M4 does poorly in Army's own test

Seattle PI ^ | 4/20/08 | RICHARD LARDNER

[Dawnsblood]

When the dust finally settled, Army officials sought to put the best face on a sandstorm test that humbled Colt Defense's vaunted M4 carbine.

The tests were conducted at an Army laboratory in Maryland last fall. Ten M4s and 10 copies each of three other carbines - the SCAR from Belgium's FN Herstal, and the HK416 and the XM8 from Germany's Heckler & Koch - were coated in heavy layers of talcum-fine dust to simulate a sandstorm. Tens of thousands of rounds were fired through the rifles.

The M4s malfunctioned 882 times. Bullets that didn't feed through the rifles properly or became lodged in the firing chamber were the biggest problems.

The other carbines had far fewer hitches. The carbine with highest marks was the XM8, a gun with a Star Wars look that the Army considered buying just a few years ago but didn't. The program collapsed due to bureaucratic infighting and questionable acquisition methods.

[xsrdx]

However, I will not go below the full 16" barrel.

+1. You'll also note the USMC does very little complaining about their new 20" M16A4's.

The M4's "problem" is barrel length, nothing more.

[headstamp 2]

That looks like a Galil.

[river rat]

"the Powers that be should, hmmm, "enjoy that feeling" before they vote to choose the next generation of "huntin" implements!"

Naah....you don't want any of the standard run of politician anywhere near you in a fire fight...

The sonsof$%%$% would be worthless and worse -- a hazard.

Were I to find myself in a jockey knotting situation, with a John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barry Obama, Wexler, Schumer, etc, etc,.....too near me when the SHTF -- I'd be sorely tempted to whack them first as a measure of self defense.

[TLI]

See Post 43

[Solitar]

Another 6.5mm (.256) option is the
6.5 MPC which is discused at The High Road (THR) forum (which also weights 6.5 Grendell vs the 6.5 MPC vs the 6.8 SPC). The 6.5 MPC also has a detailed article at Defense Review on the 6.5 MPC

So, why the 6.5 MPC instead of the 6.8 SPC? Ease and cost of conversion (weapons conversion), ammo capacity, and ammo weight (ammo carry capacity at a given load weight). The 6.5 MPC utilizes standard AR-15/M16/M4/M4A1 magazines and bolts, and will function in both the SOPMOD M4/M4A1 Carbine and belt-fed FN M249 SAW/LMG, provided you switch out the barrel(s). No further modification is reportedly necessary. Mag capacity for the 6.5mm MPC is 30 rounds (although you might still want to down-load it to 28, as many do with 5.56mm ammo for reliability purposes). The 6.8mm SPC doesn't stack properly in standard 5.56mm M4/M4A1 mags, and the magazines that have been developed for it limit ammo capacity to 25 rounds, as opposed to 30 rounds, so the 6.8 SPC mags will fit inside current military mag carry pouches. You can also use 5.56 NATO stripper clips to load 6.5 MPC rounds into the mag. At present, there are no 6.8 SPC stripper clips.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Colt executives can't account for the M4's poor showing. And they hinted that the M4s sent from Colt's plant in Hartford may have been mishandled after being delivered to the lab.

Yea, blame someone else. It was a crappy design from the beginning and should have never been adopted. With the dirty gases blowing directly into the bolt and firing mechanism, it is a recipe for a jam.

[Blood of Tyrants]

$1500 is a HUGE ripoff! You can buy a brand new civilian version for about $700!

[MindBender26]

Exactly

With the addition of the 6.5 Grendel® to the product lineup at Alexander Arms, the history of no compromise design, engineering and innovation continues. The 6.5 Grendel® provides an extreme range capability for hunting, competition and tactical applications at ranges way beyond those previously achievable with this class of weapon. The 6.5 Grendel® has the flexibility to move from lightweight varmint bullets in the 90 grain class, which offer superb accuracy for competition and small game shooting, to mid weight 108/120 grain competition bullets and then on to 130 and 140 grain bullets, ideal for longer range, tactical shooting.

The 6.5 Grendel® is challenging the status quo in Military and Law Enforcement units around the world. First unveiled in May 2003 at the Blackwater Training facility in NC, the 6.5 Grendel® out-shot the 7.62 NATO at range with half the recoil. Still supersonic at 1200 yards, the 6.5 Grendel® delivered superior external ballistics to the 7.62 NATO. Utter reliability, superior external and terminal ballistics than the current state of the art, outstanding accuracy in a lightweight M16/AR-15 platform it is what appears to be the pinnacle for what may be achieved in the M16/AR-15 chassis. The 6.5 Grendel® is not a series of compromises, but rather the perfect marriage of mechanical function, internal, external and terminal ballistics all working in harmony.

Shooting a 123-grain Lapua Scenar with a ballistic coefficient of .547 and a muzzle velocity of 2600 fps delivers outstanding accuracy out to 1200 yards. At 600 yards, tennis ball size targets are no match for this flat shooting round. For extreme accuracy, formidable terminal ballistics and long range applications, the 6.5 Grendel® from Alexander Arms is unbeatable.

Compared to the 5.56 the 6.5 Grendel® with roughly twice the lead mass gives you the potential for twice the mass of fragments, and if maximum fragmentation is coincident with maximum temporary cavity, the terminal ballistics are quite convincing indeed all in a package that shoots flatter, with 50% less felt recoil than 7.62 NATO M80 ball.

Again, Alexander Arms is ahead of the curve. Currently in testing with the US Military for widespread adoption, the 6.5 Grendel® seems assured a place in history.

[MindBender26]

Please see # 68, each other’s posts, and http://www.alexanderarms.com

Bill Alexander is a great and wise man.

Be well.

