Posted on 11/27/2009 6:46:56 PM PST by Neil E. Wright
November 25, 2009: The U.S. Army has finally addressed years of complaints about the M-4 and M-16 assault rifles. The M-4 is a short barrel M-16, and has become very popular with the troops. The army has asked the Department of Defense for permission to spend a few hundred million dollars on upgrades for its 400,000 M-4 assault rifles. The big change is replacing the main portion of the rifle with a new component that contains a short stroke piston gas system (to reduce buildup of carbon inside the rifle) and a heavier (by five ounces) barrel (which reduces barrel failure from too much heat, which happens when several hundred rounds are fired within a few minutes.)
Much of this goes back to the decades old argument about replacing the recoil system in the M-16 assault rifles. This came to a head (again) two years ago, when the army ran more tests on its M-4 rifle, involving dust and reliability. Four weapons were tested. The M4, the XM8, SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) and the H&K 416 (an M4 with the more dust resistant components of the XM8 installed).
The testing consisted of exposing the weapons to 25 hours of heavy dust conditions over two months. During that testing period, 6,000 rounds were fired from each of ten weapons of each type. The weapons with the fewest failures (usually jams) were rated highest. Thus the XM8 finished first, SCAR second, 416 third and M4 last. In response, the army said it was satisfied with the M4s performance, but was considering equipping it with a heavier barrel (to lessen overheating) and more effective magazines (27 percent of the M4s 882 jams were magazine related.) The army noted that the M4 fired over 98 percent of its rounds without problems. That missed the point that the other rifles had far fewer jams. In combat, each jam is a life threatening situation for the soldier in question. The army had been forced by Congress to conduct the tests. Congress was responding to complaints by the troops.
The XM8 had 127 jams, the SCAR 226 and the 416 had 233. Thus the M-4 had nearly eight times as many jams as the XM8, the rifle designed to replace it. The M4 had nearly four times the jams of the SCAR and 416, which were basically M4 type rifles with a different gas handling system. Any stoppage is potentially fatal for the soldier holding the rifle. Thus the disagreement between the army brass, and the troops who use the weapons in combat.
In dusty places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to clean your M16 and M4 rifles constantly, otherwise the combination of carbon (from the recoil system) and dust in the chamber will cause jams. The army and marines both decided to stick with their current weapons, rather than adopt an easier to maintain weapon, like the XM8 or H&K 416, because of the billion or so dollars it would cost to switch rifles.
If the issue were put to a vote, the troops would vote for a rifle using a short-stroke system (like the XM8, SCAR or H&K 416). But the military is not a democracy, so the troops spend a lot of time cleaning their weapons, and hoping for the best. The debate involves two intertwined attitudes among senior army commanders. First, they don't want the hassle, and possible embarrassment, of switching to a new rifle. Second, they are anticipating a breakthrough in weapons technology that will make a possible a much improved infantry weapon. This is likely to happen later, rather than sooner, but the generals kept obsessing over it.
Earlier efforts to just get the troops a more reliable rifle have failed. Back in 2005, the U.S. Army's design for a new assault rifle, the XM8, was cancelled. But now the manufacturer has incorporated one of the key components of the XM8, into M4 rifles, and calls the hybrid the H&K 416. Heckler & Koch (H&K) designed the XM8, which was based on an earlier H&K rifle, the G36. SOCOM is using the 416, but no one else is (except for a few police departments).
The XM8 (like the G36 and 416) uses a short-stroke piston system. The M16s uses the gas-tube system, which results in carbon being blown back into the chamber. That leads to carbon build up, which results in jams (rounds getting stuck in the chamber, and the weapon unable to fire.). The short-stroke system also does not expose parts of the rifle to extremely hot gases (which wears out components more quickly). As a result, rifles using the short-stroke system, rather than the gas-tube, are more reliable, easier to maintain and last longer.
H&K developed the 416, for SOCOM, at the same time the XM8 was being evaluated by the army. SOCOM got the first 416s in 2004, a year before the army cancelled the XM8. The 416 looks like the M4, for the only thing that has changed is the gas system that automatically extracts the cartridge after the bullet has been fired, and loads the next round. SOCOM can buy pretty much whatever they want, the U.S. Army cannot. SOCOM listens to what its troops want, the army often doesn't.
The army is also making three other changes, as part of the M-4 component replacement. There will be improved trigger pull characteristics, a stronger (less likely to fail) rail on the top of the rifle (for fitting scopes and other accessories), ambidextrous controls (to make life easier for lefties) and a round counter (in the pistol grip) to track the number of bullets fired over the lifetime of the rifle (makes for better data on how rifles perform over time, and for scheduling the replacement of components.)
Your thoughts?
Toward FREEDOM!
Toward FREEDOM!
The Israels don’t have a problem with the M4. Why stop there, why not chamber it in 6.5mmX39mm ?
My thought? It's high time that the US Military fielded a rifle that doesn't crap where it eats.
L
There’s alawys room for improvement, but I wouldn’t say the M4 sucks.
They get them for free, why wouldn’t they like them.
I am sorry, they are serious about war. Yes they dumped the Galil because it was expensive, but why go to the expense when you have something that works just as well?
I’m not the world’s gun expert, but three questions:
Q1: For how long have gun enthusiasts “pointed out” that the single most significant shortcoming of the M-16 was direct gas impingement? 25+ years?
Q2: How difficult would it have been to have designed a piston into the M-4?
Q3: If and when government seizes control of healthcare, how many decades will it take for them to acknowledge and make such commonsense changes?
All you have to do in the mean time is to switch to the M14/M1A SOCOM, or the FN Scar .308 cal. and everyone will be happier.
At one time I owned four AR-15 H-Bars. I think they were one of the best rifles I have ever fired. Unfortunately I had to sell them and nearly all my other guns for financial reasons.
I never fired them a lot and would never put them to the stress of combat in a dusty desert area. Still I think many overstate it’s problems.
I will admit that if I had to choose one rifle for combat it would be an FAL. I would give about anything (except the amount of money it would cost) to still have one.
I suspect soldiers will always prefer a light easy to carry rifle over a heavier but better one. I do think the Army should have kept the 20 inch barrel and went to the heavy barrel configuration. The magazine problems are easy to fix. Just contract with Mec-Gar to make them.
Bushmaster already has a interchangeable gas piston system for their M4 at around $300 I believe.
I wouldn't mind seeing a .260 Remington AR-10 variant making it into the field either...the .260 Remington is an underappreciated round!
yes.
The XM8 had 127 jams, the SCAR 226 and the 416 had 233. Thus the M-4 had nearly eight times as many jams as the XM8, the rifle designed to replace it. The M4 had nearly four times the jams of the SCAR and 416, which were basically M4 type rifles with a different gas handling system. Any stoppage is potentially fatal for the soldier holding the rifle.
But nobody went to jail soooooooo it will happen again and again.
The M16/AR-15 platform is a fine sporting rifle, but we don't put hundreds of rounds through it in a very short time as they do when they're in a fire fight. If there are problems, either FIX them or replace the rifles with a different design.
Regards.
Toward FREEDOM!
I understand that there are issues with the M14 as well (above and beyond the fact that on full auto it starts shooting at airplanes after the 10th round or so). Something about overheating, ease of changing the barrel, something like that as I recall. I think there are some issues with the FN FAL as well, even though I personally would give the left side of a tender part of my anatomy for either one. I apologize for the vague nature of my response, and I always thought either one would be a better battle rifle as well, but from what I've read there are more issues than one initially realizes with those guns.
Well A1 and A2 variants I lived with required lots of maintenance to keep running. Runs hot after about the third mag at high rate of fire. Jams except when freshly cleaned and cool... Nothing wrong with the round I don’t want to hump 7.62 way to heavy. Cooks carbon onto the bolt, the battery, everything important and a beyatch to clean baked on powder residue.
Fire it fast and starts to go bad as it gets hot and dry...As in it cooks off the lubricant. So you have to keep CLP handy to keep it firing. I think this will take the m16/m4 to the next level! Great solution, and inexpensive. Weapon will run cooler and cleaner, but with a tad more weight and a little more recoil. But a known problem since Vietnam! What took so long?
I’ve always thought the gas operated system was a little suspect.
Seems counterproductive to take powder residue and inject it into the receiver.
Maybe they should look at the Ruger SR556. It is already piston driven. If it is reliable, seems to me that would be the way to go, since all of the R&D has already been done...
The IDF hasn’t faced mass attacks with a return of full auto fire in decades as far as I know. The outnumbered Marines did in june 08 and the m4s overheated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.