SCAR vs. M4 vs. HK416 vs. XM8 Dust Tests Released - M4 Loses Badly

[Slamfire]

But let's take the paper at it's word... that means that between the paper and the current test the XM8 is between 1% and 1.38% more reliable than the M4 in this specific extreme environment. So let's just grant the HK a pass on arctic, swamp, jungle, temperate, and other environments and stipulate it is at least a 1% improvement there as well. How much is the move from 98.6% to 99.6% worth?

If procurements were based only rationale decisions, the money would not be spent. However, you know enough to know that the M14 production program was canceled, which was at least $400 million spent, to buy the M16. Which was not a reliablity improvement at all.

If the political will is there, they will spend Billions. If the political will is not there, nothing.

 

[cornman]

This is not news. The M16/M4 has forever been known to be junk in real working conditions. This is why the ak47 is the most popular rifle world wide. I still cant figure out why the AR15 is so darn popular. I guess the playing army factor...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well we all know that according to the Internet, if an M4 is even near dust it instantly seizes and stops functioning. However, here is a picture from Army.mil of the test M4s showing how dirty an M4 has to be before it starts functioning at only 98.6%



On another note, the same link where I found the picture mentioned that all weapons in the test needed bolt and barrel replacement after 6,000 rounds in order to be safe to fire. Apparently a 2.5 hour sandstorm and 6,000 rounds is very hard on the working parts.

 

[inherentical]

Well we all know that according to the Internet, if an M4 is even near dust it instantly seizes and stops functioning. However, here is a picture from Army.mil of the test M4s showing how dirty an M4 has to be before it starts functioning at only 98.6%

I can't tell you what would have happened in my unit to someone that allowed their weapon to hit that level of filth. I'm amazed that any of the rifles functioned at all! It's a true testament to modern engineering that they did.

 

[HorseSoldier]

This is why the ak47 is the most popular rifle world wide.

If you factor out the Warsaw Pact countries that were forced to adopt it by association with the Soviets, and then factor out the countries that adopted it because it was given to them free by the boat load . . . the AK isn't really that popular.

 

[GunTech]

Yep. The Soviet Union shoved out free AKs by the ton, while the US sold M16s to it's allies. That's not to say that the AK isn't one of the most reliable, if not the most reliable small arm ever made. I would like to see the AK included in the rifles test, just for a baseline comparison, since that is the weapon of choice of most of our enemies.

But as noted many, many times, every weapon is a compromise. You get to pick between things like weight, accuracy, reliability, lethality, etc.

 

[Greg Bell]

Well we all know that according to the Internet, if an M4 is even near dust it instantly seizes and stops functioning. However, here is a picture from Army.mil of the test M4s showing how dirty an M4 has to be before it starts functioning at only 98.6%c

Well, for years M4 fans would always claim that it was just as reliable as the alternatives. They would say "well, it is just two ways of doing the same thing." "Just a waste of money."

We now know that it is true, they do both do the same thing, but that when the M4 does it is least SEVEN TIMES WORSE than the XM-8. Almost four times worse than the other competitors.

And lets face it, if these results were reversed, the M4 guys would be RABIDLY touting these results as the end of the argument. Now, it is all "hey, the M4 is good enough for government work!"

In my view, the AR is good enough for me, a plinker and gamer, but not good enough for the boys we send out to risk their lives.

 

[Jeff White]

In my view, the AR is good enough for me, a plinker and gamer, but not good enough for the boys we send out to risk their lives.

The boys (including myself) who use them for real, have few complaints. However, we do have quite a bit of mistrust in any new, unproven system, which is exactly what the XM8 is, new and unproven.

Why don't you look at the actual conditions the weapons are used in? The dust test is not a replication of actual combat because no solder (who had any kind of NCO above him) would allow a weapon to get into the state it did before it started failing. In real life, which is often quite different from any test conditions, the XM8 or any of the other test candidates have either no advantage or a minuscule one.

In 28 years 11 months service in the US Army, 21 of those years in the Infantry, I used the M16 series in every environment you can find on this planet, from the arctic to the desert. I think I've seen everything you can possibly break on one. During my time on active duty I've ran enough ranges, trained enough soldiers, US and foreign that I've seen literally thousands of different M16s used in training and in combat. As I sit here at my desk typing this post, I can look up and see a group photograph of some young soldiers from 5th Bn, 100th Brigade of the Honduran Army who I helped train in 1990. Those guys had the most beaten up, broken down M16A1s I've ever seen in service. I'm talking about things like the finish gone, dust covers missing or flapping in the breeze because the springs were broken, furniture held together with 100 mph tape.....But you know what, those young men took those rifles into combat, and they worked, every time. They certainly weren't pretty. But they worked. No desert there, but they sure got their share of being dragged through the mud, immersion in water and other typical things soldiers who actually use their rifles do to them. But they still worked.

Did I see examples of junk M16s during my time? Yep, you bet. But not nearly enough to make me thing there were any systematic problems with the system. Any production line can produce a lemon, even HK, all you have to do is look at the QC in some of the batches of the enhanced reliability magazines and the problems with the flip up front sights and the accuracy in the HK416s to understand that. Another problem with the 416 is that (like almost everything else HK makes) it has proprietary accessories. You can only use the HK rear sight with the HK front sight base. If you want a different BUIS you have to change out the front sight (which is loose on current weapons anyway).

I know you'll dismiss my experience and the experience of every other Soldier and Marine on this board as anecdotal, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

Jeff

 

[Greg Bell]

No, on the contrary, I will not dismiss the experience of our soldiers. For example, a recent study that showed that 18 percent of soldiers had malfunctions with their M4s that could not be cleared during the duration of the firefight.

Further, as someone else pointed out, if the "real" guys don't have a problem how come Delta, SEAL team 6, etc have rushed to get something other than the M4? Again, the attitude that the "good enough" is good enough is far from universal. These tests show that these SF guys may know what they are doing after all.

 

[Jeff White]

Greg,
Naval Special Warfare uses the MK18 which is built at Crane. It's an M16 variant. To my knowledge they didn't buy the HK416. I know that Bloomington IN SWAT has some MK18s built at Crane, I've seen them put through their paces in hard training and they work just fine.

HorseSoldier and I have both told you that Army SOF purchased the HK416 for use with suppressors. Why, because the cut down M4s have problems with a can on them. However the piston guns are harder to actually suppress.

Special Forces can use an arms room concept, keeping many different weapons for different purposes. If you're going to make a hit on an insurgent safe house, you'll most likely pick the 416 with suppressor. But the guys you have on your security force, blocking roads etc. may have M4s, M240s and M249s, maybe even a MK12 SPR or two.

It's not economically feasible or logistically supportable to equip a rifle company that way.

Special Forces have chosen different weapons because they are the best tool for their particular mission. Their choices are not necessarily the right choice for the rest of the Army.

It's not like Army SOF has abandoned the M4. They still are in the inventory and are still used when they fit the mission profile.

Jeff

 

[Slamfire]

However, we do have quite a bit of mistrust in any new, unproven system, which is exactly what the XM8 is, new and unproven

When I read this, I immediately thought of the FN/M14 trails. You can see why FN fanatics have a basis to say the military had a bias towards the M14. The M14 would have seemed similiar because it was a product improved M1. The user was familiar and comfortable with the Garand. The FN must have come across as a Marvin the Martin gizmo.

Having worked with the user, my impression is that they want what they have, only better. You push the envelope too far, and you get push back.

There is a lot to be said about not introducing new items into combat. The M16 history shows what happens: Good men die as the design faults are worked out.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The boys (including myself) who use them for real, have few complaints. However, we do have quite a bit of mistrust in any new, unproven system, which is exactly what the XM8 is, new and unproven.

