AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/21/2010 9:26:25 PM EDT
|
I read an article in the Army times recently about all the upgrades and changes the Army wants to make to the M4; To solve it's so-called "Reliability issues" in Afghanistan. Soldiers are reporting serious failures and a disproportionate number of stoppages during sustained firefights with the Carbine. Far fewer problems are reported with the M16. I have a theory on this. The Army, once again, is barking up the proverbially wrong tree about the M4. There is nothing inherrently wrong with the design, but they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to "fix" it. I think the AMMO is the real problem. (It's 1965 all over again, folks) The M855 round was designed for use in the M16, which has a 12" long gas system. The M4 has a 7" gas system. In an M16, most of the powder from the round should be burned before it hits the gas port. The M4 gives the powder 5 fewer inches to burn, which causes a number of problems: It throws much more fouling/carbon onto the carrier group. It builds higher pressure, which makes the system run much faster & harder, accelerates wear, and it creates much more heat, which burns lubricant faster and creates more friction. Thee M855 round uses cheap ball (Spherical) powder, which traditionally is slower-burning and dirtier than stick (Extruded) powder. Ball powder is also cheaper than the stick type.
My solution: The Army needs to spend a little bit more money on faster, cleaner burning stick powder; Rather than waste millions coming up with a solution that's looking for a problem. Develop a round to shoot in the M4. A cartridge that will shoot reliably in the M4 will also function well in the M16. Lately it doesn't seem that the opposite is true. Opinions? |
| If you read it in any of the "Times" publications, you should consider it just as authoritative as if you read it in the Weekly World News. I was skeptical when my promotions were printed in the Air Force Times...the "journalism" in those papers is easily outpaced by most middle school newspapers-middle schoolers don't have an agenda that's bought and paid for. |
|
The problem with the M4 is it's barrel profile. The M4 barrel is too thin to take the heat of extended firing without loosing it's structural integrity. The M4A1 barrel is much thicker and can withstand extended firing without blowing out. The Army was planning to upgrade their existing stock of M4's to the M4A1 profile barrel but I'll wait until I start seeing the 'new' rifles start showing up before I believe it's actually going to happen
Quoted:
I read an article in the Army times recently about all the upgrades and changes the Army wants to make to the M4; To solve it's so-called "Reliability issues" in Afghanistan. Soldiers are reporting serious failures and a disproportionate number of stoppages during sustained firefights with the Carbine. Far fewer problems are reported with the M16. I have a theory on this. The Army, once again, is barking up the proverbially wrong tree about the M4. There is nothing inherrently wrong with the design, but they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to "fix" it. I think the AMMO is the real problem. (It's 1965 all over again, folks) The M855 round was designed for use in the M16, which has a 12" long gas system. The M4 has a 7" gas system. In an M16, most of the powder from the round should be burned before it hits the gas port. The M4 gives the powder 5 fewer inches to burn, which causes a number of problems: It throws much more fouling/carbon onto the carrier group. It builds higher pressure, which makes the system run much faster & harder, accelerates wear, and it creates much more heat, which burns lubricant faster and creates more friction. Thee M855 round uses cheap ball (Spherical) powder, which traditionally is slower-burning and dirtier than stick (Extruded) powder. Ball powder is also cheaper than the stick type. My solution: The Army needs to spend a little bit more money on faster, cleaner burning stick powder; Rather than waste millions coming up with a solution that's looking for a problem. Develop a round to shoot in the M4. A cartridge that will shoot reliably in the M4 will also function well in the M16. Lately it doesn't seem that the opposite is true. Opinions? |
| The M4 is a great weapons system. The only weapon I'd replace ours with are NEW M4s as ours are pretty well worn at this point. As long as it's properly lubricated, given quality magazines, and with even basic cleaning it'll run like a top. True, a heavier M4A1 profile barrel will last longer in a sustained firefight, but you really have to ask yourself if one goes through 18 mags aren't you better off with a SAW? Now I would like to see Mk318 5.56 making it's way down to regular U.S. Army Infantry like in the USMC, it appears to be a marked improvement over the MK262 let lone M855. |
| I think the biggest problem is the Army both undersigned the M4 and M249, and underestimated the duration of some of the fire fights that our troops are getting into. I keep hearing people say that if you expend 'X' amount of ammo, you have a problem. You don't need to mag dump your basic loadx2 to have a problem with the M4. The M249 is a really good light MG. I've been able to get repeatable hits on 800m+ targets with just irons, no optic. The problem again is the barrel profile. The SAW was designed for offensive operations. Shoot, move, communicate. When a unit finds itself in a purely defensive position and starts using belts like they're free, it's just too much heat for the barrel. Sustained fire is 100 rounds per minute. It doesn't take much to triple that rate of fire and overheat the weapon. The overall point I'm making is that the military designs weapons for what they think is a completely defined value. The value is actually variable, highly variable. |
|
Quoted:
I think the biggest problem is the Army both undersigned the M4 and M249, and underestimated the duration of some of the fire fights that our troops are getting into. I keep hearing people say that if you expend 'X' amount of ammo, you have a problem. You don't need to mag dump your basic loadx2 to have a problem with the M4. The M249 is a really good light MG. I've been able to get repeatable hits on 800m+ targets with just irons, no optic. The problem again is the barrel profile. The SAW was designed for offensive operations. Shoot, move, communicate. When a unit finds itself in a purely defensive position and starts using belts like they're free, it's just too much heat for the barrel. Sustained fire is 100 rounds per minute. It doesn't take much to triple that rate of fire and overheat the weapon. The overall point I'm making is that the military designs weapons for what they think is a completely defined value. The value is actually variable, highly variable. Each M249 has two barrels with it for a reason. Hopefully in a defensive position the barrel will be handy and switched regularly as intended. To get a M4 Carbine to "blow" requires a lot of shooting, in a hurry. Note the fire to failure tests widely discussed are of the M4A1 which is fully automatic....and using the full auto mode of the M4A1 and the barrel of the M4 (3-rd burst capable), you'll still be able to safely fire 500 rounds, likely many more. Once the heavy barrel is installed in the M4, it's likely to last well beyond 1,000 rounds at any rate you're capable of sustaining. Note the M4A1 has had the heavy profile barrel for years and nothing in the world of assault rifles can surpass it's durability for sustaiined fire. Wonder how common it is for soldiers to apply one or more quick workarounds to turn their 3-rd burst M4 into full-auto ?? This could be cause for the current debate over heavy barrels. Regards, Hotgun |
|
Watch a M4A1 blow up with sustained fire.
M4A1 sustained fire test |
|
The Army Times is vomiting up old, tired, rehashed ideas and theories.
The M4 is not designed to be a LMG, neither is the M4A1 for that matter, but the M4A1 does hold up better. Fire to Destruction Test of 5.56mm M4A1 Carbine and M16A2 Rifle Barrels |
|
Quoted:
Funny. 4 years in Iraq and Afghanistan and im yet to see any problems with the m4. You will. Just a matter of time. The problems will not be ammo related, like the OP thinks. The key is really knowing how to perform maintenance on your firearm, beyond the -10 level, and having the parts on hand to replace the ones that wear out/go bad. Do this, and the M4 will keep chugging along. Even more so for the M16A4. |
|
Keep in mind that I don’t claim to be no expert. This is just want I understand…
One problem is that the gas pressure is a whole lot higher at the gas port on a carbine than on a rifle. This causes the action to cycle more violently and can actually cause the extractor to lose its grip on the case. The solution is to use a heavier extractor spring, which I understand the Army already does. Using a heavier buffer and buffer spring also helps. This also makes it easier for the weapon to cycle when dirty. In my rather experiences, (And apparently the experiences of others) if the bolt carrier is actually wet with oil the weapon will run much better. The oil appears to suspend the powder residue and keep it from causing a problem. When the rifle finally does start to have problems, more oil usually fixes it. Years back I bought my first AR-15. A friend came back from the Gulf War (the first one) talking about what a pile of unreliable junk the M16 was. I showed him my rifle and told him how reliable it was. He said something to the effect of, “Yea, but yours is new and I’m sure you take care of it. Ours are worn out junk and they don’t work for crap.” I’ve heard other people say similar things. There are several small items such as the extractor, gas rings, and some springs that will wear out over time. I don’t know that the military does a good job of replacing them. And, if these parts get worn, the rifle won’t be reliable. And the magazine is the heart of any auto-loading firearm. Well, the AR platform uses a magazine that’s honestly semi disposable. But the military holds on to them forever. Replacing all of the magazines with new ones and coming up with some way to track and dispose of defective magazines would likely do wonders to improve the reliability of the M16/M4. The heavy barrel thing is probably over rated. In that now famous test, the thinner barrel fired 535 rounds in 1:51 on full auto. That’s an incredible rate of fire. The testers loaded, fired one 30 round burst, and reloaded, over and over again. No one would ever shoot that much that fast in combat. The barrel did finally fail when it was glowing red hot and starting to droop and melt from the heat. But that’s not what you should have taken away from this test. The important thing was that the rifle kept firing until the barrel ruptured. The heat didn’t cause a malfunction or a jam and the rifle kept ticking along quite nicely. Heavier barrels will not increase reliability. |
|
Quoted:
One problem is that the gas pressure is a whole lot higher at the gas port on a carbine than on a rifle. <snip> The solution is to use a heavier extractor spring, which I understand the Army already does. No, the solution is to return to longer barrels (with their longer gas tubes) and the design pressures the system was developed around. All the other fixes {ammo, springs, buffers,...} are tryiing to undo what the short barrel has done. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Funny. 4 years in Iraq and Afghanistan and im yet to see any problems with the m4. You will. Just a matter of time. The problems will not be ammo related, like the OP thinks. The key is really knowing how to perform maintenance on your firearm, beyond the -10 level, and having the parts on hand to replace the ones that wear out/go bad. Do this, and the M4 will keep chugging along. Even more so for the M16A4. I maintenance my duty gun just as I maintenance my personal ar, religiously. If im not out on patrol, maintenance and dry firing is the only way to overcome boredom. |
|
"One problem is that the gas pressure is a whole lot higher at the gas port on a carbine than on a rifle."
