Posted: 5/4/2008 6:42:17 AM EDT
|
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/military_rifle/index.html Of course this is only a link to an A.P. video, but whats the truth behind this video? Let me say that I think the M16/M4 is a fine weapon, but no weapon is perfect. "IF", and let me repeat "IF" these tests are true then why do we use the M4/M16 if there are "supposed" more efficient options available? Is it cost? Were the dust tests flawed? I would really like to know the scoop. Please dont get all riled up about this, I would like to see facts and sources. BTW if this is a dupe please post the link. I would like to read the data. Thanks |
|
Yes the short answer is cost. If we switched to another weapons platform it would be very expensive. We already have spare parts and magazines for our existing M4/M16 guns. The new guns out there don't perform that much better to justify the costs for an upgrade. Plus there's training costs on a new gun to think about. There are mitigating factors we can look at to help reduce costs of an upgrade. Most of the new guns use existing M16 magazines. A piston driven upper (or retro kit) would only require replacing the upper, much like we did when we upgraded from the A1 to the A2. A lot of the failures in the sand test were a result of magazine design. Replacing our aluminum mags for a polymer one (like the PMag) would reduce a lot of field failures while keeping our existing M16/M4. |
SMProud, Thanks for the info. All your points are excellent. |
| That was one informative website, thanks for posting it. It was very apparent that the FN and HK designs all descend (or ascend?) from the M16 modular design, except for using the gas piston op system. I agree with the other poster, convert our M4s to gas piston design, and/or replace the aluminum mags with the far better Pmag style and we would be good to go, a lot cheaper, and probably more reliable than the competition. One thing the AR platform has shown over the decades, it is adaptable to just about anything. |
|
Very informative. One thing I notice is the M4 is much lighter then all the other 3. That is extra ammo, or extra supplies. I think if anyone wants a chance at a better gun, they have to make it better AND lighter but still keeping it even more durable and reliable. |
Thanks for the compliment. It was reported very well. That reporter did a good job IMHO. Very unbiased. |
IIRC, those failures occured inside of 100 rounds of the next lube cycle. So if they'd moved that up just a little bit, quite a few of those would have gone away. |
Please explain that chart for me. What are Class 1 and 2 stoppages? |
IIRC Class one = Tap/Rack/Bang (cleared under 10 seconds) Class two = S.P.O.R.T.S (over ten seconds) Class 3 = Dissasembly (some jams like brass over the BCG can be cleared quick, but are considered type three.) |
Could be any of the following... Failure to Feed Failure to Chamber Failure to Fire Failure to Extract Failure to Eject Bolt Locked to the Rear Failure of Bolt to Lock to the Rear Class 3s are showstoppers. |
Thankyou Sir 
|
Your right. One thing you can tell from that chart is that many stoppages were Mag related for the M4. |
I dont see the harm in upgraging to the gas piston anyway. Though my M16s had minimal problems, it would have saved my ass days worth of repetative weapons maintenance.  Insteaed of scraping carbon of everything, I could have been scrubbing more of the blueing of of my barrel
|
A true Marine. |
Any Marine knows that they aren't getting out of Weapons Maintenance time just because their rifle is clean. I figure if we had pistons, at least we could make the time more bearable! Dang: I should have used the spell check on my last post 
|
|
A reporter who has never fired a firearm before puts a few magazines through various carbines, realizes that .223 carbines are easy to fire on semi-auto, hard to fire on full auto with no experience or training and that 308 rifles are heavier than 223 rifles. That's some hard hitting journalism from AP's "military" reporter. 
|
This thread is dead now. I pissed off Aimless.
|
|
Ok so the M4 is crap in a dust environment....can you say the other weapons are better in ALL environments? Can the other weapons out-preform the M4 in Jungle, Snow, Salt, urban environments? Any weapon will have its flaws. If you design a weapon for all environments you will encounter problems with maintenance or supply chain issues, and the cost will outweigh the need for those designs. The fact is the M4 is a outstanding weapon system for overall use in all environments taking into account cost to operate, cost to repair, cost to upgrade, capabilities to neutralize threats and cost of training in all those areas. Other weapons, (including the AK74 and AK47, XM8) may have an advantage in one or more areas, but overall the AR15 platform beats them out. The AR15 platform will be replaced, but only when the cost to replace it is less then the cost to continue to use it (be it technology or actual $$ ).....maybe 25-30 more years. IMHO the weapon to replace it hasn't been invented yet. |
I certainly didnt say the M4 is crap. Quite the contrary. I just wanted some info from fellow ARFCOMMERS on what that reporting left out. I would like to make an educated conclusion. BTW i believe your summary has some seriously valuable info to consider. |
LOL I am saying the M4 is crap in a sand/dust environment.... But its still better then the other choices out there when you factor in all other variables. |
|
I saw a recent survey in which something approaching 90% of US Soldiers and Marines surveyed in Iraq and Afghanistan were happy with the performance of their M-16/M-4… what do they know. Many if not most M4 problems are mag related, repeat those test with a PMAG and my guess is the result would be much better. |
I agree. A $0.25 follower changed fixed a shit load of problems...Pmag this time...maybe a door seal next time... |
 
|