U.S. Army Agrees That The M-4 Sucks

[Juggernaut 11,054]

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20091125.aspx

 

 

 

U.S. Army Agrees That The M-4 Sucks

 

 

November 25, 2009: The U.S. Army has finally addressed years of complaints about the M-4 and M-16 assault rifles. The M-4 is a short barrel M-16, and has become very popular with the troops. The army has asked the Department of Defense for permission to spend a few hundred million dollars on upgrades for its 400,000 M-4 assault rifles. The big change is replacing the main portion of the rifle with a new component that contains a short stroke piston gas system (to reduce buildup of carbon inside the rifle) and a heavier (by five ounces) barrel (which reduces barrel failure from too much heat, which happens when several hundred rounds are fired within a few minutes.) Much of this goes back to the decades old argument about replacing the recoil system in the M-16 assault rifles. This came to a head (again) two years ago, when the army ran more tests on its M-4 rifle, involving dust and reliability. Four weapons were tested. The M4, the XM8, SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) and the H&K 416 (an M4 with the more dust resistant components of the XM8 installed).

 

The testing consisted of exposing the weapons to 25 hours of heavy dust conditions over two months. During that testing period, 6,000 rounds were fired from each of ten weapons of each type. The weapons with the fewest failures (usually jams) were rated highest. Thus the XM8 finished first, SCAR second, 416 third and M4 last. In response, the army said it was satisfied with the M4s performance, but was considering equipping it with a heavier barrel (to lessen overheating) and more effective magazines (27 percent of the M4s 882 jams were magazine related.) The army noted that the M4 fired over 98 percent of its rounds without problems. That missed the point that the other rifles had far fewer jams. In combat, each jam is a life threatening situation for the soldier in question. The army had been forced by Congress to conduct the tests. Congress was responding to complaints by the troops.

 

The XM8 had 127 jams, the SCAR 226 and the 416 had 233. Thus the M-4 had nearly eight times as many jams as the XM8, the rifle designed to replace it. The M4 had nearly four times the jams of the SCAR and 416, which were basically M4 type rifles with a different gas handling system. Any stoppage is potentially fatal for the soldier holding the rifle. Thus the disagreement between the army brass, and the troops who use the weapons in combat.

 

In dusty places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to clean your M16 and M4 rifles constantly, otherwise the combination of carbon (from the recoil system) and dust in the chamber will cause jams. The army and marines both decided to stick with their current weapons, rather than adopt an easier to maintain weapon, like the XM8 or H&K 416, because of the billion or so dollars it would cost to switch rifles.

 

If the issue were put to a vote, the troops would vote for a rifle using a short-stroke system (like the XM8, SCAR or H&K 416). But the military is not a democracy, so the troops spend a lot of time cleaning their weapons, and hoping for the best. The debate involves two intertwined attitudes among senior army commanders. First, they don't want the hassle, and possible embarrassment, of switching to a new rifle. Second, they are anticipating a breakthrough in weapons technology that will make a possible a much improved infantry weapon. This is likely to happen later, rather than sooner, but the generals kept obsessing over it.

 

Earlier efforts to just get the troops a more reliable rifle have failed. Back in 2005, the U.S. Army's design for a new assault rifle, the XM8, was cancelled. But now the manufacturer has incorporated one of the key components of the XM8, into M4 rifles, and calls the hybrid the H&K 416. Heckler & Koch (H&K) designed the XM8, which was based on an earlier H&K rifle, the G36. SOCOM is using the 416, but no one else is (except for a few police departments).

 

The XM8 (like the G36 and 416) uses a short-stroke piston system. The M16s uses the gas-tube system, which results in carbon being blown back into the chamber. That leads to carbon build up, which results in jams (rounds getting stuck in the chamber, and the weapon unable to fire.). The short-stroke system also does not expose parts of the rifle to extremely hot gases (which wears out components more quickly). As a result, rifles using the short-stroke system, rather than the gas-tube, are more reliable, easier to maintain and last longer.

 

H&K developed the 416, for SOCOM, at the same time the XM8 was being evaluated by the army. SOCOM got the first 416s in 2004, a year before the army cancelled the XM8. The 416 looks like the M4, for the only thing that has changed is the gas system that automatically extracts the cartridge after the bullet has been fired, and loads the next round. SOCOM can buy pretty much whatever they want, the U.S. Army cannot. SOCOM listens to what its troops want, the army often doesn't.

 

The army is also making three other changes, as part of the M-4 component replacement. There will be improved trigger pull characteristics, a stronger (less likely to fail) rail on the top of the rifle (for fitting scopes and other accessories), ambidextrous controls (to make life easier for lefties) and a round counter (in the pistol grip) to track the number of bullets fired over the lifetime of the rifle (makes for better data on how rifles perform over time, and for scheduling the replacement of components.)

 

 

[MD_Willington 11]

Buy a lower - uppers will probably hit the market if they go with gas piston uppers...

 

Why not go with .30 AR while they are at it too.

[BpS12 512]

I've been bitching about this for 25yrs....

 

 

"..the M-4 had nearly eight times as many jams as the XM8"

 

Ya go figure, they're just gonna stick with the M4 and "fix" the issues. Right as American soldiers die.

 

 

"...round counter (in the pistol grip)"

 

How about putting it on a P-rail so the TROOPS will know their round count?

 

 

"Why not go with .30 AR while they are at it too."

 

How bout we scrap the M4/AR and update the M2 Carbine. I loved my M1 and was just as accurate as an M4.

 

 

SAVE AMERICAN LIVES, get rid of the F%*&^NG toys.

 

Sorry, pet peeve.

[Juggernaut 11,054]

even if the army gets new rails.... they will just send then to the Marines anyhow......

[jimdigriz 580]

In response, the army said it was satisfied with the M4s performance, but was considering equipping it with a heavier barrel (to lessen overheating) and more effective magazines (27 percent of the M4s 882 jams were magazine related.) The army noted that the M4 fired over 98 percent of its rounds without problems.

 

The army bureaucracy must be full of idiots. How can a >1% failure rate be considered satisfactory?!?

 

 

The XM8 had 127 jams, the SCAR 226 and the 416 had 233. Thus the M-4 had nearly eight times as many jams as the XM8, the rifle designed to replace it.

 

It's a shame they didn't run an AK through the test. I would love to have seen the result. But it would probably have been too embarrassing for the other rifles.

 

 

The M16s uses the gas-tube system, which results in carbon being blown back into the chamber.

 

How could anyone not have seen that this would not turn out well?

 

Jim

[Nailbomb 10,221]

even if the army gets new rails.... they will just send then to the Marines anyhow......

Its true. +1

[volkov 318]

And this ignores the more glaring point- the 5.56..

 

Shitty rifle in a shitty round..

 

But our armed forces arn't a priority anymore.. we tie their hands behind their backs and cancel projects like the f-22 to save money to waste on more useless crap.

 

and btw before people scream, by shitty rifle in a shitty round I mean relatively.. Yes the m4 can kill and is better than something out there I'm sure.. but considering we are meant to be THE superpower, holding all other things relative, it blows.

[Eric Pate 478]

Ooh, so theres gonna be another new $2000 AR upper on the market for me to "upgrade" my AR so it will perform more like a $400 AK? Pretty standard military thinking, unfortunately. Not like its their money or anything.

 

Hell, they're just now admitting this? The AR is an interesting rifle but c'mon, it should never have been adopted by the military in the first place. (I mean; forward assist? WTF???)

[buckandaquarterquarterstaff 5]

OK well how about putting all of them up against a 30 carbine. I suspect you'd find that the M-4 was a pretty good successor to the 30 carb. The problem is that they then went ahead and made it the main battle rifle as well as the handout for cooks and convoy guardsmen.

 

I'm all for the best platform we can afford, but there are a shitload of M-4's out there and resetting the standard in the midst of budget problems is a no go. Congress is too busy giving away money to trash perfectly functional vehicles and rewarding the same mortgage brokers that created this mess with all sorts of buyer incentives for existing home sales.

 

All that aside, a gas piston upper only will solve a few of the problems. What's needed is a gun purpose designed to work in sandy, dirty, and other conditions. While giving away a bit of accuracy you can equip the type of troops that don't rely on their rifles all the time with something that just works almost all the time. The efforts to this point are just reworkings of the existing AR platform. That won't really make it much better in sand and dirt. 127 jams out of 6000 is still a two percent failure rate (just less than one failure per 30 round mag). Failures of any kind are a bitch to clear in an AR as compared to something like an AK. We need something along the lines of .1% to make the probability of actual failure when it's most needed to work tolerable. Why spend the money on all the "proprietary solutions" that really aren't solutions? It's going to be a load of cash to retrofit anything, so you'd be better off not purchasing new top ends and selling off complete units to be replaced. Just IMO, YMMV, all the usual disclaimer shit

[janusthephoenix 24]

Can't they just give the Army the green light to start grabbing up AKs from dead insurgents? That doesn't cost the Army a penny!