Now why would that be? Is it because the Ammunition is designed for a rifle-length gas system? If the Army changed powders; or simply decreased the amount of powder (saving the US Taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars per year) in each round, how would that not solve the problem? |
|
Quoted:
"One problem is that the gas pressure is a whole lot higher at the gas port on a carbine than on a rifle." Now why would that be? Is it because the Ammunition is designed for a rifle-length gas system? If the Army changed powders; or simply decreased the amount of powder (saving the US Taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars per year) in each round, how would that not solve the problem? The gas port pressure is higher because the gas port is closer to the chamber. You do not seem to understand that the article is filled with half truths and crap. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Funny. 4 years in Iraq and Afghanistan and im yet to see any problems with the m4. You will. Just a matter of time. The problems will not be ammo related, like the OP thinks. The key is really knowing how to perform maintenance on your firearm, beyond the -10 level, and having the parts on hand to replace the ones that wear out/go bad. Do this, and the M4 will keep chugging along. Even more so for the M16A4. I maintenance my duty gun just as I maintenance my personal ar, religiously. If im not out on patrol, maintenance and dry firing is the only way to overcome boredom. Do you replace the springs and bolt? In my squad I had two bolts break at the locking lug next to the extractor and I have had a bolt break at the cam pin hole. Murphy is everywhere. Sh*t happens and this is why my personal SD/HD AR's have spare bolts and have upgraded many of the springs as well. |
|
Quoted:
"One problem is that the gas pressure is a whole lot higher at the gas port on a carbine than on a rifle." Now why would that be? Is it because the Ammunition is designed for a rifle-length gas system? If the Army changed powders; or simply decreased the amount of powder (saving the US Taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars per year) in each round, how would that not solve the problem? I do like stick type better than ball |
|
Quoted:
wont the M4 gas tube melt before the barrels goes? I would think doing several Mag Dumps the gas tube would crap out before the barrel would go to shit Actually, you are half right. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/m4-and-m4a1-guns/?hp The “Government Profile” barrel of the M4 failed before the gas tube did. The heavier barrel of the M4A1 didn’t fail but the gas tube (reportedly) failed after 900+ rounds of rapid fire. (But that was in one test on one rifle. So I guess it’s possible that some gas tubes would fail before the M4 barrel did.) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
wont the M4 gas tube melt before the barrels goes? I would think doing several Mag Dumps the gas tube would crap out before the barrel would go to shit Actually, you are half right. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/m4-and-m4a1-guns/?hp The “Government Profile” barrel of the M4 failed before the gas tube did. The heavier barrel of the M4A1 didn’t fail but the gas tube (reportedly) failed after 900+ rounds of rapid fire. (But that was in one test on one rifle. So I guess it’s possible that some gas tubes would fail before the M4 barrel did.) This was videotaped, and thats exactly what happened. The bolt was cycled by hand the firearm still fired every single time. |
| The video shows the M4 profile barrel failing (as in softening and drooping then finally bursting) after several hundred rounds, while the M4A1 profile barrel did not fail, though the gas tube on that gun did. The conclusion: the M4 profile does not dissipate heat adequately to prevent barrel damage, while the M4A1 profile dissipates heat enough to eliminate the potential for the barrel to be damaged. Torture tests are great eye candy, but the point of this test was to see whether or not you actually could damage the barrel with continuous, full auto fire. The answer? Yes you can with an M4 profile, though it takes something like 15+ magazines without ANY pauses in firing. |
|
Is there a video comparing an AK 47 ????????????????? |
|
Quoted:
Is there a video comparing an AK 47 ????????????????? Probably not. This was a test to see what happened with US equipment. Considering that most AKs have skinnier barrels, I think it's safe to assume that you'd have something fail much faster than the M4 barrel did. Not a gas system failure, of course, but that skinny barrel can't dissipate much heat very quickly. |
AR Sponsor