with the economy the way it is...and the DOD slashing projects...this seems like a waste of time. I like my M4, never had a problem with it.

Look at where the Infantry rifle has been.  now look forward, are there any improvements in firearms that would benefit the USArmy?

The M4 is accurate, easy to use, durable, reliable, light, maneuverable, it has a decent magazine capacity, and effective.  What reason do we really need a battle rifle?

Where the hell are you getting info that there are carbines that have 5-6 times fewer malfunctions than the M4?

During the 2007 SCAR trials they fired 60,000 through 40 rifles (10 each of M4, SCAR, XM8, and HK416).  The M4 had the highest number of stoppages at 882.  The XM8 had the fewest at 127.  Do the division (hint: the answer is 6.9).  The SCAR had 226, which is 3.9 times less.  So yes, it is possible to get a rifle to have 5-6 times less stoppages.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/

http://defensetech.org/2007/12/18/and-heres-the-rest-of-the-m4-story/

My M4 worked fine in Iraq.  The SCAR-16 and other newer platforms may be great weapons, but they aren't doing anything significantly better to justify the price involved with adopting a new weapon system.  When we do find something worth switching to, it will have to be revolutionary and not just evolutionary.

Mean rounds between stoppages is more important.
Most people will never shoot their issued rifle in combat.
The M4 is as effective as it needs to be.





 

Mean rounds between stoppages?  How about 6 by some accounts?

"The next item to watch is whether the rifles used are randomly chosen, or cherry picked and then pre-maintained to perform at an unusual reliability level vs. a field weapon. A third way of gaming the testing system involves the level of lubrication used. One source noted that the first dust test new M4s had 9,836 jams in 60,000 rounds – almost one jam every 6 rounds. The Army kept working on the test until they figured out a “generous lubrication” approach that used far more than the manufacturer recommended, but lowered jams to 1 in 88 rounds. A fair test must match the manufacturer’s manual for each weapon, or use the same lubrication for each weapon based on the minimum recommended among all test weapons."

from: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

Yea, one sketchy test is not indicitive of the system as a whole.



The current mean rounds between stoppages for the M-4 is 3600 according to what I read.  The required is 600.  So it's well over the minimum.



http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/25/evolution-of-the-m4-carbine/





As far as the generous lubrication, it's common knowledge the M4 is meant to run wet, at least when I was in.



 

I think the issues they are trying to improve lie in the magazine and ammunition.

Not really, the mags and ammo work fine in M16a2's and a4's.



 

But after the mags get used and abused and then reused they start malfunctioning. Then they are issuing 14.5" barrels and M855 for afghanistan

I've never been issued a worn out magazine, nor have I experienced one with my personal AR's.  I'm not saying they don't exist, but I wouldn't consider them to be a problem whose solution is a new rifle.  Besides, better mags already exist in the form of the PMAG (which are being issued by Big Army).  Ammo is a problem, but there are solutions to that, too.

My platoon got issued beat up mags that had been ruined by use in SAWS during training.  That's what normally kills mags from what I've seen.  GI mags are pretty damn tough FWIW.





We fixed the problem of mags by a quick heel stomp, and trading out at the armory.



 

Alright so what's "revolutionary?" I mean what would a rifle need to do to be deemed "revolutionary" and not "evolutionary?"



I mean what are we talking about here? M4s until we have caseless ammo or ray guns?



Was the M16 revolutionary or evolutionary from the M14? If it was revolutionary why is that?



U.S. Army needs to say "this is what we're looking for" or just not bother to spend the dough. I mean how much money do we piss away on these competitions that never result in anything. Look the the money we blew on the XM8 for nothing. I mean I know millions don't really mean jack to DOD, but it's not monopoly money.

A lot of soldiers are apparently taught that the damned thing should be run dry, or close to it.  I've had more than one guy who was in tell me that that is how they were told to maintain it.  Of course, you run it dry in a dusty environment and I can tell you what's going to happen without running any tests at all.  If the Army is dead set on running a gun dry, they'd better just buy AKs and get it over with.

M4 Carbines will generally run pretty well if well lubed.  Same for M16s (in fact, they might run even better than the carbines all other things being equal).

Well, at least when I was in, we ran our A2's wet, even in Iraq.   Then again we also cleaned and re-lubed our weapons after patrols, and function checked them periodically.  It goes with being squared away.



 

This here is some good reading:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

What dose that mean?

Ah the dust test. Have you ever actually read into the powerpoint talking about the results? Seen the part where the mention the exact same test performed in summer 07 saw the M4 have roughly 1/3rd the number of malfunctions that it experienced in the fall 07 test? Or maybe looked at the part where they stated the weapons were lubed with CLP to the manufacturers specifications? If this means the field manual for the m16/m4, they were applying a very light coat of lube to the M4, which we all know is not conducive to proper function.

The inherent flaws and dubious repeatability of the dust test make it of suspect value.

But fuck the ones that do?
Is that what your saying?

You should see what an wet M4 looks like when pulling OP in a sand storm.

I've been in a few, both in Iraq and Kuwait.  The one in Kuwait cut visibility down to less than 5 feet.  



 

What I posted earlier, the M4 performs much better than it's required to.  There's no reason to change weapons system with all the pain and heartace that entails when the current one works.



 

The testing is doing nothing more than leading companies on....It's going to take something unique to actually completely replace the M4.  Maybe something that operates on the same or similar principles as the AN-94....2 bullets in the same hole....owie

If they wanted to upgrade the system at minimal cost, when the M4's and M-16A4's come up for depot-level maintenance, add a piston refit (a-la Adams Arms system or similar) and a slightly heavier barrel on the M4.

You'd get a modest reliability increase in crap conditions, very little retraining, you can keep all the parts currently on hand for spares, and save a HELL of a lot of time cleaning.

Let's face it, there's no money for new rifles in the near future so lets improve what we've got, and save money on retaining.

Just my $0.02

A piston kit would also add weight and complexity, and more parts to lose and break.



You would spend EXACTLY the same time cleaning.  Wepons get cleaned if they need it or not.  



 

It wouldn't be a pain. The IDF is transitioning their rifles and believe it or not we've done it before and can do it again.



The benefit to the gas piston is the less heat stress on your operating system and that translates to longer service life.



Look at the SCAR MK16 barrel with it's 30K rating for service life. The SCAR 16 has an overall service life rating of 90K rounds. That's longer lasting parts, which means fewer parts you have to haul into country and less down time for rifles along with less overall cost. Now tell me that's not a benefit.



About 4 times better reliability than the M4 and a much better service life and I guess that's not enough to justify transition? Come on.



According to the Bushmaster Rep the bolt on the ACR requires no lubrication at all thanks to the coating. That's an advantage.



I see a lot of advantages to the new gen rifles over the M4 and I don't know why DOD brushes that stuff off as no biggie.

You don't have to convince me.  The people that need convincing already were not impressed.



 

The M4 is basically in it, given how many heavily M4 based carbines are in it, like that colt with the monolithic upper or the SR16

If I knew what "revolutionary" would be, I'd be sitting on a pile of cash right now, not in a shitty Army barracks room.  As far as the expense of these test go, I agree.  The Army (and pretty much all of DoD in my opinion) needs to tighten the belt and stop spending money on stupid shit that doesn't yield any meaningful results.  As an active duty soldier, defense is usually the last place I'd look to cut money, but at the same time, I see the waste that goes on in the Army on a nearly daily basis.  With a million here and a million there, sooner or later, you're talking about real money.

I think these tests are being done to satisfy Congress critters who need to justify their kickbacks to various companies in their districts.  

Changing rifles is indeed a PITA.  Right on down to the Company level PITA.  BTDT.  PVT Joe might not see a pain, but it exists all the way from the arms room to the Pentagon.  Changing a weapons system, even a simple one like small arms, is a royal PITA.  Done it several times.  

It's not the PITA that the Army is looking at though.  They'll come up with something else to do that's a PITA anyway, so it's a no biggie really.  The big problem is cost.  Just new manuals for the new system will cost millions of dollars.  I'm not kidding there.  Publication cost is huge with new systems.  Then there's the materiel cost of the weapons, the parts, and the tools needed to support the system.  Then there's the cost of training.  You have to have everyone qualified on the new system within 60 days of issue IIRC.  That's alot of range time.  Fine for the Infantry guys, but the other 85% of the Army will have to shut down operations.  That all costs money BIG TIME.  

If the new toy shoots 5.56mm, we aren't getting anything new enough.  You're still shooting the same bullet, doing the same thing on the other end.  There is no actual increase in effectiveness really.  Not enough to justify cost of changing over.  

The Army isn't really interested in changing over.  Congress isn't going to be interested in paying for a change over.  They're telling the Army to test things to throw some bones to HK, FN, and the like.  Unless a new system will change capability, there's no point in going to it.

It's not just a rifle either.  The Army wants a "system".  Like the old Stoner 63 system, where the rilfe, carbine, SAW, etc. share common parts.  I doubt it needs to all come in a single bag and be able to build whatever you need, but that's the direction the Army has said it wants to go.  Suppot costs are where it's at for saving money and the like.  If you can use maybe 60-70% of the same parts between your rifle/carbine and your SAW, you will save a TON of money and reduce logistics.  

