 MOA, doesn't seem like it was an ammo issue), but they're simply not overly accurate weapons.

 

[Greg Bell]

Horse,

Now you're selectively reading/quoting. 4-5 MOA with issue M855 ammunition. They were only capable of 2.5 MOA with match-grade Mk 262 ammunition, which improved M4 groups significantly as well (they were still about half what the HKs could manage). This would be great if they were only used with Mk 262 ammo, but, internet rumors aside, most guys even in SOF units are still shooting green tip.

I was just saying that seems a little more realistic than the HK shoots worse than a Century arms parts gun.

Larry Vickers' has written a nicely detailed history of the 416's R&D process and merits. He puts out several specific statistics for increased longevity of the weapon, and decreased fouling. But he makes zero mention of accuracy potential for the weapon at all, much less a specific MOA figure or anything

He says that in his experience it is more accurate than an M4. And you will note that he recommends its adoption army wide.

 

[Greg Bell]

But hey, once again, I could care less what replaces the M4. The non-anecdotal evidence is clear: The M4 gets trounced in torture testing by various Hk weapons and the FN SCAR. The XM-8 by 7x, the Scar/416 by nearly 4x better performance. Spin it how you like.

 

[chieftain]

Facts. For the kool aide drinkers. I am sure you can find minutia to squeal about. But the facts stand. Also the latest details I am aware of about this last dust/environmental tests that were just finished.

You know, the one that the M4 fell flat on it's A$$.


READ THIS, ALL THE WAY THROUGH!

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

The USA's M4 Carbine Controversy
20-Dec-2007 23:34

If you REALLY want the facts there are additional facts about the recent test, the reason the last Army tests, had the M4 doing so well. (yup, the fix was in. The Army fixed it so the M4 would show well in the last test, not this one.)

They talk about the Marine Corps test some years ago.

The one thing is constant. When properly tested, the M4 always comes in last.

They have examples of the M4 blowing up in combat. Troops in masse complaining about jams.

I hope the kool Aide doesn't get in the way.

The guns were wet, they still jammed on average every 63 rounds. Not evenly distributed either. I am sure it wasn't to bad at the beginning. By the second 3000 rounds it must have been a disaster. I guess the Koo aide crew will tell us our troops never shoot rifles with more than 3000 rounds through them next. yea!

Begin rationalizations, and excuses, why we should not begin looking for a new rifle and round.

Go figure

Fred

 

[Joe Demko]

Chieftan,
We have a good many members here who have served in combat in Vietnam and/or the various US military actions since who express satisfaction with the M-16 series. Is there something about your own combat experience that trumps theirs?

 

[Slamfire]

How is Colt a Small Business?

Small business qualifier Colt Defense LLC in Hartford, CT

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/#contracts


If you don't know, getting yourself classified as a small business means you get perferential treatment from the Government. Congress has set funding quotas for small businesses.

So here is Colt, and they have gamed the system. It would be very difficult for a real small business to compete with Colt on a small business set aside. A true small business would not have all the expensive facilities and production equipment that Colt has to produce rifles.

Bah, your Congress at work.

 

[chieftain]

Chieftan,
We have a good many members here who have served in combat in Vietnam and/or the various US military actions since who express satisfaction with the M-16 series. Is there something about your own combat experience that trumps theirs?

Besides that fact it is my experiences. Nothing, unless they had to bag and tag friends, not killed or wounded by enemy action or even friendly fire. but dead and wounded because of a specific rifle.

Then ordered by command, "not to complain about it".

You experienced any of that? I did.

Maybe I could ask it in a manner that may upset some folks. How many of your friends and buddies in your unit would have to die, for you to be really upset at the situation, people, and equipment involved?

Apparently I passed the threshold for me.

Apparently you didn't for you. Frankly I am glad you didn't. I don't wish this stuff on anyone.

I have followed this issue for 40 years. It is a burning drive. I do it for those fellow Marines I knew, and many I didn't know personally. And probably for my self. Still trying to help them.

(I no longer remember the names of the LZ's, many of the names and faces are fading, and dates I really screw up, maybe I am finally coming to peace with some of it.

Let me tell you a story. This isn't about a unit I was in or attached to. Their LZ was located near the confluence of Laos and the Vietnamese DMZ. They had been hit that night hard, and over run. We had lost contact with them. I was with the reaction team out of Khe Sanh (this was before the siege) that flew in to the LZ in the morning. We really didn't know if our guys still held the LZ or not.

Our guys did hold it. They just didn't have any radios left that worked. A group of 20-30 had hunkered down in one corner and held the LZ, and apparently had drug their wounded in with them. Frankly not many wounded for the type of fight it had been, unless the NVA while leaving had zapped them. That is something that sticks in my mind.

We helped them police up the bodies. There were about 40+/- Marine dead. 7 or 8 of them were down in their holes with their rifles apart and there were a couple with the cleaning rods down the muzzle.

Now, that sort of thing may do nothing to you. I carry that, and not very well. Frankly that particular picture, for some reason bothers me more than a couple of friends that went down because of the jamming. Maybe by the time they went down, we were getting used to it. I really can't answer you any better than that.

Does mine trump theirs or yours, no. It is just mine. And as to THAT rifle. Although not in the numbers that happened to us, or as dramatically, but I see the same fundamental scenario playing out today, to a lesser degree. I am doing everything I can do to help our boys still on the line. The way I see it.

I no longer march to the drums. I do most of my fighting now with the VA and not the NVA. I am one of those pathetic old Marines that wish I could still do some damage to the enemy in the Sandbox.

I am doing what I think I can do to help our troops. For better or worse, this is how I can fight now.

I don't get angry at folks who disagree with me, I just don't understand folks who cannot finish their arguments. They inevitably have to change the point of discussion once you turn their last point. Why, because, is the only answer that keeps coming up. I understand the maintenance point. In most Marine Units in Vietnam, the weapon was cleaned twice a day and immediately after any action, as soon as possible. We were accused of dirty rifles, they were not. REMF's usually did it only once a day.

By the time I left Vietnam, the only Marines that didn't want a M14, had never trained, been issued, or fought one. those guys were satisfied with the A1 model most of them were getting issued. By 69 we were winding down and at the end of the year the Division started to pull out. My outfit went by LST to Japan. Now that IS another story.

The irony for me personally, during this whole period until spring of 69, I carried a M14 with a selector (by 69 almost all of the M16's were A1's and not the E1's we had been originally issued). Because of all the issue's with the M16 I was very glad I did have that M14. A lot of guys tried to buy, swap, and steal that rifle. Bullets that went bang were no where near as heavy as those light 5.56 rounds that didn't go bang.

I hope I have answered your question, to your satisfaction.

Fred

 

[Joe Demko]

Besides that fact it is my experiences.

Their experience is their experience. Most of it more recent than yours.

 

[chieftain]

Their experience is their experience. Most of it more recent than yours.

That is why tests on today's rifles done today mean so much. That is why people with present day experiences state that they have problems with the platform and cartridge too. That is why my experience alone is not enough in and of itself.

I don't disallow their experience. They are lucky, highly motivated, well lead and were able to keep their weapons working. Those in SPECOP units, often had custom or near custom built, new or rebuilt weapons. Not those the ordinary line snuff will get issued. Good for them. WE are talking about that 20%+/- that reported having jams.

The ignoring of experience are those that try to rationalize that away. If there are real reasons why some work and others don't let's get on it. Heavy Lube seems to be an important component of the M4 question. Although in that last test the testers DID use heavy lube on the M4's. So that issue is some what put to bed. I presume you agree, or what other element do you with your experience want to bring into the argument.

Remember 80% of the rifles worked well. 20% did not. We are arguing over the 20%. Just cause one guys rifle worked, and another guy's didn't doesn't make either guys situation good or bad. What we need to find out in a rational and logical way is how to get that 80% rate as high as possible. Or stated another way the 20% rate as low as possible.

Want some recent experience? Gosh, simply Amazing.

I asked why this young Friend of mine, who is at the time of writing this a 1stLt. He Didn’t like the M16/M4 system. I knew him before he joined the Army.

This is a very smart and good gun guy too.

He is answering me in this text.

12/12/06
Sir,
It's no imposition at all. First off, let me start with the less than stellar reliability. Part of this, I know, is probably related to my individual weapon. I worked on keeping it clean, I had parts replaced, I had two different armorers inspect it and I even took it straight to "3rd shop" for additional trouble shooting and support. They all gave my M4 a clean bill of health, it's a shame no one ever bothered to let my M4 know. This was no doubt related to the desert environment. Sure, the M16/M4 work just fine when they are clean. . . which, in Iraq, is no more than 5 minutes after you finish cleaning it. If I literally cleaned it right before I used it, it was OK. The less than confidence inspiring reliability was something I saw as a theme (as an officer you get the pleasure of running shooting ranges, not just shooting, but I am sure you knew that). The magazines were troublesome as well. Magazines get dinged both in the weapon and on your web gear/IBA. We had plenty of magazine related reliability issues. These are all things that might not matter much outside of certain environments and applications where the weapon sees hard use, but they certainly mattered to me.

Look, I hope to be involved in the endurance shoot in Texas next year. One of the issues I have found, is many folks brag about the reliability of their weapons. Yet in matches or just practicing you see their weapons malfunction. Talk to them after the match/practice session, and the majority will tell you how stone reliable the weapon, THAT YOU JUST WATCHED FAIL TO FIRE, it never jams. I then hear, bad ammo, bad magazines, limp wrist, no/little lube, not cleaned, not broken in, yada yada yada. (now in my experience, I have never been able to limp wrist any of my handguns.) I love a guy telling me how reliable his new whiz bang is then saying the only problem with the jam is it isn't broken in yet. Well that's his experience as he sees it. I find most guys who recognize their weapon does in fact have problems, knows it has problems. Very little ozone on this side of the issue.

Now, Just what is your point?

"Those who do not learn from the past are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past." -- George Santyana

Boy does this apply or what?

Go figure.

Fred

 

[FourTeeFive]

All this talk makes me glad I went the AK route. Never owned an M16/AR15/M4 derivative. Doubt I will.

 

[Coronach]

no surprise on the results - we should have had a new service rifle in the 1980's - 40 years plus with essentially the same weapon is lunacy - the Air Force damn sure ain't fielding front line fighter aircraft that is 40 plus years old

This rebuttal brought to you by the letter "B" and the number "52".

Mike

 

[Greg Bell]

Larry said fighter aircraft.

 

[Jeff White]

Larry said fighter aircraft.

F15 first flew in 1970 or 71, almost 40........

Jeff

 

[Greg Bell]

Yep, and they are phasing it out for the Raptor. Too bad grunts can't get the same consideration for the price of a few Raptors.


Further, here is another collection of M4 damning evidence from yesterday.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/#m4

One of my favorite quotes...

"The Army has claimed "83% reported confidence that the M4 will not suffer major breakage or failure that necessitates repair before further use" – A soldier should be 100% confident that his weapon will not break the next time he fires it…. Since the M16 was introduced in Vietnam the answer has always been "It’s the soldiers' fault"... The Special Operations Command has the most proficient soldiers in the world, they shoot the most and they operate in the most difficult environments – In 2001 SOCOM was highly critical of the reliability of the M4, and they chose to adopt a new weapon – the SCAR. Our Tier 1 units – like Delta Force, and Seal Team 6 have all abandoned the M4 for other weapons that is [sic] significantly more reliable."

 

[Joe Demko]

My point is that a good bit of what you posted in this thread references your personal experience in Southeast Asia. (Thank you for serving, BTW)
Your experience is with 1960's-era weapons and ammunition. Others who have posted here about their own time in combat have experience with more recent weapons, ammunition, and training.
Is what you saw 40 years ago without importance? No. It is, however, 40 year old information about a weapons system that has continued to evolve in that time.

 

[Greg Bell]

It was rigged and they still lost

One source noted that the first dust test new M4s had 9,836 jams in 60,000 rounds – almost one jam every 6 rounds. The Army kept working on the test until they figured out a "generous lubrication" approach that used far more than the manufacturer recommended, but lowered jams to 1 in 88 rounds. A fair test must match the manufacturer's manual for each weapon, or use the same lubrication for each weapon based on the minimum recommended among all test weapons.

 

[HorseSoldier]

F15 first flew in 1970 or 71, almost 40........

And the A-10 doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

The Army has claimed "83% reported confidence that the M4 will not suffer major breakage or failure that necessitates repair before further use" – A soldier should be 100% confident that his weapon will not break the next time he fires it

Whoever wrote that seems to have some problem interpreting statistics, or at least set rational thought aside in favor of rhetoric, since the portions of the sentence before the hyphen and after the hyphen simply don't agree at all.

As for the premise of adopting any piece of kit that 100% of soldiers have faith in 100% of time . . . someone's been dipping a bit deep into the Christmas cheer punchbowl if they think that's ever going to happen.

In 2001 SOCOM was highly critical of the reliability of the M4, and they chose to adopt a new weapon – the SCAR.

