Posted: 3/10/2017 4:58:49 PM EDT
|
This is part 1.
I hope to attain additional information regarding this trial at a later date, until then. Enjoy. Takeaway....DI is as reliable as pistons in Class I and II stoppages. Colt proposal B was the IAR we have all seen weighing 9.5lbs. 
Colt proposal B is the second Colt. |
)
|
Quoted:
This is part 1. I hope to attain additional information regarding this trial at a later date, until then. Enjoy. Takeaway....DI is as reliable as pistons in Class I and II stoppages. Colt proposal B was the IAR we have all seen weighing 9.5lbs. http://i.imgur.com/JWrG5kzh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dpB0N8t.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UmtmBA3.jpg Not surprised, we've known this and more since two men with a wheelbarrow and a shovel proved it. |
|
Quoted:
124 failures?! Those guys need to look at.... http://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/313449/72352.JPG Haha I forgot all about those jackasses. 
|
|
Quoted:
The document says 2008 at the top. Is that when this data is from? Yes. The Marine Corps infantry automatic rifle competition completed in 2008. My FOIA completed today. I will say the person who handled my case at MARSCORSYSCOM was incredibly friendly and nice. |
|
Quoted:
Yea but the new Marines have a cool rifle. You laugh, but when I dumped my A2 for a new M4 it was like Christmas. Colt served honorably, but the military will eventually be shooting Kraught/Stoner rifles. It looks like the Colt did as good, also cost far less per rifle. Is switching for switchings sake really a good thing? |
|
Quoted:
It looks like the Colt did as good, also cost far less per rifle. Is switching for switchings sake really a good thing? Quoted:
Quoted:
Yea but the new Marines have a cool rifle. You laugh, but when I dumped my A2 for a new M4 it was like Christmas. Colt served honorably, but the military will eventually be shooting Kraught/Stoner rifles. It looks like the Colt did as good, also cost far less per rifle. Is switching for switchings sake really a good thing? in test reliability. And Generals need jobs too ya'know. |
|
Quoted:
It looks like the Colt did as good, also cost far less per rifle. Is switching for switchings sake really a good thing? Quoted:
Quoted:
Yea but the new Marines have a cool rifle. You laugh, but when I dumped my A2 for a new M4 it was like Christmas. Colt served honorably, but the military will eventually be shooting Kraught/Stoner rifles. It looks like the Colt did as good, also cost far less per rifle. Is switching for switchings sake really a good thing? The only was I see it happening is if the price of HK bids drops considerably. Big Army likes to make damn sure there is an incredibly significant benefit before paying such a massive increase in price per unit. I think the high ups would rather have the HK, but the cost to benefit ratio just isn't there to replace every M4 and M4A1 in inventory. |
|
Quoted:
The only was I see it happening is if the price of HK bids drops considerably. Big Army likes to make damn sure there is an incredibly significant benefit before paying such a massive increase in price per unit. I think the high ups would rather have the HK, but the cost to benefit ratio just isn't there to replace every M4 and M4A1 in inventory. It look likes an extra $2000 per rifle nets you a extra 1 round before stoppage. |
|
Quoted:
while interesting for information purposes, the results are dated now. the most recent tests were done with M855A1 ammo and the new EPM mags and Gen3 Pmags, none of which were around for this 2008 test They also don't consider accuracy, where the HK will dominate. The writing's on the wall and they're getting a new gun. It may not be the HK416/IAR, but it's definitely not going to be any flavor of what they already have. |
|
Quoted:
while interesting for information purposes, the results are dated now. the most recent tests were done with M855A1 ammo and the new EPM mags and Gen3 Pmags, none of which were around for this 2008 test It is actually still very relevant. From what I have seen the 416 performs horribly with M855A1, enough so that the chamber wall gets destroyed...Something that does not happen to the M4.(I posted pictures of this in my magazine thread in technical). So if with M855 the Colt performed on par with the H&K it's safe to assume 855A1 would not go in favor of the 416. |
|
I may have missed something here, but total rounds fired on each gun would be 2400, right? And the number of Class 1 and 2 failures are the number of failures for that gun within that 2400 round test.
