USAF M4 upgrades spotted. - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - USAF M4 upgrades spotted. (Page 2 of 6)

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:18:35 PM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:
I figured they would still have A1s.

When I went to Afghanistan in 2002 the AF personnel had M16A1s. They thought our M4s with M68s and PAQ-4C/PEQ-2As were something they should have and we laughed. What they had looked adequate for what they were doing in my book.

Nothing I've seen since has changed my mind.

View Quote

Your correct, we were carrying our original AR15 lowers from like 1965 with an A2 upper. 9/11, as bad as it was, presented an opportunity for us to not only upgrade the old A2s, but finally move to the M240. In 2002/03, we bullied our way into the M4 production line and started receiving the M4s. At the same time we were trying to figure out something other than irons; it was all discovery learning.

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:19:13 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:

Same. Maybe one day the USMC can get past the M27 mess too?

View Quote

Negative. M4MR test got diluted once FMID took operational control of it, results were not compartmentalized per component, results were briefed in a twisted manner, test report was sealed and placed on limited distro (FMID basically killed the USMC URG-I effort) waiver from LOGCOM CG, IG, all the way up to SECDEF was approved for the M27. That rifle is all the Marine Corps will get for the future, no further improvements are to be had. There is a DUNS for an improved rail to resist rail deflection during lasing aiming use, but some NSFs take the intellectually lazy path out and place lasers right over the barrel nut to reduce the effect.

A slight win for the Marine on the ground, but not nearly as much as he could have had. The little guy will pay for lazy and culpable intermediate level leadership.

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:21:31 PM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
All the better to guard airplanes with

View Quote

It is intended for most USAF SecFor (around 30,000 in number), the Battlefield Airman community (CCTs, PJs, etc), and some other users. Nothing is wrong with standardizing on a better rifle for all.

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:22:03 PM EDT

[#4]

That scope base has some serious weight reduction. That's a good direction to go in.

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:22:05 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Will never happen. US Army G8 has, and I quote, "No interest in M4A1+ [or similar modifications]". They want to sit around until NGSW-Carbine becomes a thing, which is pretty damn criminal and lazy, seeing as how it'll sit there as vaporware for years until they downgrade requirements until industry can actually do it.

It's sad, but soldiers in the conventional Army truly do not have any voice, nor do their proponents.

S/F

View Quote

True. A man can dream though

Quoted:

Pretty much. Stock M4s can't reliably hit realistic form factor targets across all positions and means of support much past 60M.

In this day and age, a non floated AR is antiquated and to continue using one in many cases is lunacy.

S/F

View Quote

I agree. Especially when the cost can be as minor as a new rail, gas block, and barrel nut. Or in this case, a new barrel, rail, gas block, bbl nut. Well the gas block was already on the Block 2 but close enough.

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:24:15 PM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
It is intended for most USAF SecFor (around 30,000 in number), the Battlefield Airman community (CCTs, PJs, etc), and some other users. Nothing is wrong with standardizing on a better rifle for all.

S/F

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
All the better to guard airplanes with

It is intended for most USAF SecFor (around 30,000 in number), the Battlefield Airman community (CCTs, PJs, etc), and some other users. Nothing is wrong with standardizing on a better rifle for all.

S/F

Is it going to eventually be the M4 baseline for all the Air Force or only the people who have a better need for it?

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:24:33 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
The graphic implies a M4 has a performance of of 20" @100 meters/109 yards, (Presumably using ball ammo)..? Is this an realistic comparison of performance?

View Quote

Yes, but it is an aggregate (shooter, weapon, ammunition) metric. It factors in ammunition, in this case being M855A1 and using 30-shot composite groups, and adding it to the unpredicatble cone of fire created from using a non-floated system in many different positions and means of support.

Floating the AR is the singular best performance improvement you can do to it.

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:25:31 PM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:

Airplanes worth tens to hundreds of millions each? Seems like a decent investment.

How about nuclear weapons? Should we use modern tools to defend those?

View Quote

You Zoomies are too easy. I am messing with yah amigo.

