AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/8/2010 6:39:03 AM EDT
|
Reference:
Army Dust Tests
60,000 fired • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. It seems to me that a better test would be to take 10 properly lubricated rifles of each type and fire 500 rounds through each, full auto, with dust. Realistically there will be few instances of shooting more than 500 rounds in combat without a chance to clean the rifle. |
|
Another way to look at things is: We test under the most extreme conditions or combination of conditions we can devise, and look at reliability. We then conclude that even if one rifle is "good enough" but another is even better, we choose the one that is best.
Personally, I do not think it is possible to have a rifle that is "too reliable" if your life depends on it. Yes, I do acknowledge that there are other criteria than reliability that are important, but I suspect that soldiers who have faced a determined enemy with a jammed or broken rifle would disagree with me on that. |
|
Quoted:
Reference: Army Dust Tests
60,000 fired • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. It seems to me that a better test would be to take 10 properly lubricated rifles of each type and fire 500 rounds through each, full auto, with dust. Realistically there will be few instances of shooting more than 500 rounds in combat without a chance to clean the rifle. So I take it none of your firefights lasted very long? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Reference: Army Dust Tests 60,000 fired • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. It seems to me that a better test would be to take 10 properly lubricated rifles of each type and fire 500 rounds through each, full auto, with dust. Realistically there will be few instances of shooting more than 500 rounds in combat without a chance to clean the rifle. So I take all of your firefights haven't lasted very long? You do know that most of our infantrymen in the sandbox carry 7 magazines on their gear and 1 in the gun for a total of 8. Those are 30 round mags, so that's 240 rounds. Soldiers EXPECTING combat carry 240 rounds with them. Would you carry 500 rounds on you? That's a lot of weight. Especially in combat. Do you think you would survive in a firefight long enough to fire 500 rounds in semi-auto? I'm pretty sure I would be shot dead before I could pump out that many rounds even with shooting fast and panicked in a high stress combat situation. I do realize the OP said full-auto... But very few times do our guys actually go full-auto, it's inaccurate as hell at any kind of distance. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Reference: Army Dust Tests
60,000 fired • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. It seems to me that a better test would be to take 10 properly lubricated rifles of each type and fire 500 rounds through each, full auto, with dust. Realistically there will be few instances of shooting more than 500 rounds in combat without a chance to clean the rifle. So I take all of your firefights haven't lasted very long? You do know that most of our infantrymen in the sandbox carry 7 magazines on their gear and 1 in the gun for a total of 8. Those are 30 round mags, so that's 240 rounds. Soldiers EXPECTING combat carry 240 rounds with them. Would you carry 500 rounds on you? That's a lot of weight. Especially in combat. Do you think you would survive in a firefight long enough to fire 500 rounds in semi-auto? I'm pretty sure I would be shot dead before I could pump out that many rounds even with shooting fast and panicked in a high stress combat situation. I do realize the OP said full-auto... But very few times do our guys actually go full-auto, it's inaccurate as hell at any kind of distance. I don't know,...if a US soldier was in a fox hole with a thousand Commie Chinese charging him I'm sure he would want a lot more then 8 mags and full auto. |
|
Quoted: I don't know,...if a US soldier was in a fox hole with a thousand Commie Chinese charging him I'm sure he would want a lot more then 8 mags and full auto. As much as I believe in our soldiers' superiority over the enemy... This situation is a lost cause with no chance of victory regardless of how badass the soldier is. The key to victory is choosing the right weapon for the task. If this was ever a scenario, a rifle, even an automatic one would NOT be the correct weapon. This would require aerial bombing or artillery support... Or at the very least, a very serious belt-fed machine gun. The AR-15 platform was not designed for this kind of scenario nor would it rise to the occasion. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']
I do realize the OP said full-auto... But very few times do our guys actually go full-auto, it's inaccurate as hell at any kind of distance. Full auto just to introduce heat as a factor in the tests. Right. Just saying. IMHO, I think it wise to have full auto and just train the soldier when and when not to use it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Reference: Army Dust Tests
60,000 fired • ...snip... You do know that most of our infantrymen in the sandbox carry 7 magazines on their gear and 1 in the gun for a total of 8. Those are 30 round mags, so that's 240 rounds. >Basic load is 6+1=210 rnds...if the mags were fully loaded (which they aren't) Soldiers EXPECTING combat carry 240 rounds with them. >240 according to your #s, but if I'm EXPECTING contact, I'm carrying a lot more than my basic load. Would you carry 500 rounds on you? That's a lot of weight. Especially in combat. >Mounted = trucks FULL of ammo. Dismounted = ammo is a radio call/helo resupply away. Do you think you would survive in a firefight long enough to fire 500 rounds in semi-auto? I'm pretty sure I would be shot dead before I could pump out that many rounds... >Now that's the fighting spirit! And the answer is yes. ...even with shooting fast and panicked in a high stress combat situation. >We have these things called discipline and training...they help overcome panic. I do realize the OP said full-auto... But very few times do our guys actually go full-auto,... >Because most aren't carrying FA weapons. ...it's inaccurate as hell at any kind of distance. >OK, I'll give you that one. |
|
As far as ammo I have a good friend who is a former Army Ranger from the late 80s he carried 12+1 for his his 653 carbine and M16A2 and as he said "water,ammo and compact energy bars were the most important thing.He carreid extra mags in his pack as well to replace empty mags if need be.I have heard that the basic Army load out has been increased to 9+1.Besides at 1.25 lbs for a loaded GI mag 500 rds would be what 17 mags thats what 23lbs for an ammo penalty..