They wanted mean rounds between failures of 900. Unless I'm very confused, your best performer would be Entry F, whose MRBF here would be 2400/12=200 MRBF. Your worst is H at 2400/124=19 MRBF. HK =2400/27=88.88... (appropriate for a German company) MRBF. Did they run a new type of ammo in these? The M4 is performing at 3600 MRBS according to a 2009 letter (http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/docs/WeaponsReliabilityInformationPaper-Oct%2009.pdf), with a requirement of 600. The best performer being at 200 MRBF? That's terrible. |
|
Quoted:
They also don't consider accuracy, where the HK will dominate. The writing's on the wall and they're getting a new gun. It may not be the HK416/IAR, but it's definitely not going to be any flavor of what they already have. Why would a piston design dominate? DI is better. |
|
Quoted:
Explain? This information came from MARSCORSYSCOM. Test data is the test data. No face palming for that. Face palming that you're persistent enough to file a FOIA for... what gain, I have no clue. For the folks that are somewhat confused, know that there are far more tests performed of all flavors. It's always more than just if the gun goes bang or not, and how many times of each it does. There are stupid things that happen every now and again. Like the magazine well, for instance. One day I'll tell that story, but mostly the IAR turned out pretty well. S/F |
|
Quoted:
Test data is the test data. No face palming for that. Face palming that you're persistent enough to file a FOIA for... what gain, I have no clue. For the folks that are somewhat confused, know that there are far more tests performed of all flavors. It's always more than just if the gun goes bang or not, and how many times of each it does. There are stupid things that happen every now and again. Like the magazine well, for instance. One day I'll tell that story, but mostly the IAR turned out pretty well. S/F Quoted:
Quoted:
Explain? This information came from MARSCORSYSCOM. Test data is the test data. No face palming for that. Face palming that you're persistent enough to file a FOIA for... what gain, I have no clue. For the folks that are somewhat confused, know that there are far more tests performed of all flavors. It's always more than just if the gun goes bang or not, and how many times of each it does. There are stupid things that happen every now and again. Like the magazine well, for instance. One day I'll tell that story, but mostly the IAR turned out pretty well. S/F Could it have been done as well or better, cheaper? I think the answer is yes. |
|
Quoted:
Test data is the test data. No face palming for that. Face palming that you're persistent enough to file a FOIA for... what gain, I have no clue. For the folks that are somewhat confused, know that there are far more tests performed of all flavors. It's always more than just if the gun goes bang or not, and how many times of each it does. There are stupid things that happen every now and again. Like the magazine well, for instance. One day I'll tell that story, but mostly the IAR turned out pretty well. S/F So now you're mad that I got the actual data? I got this data because I wanted to. It actually wasn't complicated and the MARSCORSYSCOM person was super friendly. I guess it's better to stay forever shrouded in mystery. Also generally when it comes to discussing gun X vs gun Z it comes down to what goes bang more. Why do you think that 2007 dust test is used so much. At the same time the Marine Corps is wanting to fleet the M27, so it seems like a good time to show how well it performed compared to the other rifles. |
|
Quoted:
It is actually still very relevant. From what I have seen the 416 performs horribly with M855A1, enough so that the chamber wall gets destroyed...Something that does not happen to the M4.(I posted pictures of this in my magazine thread in technical). So if with M855 the Colt performed on par with the H&K it's safe to assume 855A1 would not go in favor of the 416. I'm guessing you missed the, now nuked, M27 thread from the most recent trials |
|
Quoted:
Mad? No. Amazed? Yes. What mystery is there? What's to discuss that hasn't been beat into the ground already? Why is this in GD instead of the tech forum? Why is your MO what it is? Just severe curiosity? Maybe I just don't get it. Oh well. S/F Severe curiosity is a good way to put it. Also figured it would get more exposure here. But tech wouldn't be bad, but I'm not sure what category it would fall under there. Hey if you know where in technical this would fit I'll gladly post it there. |
|
Quoted:
Test data is the test data. No face palming for that. Face palming that you're persistent enough to file a FOIA for... what gain, I have no clue. For the folks that are somewhat confused, know that there are far more tests performed of all flavors. It's always more than just if the gun goes bang or not, and how many times of each it does. There are stupid things that happen every now and again. Like the magazine well, for instance. One day I'll tell that story, but mostly the IAR turned out pretty well. S/F Quoted:
Quoted:
Explain? This information came from MARSCORSYSCOM. Test data is the test data. No face palming for that. Face palming that you're persistent enough to file a FOIA for... what gain, I have no clue. For the folks that are somewhat confused, know that there are far more tests performed of all flavors. It's always more than just if the gun goes bang or not, and how many times of each it does. There are stupid things that happen every now and again. Like the magazine well, for instance. One day I'll tell that story, but mostly the IAR turned out pretty well. S/F Are you a small arms PM? |
|
Quoted:
Mad? No. Amazed? Yes. What mystery is there? What's to discuss that hasn't been beat into the ground already? Why is this in GD instead of the tech forum? Why is your MO what it is? Just severe curiosity? Maybe I just don't get it. Oh well. S/F I think we just want to continue the discussion that got nuked last time. There was a shitload of good info in that last thread and I think a lot of people are disappointed it disappeared. |
|
Quoted:
Mad? No. Amazed? Yes. What mystery is there? What's to discuss that hasn't been beat into the ground already? Why is this in GD instead of the tech forum? Why is your MO what it is? Just severe curiosity? Maybe I just don't get it. Oh well. S/F He's interested in the procurement process and testing/eval done by the military. And the FOIA exists to be used, Not seeing the issue here. He doesn't have a personal agenda with this if that's what you were thinking, just interest. |
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter