I read most of the replies so far-generally of the opinion that the 416 is head and shoulders above the M4/M16.
Well, how about some reality?
The only benefit is that of the “propellant gases channeling back into the upper reciever, tending to dry lubricant and gum up the works”
In a dry dusty environment, the prescribed lube level is DRY (hence the dry film lubricant applied to the inner upper surfaces and the bolt carrier) If this coating is compromised, unit armoers are equipped to re-apply it in the field, it works. End of arugument.
I routiinely had to make a point on the proper lub of weapons in dry dusty enviroments-Soldiers from BCT through senior levels have been trained by (poor)example to pump CLP into every opening of the M16 family to make it run-wrong.
The M4/M16 is a fine weapon, is very efective within its design parameters (300m) and is very reliable in its current format.
The dust test required somewhere around 8000 rounds fired w/o maintenance-try that with anything and the performance will suffer(much). The rate of failure of the “worst” weapon, the M4, was somewhere in the range of a larger handful, compared to smaller handfulls of failures of the others.
Statistically stupid. No trooper is ging to run his weapon for 8k rounds sans maintenance, and then wonder why it don’t work.
The BS is the criticsim and the resultant testing protocol.
Why not get a ball park range of combat use/rounds fired per day and then test on that more realistic number-that way, when a bullet launcher fails to launch, it IS statistically significant.
The 556 M855 round is very lethal, only thing is you must actually hit the target-always a problem when the doo doo hits the fan (trust me!)
The 6.8SPC is about as powerfull as the 762x39 or 30/30 win-with a trajectory of a rainbow past 300m-so we are back to the same result (if it was a super round, the High power community would use it-not a one will touch it as it is a turd in a punchbowl long range performance wise toooslow and too light bullet balisitally speaking).
Up the caliber to 762x51 or so, and you get a weapon with more terminal enegery, but at the expense of additional recoil and load mass.
No free lunches for the dogs of war!
I trusted my life for many years with the M16A1, A2, M4 and M4A1, and they always went bang, accurately.
This test is akin to telling us a Soldier’s uniform smells, and then blaming the manufacturer for the troopers poor hygiene....
Remember PO2 Monsoor, SEAL, USN CMH
I don’t feel undergunned with my M-4gery Homeland Defense Rifle.
I think you're off the mark comparing the ballistics and trajectory of the 6.8Rem to 7.62X39 or 30-30. And no, it's not going to light up the high power world, but no round that packs 25 cartridges into an M-16 magazine ever could do that.
I get flamed when I criticize the 6.8SPC. Awhile back I suggested the 6.8 was the wrong direction and that the correct direction would be to put a heavier bullet in the 223 and then up the chamber pressure and the muzzle velocity by use of faster burning powder and/or more powerful primers. It wouldn’t hurt to make it a boat tail bullet either, since, I’m pretty sure the 223 is not commonly a boat tail type bullet. If brass starts to split or bulge, make it thicker walled, or switch to aluminum casings. Whatever it takes.
Is the problem powder residue sticking to the works when they get hot
or that talc-like dust combining with the powder residue?
I also understand that the M4 action won't cycle when muddy?
And what is the commercial name of the lube you recommend. I like Dry-Slide, but by now there must be something sexier.
My son carried an M4 on two tours, Liked it, he did say you had to do maintenace, esp the magazines.
He hated the M9, the magazines they issue are utter crap. I scored some commercial mags for him - in the end he carried a AK 47 or Mossberg as a backup. When he wasn’t humping a M249.
The 6.8 SPC is almost the same as the 7.62x39... the issue sems to be “when used in a M16/M4” weaponn...
http://www.ko-tonics.com/68-FAQ.html for a decent rundown.