I know guys whos average gear weight is 70 to 85 lbs..the ammo penalty doesnt seem like much.I know guys who served in Vietnam who carried alot more than 500 rds how about 28 20rd mags in 4 7 pocket bandoliers plus what ever guys could stuff in pockets and else where.Ask guys who served in Somalia in 93 what they think about taking extra ammo..fire fights never go according to plan..so I would say water and ammo as much as can be comfortably carried is a must because no one ever knows how a mission is gonna run..complacency can kill just as quick as a bullet. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Reference: Army Dust Tests
60,000 fir...snip.... As much as I believe in our soldiers' superiority over the enemy... This situation is a lost cause with no chance of victory regardless of how badass the soldier is. The key to victory is choosing the right weapon for the task. If this was ever a scenario, a rifle, even an automatic one would NOT be the correct weapon. This would require aerial bombing or artillery support... Or at the very least, a very serious belt-fed machine gun. The AR-15 platform was not designed for this kind of scenario nor would it rise to the occasion. Oh, you got me...I realize now this was a TROLL. |
|
Quoted: Oh, you got me...I realize now this was a TROLL. It sure is easy to make it look that way when you cut out the quote that I was responding to. You think the AR-15 family of rifles was designed to allow a single soldier to take out 1000 enemy troops by himself on full auto with 30 rd magazines? |
|
Quoted:
Rambo could do it. J/k 500 rds in F/A in a short period of time is BARREL FAILURE range. Steel has its limits, piston vs. DI doesn't mean shit in this area. 
All I'm saying is that if the need should arise were one soldier with his M-16/M-4 is called apon to go above the call of duty he should not have to wonder why his gas tube has just melted after 300 rds (I've seen happen twice in my time in the Army). |
|
You are a go, preceded by a no at this station.
An M4 will rupture it's barrel in under 500 rounds of full auto. Heat is the main problem in auto rifle function, not fouling. Quoted:
It seems to me that a better test would be to take 10 properly lubricated rifles of each type and fire 500 rounds through each, full auto, with dust. Realistically there will be few instances of shooting more than 500 rounds in combat without a chance to clean the rifle. |
|
Quoted:
You do know that most of our infantrymen in the sandbox carry 7 magazines on their gear and 1 in the gun for a total of 8. Those are 30 round mags, so that's 240 rounds. Soldiers EXPECTING combat carry 240 rounds with them. Would you carry 500 rounds on you? That's a lot of weight. Especially in combat. Do you think you would survive in a firefight long enough to fire 500 rounds in semi-auto? I'm pretty sure I would be shot dead before I could pump out that many rounds even with shooting fast and panicked in a high stress combat situation. I do realize the OP said full-auto... But very few times do our guys actually go full-auto, it's inaccurate as hell at any kind of distance. I'm not there, but I understand most of our troops carry as much fucking ammo as they can get their hands on. Without ammo, the rifle make's a poor club. |
|
Quoted:
Reference: Army Dust Tests
60,000 fired • XM8: 127 stoppages. • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages. • 416: 233 stoppages. • M4: 882 stoppages. It seems to me that a better test would be to take 10 properly lubricated rifles of each type and fire 500 rounds through each, full auto, with dust. Realistically there will be few instances of shooting more than 500 rounds in combat without a chance to clean the rifle. (If I remember correctly, the dust test consisted of 10 rifles of each type, with each type firing 60,000 rounds or 6,000 rounds per rifle. Now onto your point.) While I understand not wanting to be unrealistic with performance goals, it seems there are some pretty big problems with the "realistic" benchmarks you laid out. First off, setting the reliability standard at only 500 rounds is an amazingly low standard that doesn't really push a design anywhere near its limits. Almost any rifle design could reach that goal without really telling us anything about the design's reliability past the "average" mark. Think of it like crash protection in a passenger vehicle. The "average" wreck may be a 35mph frontal, but I'm not planning on looking for a car where a 35mph frontal collision was the one and only safety test. I want to know about the less common crash results. Rollovers, offset, and rear-end results. Also consider that a low benchmark gives you little room for error. What if there is a sublte design change due to wartime production, cost cutting, ammunition changes, etc., that changes reliability by -10% or so. Suddenly the "realistic" benchmark you've set doesn't fit anymore. Secondly, things are rarely "average" in the real world. Nobody I know has 2.2 kids, or 0.9 automobiles. I don't think gunfights are any different. Five hundred rounds may be consistent with the "average" gunfight, but if that is all your reliability benchmark is about, your going to likely wish differently when your situation goes "non-average" and the stakes are high. Third, your whole benchmark is predicated on several "human" factors that cannot be guaranteed in the real world, and have on many, many occasions, shown to be unrealistic in the first place. For a rifle to be A) "properly lubricated" and B) cleaned every 500 rounds, a human being must do the lubricating and cleaning, and do it properly. Time and time again through countless conflicts a certain percentage of soldiers have made scientists and engineers look foolish with their uncanny ability to avoid proper maintenance. They are human after all, and just as I can walk in to any office of degreed professionals and find many computers and other necessary office equipment in dire need of repair, so it is with our soldiers despite all efforts to eradicate the problem through training. This is one of the problems plaguing the M16's reputation for all these years. Start a conflict, there are reports of unreliable M16's. Bring 'em back to the lab, clean, lube and you can't find a problem. Send out report and repeat at beginning of next major conflict. The problems of improper maintenance just won't go away so long as humans are involved in the process. Also consider that your maintenance interval can be influenced by events out of your control, like and extended firefight (think BlackHawk Down) or unplanned-for activities. You may on average never fire more than 500 rounds between cleanings, but that isn't something you can guarantee even if you wanted to. So what I'm saying is that while I appreciate the desire to keep things realistic, we have to consider real-world unpredictability and try to bring that into consideration with benchmarks as much as we can. Namely, by pushing the limits of reliability. Tex78 Edited for clarity. |
AR Sponsor