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:26:43 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:

You Zoomies are too easy. I am messing with yah amigo.

View Quote

Fair enough, I’m sure the thought is out there though.

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:27:16 PM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
Negative. M4MR test got diluted once FMID took operational control of it, results were not compartmentalized per component, results were briefed in a twisted manner, test report was sealed and placed on limited distro (FMID basically killed the USMC URG-I effort) waiver from LOGCOM CG, IG, all the way up to SECDEF was approved for the M27. That rifle is all the Marine Corps will get for the future, no further improvements are to be had. There is a DUNS for an improved rail to resist rail deflection during lasing aiming use, but some NSFs take the intellectually lazy path out and place lasers right over the barrel nut to reduce the effect.

A slight win for the Marine on the ground, but not nearly as much as he could have had. The little guy will pay for lazy and culpable intermediate level leadership.

S/F

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Same. Maybe one day the USMC can get past the M27 mess too?

Negative. M4MR test got diluted once FMID took operational control of it, results were not compartmentalized per component, results were briefed in a twisted manner, test report was sealed and placed on limited distro (FMID basically killed the USMC URG-I effort) waiver from LOGCOM CG, IG, all the way up to SECDEF was approved for the M27. That rifle is all the Marine Corps will get for the future, no further improvements are to be had. There is a DUNS for an improved rail to resist rail deflection during lasing aiming use, but some NSFs take the intellectually lazy path out and place lasers right over the barrel nut to reduce the effect.

A slight win for the Marine on the ground, but not nearly as much as he could have had. The little guy will pay for lazy and culpable intermediate level leadership.

S/F

Pretty disgusting.

For the guys using them I want it to succeed, for the decision makers sake I want it to fail. Talk about mixed feelings.

They can't even run a PIP on it in the future??

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:33:10 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:

Is there any indication the USAF gats will have the Geissele high speed selector? Or an upgraded trigger of any type?

Also, will their guns use bolts with a new coating, possibly the Picatiny DSL coating?

View Quote

Maybe, maybe not. In my testing and tweaking design of it, it was great for some things but there is no free lunch. If one rides the selector too hard, the weapon can recoil and result in the thumb inadvertently bumping the selector lever to auto. Adding more of a detent helped a little bit. Then, you're asking the selector drum to accomplish a lot with less travel. Simple receiver pin hole variations meant that sometimes there would be issues with releasing the auto sear. Tolerances came down to thousandths at times.

Is it needed? No. I feel the standard SSF is plenty good enough for use, but there's also no sustainment/rebuild kits available in the system.

The coating, likely not. DSL isn't ready for primetime. I got briefed on this at the inaugural USAF symposium in 2017 by Picatinny. The problem was that to get a part coated, you had to run electrical current through it, but it resulted in the part being heated near 1000 degrees F. In the Marine tests, and another Govt. test, DSL coated 9310 (more sensitive to heat treat issues than C158, but it wouldn't have mattered) bolts shattered within 4000 rounds, often at the cam pin hole. Even a stock Colt (Microbest) bolt would have defeated it. Specifying that technology for the proof of concept gun, in hindsight, was the poorest career move I've ever made.

Best move for USAF? Standard bolts and stock M4A1 triggers until USASOC figures out what they want to do for bolts (if anything) and trigger sustainment kits.

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:35:00 PM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

Is it going to eventually be the M4 baseline for all the Air Force or only the people who have a better need for it?

View Quote

Intended for SecFor, BA, and a few others. Really elements that carry a rifle on a routine basis, parts of their 'ground combat elements'.

I don't have a better term (USMC has MLG, ACE, and GCE)

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:38:12 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

True. A man can dream though

View Quote

Never going to happen.

Not unless a select few Congressmen receive an onslaught of letters referencing the 115th Congress' guidance on page 74 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (last paragraph).

Rifles are literally a topic too sensitive to touch right now, which basically means forever.

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:38:24 PM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
Intended for SecFor, BA, and a few others. Really elements that carry a rifle on a routine basis, parts of their 'ground combat elements'.

I don't have a better term (USMC has MLG, ACE, and GCE)

S/F

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Is it going to eventually be the M4 baseline for all the Air Force or only the people who have a better need for it?

Intended for SecFor, BA, and a few others. Really elements that carry a rifle on a routine basis, parts of their 'ground combat elements'.

I don't have a better term (USMC has MLG, ACE, and GCE)

S/F

Makes sense. By the time I’m having to use a rifle on base things have gone behind pear shaped.

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:39:42 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:

Maybe, maybe not. In my testing and tweaking design of it, it was great for some things but there is no free lunch. If one rides the selector too hard, the weapon can recoil and result in the thumb inadvertently bumping the selector lever to auto. Adding more of a detent helped a little bit. Then, you're asking the selector drum to accomplish a lot with less travel. Simple receiver pin hole variations meant that sometimes there would be issues with releasing the auto sear. Tolerances came down to thousandths at times.

Is it needed? No. I feel the standard SSF is plenty good enough for use, but there's also no sustainment/rebuild kits available in the system.

The coating, likely not. DSL isn't ready for primetime. I got briefed on this at the inaugural USAF symposium in 2017 by Picatinny. The problem was that to get a part coated, you had to run electrical current through it, but it resulted in the part being heated near 1000 degrees F. In the Marine tests, and another Govt. test, DSL coated 9310 (more sensitive to heat treat issues than C158, but it wouldn't have mattered) bolts shattered within 4000 rounds, often at the cam pin hole. Even a stock Colt (Microbest) bolt would have defeated it. Specifying that technology for the proof of concept gun, in hindsight, was the poorest career move I've ever made.

Best move for USAF? Standard bolts and stock M4A1 triggers until USASOC figures out what they want to do for bolts (if anything) and trigger sustainment kits.

S/F

View Quote

Thank you, that's great info

Perhaps the solution for bolts is something simpler, like Nitride or Nickel-Teflon?

Also, was there any testing done with Surefires new Optimized Bolt Carrier, which has the upgrades designed by Jim Sullivan?

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:41:30 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

Pretty disgusting.

For the guys using them I want it to succeed, for the decision makers sake I want it to fail. Talk about mixed feelings.

They can't even run a PIP on it in the future??

View Quote

They could, but they won't. When I'm telling you there is no desire to PIP or mod anything, I am not kidding. Until you fire the Colonel at SYSCOM, Marines will never get anything better in the way of rifles.

You need to understand, that place is job security for people. It isn't designed truly to get the right thing out the door, for the right guy, in the right time (case studies - PRC117G, MTV vest, IMTV vest, LWH, M40A6). If it was, it would be called USASOC CDD/G8.

ETA - Add to that list how they didn't want the capabilities in the PVS31B, because "Marine's didn't need it"... and instead wanted to default to PVS31As. Institutional, intellectual LAZINESS

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:47:16 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
The M4 isn't broken. This is all superfluous.

View Quote

Truth.

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:47:30 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
The M4 isn’t broken. This is all superfluous.

View Quote

Apparently, it's a 20 MOA rifle.

Attached File

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:49:23 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:

Thank you, that's great info

Perhaps the solution for bolts is something simpler, like Nitride or Nickel-Teflon?

Also, was there any testing done with Surefires new Optimized Bolt Carrier, which has the upgrades designed by Jim Sullivan?

View Quote

The solution?

To that I ask, what's the problem? Your current bolts (Colt, anyways) go about 13,000 rounds worth of M855A1 before losing a lug. By that time it's about time for a new barrel anyways, and you've lost 100 FPS velocity and about 1 MOA of precision.

The solution is to have a 15,000 workup cycle (UTM and live), rebarrel with a new bolt right before deployment, and go hunt bad dudes.

One could use the JP bolts, which I honestly consider to be the best of the breed of backwards compatible bolts. DLC is about the best coating you can get for it right now (nitride is a no go. Look at the application temperature, then reference the temper temperature of the base metal...), they can actually produce them, their heat treatment is bang on, and they have fantastic lug root geometry. I'm about to do a few special builds here using them as a component, and post it so y'all can come along for the journey.

The OBC, I did actually test them out, and they do have some redeeming features. Cyclic rate is hugely reduced, dwell time is excellent. In full auto they are a dream, but in semi its actually possible to hit a rate of fire that has the counterweight slam forwards right as you're trying to fire the next round. This can result in REALLY low hits. Just something to be aware of.

Its a good solution for 10" guns, for sure. I got a video somewhere of a mag dump with a 10.3" M4 and a G Mk4 rail. The thing ran flat and wonderful.

Sullivan is a bit stuck in the past however. He still believes that full auto should be the primary tool of the infantryman, which is not the case. He also believes that floating the gun isn't needed, which is also definitely not the case (drawings on a board are suspended in space. No lateral load applied. See how this belief came to be?)

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:52:21 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
Apparently, it's a 20 MOA rifle.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/52736/IMG_5732_JPG-289202.jpg

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The M4 isn’t broken. This is all superfluous.

Apparently, it's a 20 MOA rifle.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/52736/IMG_5732_JPG-289202.jpg

That was elaborated on above. That isn't for 3 round bench groups

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:52:26 PM EDT

[#21]

Security Forces more like Serious Forces.

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:53:45 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:

Apparently, it's a 20 MOA rifle.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/52736/IMG_5732_JPG-289202.jpg

View Quote

As posted above ->Yes, but it is an aggregate (shooter, weapon, ammunition) metric. It factors in ammunition, in this case being M855A1 and using 30-shot composite groups, and adding it to the unpredicatble cone of fire created from using a non-floated system in many different positions and means of support.

Precisely predicting POI shift with a non floated system with various means of support is impossible.

ETA - Fun fact, two of the uppers in the photo were mine, loaned to the USAF.

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 8:58:11 PM EDT

[#23]

@GS5414

what are your opinions of proof testing bolts? I only bring this up because of the stastic you gave about M4 bolt life. I know some experts say it's dumb and unnecessary. And is almost as bad as taking a newborn baby and running it through a X-ray machine to make sure it is a healthy baby. That bolt life would improve even more if we didn't subject the bolts to that "unnessary" test.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:03:01 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
@GS5414

what are your opinions of proof testing bolts? I only bring this up because of the stastic you gave about M4 bolt life. I know some experts say it's dumb and unnecessary. And is almost as bad as taking a newborn baby and running it through a X-ray machine to make sure it is a healthy baby. That bolt life would improve even more if we didn't subject the bolts to that "unnessary" test.

View Quote

I despise proof testing every bolt. I even have a paper/presentation Picatinny made on the topic. It literally induces micro fissures in the bolt and reduces usable bolt life.

Now if a bolt technology is new and untested, sure. In the development of a product, sure. Once it's established (actually live fire endurance tested, not simulated cycle testing) and regular production is running? Hell no.

If I could buy a bucket of Microbest/Colt bolts that were not proof fired, I would.

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:05:02 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
Here is one of the pics from the link

I like the upgrades myself.

https://i.imgur.com/MQ0go85.jpg

View Quote

M79 rates right up there with Wart Hog.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:07:51 PM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:
It factors in ammunition, in this case being M855A1 and using 30-shot composite groups, and adding it to the unpredicatble cone of fire created from using a non-floated system in many different positions and means of support.

Precisely predicting POI shift with a non floated system with various means of support is impossible.

S/F

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Apparently, it's a 20 MOA rifle.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/52736/IMG_5732_JPG-289202.jpg

It factors in ammunition, in this case being M855A1 and using 30-shot composite groups, and adding it to the unpredicatble cone of fire created from using a non-floated system in many different positions and means of support.

Precisely predicting POI shift with a non floated system with various means of support is impossible.

S/F

Ah. Makes sense.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:11:44 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:
I despise proof testing every bolt. I even have a paper/presentation Picatinny made on the topic. It literally induces micro fissures in the bolt and reduces usable bolt life.

Now if a bolt technology is new and untested, sure. In the development of a product, sure. Once it's established (actually live fire endurance tested, not simulated cycle testing) and regular production is running? Hell no.

If I could buy a bucket of Microbest/Colt bolts that were not proof fired, I would.

S/F

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
@GS5414

what are your opinions of proof testing bolts? I only bring this up because of the stastic you gave about M4 bolt life. I know some experts say it's dumb and unnecessary. And is almost as bad as taking a newborn baby and running it through a X-ray machine to make sure it is a healthy baby. That bolt life would improve even more if we didn't subject the bolts to that "unnessary" test.

I despise proof testing every bolt. I even have a paper/presentation Picatinny made on the topic. It literally induces micro fissures in the bolt and reduces usable bolt life.

Now if a bolt technology is new and untested, sure. In the development of a product, sure. Once it's established (actually live fire endurance tested, not simulated cycle testing) and regular production is running? Hell no.

If I could buy a bucket of Microbest/Colt bolts that were not proof fired, I would.

S/F

Well said and I concur, beyond new tech I think batch testing is the way to go, and that individual proof load fired bolt should not go out the door.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:11:56 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
Lol there’s like 87 dudes in the airforce the carry rifles anyway.

In reality all these slick upgrades and replacements don’t mean shit until the army unfucks it’s rifle qual and complete and utter lack of marksmanship training.

The overwhelmingly large majority of the army only shoots 60 rounds a year if they even qual once a year.

View Quote

You haven’t met many PJs

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:14:27 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
@GS5414

what are your opinions of proof testing bolts? I only bring this up because of the stastic you gave about M4 bolt life. I know some experts say it's dumb and unnecessary. And is almost as bad as taking a newborn baby and running it through a X-ray machine to make sure it is a healthy baby. That bolt life would improve even more if we didn't subject the bolts to that "unnessary" test.

View Quote

Knights armament said something along the lines of proof testing is what causes bolts to break earlier than non proof tested bolts.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:14:41 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:

Well said and I concur, beyond new tech I think batch testing is the way to go, and that individual proof load fired bolt should not go out the door.

View Quote

And the batch tested bolt goes to the steel recycle.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:18:38 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

You haven’t met many PJs

View Quote

They were fun. They wanted to default to the HK416 due to NSW influence.

They also brought to the table over 100 (whittled down from nearly 400) modifications/accessories that they wanted approved for use.

This is twofold. This was the SecFor center in the past not being responsive to BA Airmen needs (a few sticks in the mud had to leave. One a GS15), and also some communities going buck wild on mods. Just because you've been in one unit or another doesn't mean you know a damn thing about guns... This is why you see some strange USAF weapon variants every now and again.

There's some unsung heroes that did good work on this effort working out of the SecFor center. I wish they were Marines instead.

How shameful is that, that the USAF opted to pursue a superior USMC effort that got killed internally?

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:19:02 PM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:

The solution?

To that I ask, what's the problem? Your current bolts (Colt, anyways) go about 13,000 rounds worth of M855A1 before losing a lug. By that time it's about time for a new barrel anyways, and you've lost 100 FPS velocity and about 1 MOA of precision.

The solution is to have a 15,000 workup cycle (UTM and live), rebarrel with a new bolt right before deployment, and go hunt bad dudes.

One could use the JP bolts, which I honestly consider to be the best of the breed of backwards compatible bolts. DLC is about the best coating you can get for it right now (nitride is a no go. Look at the application temperature, then reference the temper temperature of the base metal...), they can actually produce them, their heat treatment is bang on, and they have fantastic lug root geometry. I'm about to do a few special builds here using them as a component, and post it so y'all can come along for the journey.

The OBC, I did actually test them out, and they do have some redeeming features. Cyclic rate is hugely reduced, dwell time is excellent. In full auto they are a dream, but in semi its actually possible to hit a rate of fire that has the counterweight slam forwards right as you're trying to fire the next round. This can result in REALLY low hits. Just something to be aware of.

Its a good solution for 10" guns, for sure. I got a video somewhere of a mag dump with a 10.3" M4 and a G Mk4 rail. The thing ran flat and wonderful.

Sullivan is a bit stuck in the past however. He still believes that full auto should be the primary tool of the infantryman, which is not the case. He also believes that floating the gun isn't needed, which is also definitely not the case (drawings on a board are suspended in space. No lateral load applied. See how this belief came to be?)

S/F

View Quote

Any reason you prefer the JP bolt design over the LMT Enhanced bolt design?

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:20:10 PM EDT

[#33]

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:20:47 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:

Knights armament said something along the lines of proof testing is what causes bolts to break earlier than non proof tested bolts.

View Quote

Knights is right. I do wish between them or Hodge/FN that they were the URG suppliers to the DoD. A lot of training and operational problems would go away overnight...

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:25:07 PM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:

Knights is right. I do wish between them or Hodge/FN that they were the URG suppliers to the DoD. A lot of training and operational problems would go away overnight...

S/F

View Quote

My "main" ar is a knights mod2 in 16" and it really does seem awesome when compared to almost anything else, just wish they made a 10.3 variant.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:26:31 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:

Any reason you prefer the JP bolt design over the LMT Enhanced bolt design?

View Quote

I like elements of both. I love the dual extractor springs of both the LMT and KAC (a long spring is a happy spring), and I love the lug root geometry of both.

The LMT carrier cam pin slot being elongated is outstanding, something I wish JP would do, but I prefer JPs carrier and bolt surface treatment and polishing (both on carrier rails and in carrier bore) over standard phosphating/chroming.

Many good features in both!

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:27:47 PM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:
he solution?

To that I ask, what's the problem? Your current bolts (Colt, anyways) go about 13,000 rounds worth of M855A1 before losing a lug. By that time it's about time for a new barrel anyways, and you've lost 100 FPS velocity and about 1 MOA of precision.

The solution is to have a 15,000 workup cycle (UTM and live), rebarrel with a new bolt right before deployment, and go hunt bad dudes.

One could use the JP bolts, which I honestly consider to be the best of the breed of backwards compatible bolts. DLC is about the best coating you can get for it right now (nitride is a no go. Look at the application temperature, then reference the temper temperature of the base metal...), they can actually produce them, their heat treatment is bang on, and they have fantastic lug root geometry. I'm about to do a few special builds here using them as a component, and post it so y'all can come along for the journey.

The OBC, I did actually test them out, and they do have some redeeming features. Cyclic rate is hugely reduced, dwell time is excellent. In full auto they are a dream, but in semi its actually possible to hit a rate of fire that has the counterweight slam forwards right as you're trying to fire the next round. This can result in REALLY low hits. Just something to be aware of.

Its a good solution for 10" guns, for sure. I got a video somewhere of a mag dump with a 10.3" M4 and a G Mk4 rail. The thing ran flat and wonderful.

Sullivan is a bit stuck in the past however. He still believes that full auto should be the primary tool of the infantryman, which is not the case. He also believes that floating the gun isn't needed, which is also definitely not the case (drawings on a board are suspended in space. No lateral load applied. See how this belief came to be?)

S/F

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Thank you, that's great info

Perhaps the solution for bolts is something simpler, like Nitride or Nickel-Teflon?

Also, was there any testing done with Surefires new Optimized Bolt Carrier, which has the upgrades designed by Jim Sullivan?

he solution?

To that I ask, what's the problem? Your current bolts (Colt, anyways) go about 13,000 rounds worth of M855A1 before losing a lug. By that time it's about time for a new barrel anyways, and you've lost 100 FPS velocity and about 1 MOA of precision.

The solution is to have a 15,000 workup cycle (UTM and live), rebarrel with a new bolt right before deployment, and go hunt bad dudes.

One could use the JP bolts, which I honestly consider to be the best of the breed of backwards compatible bolts. DLC is about the best coating you can get for it right now (nitride is a no go. Look at the application temperature, then reference the temper temperature of the base metal...), they can actually produce them, their heat treatment is bang on, and they have fantastic lug root geometry. I'm about to do a few special builds here using them as a component, and post it so y'all can come along for the journey.

The OBC, I did actually test them out, and they do have some redeeming features. Cyclic rate is hugely reduced, dwell time is excellent. In full auto they are a dream, but in semi its actually possible to hit a rate of fire that has the counterweight slam forwards right as you're trying to fire the next round. This can result in REALLY low hits. Just something to be aware of.

Its a good solution for 10" guns, for sure. I got a video somewhere of a mag dump with a 10.3" M4 and a G Mk4 rail. The thing ran flat and wonderful.

Sullivan is a bit stuck in the past however. He still believes that full auto should be the primary tool of the infantryman, which is not the case. He also believes that floating the gun isn't needed, which is also definitely not the case (drawings on a board are suspended in space. No lateral load applied. See how this belief came to be?)

S/F

Have you ever used a cryptic carriers DLC toolcraft BCG? I bought one cause it looks cool... Put it in my URGI.

It seems very tough, it's really slick and it's easy to clean

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:28:18 PM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:

I like elements of both. I love the dual extractor springs of both the LMT and KAC (a long spring is a happy spring), and I love the lug root geometry of both.

The LMT carrier cam pin slot being elongated is outstanding, something I wish JP would do, but I prefer JPs carrier and bolt surface treatment and polishing (both on carrier rails and in carrier bore) over standard phosphating/chroming.

Many good features in both!

S/F

View Quote

Ever do any testing on the DLC finish that toolcraft is offering on ther bcgs? I got one recently and it's pretty nice but I dont have anyway to test it other than my regular firing schedule.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:28:54 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
The graphic implies a M4 has a performance of of 20" @100 meters/109 yards, (Presumably using ball ammo)..? Is this an realistic comparison of performance?

View Quote

Considering an M4 can reliably hit a 19" man sized target at 300 meters... no it's BS.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:30:17 PM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:

Considering an M4 can reliably hit a 19" man sized target at 300 meters... no it's BS.

View Quote

Hell most people cant...

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:32:08 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
I like elements of both. I love the dual extractor springs of both the LMT and KAC (a long spring is a happy spring), and I love the lug root geometry of both.

The LMT carrier cam pin slot being elongated is outstanding, something I wish JP would do, but I prefer JPs carrier and bolt surface treatment and polishing (both on carrier rails and in carrier bore) over standard phosphating/chroming.

Many good features in both!

S/F

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Any reason you prefer the JP bolt design over the LMT Enhanced bolt design?

I like elements of both. I love the dual extractor springs of both the LMT and KAC (a long spring is a happy spring), and I love the lug root geometry of both.

The LMT carrier cam pin slot being elongated is outstanding, something I wish JP would do, but I prefer JPs carrier and bolt surface treatment and polishing (both on carrier rails and in carrier bore) over standard phosphating/chroming.

Many good features in both!

S/F

Thanks for the response and continued information on the forum. Genuinely appreciate the input and wealth of information you bring to threads.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:32:19 PM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

View Quote

M110A1 is only 1.5 MOA accurate....hahahahahahaha.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:34:07 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
This makes me happy.

My fingerprints all over this.

Ask me anything

S/F

View Quote

Can you kick the Army Brass in the nuts and get them on track for this?

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:34:57 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:

Will never happen. US Army G8 has, and I quote, "No interest in M4A1+ [or similar modifications]". They want to sit around until NGSW-Carbine becomes a thing, which is pretty damn criminal and lazy, seeing as how it'll sit there as vaporware for years until they downgrade requirements until industry can actually do it.

It's sad, but soldiers in the conventional Army truly do not have any voice, nor do their proponents.

S/F

View Quote

Sounds criminal to me, but not surprising.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:35:14 PM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:

Ever do any testing on the DLC finish that toolcraft is offering on ther bcgs? I got one recently and it's pretty nice but I dont have anyway to test it other than my regular firing schedule.

View Quote

I have not, only DLC on BCM carriers. It really does make a difference when things get super dry at high round counts and minimal lube. Carrier speeds stay closer to where it started out clean.

I have shot an ungodly amount of rounds through a JP carrier, and have also had phenomenal results (nitrided and polished).

Bolts I prefer DLC due to low application temperatures, high durability, and unlike phosphating application isn't an acidic process (does not help with bolt life, either).

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:36:26 PM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
Hell most people cant...

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Considering an M4 can reliably hit a 19" man sized target at 300 meters... no it's BS.

Hell most people cant...

He explained it a few posts up.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:41:23 PM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:

I have not, only DLC on BCM carriers. It really does make a difference when things get super dry at high round counts and minimal lube. Carrier speeds stay closer to where it started out clean.

I have shot an ungodly amount of rounds through a JP carrier, and have also had phenomenal results (nitrided and polished).

Bolts I prefer DLC due to low application temperatures, high durability, and unlike phosphating application isn't an acidic process (does not help with bolt life, either).

S/F

View Quote

Yeah I got that impression of the dlc bcg as well. Little to no lube and it keeps chugging right along no problems.

Have a chrome sand cutter carrier in my knights and it does well too when dirty and low lube.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:43:29 PM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:

Maybe, maybe not. In my testing and tweaking design of it, it was great for some things but there is no free lunch. If one rides the selector too hard, the weapon can recoil and result in the thumb inadvertently bumping the selector lever to auto. Adding more of a detent helped a little bit. Then, you're asking the selector drum to accomplish a lot with less travel. Simple receiver pin hole variations meant that sometimes there would be issues with releasing the auto sear. Tolerances came down to thousandths at times.

Is it needed? No. I feel the standard SSF is plenty good enough for use, but there's also no sustainment/rebuild kits available in the system.

The coating, likely not. DSL isn't ready for primetime. I got briefed on this at the inaugural USAF symposium in 2017 by Picatinny. The problem was that to get a part coated, you had to run electrical current through it, but it resulted in the part being heated near 1000 degrees F. In the Marine tests, and another Govt. test, DSL coated 9310 (more sensitive to heat treat issues than C158, but it wouldn't have mattered) bolts shattered within 4000 rounds, often at the cam pin hole. Even a stock Colt (Microbest) bolt would have defeated it. Specifying that technology for the proof of concept gun, in hindsight, was the poorest career move I've ever made.

Best move for USAF? Standard bolts and stock M4A1 triggers until USASOC figures out what they want to do for bolts (if anything) and trigger sustainment kits.

S/F

View Quote

What's bolt life looking like on the URGI? I know a lot were getting beyond 13,000 but I never heard just how many.

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:51:25 PM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:
Hell most people cant...

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Considering an M4 can reliably hit a 19" man sized target at 300 meters... no it's BS.

Hell most people cant...

Until you do something other than magazine supported prone.

19" is a worthless accuracy standard. The target isn't 19". An Echo target is 19". The actual target is about 6".

That equates to a 2 MOA target, firing ammunition (AB57) with an SD of 6.8 MOA. Now, rest the handguard or barrel on a barricade, bipod, grip pod, or pack, and try to hit the same target. Watch that 6.8 MOA cone of fire shift an undetermined distance and direction, very easily over 5 MOA.

Basically, you can't guarantee a hit anymore. Float the gun? Your cone of fire can yield you about 90-95% hits on that 19" Echo target. The other IMR improvements? Hitting that 6" target becomes easy.

Using URG-Is, Hodge or similar rifles with 1-8s, I routinely train on NRA B8 targets out to 300M with various means of support.

The equipment truly does have more of an effect than folks realize.

S/F

Posted: 9/26/2018 9:54:22 PM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:

What's bolt life looking like on the URGI? I know a lot were getting beyond 13,000 but I never heard just how many.

View Quote

I'm curious if the URGI going to mid length adds +/-10% to the bolt life alone. I've never seen a side by side of mid vs carbine and bolt life. An enhanced bolt with properly chosen finishes on bolt and carrier and the elimination of HPT could get some seriously great bolt life for cheap.

Eta: Closest I could find http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/14/nswc-crane-carbine-mid-length-gas-system-testing-shows-increased-performance/

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - USAF M4 upgrades spotted. (Page 2 of 6)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us