[elvis christ 451]

This puts the whole gun shop commando response of "if the M4/M16 platform worked well with a gas system, they would put it to use" in perspective.

[Krom 36]

Holy shit! I think 100 failures is alot, not to mention 800!! I agree that it would have been very interesting and no doubt embarrassing to see how an AK would have performed in this test.

 

I just don't really get it, I mean OK the AR is more ergonomic and more accurate OK.

 

Now shorten the barrel so it is only effective out to ~75-100yrds (M-4) and the accuracy advantage is gone! So what you can hit some one farther than 100yds? With the ballistics of a 22lr it's not going to stop them from returning fire.

 

AR is more ergonomic, but in close range <75yds the AK's Irons are faster.

 

Reliability? Yeah you see where I'm going with this, the DOD needs to get it's head out of it's ass.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Krom

[Will486 7]

im glad ive found a forum where stock ARs and .223 can finally be publicly denounced as the absolute crap they are. IMO, the AR as a platform to build from is brilliant. But Im just so tired of ultra-nationalistic marines and all-american kids getting in my face and spewing propagated bs about the M4A1 being the greatest rifle of all time.

[22_Shooter 1,560]

Can't they just give the Army the green light to start grabbing up AKs from dead insurgents? That doesn't cost the Army a penny!

 

I thought they already did this on occasion.

 

I swear I remember reading that US troops routinely picked up AK's to use for a number of different reasons. One being that the sound of an AK being fired didn't alert enemy troops to US soldiers' presence, as the M16 and AK sound totally different.

 

Am I imagining that I read this? Or is this something that is being done, just not necessarily "green lighted" by higher-ups?

[22_Shooter 1,560]

im glad ive found a forum where stock ARs and .223 can finally be publicly denounced as the absolute crap they are. IMO, the AR as a platform to build from is brilliant. But Im just so tired of ultra-nationalistic marines and all-american kids getting in my face and spewing propagated bs about the M4A1 being the greatest rifle of all time.

 

You forgot to capitalize the "M" in Marines and the "A" in American.

 

It's a weird pet peeve of mine. Carry on.

[Nailbomb 10,221]

Can't they just give the Army the green light to start grabbing up AKs from dead insurgents? That doesn't cost the Army a penny!

 

I thought they already did this on occasion.

 

I swear I remember reading that US troops routinely picked up AK's to use for a number of different reasons. One being that the sound of an AK being fired didn't alert enemy troops to US soldiers' presence, as the M16 and AK sound totally different.

 

Am I imagining that I read this? Or is this something that is being done, just not necessarily "green lighted" by higher-ups?

NATO dosn't like us doing that... you'll find a lot of people doing what they want when they think it could possibly save thier life.

[paprotective 362]

Not Another Troop Operation (NATO)... Yeah heaven forbid you save your skin by thinking outside the BOX.

 

Didn't us AMERICAN guys win the rev. war by NOT standing in a straight line and shooting back at the British and the like...

[22_Shooter 1,560]

Can't they just give the Army the green light to start grabbing up AKs from dead insurgents? That doesn't cost the Army a penny!

 

I thought they already did this on occasion.

 

I swear I remember reading that US troops routinely picked up AK's to use for a number of different reasons. One being that the sound of an AK being fired didn't alert enemy troops to US soldiers' presence, as the M16 and AK sound totally different.

 

Am I imagining that I read this? Or is this something that is being done, just not necessarily "green lighted" by higher-ups?

NATO dosn't like us doing that... you'll find a lot of people doing what they want when they think it could possibly save thier life.

 

That's what I was thinking.

[YARP 300]

basackwards that's how the US military rolls. Flashback to the 60s, soldiers in Vietnam report that the M14 has excellent penetration power, however the stock is literally rotting off and the rounds are to heavy to carry a ton on long range missions (mostly what America did in Vietnam). So the US military asked for a stock that wouldn't rot (hence M16 made out of composite materials) and a shorter platform to move through the bush more easily as well as a lighter round. The M14 was about 46" and the M16 was about 39", woohoo 7" loss. We went from 7.62x51 to 5.56 NATO.....lighter but shittier.....

 

Flash forward to Iraq present day, numerous soldiers are asking for the M14 for penatration and knock down power, there are now a gazillion different stocks and other options for the M14. Yet the 5.56 NATO is still good enough? With how much weight a typical grunt carrys in the field today, you think they could drop some of the old crap not used anymore and carry more rounds.

 

I'll be honest I'm not a big fan of either, but I'd take the M14 over the M16 anyday.

 

To answer said earlier question about US soldiers picking up AKs, yup it happens. It's also a great way to get your ass shot off if your working with other companys who listen for that very distinct sound of an AK firing in order to locate the enemy. Grunts have there own weapon and when traveling in large numbers don't really need to worry about running out of ammo, so really picking up an enemys weapon is usually done by the turd who shouldn't even be touching a gun (yes there's one in just about every platoon....a turd that is). For members of the SF community, snipers, etc.... They are typically carried in case (and only used as a last resort) they run out of ammo or there weapon fails, or they just want to create some confusion. If your in a group of four guys and your weapon fails you've just become a liability. If your weapon fails and your in a large group they will always find something else for you to do. Besides who the hell goes to battle with someone elses weapon?!?! That's just asking for trouble, you don't know what that guy did to that weapon well he had it.

[Juggernaut 11,054]

[Spartacus 1,619]

The chart says a lot for 6.8.

 

I'd prefer to have seen a HP 7.62x39 instead of so many 5.56 rounds.

 

 

Edit: Forgot that HP is not allowed in war.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Spartacus

[Alexc.s. 25]

Why can't we use HP in war? NATO right? KIll the other guy with a HP or shoot him and let him hurt, bleed, and return fire. I think when you do that hunting it's called bad sportsmanship...

Edited December 1, 2009 by Datastick

[Twinsen 86]

According to that chart, the old 52 grain stuff is completely worthless. I didn't realize that.

 

It does show that the .223 is far more devastating than the others listed. And that the 6.8 sucks massive ass.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Twinsen

[Nailbomb 10,221]

Why can't we use HP in war? NATO right? KIll the other guy with a HP or shoot him and let him hurt, bleed, and return fire. I think when you do that hunting it's called bad sportsmanship...

Accualy thats another sore point with me...

 

We have the geneva convention to thank for this one, and by the rules of war we are not allowed to use hollow point or blended metal rounds against a standing army...

 

Can anyone tell me how long we have been at war WITHOUT fighting a standing army?

 

The only thing keeping us from using hollow points right now is our own command.

[buckandaquarterquarterstaff 5]

Personally I think the 5.56 is far from shitty, the wound profile showing an AP bullet is a little deceptive. Also, the 16 in is good well beyond 200 yards. Fragmentation of the 5.56 is the absolute key to its function (don't believe it, compare the fragmenting 5.56 rounds vs the 5.45x39), and therefore they would have been better off keeping a 20 in bbl on a collapsible stock. That still would have been more handy than the M14 in close spaces. Anyone with any range time knows that the M4 can shoot circles around an AK at 200 yards (if you get one or two hits from a mag of an AK within a 6 in circle with iron sights you're pretty much par for the course).

 

They need to use the last 40 years of knowledge and merge the AK reliability and AR accuracy and stick with the portable and fragmenting 5.56 round. Throwing it faster than the M4 with a longer bbl and maybe a bullpup type design that ejects and feeds from the bottom.

[KrisFox 69]

[Will486 7]

 

...the sound of an AK being fired didn't alert enemy troops to US soldiers' presence, as the M16 and AK sound totally different.

 

The AK certainly has a noticeably different report than the AR. One that would undoubtedly alert nearby friendlies to a false hostile contact. And given the army/marine's recent tendency to simply call in air support on enemy positions, I'd be hesitant to say the least to pick up an AK and start firing.

[KrisFox 69]

 

...the sound of an AK being fired didn't alert enemy troops to US soldiers' presence, as the M16 and AK sound totally different.

 

The AK certainly has a noticeably different report than the AR. One that would undoubtedly alert nearby friendlies to a false hostile contact. And given the army/marine's recent tendency to simply call in air support on enemy positions, I'd be hesitant to say the least to pick up an AK and start firing.

 

Enemy engages US troops with IEDs, VBIEDs, and EFPs. Look at reports of us troops killed by explosions vs small arms fire. The Enemy doesn't really use the AK much ether and when they do it is easy for US troops to locate and kill them.

[Juggernaut 11,054]

In short politically motivated testing resulted in politically tainted results.

 

Surprise, surprise.

 

 

But........

[Coal_forge 15]

But Call of Duty Modern Warfare the M4 kicks ass .

 

Seriously I rather have something else on a beach trip. Maybe the Tavor