barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Or Washington Times, or whatever...
Army Quits Tests after M4 is Outperformed by Competing Rifle
(don't bother going to WT's main page; bogged down by ads )
I'm not sure why the other thread on this story was summarily locked without explanation, because there is some interesting new info in here that isn't troll fodder, speculation, or wildly inaccurate.* WT frames the story as the Pentagon nefariously changing the rules of the competition to favor the M4, then taking their marbles home when it became apparent defeat was inevitable and a change would take place (this having the side-effect of ensuring the results were kept secret for national security and industry confidentiality reasons). But that's just the 'gotcha' angle for the non-gunnies who are neither aware nor interested in the technical details or technologies, and only want the juicy political details --give the story a look for these interesting tidbits;
-Something as basic as the ammunition was abruptly changed midstream, reportedly with little consideration for the competing rifles (obviously the ammo was redesigned with the current M4 specifically in mind)
-The adoption criteria were not merely 'better than the M4,' but substantially, if not vastly more impressive than the M4; 3000 rounds between failure
-It appears that reliability trumped all other criteria for the purposes of this competition --bear in mind the trial was in response to reliability concerns from Congress
-The M4A1 did very well as far as avoiding failures requiring armory assistance; 6000 vs 4500 for the next competitor (the mysterious "Gun C")
-At least one offering was a very solid improvement, at least as far as the tested criteria; 2500 rounds between failure (to the M4's 500). Because this did not meet the 3000 round threshold, it did not qualify as a significant improvement
-The M4 was not treated as a competitor, but as a control for the experimental testing...yet it is plain that the M4's replacement was not a given
-Sen. Coburn alleged the M4 placed last for sand/dust testing (unclear if that was as part of this trial or not)
-The trials were ended without further review because no weapon met the 3000 mean rounds between failure threshold (an entirely arbitrary threshold, mind you, and very nearly met by at least one entrant)
-The identity of the entrants, apart from the 'control' M4A1 ("Gun A") remains classified because standard blah, blah, blah... so no big marketing putsch by whoever makes "Gun C" ...whatever it is
As I read them, these appear to be the actual factoids the article was based upon, the remaining 90 or so percent being fluff, speculation, or what have you. But these points supposedly come from the report itself.
Last summer, quoted from the Army's statement on ending the competition;
"No competitor demonstrated a significant improvement in weapon reliability — measured by mean rounds fired between weapon stoppage. Consistent with the program's search for superior capability, the test for weapon reliability was exceptionally rigorous and exceeded performance experienced in a typical operational environment."
It would be interesting know what qualifies as 'acceptable performance in a typical operational environment' since it would have given some perspective to what kind of improvement they might have been expecting.
In any case, it appears that if/when the Army gets around to feeling receptive to a replacement for the M4, there is at least one very attractive option. Always good to have options
TCB
*Not to be confused with their earlier article on reported inadequacies of the M4 in combat scenarios
(this article was closer to troll fodder and wild inaccuracy )
Army Quits Tests after M4 is Outperformed by Competing Rifle
(don't bother going to WT's main page; bogged down by ads )
I'm not sure why the other thread on this story was summarily locked without explanation, because there is some interesting new info in here that isn't troll fodder, speculation, or wildly inaccurate.* WT frames the story as the Pentagon nefariously changing the rules of the competition to favor the M4, then taking their marbles home when it became apparent defeat was inevitable and a change would take place (this having the side-effect of ensuring the results were kept secret for national security and industry confidentiality reasons). But that's just the 'gotcha' angle for the non-gunnies who are neither aware nor interested in the technical details or technologies, and only want the juicy political details --give the story a look for these interesting tidbits;
-Something as basic as the ammunition was abruptly changed midstream, reportedly with little consideration for the competing rifles (obviously the ammo was redesigned with the current M4 specifically in mind)
-The adoption criteria were not merely 'better than the M4,' but substantially, if not vastly more impressive than the M4; 3000 rounds between failure
-It appears that reliability trumped all other criteria for the purposes of this competition --bear in mind the trial was in response to reliability concerns from Congress
-The M4A1 did very well as far as avoiding failures requiring armory assistance; 6000 vs 4500 for the next competitor (the mysterious "Gun C")
-At least one offering was a very solid improvement, at least as far as the tested criteria; 2500 rounds between failure (to the M4's 500). Because this did not meet the 3000 round threshold, it did not qualify as a significant improvement
-The M4 was not treated as a competitor, but as a control for the experimental testing...yet it is plain that the M4's replacement was not a given
-Sen. Coburn alleged the M4 placed last for sand/dust testing (unclear if that was as part of this trial or not)
-The trials were ended without further review because no weapon met the 3000 mean rounds between failure threshold (an entirely arbitrary threshold, mind you, and very nearly met by at least one entrant)
-The identity of the entrants, apart from the 'control' M4A1 ("Gun A") remains classified because standard blah, blah, blah... so no big marketing putsch by whoever makes "Gun C" ...whatever it is
As I read them, these appear to be the actual factoids the article was based upon, the remaining 90 or so percent being fluff, speculation, or what have you. But these points supposedly come from the report itself.
Last summer, quoted from the Army's statement on ending the competition;
"No competitor demonstrated a significant improvement in weapon reliability — measured by mean rounds fired between weapon stoppage. Consistent with the program's search for superior capability, the test for weapon reliability was exceptionally rigorous and exceeded performance experienced in a typical operational environment."
It would be interesting know what qualifies as 'acceptable performance in a typical operational environment' since it would have given some perspective to what kind of improvement they might have been expecting.
In any case, it appears that if/when the Army gets around to feeling receptive to a replacement for the M4, there is at least one very attractive option. Always good to have options
TCB
*Not to be confused with their earlier article on reported inadequacies of the M4 in combat scenarios
(this article was closer to troll fodder and wild inaccuracy )
Last edited: