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

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: U.S. Army Agrees That The M-4 Sucks
SYSOP 11/25/2009 5:26:00 AM

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

lcfarrelljr 11/25/2009 8:15:50 PM

Now, if the Ordnance Branch will come to it's senses, mandate a 16" minimum bbl. length, use a gas piston system, AND rechamber all existing carbines/SAWS to 6.5 Grendel, the problem will be once, and finally solved.

Larry

Gun Owners of NJ

[email protected]

Quote Reply

SMSgt Mac ?And an Informed Reader Agrees This Article Sucks More 11/26/2009 12:56:44 AM

First some housekeeping. I am no big fan of the M16 and its derivatives, though I qualified Expert with the M16A2 consistently over my career (it didn?t ?fit me? well). From recent and passing familiarity with a custom AR in near M4 configuration, I am prepared to perhaps reconsider my inherent dislike, but I have not had enough exposure to make a solid judgment on the ?feels right? issue yet. I will leave the ?stopping power? of the .223 discussion to being between those who hit where they are aiming more than they miss and those who do not. Now let us acknowledge that there are those special applications where the M16/4 might not be the best weapon (a SEAL bud of mine hated the M-4 for clearing buildings because you can?t communicate after the first few supersonic rounds cracking off).

NOW we get to the article.

1. The Army is exploring the idea of ?improvements? to the M4. It wants to I N V E S T I G A T E making improvements. This in no way shape or form means, in even the itsy-bitsy, teeny-weensiest, way that the Army thinks the M-4 ?sucks?. Methinks the ?author? projects to much.

2. The article?s discussion of the M-4 dust test that occurred a little while back is a carefully-crafted mischaracterization, some might say it is a massive load of hooey, and I?m tempted to call it something else. But!- on the off-chance that ignorance on the author?s part is to blame, I shall be kind.

For a more complete, and as far as I know only public analysis of any of the data from that test, one would have to read mine: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2008/01/extreme-dust-test-m4-and-others.html , which BTW contains the Army?s briefing slides on the test and those include the ?Voice of the Soldier? (slides 14 & 15) that makes the point quite clearly, I believe, that the Army doesn?t think the M4 ?sucks?.

Now about those design ?improvements?. Three cautionary notes:

1. Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

2. All designs involve tradeoffs.

3. There's no such thing as a perfect weapon.

Quote Reply

mustavaris 11/26/2009 1:25:03 AM

Over 98% ?!?!?! That is a disaster... If it is 99% it means that the weapon actually jams around once per 3-4 magazines spent when used in such conditions. The failure rate is higher than when using Finnish AK clone with blanks (wooden "bullets" + less gunpowder) and old magazines (which have to be given a hit prior to loading in order to put the cartidges in order). The failure rate for such combination is less around 0,3 - 0,5%... And we are dealing with decades newer high end weapon meant for professionals. Jesus Christ.

Quote Reply

StobieWan 11/26/2009 7:07:46 AM

The single most interesting point from that extreme dust test is the voice of the soldier comments at the rear of the report.

We're fine with it..really!

There's another quote from the Army stating that all weapons performed very well in tests - and frankly, having seen the test "dusting" I'm slightly in awe that any of the weapons got a shot off. Far beyond anything likely to have been encountered in the field, and the testing methodology does seem to have been either flawed or poorly explained in points.

Ian

Quote Reply

trenchsol 11/26/2009 9:33:03 AM

No mention of M-16 ? No upgrades ? Does it mean the end of life for M-16 ?

Quote Reply

mustavaris 11/26/2009 9:40:20 AM

What would be the slot the M-16 fits in?

Quote Reply

SMSgt Mac 11/26/2009 10:53:24 AM

A tidbit for those too lazy or whatever to read through the Army slides and/or my analysis:

1. Not all 'jams' are created equal in downtime or consequence

2. Jams that occur at the end of a test cycle (which exceeded multiple times the average #rounds per typical engagement are not as important as those that might occur early in the test cycle.

3. Jams that occur late in operational life are due more to wear than design.

4. The one big thing missing from all the handwringing over the dust test: The M4 experienced the FEWEST 'catastrophic' failures of all the tested designs.

5. Biggest lesson learned from the test? M4 was most dependent on keeping the weapon clean. Solution: Clean your freakin' weapon already!

6. M4/M16's "niche"? IMHO: solid all-around rifle/carbine to safely put in the hands of the most troops that gets maximum accuracy and effectiveness with the least amount of training.

Quote Reply

Zerbrechen The old argument 11/26/2009 1:48:17 PM

This discussion seems to never end. Everyone wants shorter barrel lengths, then complain that the .223 lacks punch. Hotter rounds mean hotter weapons. Pistons mean more moving parts, which means more wear and more parts to fail. Hotter rounds and pistons mean more wear and tear on moving parts. If I'm not mistaken, the 416 has a shorter operatonal life than an M4. What happened to knowing your equipment and train, train, train?

What happens when we switch to a new weapon system and have a whole new batch of quirks to learn about and retrain soldiers to deal with?

Quote Reply

StobieWan 11/27/2009 7:25:47 AM

Exactly - it is very possible to design and manufacture a weapon with a gas piston which can be unreliable - we did it quite handily with the SA80A1 - which to be fair suffered from poor quality ammunition and magazines more than anything else.

Adding moving parts isn't always a great fix :)

All of the weapons suffered relatively low amounts of failures over what was effectively their economic lifespan and in extreme conditions, and the M4 tended to be easier suffer stoppages which were at least easy to clear - whereas other weapons in the trials suffered some failures which were "return to armourer" affairs.

On larger caliber rounds, SOCOM have I believe trialled them and not proceeded with the various options, despite having the liberty to do so.

Ian

Quote Reply

cwDeici 11/28/2009 11:59:19 AM

The XM-8 is more reliable, weighs less, has more stopping power, is easier to customize, has equal or better accuracy, has been field-tested and HAS IN FACT worked out the MELTING HAND BARREL (THAT WAS YEARS AGO, PLEASE NOBODY MENTION IT). There are plenty of soldiers who dislike the tendency for the M-4 and M-16 to jam, and even more who dislikes its tendency to wound rather than kill.

There is no excuse not to upgrade, only political, economic and career interests (fear of an embaressment) as has been proven, if you would but dig a little.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT