SCAR vs. M4 vs. HK416 vs. XM8 Dust Tests Released - M4 Loses Badly
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Gunnerpalace
Member
OK, OK How about this, what if I take a Bushmaster and a WASR and do a jam test, if the test the army is doing was televised a lot of questions would be answered.
HorseSoldier
Member
This analogy has probably been beat to death, but I'd note that F-15 retirement does not apply to the (updated and adapted) F-15E Strike Eagles, that are supposed to be in service until 2025. First unit equipped with them was in '88, making them six years older than an M4.
If you really wanted to make that test fair, you'd take a Romanian built AR15 made out of what even they regard as substandard parts and then have the master gunsmiths at Century alter it some more using even lower quality parts and shoddier craftsmanship.
The fact that WASR's work as well as they do is a tribute to the strength of the AK design. I wouldn't expect an AR made in the same fashion to function at all.
A Bushmaster vs. an Arsenal or a Colt vs. a Valmet would also be fair match ups.
Oohrah
Member
Hey Chief (Fred) I am behind what you say all the way. Seen the same
failures for whatever reasons. A little early on then you, 62-65. Very happy
the present day warriors for the most part (not all ) have confidence in their
weapons. Not combat, as last year civilians used ARs mixed with other
weapons such as M1As, Garands, FALs, and some bolt run rifles in a weekend
of shooting in the rain. THe ARs went down one by one starting the first
afternoon, with all the ARs having problems by the second day. The other
rifles continued to function throughout the week end. For whatever reason
these ARs as the days of the M-16A1s, do not like sustained firing under wet
conditions. Same failures as the old days with failures to feed and extract.
After a few sessions with cleaning rods to bump those that failed to extract,
a couple began to appear to have a case separtation starting with primer
protrusions along with it. They had to be switched out with other rifles
to continue on. Not an engineer, so in my narrow world, it either works or
doesn't. Failures, make ya nervous enough to turn to those things, that do
not fail! I use my Bushy for fun things, and rely on other systems for
serious stuff. Like you, a later LEO. We use a not as accurate, but
always reliable, Mini-14, Stubby 12 ga, and Remmy 700 scoped for long range.
I'm comfortable with that. Once released from active duty, I made sure
I had a few Garands for home use. Never a failure to operate during service
time or in peace!
Semper Fi
Nov. 57 to 65
failures for whatever reasons. A little early on then you, 62-65. Very happy
the present day warriors for the most part (not all ) have confidence in their
weapons. Not combat, as last year civilians used ARs mixed with other
weapons such as M1As, Garands, FALs, and some bolt run rifles in a weekend
of shooting in the rain. THe ARs went down one by one starting the first
afternoon, with all the ARs having problems by the second day. The other
rifles continued to function throughout the week end. For whatever reason
these ARs as the days of the M-16A1s, do not like sustained firing under wet
conditions. Same failures as the old days with failures to feed and extract.
After a few sessions with cleaning rods to bump those that failed to extract,
a couple began to appear to have a case separtation starting with primer
protrusions along with it. They had to be switched out with other rifles
to continue on. Not an engineer, so in my narrow world, it either works or
doesn't. Failures, make ya nervous enough to turn to those things, that do
not fail! I use my Bushy for fun things, and rely on other systems for
serious stuff. Like you, a later LEO. We use a not as accurate, but
always reliable, Mini-14, Stubby 12 ga, and Remmy 700 scoped for long range.
I'm comfortable with that. Once released from active duty, I made sure
I had a few Garands for home use. Never a failure to operate during service
time or in peace!
Semper Fi
Nov. 57 to 65
chieftain
Member
Semper Fi you old Salt. glad you are doing well.
My big issue, that I so doggedly persue, is that so many of issues that the new kids have with the rifle were identified back when we were first issued them.
As you are well aware, they didn't want to hear about the problems back in that era, and then at least for a while refused to fix the problems and ORDERS came down from CMC to not complain at all. Fact is todays models and variants are much better rifles. But for 40+ years of development they should be much more reliable than they are.
That's it. I agree with Larry Vickers that a new rifle should be developed/acquired and if the M4/M16 should not win the shoot off, the new system issued.
Personally I would give the cartridge a boost too, while we are at it. Not back to full strength, just a stronger intermediate round, Probably but by no means limited to the 6.5 and 6.8.
I am not tauting any existing rifle. I have my own prejudices, but I believe a full and as fair as can be, service carbine shoot off. Hopefully all the existing weapons that approach type would be entered and hopefully some new ones would be developed for the tests.
What amazes me, is that the guys who have had success with the rifle, don't seem to give a damn about the rifles that did fail. I am upset that today, apparently outside the spook (SPECOPS) community, the rifles seem to fail up to 20% of the time in actual firefights, per some Studies. Frankly, that is to many. These failure rates are corroborated by almost all the lab tests.
Dick, you and I both know that back in the 60's when the M16 was failing so often at times up to 60-70%, that some guys rifles never failed. That is my point. Some do, some don't. The only difference I see today is that the failure rate, apparently still abysmally high, has improved a bunch. Anyones who's rifle didn't fail, doesn't really have much to say about the rifles that do fail, per their own stated experience. For some folks that seems to be an issue that their success excludes them from the study, at this time.
Well good luck Dick, and God Bless Your Family and loved ones.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
Nolo
Member
Ummm... the F-15 is not on the way out.
I don't see the Air Force having enough money (even as horrendously big as they are) to replace the F-15. Besides, why would they? The 'C is better than any other fighter aircraft out there, and it's 30 years old!
I don't see the Air Force having enough money (even as horrendously big as they are) to replace the F-15. Besides, why would they? The 'C is better than any other fighter aircraft out there, and it's 30 years old!
OrvilleYertleson
Member.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2003
- Messages
- 398
I will wholeheartedly concede that the M-16/M-4 has some inherent problems due to it's design. However, those problems don't justify the removal of it as our main infantry weapon.
For instance: I believe the 416 (though I have to admit I haven't shot one) IS more reliable, etc. However, it is a good bit more expensive too, which is why it isn't being adopted en mass even by SOF.
the 416 costs maybe 1500 dollars more per weapon than a regular m-4? That 1500 extra dollars can be better spent elsewhere. Maybe better body armor, or upgraded optics, or a new radio. What about a blimp for every firebasse? There are tons of things we are short on over here and a brand new weapon is way down on my list of priorities since my old one works just fine.
I still believe that most of the weapons problems are due to incompetent armorers and user-error. We shoot thousands of rounds, spend weeks on the flat range, and generally abuse them more than most units. While the occasional weapon does go down, by and large they work well. Imagine how far 1500 dollars per person could go towards training people to use the weapons they already have? Instead of support guys only getting to load 5 rounds at a time and shoot only from foxholes, they could get sent to griffen group, or blackwater, etc.
The SCAR may be a good option, and if SOF has good results, then I am sure it will at least be considered for armywide adoption, provided the price is justifiable. But if it costs three times what an m-4 costs, then I am sure the money can be better used elsewhere. In a perfect world though, we would have the best of everything, but the resources are just not there.
For instance: I believe the 416 (though I have to admit I haven't shot one) IS more reliable, etc. However, it is a good bit more expensive too, which is why it isn't being adopted en mass even by SOF.
the 416 costs maybe 1500 dollars more per weapon than a regular m-4? That 1500 extra dollars can be better spent elsewhere. Maybe better body armor, or upgraded optics, or a new radio. What about a blimp for every firebasse? There are tons of things we are short on over here and a brand new weapon is way down on my list of priorities since my old one works just fine.
I still believe that most of the weapons problems are due to incompetent armorers and user-error. We shoot thousands of rounds, spend weeks on the flat range, and generally abuse them more than most units. While the occasional weapon does go down, by and large they work well. Imagine how far 1500 dollars per person could go towards training people to use the weapons they already have? Instead of support guys only getting to load 5 rounds at a time and shoot only from foxholes, they could get sent to griffen group, or blackwater, etc.
The SCAR may be a good option, and if SOF has good results, then I am sure it will at least be considered for armywide adoption, provided the price is justifiable. But if it costs three times what an m-4 costs, then I am sure the money can be better used elsewhere. In a perfect world though, we would have the best of everything, but the resources are just not there.
Bailey Guns
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 381
I've used M16/M4 rifles since 1979 in the military, police use and as a civilian instructor and shooter. I probably average 15k rounds through them per year.
Guess I didn't get the memo that the M16 series of rifles are prone to failure...even the A3 Tactical Carbine I bought used with several thousand rounds through it from the first two owners, plus my additional 35k+ rounds including patrol and SWAT use (plus lots of recreational and training time), plus what the third happy owner has put through it (also a local SWAT guy) continues to function with only A SINGLE PART BEING REPLACED (a trigger pin that broke during an Urban Rifle Instructor course). I have never replaced an extractor or extractor spring on any of my AR-15 rifles from any maker.
My son is an Air Force JTAC and he's been to Iraq twice and once to Afghanistan. In the desert, in combat, including the battle of Fallujah. According to him, the Air Force and Army guys complain about a lot of things but the M4 isn't one of them. He says he's never seen any real problems with the guns that were not operator related (excluding combat damage).
I've trusted my life to an AR-style rifle for years and sometimes still do. And I'll continue to.
BTW: I had a failure to feed on a Yugo AK yesterday. Only fired one 30 round magazine through it. Can I conclude that gun fails on average of one time every magazine?
Guess I didn't get the memo that the M16 series of rifles are prone to failure...even the A3 Tactical Carbine I bought used with several thousand rounds through it from the first two owners, plus my additional 35k+ rounds including patrol and SWAT use (plus lots of recreational and training time), plus what the third happy owner has put through it (also a local SWAT guy) continues to function with only A SINGLE PART BEING REPLACED (a trigger pin that broke during an Urban Rifle Instructor course). I have never replaced an extractor or extractor spring on any of my AR-15 rifles from any maker.
My son is an Air Force JTAC and he's been to Iraq twice and once to Afghanistan. In the desert, in combat, including the battle of Fallujah. According to him, the Air Force and Army guys complain about a lot of things but the M4 isn't one of them. He says he's never seen any real problems with the guns that were not operator related (excluding combat damage).
I've trusted my life to an AR-style rifle for years and sometimes still do. And I'll continue to.
BTW: I had a failure to feed on a Yugo AK yesterday. Only fired one 30 round magazine through it. Can I conclude that gun fails on average of one time every magazine?
rbernie
Contributing Member
Given the number of failures that were mag-related, it's probably of value to talk about mag design and optimizing the mag for reliability.... What design attributes would be beneficial in allowing a mag to operate in severe dust/sand conditions?
More to my real question - would the MagPul PMag represent a mechanism by which the magazine reliability would be improved and still be compatible with the AR magwell?
More to my real question - would the MagPul PMag represent a mechanism by which the magazine reliability would be improved and still be compatible with the AR magwell?
Of course just because a large portion of the M4's failures are attributable to mag failures doesn't mean there is a mag that can fix it. It may be an interrelationship between the parts that can't be solved. Otherwise, it is hard to believe that all the engineering firms Colt, FN, HK etc wouldn't have fixed it by now.
rbernie
Contributing Member
I'm sorry - I didn't ask whether the M4 would do better with a better mag, or not. I asked how to design a better mag to function more reliably under the test conditions for any weapon with STANAG magazine capability.
For example - are drain holes good or bad? Do they let sand/dust out more than they let it in? Is the mag latch hole an issue?
For example - are drain holes good or bad? Do they let sand/dust out more than they let it in? Is the mag latch hole an issue?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Gunnerpalace
Member
Wow, How can a gun work so good in one test (XM8 all the way!) and fail in another?
Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
It means both designs had a total of 11 failures amongst all 10 rifles of each type.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The XM8 was only tested in Extreme Dust Test III, so these are the results from the same test we are discussing. This just means that out of the 127 stoppages, 11 of them required an armorer to fix (and 10 of them appeared to be case ruptures).
You would have to take that up with Ekie; but all it would take to get the exact same number down to 0.5 is for the the rifle to have 11 stoppages during the given test (60k/11=5454.545454 ad infinitum).
The really unusual thing is that the XM8 has one of the highest MRBFs overall; but almost every failure was a case rupture (10 out of 11)? Compared to the other rifles that seems odd (7 out of 16 for SCAR, 3 out of 14 for HK416, 0 out of 19 for the M4).
Just seems like it is might be a cut and paste error. I thought the XM-8 had 11 serious jams and the M4 had 19? Weird.
Yeah, the case rupture thing sounds like the XM-8 got a bad batch of ammo. Excluding those it looks like the XM-8 only had one problem--which seems more in line with its overall performance. Who knows? They need to publish this dang test!!
Yeah, the case rupture thing sounds like the XM-8 got a bad batch of ammo. Excluding those it looks like the XM-8 only had one problem--which seems more in line with its overall performance. Who knows? They need to publish this dang test!!
HorseSoldier
Member
Check the fine print. Data shown is from two different tests -- #2 for the M4 numbers, #3 for the XM8.
I'd be surprised if they used more than one lot of ammo for the entire test. If they did have a bad batch of ammo involved, either for one specific weapon or all the weapons involved, that would invalidate the test data.
HorseSoldier
Member
Beyond that, they'd simply pull a lot of ammo from use entirely if they were getting major failures like case ruptures at those kind of rates if it could be attributed to the ammunition, if for no other reason than to protect the guys who had to pull the triggers for the testing.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Wonder where the case ruptures happened in the test? Clearly they kept on testing after that happened. It will be interesting to see if they ever release the results. Has anybody tried looking on STINET for it?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Nice Powerpoint briefing of the results from the test with more detailed information is available here:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1084
Thanks to HorseSoldier for the heads up on that link!
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1084
Thanks to HorseSoldier for the heads up on that link!
Gunnerpalace
Member
Just viewed it said 89% of the soldiers liked it (who did they ask 100 soldiers?) and the thing I noticed they could do to fix a percentage of the problems is adopting HK's magazine (it had they lowest for mag failures).
This is just from what I read it goes to great lengths to show that this was a completely controlled lab test and not an multiple environment proving test (which is what should be done).
This is just from what I read it goes to great lengths to show that this was a completely controlled lab test and not an multiple environment proving test (which is what should be done).
- Status