[NVDave]

The barrel length is a big problem, and I cannot (for the life of me) fathom what the advantage to a short barrel on a rifle is.

The powder in a rifle round burns too slowly; as the barrel length is reduced, more powder is left unburnt by the time the bullet exits the muzzle, which means two things: reduced velocity and huge muzzle flashes.

This can be ameliorated by using a faster-burning powder (like a pistol powder), but if any of the short-barrel ammo finds its way into a rifle or SAW, those weapons will be blown apart by the absurd pressures developed from too-rapidly burning powder.

What the M4 suffers from, IMO, is the desire by the DOD pencil pushers for one weapon that will do everything. I’m not an expert in combat arms, but I’ve never heard of “one weapon that does everything.” Our guys need a sub-gun for urban close-quarters stuff now, and they’re trying to cut a rifle down to do the job. Why not just re-issue the Thompson 1927’s we have in stock? They spit out .45 ACP’s at a nice clip, which put enemies on the ground in a hurry. If they don’t want to do that then why not find some other sub-gun in 9mm or .45ACP to do the job? Why try to cut a rifle down to a pistol size and still pretend it is a rifle?

Makes no sense to me.

[wastedyears]

If it was up to me, I would’ve licensed H&K’s I think it’s the gas piston system? Give them a huge contract to manufacture the uppers in very large quantities.

[wastedyears]

Larger than 9mm.

[wastedyears]

He should find out how much it would cost for you or I to purchase one.

[usmcobra]

An excellent debunking of a seriously flawed and political test.

Excessive amounts of dust were used more than would have ever been accumulated in combat conditions.

The M-4’s were off the shelf while it’s competitors were hand crafted and some received extra lubrication the M-4’s did not.

When properly lubricated the M-4 performed as well as the rest of the rifles used in the test.

All of the rifles used were worn out to the point where the head space on the bolts of each weapon exceeded safe conditions and resulted ruptured cartridge cases in all the rifles with the M-4 suffering the least amount of ruptures.

Rather debate the merits of one gun over the other perhaps the old axiom should be applied to all these tests.

Keep your powder dry.

or rather take care of your weapon properly and it will take care of you.

[JDoutrider]

"Were I to find myself in a jockey knotting situation, with a John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barry Obama, Wexler, Schumer, etc, etc,.....too near me when the SHTF -- I'd be sorely tempted to whack them first as a measure of self defense."

Hell RR! Even an old grunt like me would question your sanity if you didn't take them out first!

You know, probably better than I that a Man has to have his priorities straight! LOL!!!

[ExSoldier]

6.5 Grendel.

Wasn't there a handgun called the Grendel a few years back? Looked sorta odd and fired the 22WMR? Anybody got a pic of that? Any relation between the two? I think I heard mixed reviews on the grendel pistol except that everybody agreed it was ugly.

[archy]

I agree, start with the best 6.5mm and go from there....but that’ll never happen. Not with the way our screwed up system works. Just as the 1930’s supply of on-hand 30-06 caused the army to dump the best round for the Garand, today our “legacy” 5.56 and 308 causes the army to stick with those rounds no matter what.

And it will forever, I suspect.

Up to a point. When we get our hat handed to us by adversaries who use a technological advancement, it brings change along in a hurry. Examples abound, from the reservist volunteers of 1898 going up against the Spanish in Cuba with their Civil War Springfield muskets reworked into single shot breechloaders, versus Spanish 5-shot Mauser bolt-action repeaters firing smokeless cartridges. The good news was it gave us the Krag and Lee repeaters, whose shortcomings were resolved with their replacement by the Springfield bolt action rifle of 1903.

Likewise, the M14 and early AR15 rifles were thought to be just dandy when fitted with a 20-round magazine, since that was what the WWII [and late WWI] BAR had used. And then US troops started going up against AK47s with 30-round magazines.

Our present enemies have mostly fielded that same weapon, so our shortcomings in the small arms department aren't as critical as those in personnel body and vehicular armor were. And it's always the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

But either a breakthrough in propellant technology, probably caseless, or a situation in which American troops find their most basic tool to be horrible inadequate will get great bright spotlights of attention on the problem. I would be happier if it's the former.

[archy]

The barrel length is a big problem, and I cannot (for the life of me) fathom what the advantage to a short barrel on a rifle is.

Ever had to get out of a burning vehicle in a hurry?

[archy]

The 6.8mm SPC doesn't stack properly in standard 5.56mm M4/M4A1 mags, and the magazines that have been developed for it limit ammo capacity to 25 rounds, as opposed to 30 rounds, so the 6.8 SPC mags will fit inside current military mag carry pouches. You can also use 5.56 NATO stripper clips to load 6.5 MPC rounds into the mag. At present, there are no 6.8 SPC stripper clips.

The Australians seem to be VERY interested in the 6,8 SPC and a demonstration and test fire was arranged for them at Camp Robinson, Arkansas back in 2004. Since their F88 AusSteyr variant of the Steyr AUG has a quick-change barrel, all they need is a quick field strip of their weapon to replace the bolt and barrel, change to the new 6.8 magazine, and they're good to go. Of more concern to them was [at that time] the lack of a usable 6.8 caliber link for the 5.56mm M249 SAW, known in Australian service as the F89.

If there's anywhere that the better ballistics of a 6.5/6.8/.280 upgrade version of the 5.56 cartridge would prove itself, it's in the longer ranges in the squad support weapon role. And with the first issue of the new weapon/ammo to be linked, the older linked ball ammo could be relegated to rifle training.

[archy]

look at how hard the USAF has wanted to get rid of the A-10. It isn’t supersonic, it isn’t sexy, it doesn’t have a glass cockpit.

It does now. A-10C *BorgHawg*