Which is just now making its way out to actual units, while guys have been downrange with the M4 for the last six years killing bad guys without much fuss or complaint. SOCOM might not like the big picture logistics of keeping M4s running, but I don't encounter many team guys who have anything bad to say about it (or the related topic of 5.56mm ammo). In fact, if it's so troubled and unreliable, it's strange that the thing they mostly want are 10.5" uppers instead of the standard M4 upper, given that shorter barrels are supposed to be a big part of the mechanical problem.

Having seem M4s fire more rounds in a week or two than most conventional units fire per weapon a year, I feel like I'm pretty up on the wear and tear they can handle. They rarely break -- in several years in my current duties I've seen maybe four actually broken weapons (all four being bolt failures around the extractor, and three of those possibly related to an out of spec batch of ammunition), and a few that would be "firefight inoperable" from pieces of backed out primer lodged in gas keys or fire control groups (most again related to that batch of ammo). Most stoppages are magazine related, and guys who keep their magazines in good condition rarely have them.

 

[Greg Bell]

Well, Delta and Seal team 6 have been using the 416 for years. They have probably shot a few rounds too.

Further, the A-10 is a close support aircraft, not a "front line fighter" which is what Larry said. Further, the F-15 wasn't deployed to a combat unit until 76, the M16 has been fielded since 62. That makes the m16 family 45 years in combat deployment, and the F15 31. And again, the F-15 is on the way out.

 

[Jeff White]

Rigged test, sure. They only lubed the weapons the way those of us who have been running them for 30 years have been running them. I was taught to keep the M16A1 wet in BCT in 1974 by SSG Steven Briggs, my drill sergeant and 1st Cav vet. "Keep em wet boys and they won't stop on you. If you run out of LSA, use bug juice (GI insect repellent), motor oil, diesel fuel, anything you can get your hands on."

For a little more recent experience, I give you my son, the present SGT White who last year at this time returned from a tour in Iraq as an Infantryman with the 4th ID. I read his NCOER for that period. 200+ combat patrols. I know for a fact that he did about 70 hours of continuous operations after those two soldiers from the 101st were abducted from that checkpoint. He called me when he got back to the FOB and told me his platoon alone cleared something over 250 structures during that time searching for those soldiers. No breaks to clean weapons. No this is only speaking for one rifle platoon, but there were no problems with any M16A4s or M4s in his unit. The only small arms that they had any problems with were M249s.

I'm done with this thread, no one is going to convince anyone else. You and Cheiftain can go form the He Man M16/M4 Hater's club and those of us who still use and depend on them to protect you will not worry about it and continue to do what we always have....

Jeff

 

[Greg Bell]

Jeff,

No hard feeling dude! I actually love my M4gery. I am actually knocking off early today to go try out my new Sully stock (I do hate M4 stocks collapsing stocks, but not M4s!). Your right, this topic is pretty much exhausted (though I have enjoyed it all).


Have a good Christmas. And thanks for protecting me!

 

[OrvilleYertleson]

I use an M-4 currently, and while I have had some jams, most can be traced to poor magazines, and I haven't had any problems since ditching those mags.

Honestly, the weapon is 40 years old, but it has been around long enough that we have pretty much worked the kinks out of it. All the past problems that I can think of have been addressed: Chrome lined barrel, quality ammunition, forward assist, less steep feed ramps, etc. keep the weapon running well as long as the shooter takes very basic care of it.

We are about to make the switch to the SCAR and I can't think of anyone I work with who is looking forward to the new weapon. My opinion may change after I beat one around a bit, but I have beat the hell out of my M-4 and it has always worked well both in combat and in many a range session. We went to the range the other day after nearly a week out and about and my weapon worked fine even though I didn't clean it. I know for a fact that my weapon can reliably feed and fire several basic loads while full of dust from a long patrol in Afghanistan. What else does it need to be able to do?


Oh, and most non-combat MOS's get to load 5 rounds into their magazines at a time when they go to the range. We have had to help Reservists load and unload their weapons, and teach them how to use cover and conduct a reload. They are not trained towards any type of combat readiness. Even here in Afghanistan, many of the units are not allowed to keep ammunition in their weapons. They have to wear reflective belts around base (I guess so they don't walk into each other), and I ran into one guy who had his rifle laying on the floor with his bed on top of it. We had a dog handler attached to our team who almost shot one of us during a firefight because she was shooting full auto and wasn't able to control the weapon. She even shot full auto during 300 yard engagements. We had to teach her how to zero her weapon,use NOD's, and put the selector lever on that middle position. She didn't stick around long after we got back from that trip, but she was more or less par for the course.