Washington Post on M4-Replacement Rifle Trials

[barnbwt]

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 )

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think the way the WT frames the story is pretty ridiculous since the Army made it clear they were looking for a significant improvement prior to this test. Even most of us here predicted exactly this result before the test even started - so I am just not seeing the "Army stopped test when it got adverse results" angle. That sounds more like agitprop than reporting.

The complaints about ammo also strike me as sour grapes since the lead-free M855A1 program predates this test by quite awhile and M855A1 apparently reduces service life and reliability in the M4 carbine despite being "tailor made" for it.

500 MRBS seems rather low for the M4. That is certainly several multiples lower than what I see on my personal weapons. It makes me wonder what they grabbed for the control.

 

[d2wing]

Yeah, I don't think the Washington Post is a wonderful source. Several months ago a Military report stated that the tests were ended when the competitors failed to meet certain criteria. I don't remember the details.

 

[barnbwt]

"so I am just not seeing the "Army stopped test when it got adverse results" angle."
My point wasn't that "the AR sux" which is how lots of folks seem to receive this, but that some mystery gun pulled off 5 times the number of rounds fired between mean failures, and got like 1/4 through it's service life before needing armorer assistance on a problem. That's pretty impressive stuff in itself, which is why I thought it odd the military would downplay or even hide it. They could have just been honest and said they had neither the time nor money to go to the trouble of upgrading an already acceptable gun. That's a very good reason, after all.

And unlike the earlier reports, this one actually has numbers in it...

TCB

 

[Field Tester]

And still no word from anyone on what "Mystery C" firearm was or the company who made it?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They could have just been honest and said they had neither the time nor money to go to the trouble of upgrading an already acceptable gun.

I think the Army has been clear on that point. From my understanding, the whole point of the test was more to placate Sen. Coburn (who put a hold on Secretary of the Army, Pete Geren's nomination in 2007 to force more competitive testing of the M4). I don't think the Army ever had any intention of buying a new rifle short of some miraculous improvements.

The threshold MRBS requirement for SCAR was 2,000 MRBS (which at the time was described as a 110% increase over the M4), so I'd say we have a decent guess as to what "Gun C" was although it seems strange to me that the SCAR would have a shorter time between armory visits than the M4. The Swedish AK5 also has an MRBS of 2500-3000 (and 5-6 years ago even); but obviously was not in the test. But it does seem to show that the 3000 number isn't ridiculous if you are looking for a substantial increase in reliability.

I think the Washington Times screwed up their story a bit as the M4 is required to pass 600 MRBS to even be accepted into the service (and frequently does better), so I'm not sure where they got 500 from. It sounds like whoever wrote the article pulled up the requirements the M4 has to meet rather than the actual performance of the rifle (which would appear to be around 900 MRBS circa 2004 based on the SCAR numbers).

I'm guessing SCAR is the mystery rifle since it had to meet 2000 MRBS to even go ahead as a program and it is the only rifle besides the M4 that has anywhere near the same level of testing.

 

[68wj]

It is hard to know the details without the full report, but the Army Times printed this quote last year. Seems to contradict what is being said now, if "minimum requirements" was something objective or truly performance based.

During a media event June 14, at the Pentagon, Brig. Gen. Paul A. Ostrowski, with Program Executive Office - Soldier, said that none of the eight competitors in the Individual Carbine competition had been able to progress beyond phase 2 of the competition. As a result, the Army is not able to proceed any further with selecting a follow-on weapon for the M4.

"None of the vendors were able to meet the requirements to pass into phase three," Ostrowski said. "I want to be very clear -- none of the vendors met the minimum requirements to allow them to phase three. The Army is not canceling the Individual Carbine competition. The Army is in a position where it must conclude the Individual Carbine competition, because none of the competitors met the minimum requirement to pass into the next phase."

 

[Robert]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=744618&highlight=washington+times
We covered this last year. That thread ended poorly...

 

[Tirod]

Because of the lack of details, and the way the WP has written what little it was given, we really know nothing.

In previous tests, the Army was known to use weapons literally "off the rack," meaning issued weapons with histories of use, under the government "don't fix it until it's broke" maintenance program. Basically, do we know for a fact that a new issue weapon was being used, or was it an issue beater from an armory?

And, again in previous tests, the Army was known to allow a competitor to pick and choose the magazine to use with it's weapon, rather than cycle ALL the mags thru ALL the weapons as a fair and balanced test control protocol. It is in fact exactly the problem that created the "sand and dust" results that have been highly exaggerated by M16 haters - and which prompted Congressional calls for a new rifle years ago. Any mention of that being fixed in the new tests? It forced retesting and the results were significantly different subsequently. We simply don't know.

IF - and possibly when all the testing protocols are released for scrutiny, then we may discover that things were handled appropriately. Or, we may discover that things weren't done right, and that is the underlying reason to stop the tests. That would be a black eye for the Army, because the previous failures in test protocols are known and weren't supposed to be repeated.

There is a post on a firearms blog that purports to inform readers by the accompanying photo which carbine they speculate may be weapon "C," but the inference is flawed. That weapon was already seriously tested and used in combat by experienced users, but sidelined for the reason that it, too, didn't offer a significant improvement in use. Which begs the question - if it's the same carbine platform, who's right vs who's wrong? Was the previous decision flawed, or is this one?

As for the ammo change, suggesting that the new "green" round is a significantly different round that causes problems in other rifles doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That round was developed to work in both the M4 and M16, and must conform to the function and pressure recipe that keeps reliability high with few malfunctions in usage. If it's not working and causes a lot of problems, does that reflect on the gun - or the ammo? Are we talking a bad lot, or is the ammo a bad recipe overall?

Lots of things to nail down before any conclusions can be drawn, just the same as the current troubles in a small Missouri suburb of St. Louis. Wait for all the facts to come in, the first reports are usually wrong.

 

[Robert]

Oops, meant to lock it after my last post.