Skip to comments.U.S. Army Agrees That The M-4 Sucks
Posted on 11/28/2009 2:11:52 AM PST by myknowledge
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.)
Heckler & Koch XM8
IMI Tavor TAR-21
I'd go for the Remington ACR.
Forgot the AK47 in the list...... pinged to later read after work.
Just adopt the freaking FN SCAR or ACR already. I favor the SCAR, but the ACR may be more politically friendly.
Imagine that, firing the same ammo as your enemy while still using a U.S. made weapon.
Yep, the AK-47’s Garand style action just works.
I bet they just replace the M-4 upper with a short stroke piston design.
Us civilians can always buy a Ruger mini-14. Mini-14, get it? M14 made small.
The AK design does not meet military accuracy requirements in its original design.
Oh, you can 'accurize' an AK, but it loses its reliability as a result.
It is time for a new weapon system, not a repeat of something (the AK) that is over 70 years old.
My son who has the opportunity to work with most of the above named weapons enjoys the 416.
I do a couple of deer hunts a year for Veterans with most of them being Iraq or Afghanistan Vets and Im always amazed at how many of them would have preferred having a M-14. Theyre biggest complaint was the 5.56s inability to penetrate the dirt walls.
U.S. Army Agrees That The M-4 Sucks
Strategy Page ^ | 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.
Here's an idea - recoup a lot of that "billion or so" by selling the old rifles via the CMP.
Tell the ATF to sod-off.
This is totally emotional. ANYTHING FOR OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN COMBAT.
The problem with the Mini 14 is that it isnt really a accurate rifle. Plus the fact it is chambered for.223 and not 5.56, a small but important detail.
I propose a “skeet” test.
Taka a couple dozen Taliban, launch them into the air, and we’ll see how good these rifles are. :)
-—”I love the peasants, I love the people...PULL!!!!”
(History of the World, Part One)
So can the SCAR. Not a unique feature.
A buddy of mine was able to shoot the SCAR recently. He’s a writer for a major shooting magazine. He said the SCAR was extremely accurate, but too heavy, and the charging handle was on the wrong side.
This is a guy who has his own HK 416 too, so he knows what he’s talking about. He said the SCAR could be tweeked to be a fantastic battle rifle.
the Mini is very inaccurate at distances where M16s and M4s have no trouble getting the hits at all.