Decisions like these are based on what wins wars.  Logitistics.  What it does on the battlefield is not immaterial, but if it's good enough, then it's not as much a factor as people here on this board would like to think it is.

Not only that, but since the USMC has used the same rifle as the US Army for the last hundred years, why are they not invovled with this?  You can bet your sweet ass that if the Army had to change, the USMC would be hard pressed not to go along, and the lack of any problem the USMC seems to have would indicate a more political reason behind all this.

Like I said.  Congress lining their pockets even in time of cutbacks.  Nothing new here.

It was a waste of time with the XM8, and the dust test, and so on...



There hasn't been anything developed since the M4 was adopted that warrants the adoption of a new weapon.



An M4A2? Maybe.



But not a new weapon, or a new gas operating system...



The Army has much more critical weapons systems to devote their time and money to.



 

You can keep posting all the 'defenseindustry' websites you want...



The overwhelming majority of actual vets on this board say the M4 is good to go....



It doesn't matter how many times the rifle jammed in a 'dust test' any more than it matters if you can fire it with the barrel full of water.



If you abuse the weapon, it will jam.



At least it doesn't have the structural problems of the XM8, or the weight of the (now cancelled) SCAR.
 

Revolutionary:



1) New construction materials - aluminum and plastic over wood and steel



2) New gas system (Stoner DI vs piston)



3) New caliber/design philosophy (SCHV)



Nothing developed since has been better than those improvements.



 

They are taught to keep them dry in garrison, because it makes it possible to pass a 'white glove' inspection.



If the weapon is properly lubed, it will fail inspection every time.



'No combat ready unit ever passed inspection, and no inspection ready unit ever passed combat' - applies here.



 

It means that the weapon works, kills the enemy, and you are more likely to run OUT of ammo in combat, than you are to have your rifle jam on you (if it's properly maintained).
It also means that you have to remember this is a RIFLE, not an artillery piece, tank, helicopter, or machine-gun. It is not, in any way, the most important weapons system on the battlefield. In order of priority for funds, the only thing less important, is the pistol.



When we have everything else the best it can be, then we might have some left over to worry about our rifles should being made out of polymer or aluminum (the only real possible 'improvement' for the M4, would be making it out of a lighter material, and possibly lengthening the gas system).
 

There can be no revolutionary improvement of the M16 platform until there is a revolution in ammunition. Maybe caseless, maybe who knows?
To me, the call for a "knock out punch" from a new rifle means it will be obvious to EVERYONE when that design comes along.

I don't really see the point of replacing the M4.... the one our troops use could use an upgrade....... like an MRP with fold down front sight, maybe a 1-4x optic,

Last time I checked, it was a carbine.

WOW!

Oh, thats right, your a tanker!

1. Plastic

2. Piston (Hell yeah)

3. 6.8/6.5

do you still drive a 1964 car? use a 1964 computer? watch a 1964 TV? a lot has changed since then.
What was wrong with the old kevlar helmlet that it had to be replaced? What was wrong with the M60 that it had to be replaced?

Look how revolutionary the M9 is over the M1911..lol

So, you're advising the military repeat piss poor decisions?  Just because the we did something before, doesn't mean we should do it again.  Especially not in the midst of a massive budget deficit.

How would an upgrade for a better weapon be a piss poor decision?
If the M4 is as good as you say then let it prove that in open competition.

and



I agree.  Ultimately it comes down to a projectile going down a tube at high speed.  Everything else is ergos and reliability.  The problem is, we're pot committed.  We already have the M16/M4 variants, and 5.56 ammo.  So it makes sense to use what we have in any change, but you can't get any real change by using what we have.  I can't stand the AR controls.  Not intuitive at all.  Yet our boys have been the best damned soldiers on the planet for decades using it, so it can't be that bad.  But the AR design wasn't mean to use a different caliber.  It wasn't meant to be piston operated.  IMO, if you're changing either or both, you need a new weapon, specifically designed to operate in that manner.

Is there room for improvement?  Yes.  Are our boys getting beaten because of the equipment they're issued?  Nope, theyr'e still kicking ass with it.  Is there the political will to make a real change happen?  Don't think so.

 

The M4 is not a 1964 design.



The MICH was actually an improvement over the old 1st-gen Kevlar, which was an improvement over the steel-pot.



The fact is, unlike cars, TVs, and computers, guns have not improved in that manner.



What we have now, is (a) some advances in construction materials, that may or may not work well enough, and (b) the recycling of older-than-dirt technology (piston-op) to try and make it seem 'new', because most people don't realize the piston system is OLDER than the AR action, and was rejected with good reason when the AR was designed.