User Panel
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:02:09 PM EDT
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/
A competing rifle outperformed the Army’s favored M4A1 carbine in key firings during a competition last year before the service abruptly called off the tests and stuck with its gun, according to a new confidential report. The report also says the Army changed the ammunition midstream to a round "tailored” for the M4A1 rifle. It quoted competing companies as saying the switch was unfair because they did not have enough time to fire the new ammo and redesign their rifles before the tests began. Exactly how the eight challengers — and the M4 — performed in a shootout to replace the M4, a soldier’s most important personal defense, has been shrouded in secrecy. But an "official use only report” by the Center for Naval Analyses shows that one of the eight unidentified weapons outperformed the M4 on reliability and on the number of rounds fired before the most common type of failures, or stoppages, occurred, according to data obtained by The Washington Times. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/#ixzz3B0XL5kKP Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter |
|
It will never matter. The whole world is vested in the AR platform.
|
|
The Times spoke with soldiers who had used the M4 in intense combat. They said the magazine is tinny and subject to jamming. The gun itself requires constant cleaning. One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts. View Quote Anyone know what they are talking about? |
|
|
Who cares? There are some things that matter more than performance.
|
|
|
|
|
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"?
If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. |
|
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. View Quote No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. |
|
In before the "what does the SCAR do better than an AR" thread
|
|
Quoted:
Anyone know what they are talking about? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
The Times spoke with soldiers who had used the M4 in intense combat. They said the magazine is tinny and subject to jamming. The gun itself requires constant cleaning. One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts. Anyone know what they are talking about? magpul, Duhhhh. |
|
gun "C" was obviously an AK.
eta: *$$*%^&*&&%%## slow hughesnet |
|
Quoted:
No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. |
|
Quoted:
Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. M855A1 can be had if you have the cash to drop and know where to look. Been that way for a good while now. It's what the Army planned to (and has, give or take) change to for Ball ammo. It was in development forever and wasn't exactly a shock or dark horse. You expect them to test a new carbine with ammo being phased out? Sometimes, specs change for valid reasons. Did Colt get to bitch about the change to M855A1 in testing? They didn't get to redesign the M4 for it either. Thus the testing was just as unfair to the M4. |
|
|
|
|
If this is more XM8 propoganda it just isn't going to happen.
Ever |
|
|
They really should just stop wasting money on projects like this until there's something truly revolutionary nothing is going to depose the ar platform. It's earned its stripes and then some. Doesn't make sense to change anything at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
M855A1 can be had if you have the cash to drop and know where to look. Been that way for a good while now. It's what the Army planned to (and has, give or take) change to for Ball ammo. It was in development forever and wasn't exactly a shock or dark horse. You expect them to test a new carbine with ammo being phased out? Sometimes, specs change for valid reasons. Did Colt get to bitch about the change to M855A1 in testing? They didn't get to redesign the M4 for it either. Thus the testing was just as unfair to the M4. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. M855A1 can be had if you have the cash to drop and know where to look. Been that way for a good while now. It's what the Army planned to (and has, give or take) change to for Ball ammo. It was in development forever and wasn't exactly a shock or dark horse. You expect them to test a new carbine with ammo being phased out? Sometimes, specs change for valid reasons. Did Colt get to bitch about the change to M855A1 in testing? They didn't get to redesign the M4 for it either. Thus the testing was just as unfair to the M4. And the Army is still making changes to the M4/M4A1 to get it to work right with M855A1. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.