Why don't you look at the actual conditions the weapons are used in? The dust test is not a replication of actual combat because no solder (who had any kind of NCO above him) would allow a weapon to get into the state it did before it started failing. In real life, which is often quite different from any test conditions, the XM8 or any of the other test candidates have either no advantage or a minuscule one.

Amen!

While I wish we had not adopted the M16 in the first place (I suffered through its introduction to combat), today's M16A2 and A4 (and M4) are the products of 40 years of real tests -- the test of actual combat.

 

[Euclidean]

There's one huge problem with the test that I can't believe no one has addressed yet. The mechanical properties of each rifle, while relevant, are absolutely nothing next to the capability of their users. Knowing your weapon system's limitations and how it performs in the environment in question with light lube / heavy lube etc., practice with clearing malfunctions, and who knows how many other factors that deal with training and familiarity with the weapons platform can't really be estimated in a trial like this.

Translation: a trained operator who understood the basics of tactics, situational awareness, and how his rifle actually works would probably do everything in his power to mitigate the circumstances duplicated in the test. Hell, I do that and I'm just a civilian worried about the zombies coming. Software, not hardware.

This forum is the home of the phrases BA/UU/R and "Software not hardware"... can't believe someone hasn't said this yet.


Edit: Jeff White said it a couple posts back actually. Good, thank you Jeff White.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

We now know that it is true, they do both do the same thing, but that when the M4 does it is least SEVEN TIMES WORSE than the XM-8. Almost four times worse than the other competitors.

You're right. Seven times 0.2% is 1.4% It just doesn't sound as impressive when you phrase it as a 1.2% difference in performance in extreme environments (or a 1.05% difference for SCAR and HK416). That is the thing about small incremental improvements.

it would be nice to know where in the testing the weapons began to fail too since I doubt they failed at a nice uniform rate. My guess is they all started to sludge up at some point and failures cascaded after that point.

 

[chieftain]

Based on the stats out of the test. The M4 jammed on average every 2.27 magazines, assuming 30 round magazines.

I do not find that acceptable. Some folks disagree with me.

I just want the troops to have the best gear out there even if it is 2x more expensive it's a lot cheaper than our guys dying.

I absolutely agree!

Good enough is the enemy.

If the political will is there, they will spend Billions. If the political will is not there, nothing.

Again an absolute. Which side of good enough will people will be on?

HorseSoldier and I have both told you that Army SOF purchased the HK416 for use with suppressors. Why, because the cut down M4s have problems with a can on them. However the piston guns are harder to actually suppress.

I guess the A3’s and A4’s just don’t cut it? There is a disconnect here. Based on this statement another M16 variant would have been “easier” to put a can on? Then why wasn’t one used.

This doesn’t pass The BS odor test. Sounds like another rationalization/excuse to justify the under performing M4/M16.

Maybe a rational explanation could take this out of the BS zone.

There is a lot to be said about not introducing new items into combat. The M16 history shows what happens: Good men die as the design faults are worked out.

The problem with the M16/M4 is that the problems after 40 years have not been worked out. I argue because they cannot be solved.

We still are investigating/looking for a bullet that will put the enemy down reliably.

We are still looking for magazines that will work reliably.

We still have a rifle with an inherently weak bolt, by design.

We still have a rifle with an inherently weak extractor, by design.

We still have a rifle that it’s system exacerbates the known problems with the bolt and extractor with heat.

You would think that after 40 years these problems which first began getting American troops dead in the summer of 1967, would have been fixed.

They haven’t been. After all the rifle is “good enough”. Our troops deserve better.

While I wish we had not adopted the M16 in the first place (I suffered through its introduction to combat), today's M16A2 and A4 (and M4) are the products of 40 years of real tests -- the test of actual combat.

As I did. I see some improvements of course, but not enough. I believe the design is suspect. A new design is needed IMNSHO.

There's one huge problem with the test that I can't believe no one has addressed yet. The mechanical properties of each rifle, while relevant, are absolutely nothing next to the capability of their users. Knowing your weapon system's limitations and how it performs in the environment in question with light lube / heavy lube etc., practice with clearing malfunctions, and who knows how many other factors that deal with training and familiarity with the weapons platform can't really be estimated in a trial like this.

By your standard, the M4 would have a large advantage over all the other rifles tested.

You're right. Seven times 0.2% is 1.4% It just doesn't sound as impressive when you phrase it as a 1.2% difference in performance in extreme environments (or a 1.05% difference for SCAR and HK416). That is the thing about small incremental improvements.

As I first stated, the M4 numbers indicate an average jam every 2.27 magazines. I think that truly sucks. Others find it acceptable. Or if they can’t handle the fact, choose to ignore it.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Joe Demko]

We still are investigating/looking for a bullet that will put the enemy down reliably.

When you figure that out, patent it. Every military in the world wants it and none of them have it. You'll be rich!

 

[HorseSoldier]

Based on the stats out of the test. The M4 jammed on average every 2.27 magazines, assuming 30 round magazines.

I'm pretty certain that's a bit of false statistics, as presumably all four weapons systems did not fail at a steady, repetitive rate but like Bartholomew Roberts noted they got progressively worse and failures began to occur late in each 600 or 1200 round block of firing.

From the fact that none of the 40 weapons used were considered safe for firing without replacement bolts or barrels by the end of the test, we can probably safely assume all weapons performed worse towards the end of the 6000 round block of ammo fired.

Saying the M4 or other weapons failed in the test "every 2.27" (or whatever the number) magazines is kind of like taking a new car, doing minimal maintenance on it, and driving it 100,000 miles, 95K of them with no problems and with ten breakdowns in the last 5000 miles, and then claiming you can't drive that make and model more than 10,000 miles without a breakdown.

I guess the A3’s and A4’s just don’t cut it? There is a disconnect here. Based on this statement another M16 variant would have been “easier” to put a can on? Then why wasn’t one used.

This doesn’t pass The BS odor test. Sounds like another rationalization/excuse to justify the under performing M4/M16.

Maybe a rational explanation could take this out of the BS zone.

I don't know how familiar you are with the use of suppressors, but barrel length has nothing to do with why they are a problem on M4s or other AR type rifles. Suppressors don't run very clean, and on a direct gas weapon they blow tons of gunk back into the action.

This is fine on a low-round count kind of platform like an SPR used for sniping but if you have a requirement to run, say, a basic load of seven mags through a suppressed rifle or carbine, then the M4/M16 might not be your best choice.

An additional issue would be is you need a suppressed M4, you may or may not have a need for something as cumbersome and chunky as an M16, particularly an M16 with a suppressor stuck on the end.

As I first stated, the M4 numbers indicate an average jam every 2.27 magazines. I think that truly sucks. Others find it acceptable. Or if they can’t handle the fact, choose to ignore it.

I don't see anything in the tests that shake my faith in my issue M4A1. The weapon works well and apparently only 19 of the M4 stoppages required more than 10 seconds to clear. Out of 60,000 rounds. In a worst case sand storm environment. Know how to maintain your weapon and your magazines and seems to me that it will do the job fine.

 

[Euclidean]

By your standard, the M4 would have a large advantage over all the other rifles tested.

How is that? Can't we train people to use these other platforms too? That would be a good test imho.

And so what if it does? Seriously, who's more prepared, someone with an expensive rifle they've never shot, or someone with a middle of the road rifle who knows its ins and outs and how to use its sights, has the manual of arms down pat, can clear malfunctions, use situational awareness, etc.?

You've heard straight from the horse's mouth the thing works in the real world in the hands of real soldiers, so why worry so much because of this silly test?

The problem is, all rifles (and cartridges) have inherent mechanical flaws and disadvantages, and they're all going to hurt. Until we come up with something that moves us well beyond analog devices using primer fired pre packed cartridges, there's not really going to be anything so great that it really merits changing just yet. If we adopt another platform, they're just going to start bitching about its faults instead, and there will be faults. Everything made by men has faults.

If anything would help, it might be changing to a different cartridge as the military is often limited to FMJ, but even that's debatable in certain sectors because 5.56 has been around so long they've been able to engineer some highly effective anti personnel loads. That, and people who are looking for a magic bullet are always going to be dissappointed.

 

[Outlaws]

+1 to what HorseSoldier posted.

On another note, the same link where I found the picture mentioned that all weapons in the test needed bolt and barrel replacement after 6,000 rounds in order to be safe to fire. Apparently a 2.5 hour sandstorm and 6,000 rounds is very hard on the working parts.

I would say that any weapon that even finished the test is probably an exceptional weapon to start with.

 

[XDKingslayer]

Why were the weapons heavily oiled and then subjected to dust? Every infantry soldier knows you don't do that.

Just goes to solidify my opinion that Aberdeen is full of idiots. This type of inaccurate testing is exactly why we never used them to test our stuff.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

We still are investigating/looking for a bullet that will put the enemy down reliably.

When you figure that out, patent it. Every military in the world wants it and none of them have it. You'll be rich!

Already exists. The Soviet 5.45X39 uses a bullet with an "armor-piercing" core -- which is flat-pointed. That's legitimate -- long ago, Charles Whitworth demonstrated a flat point penetrates armor much better than a sharp point. This flat pointed core is encased in a pointed jacket -- which leaves an air space between the end of the core and point of the jacket.

In flight, the center of gravity is behind the aerodynamic center -- which promotes accuracy. On impact with flesh, the core moves forward into the air space, changing the balance, and causing the bullet to yaw rapidly -- it will typically turn 360-degrees several times when penetrating a human body.

Hits in the thoracic cavity produce massive internal damage -- a real stopper. Hits in muscle -- such as the thigh -- produce large, star-shaped exit wounds.

 

[Jeff White]

chieftain said;

Quote:
HorseSoldier and I have both told you that Army SOF purchased the HK416 for use with suppressors. Why, because the cut down M4s have problems with a can on them. However the piston guns are harder to actually suppress.
I guess the A3’s and A4’s just don’t cut it? There is a disconnect here. Based on this statement another M16 variant would have been “easier” to put a can on? Then why wasn’t one used.

This doesn’t pass The BS odor test. Sounds like another rationalization/excuse to justify the under performing M4/M16.

Maybe a rational explanation could take this out of the BS zone.

It's a fact. Piston guns are louder and harder to suppress. However they are more reliable with a suppressor and that's why the 416 was selected. Call it BS if you want, but it's a fact, piston actions are louder and won't suppress as quiet as a gas impingment action with the same suppressor.

Do you have any idea what an A3 is and who uses it? An A3 (to the military) is identical to the M16A2 except it has a full auto, not burst trigger group. Purchased by the Navy and used on ships. I doubt if there are 5000 M16A3s in existence.

The problem with the M16/M4 is that the problems after 40 years have not been worked out. I argue because they cannot be solved.

When is the last time you used one?

We still are investigating/looking for a bullet that will put the enemy down reliably.

Would you like me to dig into my military history library and start posting M2 .30 caliber ball and M80 7.62 caliber ball failures to put the enemy down? I can document as many accounts of everything from the .75 caliber Brown Bess musket to M80 7.62 ball failing to put the enemy down as you can come up with verifiable incidents of 5.56mm failures.

When you can give a rational explanation as to how it is when an American Soldier takes multiple hits from the enemy's weapons and stays in the fight it's a Silver Star or MOH, but when an enemy soldier fails to drop immediately dead as if he was struck by a lightning bolt from heaven, something is wrong with our ammunition.

We are still looking for magazines that will work reliably.

Current USGI magazines work just fine. I've fired 10s of thousands of rounds through them under every possible condition. Magazines are expendable items. When the feed lips get bent or they start giving you problems, if you DX it for a new one, you won't have any problems.

We still have a rifle with an inherently weak bolt, by design.

The bolt is not weak. It's a mechanical part just like any other mechanical part. Bolts that are shot peened and magnetically particle inspected as called for in the milspec will last for their normal service life.

We still have a rifle with an inherently weak extractor, by design.

There is nothing wrong with the extractor. Like any other part of a machine it wears. Use the proper milspec springs and inserts and it works fine.

We still have a rifle that it’s system exacerbates the known problems with the bolt and extractor with heat.

Do you know of a heat less rifle? Every rifle produces heat and that heat causes parts to wear. Name one rifle that fires by way of combustion of a propellant that doesn't get hot, and I'll cede you the point. Otherwise you're just grasping at straws.

You would think that after 40 years these problems which first began getting American troops dead in the summer of 1967, would have been fixed.

They have been. Again, when is your last experience with one? I was issued my first one in Dec of 74, turned in my last one in Nov 03 and carried one in my squad car since then. When did you say you served?

As I first stated, the M4 numbers indicate an average jam every 2.27 magazines. I think that truly sucks. Others find it acceptable. Or if they can’t handle the fact, choose to ignore it.

You can't run the number of malfunctions v. the number of rounds fired and come up with any meaningful data. Information on what type of malfunctions occurred and when they occurred in the test was conveniently missing from the Army Times HK infomercial.

Your experiences in the 1960s have nothing to do with todays weapons, or even the first M16A1 I was issued in 1974.

Jeff

 

[chieftain]

From the fact that none of the 40 weapons used were considered safe for firing without replacement bolts or barrels by the end of the test, we can probably safely assume all weapons performed worse towards the end of the 6000 round block of ammo fired.

I totally agree.

How many of our troops are carrying brand new or recently rebuilt rifles? My bet is not many. The average is still statistaclly valid, as a comparison to the other rifles. Nothing changes.

More rationalizations, and excuses, all to rebuff facts.

You've heard straight from the horse's mouth the thing works in the real world in the hands of real soldiers, so why worry so much because of this silly test?

I do know. I was one of those Marines that bagged and tagged other Marines who's M16's did not function at the greatest time of need. The rifle works better today than at that time. But it doesn't work as reliably as many other rifles available today. It is that simple.

If these tests had been run in the beginning of the acceptance of the Matty Mattel, it would never have been accepted. Again very simple.

One problem with so many AR system advocates, is they have not spent much time fighting another rifle, Outside the AR system. I have fought the Ar system and others, including the M1/M14.

That is where my experience and opinions are based on. The data keeps building, and all I hear is rationalizations and excuses. Not much fact. Oh yea, Lots of kool aide.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Jeff White]

How many of our troops are carrying brand new or recently rebuilt rifles? My bet is not many. The average is still statistaclly valid, as a comparison to the other rifles. Nothing changes.

I can only speak for the Army. All of them are carrying like new or recently rebuilt rifles. Army regulations require all weapons to pass an annual service inspection before they are deployed overseas for any mission, including training. Been that way for as long as I can remember.

Jeff

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If these tests had been run in the beginning of the acceptance of the Matty Mattel, it would never have been accepted. Again very simple.

It was tested -- and rejected. Robert MacNamara ordered the Armed Forces to adopt it in order to boost the economy in Connecticutt.

One problem with so many AR system advocates, is they have not spent much time fighting another rifle, Outside the AR system. I have fought the Ar system and others, including the M1/M14.

Same here -- trained on the M1 and used it as an adviser (after wrapping my issue M2 carbine around a tree.) Later as a company commander, I scrounged an M14 sniper (pre-M21 version) rifle.

Having been in service or worked military projects for some 45 years, I have to say today's M16A2/A4/M-4) are nothing like the originals adopted in the 60s. When you add the tremendous institutional knowledge we have of this weapon, nothing out there justifies the risk of switching rifles.