M4 to face new rifles in dust-chamber test

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_rifle_070715/

I found this interesting.

M4 to face new rifles in dust-chamber test

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Jul 17, 2007 9:08:33 EDT

Yielding to congressional pressure, the Army will conduct a test in August to see if the M4 carbine soldiers take to war is the most reliable weapon available in sand-storm conditions.

The test will compare how the M4 performs against a select group of newer, more compact rifles when exposed to a “dust chamber” at the Army Test and Evaluation Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., said Col. Carl Lipsit, project manager for Soldier Weapons.

“This would be like standing in a [dust storm] for 30 minutes and shaking off your weapon and firing it,” Lipsit said. The test, estimated to cost $500,000, is slated to last five months, he said.

Army Secretary Peter Geren agreed to the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to conduct the test after the lawmaker threatened to hold up Geren’s Senate confirmation, according to officials from the senator’s office.

This is the latest round of contention over the M4 carbine since Coburn began questioning the Army three months ago about its plans to spend $375 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009. Lighter and more compact than the M16 rifle, the M4 is more effective for the close confines of urban combat. The Army began fielding the M4 in the mid-1990s.

Coburn questioned the M4’s “longstanding reliability” problems in his original April 12 letter and asked if the Army had considered newer, possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.

Sen. Coburn “has lifted his hold on Pete Geren after the Army agreed to do a test of available rifles next month,” Coburn’s press secretary, John Hart, told Army Times on July 11, explaining that one senator has the power to hold up a nomination.

The Senate confirmed Geren as the new Army secretary July 13.

Army public affairs would not comment on statements from Coburn’s office about holding up the confirmation.

Coburn’s office called Geren’s decision a good first step, but “Congress needs to pass legislation to ensure that an open competition actually occurs that puts the best rifle in the hands of our soldiers,” Hart said.

To that end, Coburn’s office will introduce an amendment to the fiscal 2008 Defense Authorization Bill to require the Army to hold a competition, Hart said.

The amendment could go before the Senate for a vote the week of July 16, Hart said. If approved, it will have to survive a conference with the House of Representatives, and President Bush’s final approval of the bill before a carbine competition is required.

Army weapons officials at Fort Benning, Ga.’s Infantry Center — the command responsible for determining soldiers’ weapons needs — continue to argue that the M4 carbine meets the Army’s requirements and see no reason to replace it.

Coburn’s office has criticized the Army for “sole-sourcing” its carbine contracts to Colt Defense instead of searching for alternatives in the small-arms industry.

“Coburn’s goal is to provide our soldiers with the best rifle at the lowest price to taxpayers,” Hart said. “His amendment will ensure that the Army selects a rifle based on a full and open competition, not old habits, convenience or any other parochial interest. Forcing our soldiers to use 1960s equipment is like forcing a football team to use 1960s equipment — it might still work, but in many situations newer equipment is preferable.”

The dust test
The upcoming comparative dust test at Aberdeen will pit the M4 against the Heckler & Koch 416, the H&K XM8 and FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, also known as SCAR.

All of the contenders use a piston-style operating system, which relies on a gas-driven piston rod to cycle the weapon during firing.

By contrast, the M4 uses a gas tube system which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Weapons experts say that blowing gas directly into the receiver of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication and causes excessive wear on parts.

The Army’s Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004. The elite unit collaborated with the German arms maker to develop the new carbine. Experts say its piston operating system significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts.

Members of the commando unit — known as 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta — have been carrying it in combat since 2004. Other special units, such as the Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, have also adopted the 416.

U.S. Special Operations Command has also revised its small-arms requirements. In November 2004, SOCOM awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace all of its weapons from the M16 family. The SCAR program is slated to enter the initial operational test-and-evaluation phase of its development later this month.

And from 2002 to 2005, the Army developed the XM8 as a replacement for the conventional Army’s M16 family. The program led to infighting in the service’s weapons community and eventually died after failing to win approval at the Defense Department level.

Colt also has developed two versions of a piston-style carbine. Army officials have not decided if these prototypes will participate in the test, Lipsit said.

The dust test will expose the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to during a “systems assessment” at Aberdeen last year, Lipsit said. The results of ATEC assessment show that the performance of M16s and M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of weapons lubrication used.

Ten sample models of each weapon will be tested. Testers will shoot 6,000 rounds though each weapon, Lipsit said.

Test data will be sent to the Infantry Center, which is involved in a Capabilities Based Assessment to decide future small-arms needs of the Army.

“It may or may not result in any type of program of record,” Lipsit said. “This is an assessment of sample weapons … in an extreme dust environment to find out how far the weapons can go.”

well, say what you want, but I sort of agree with the position that US companies should be supplying military small arms. Why would you want to reply on foreign countries for your military equipment? Just doesn’t make sense. Want to call for new US designs? Fine. But some people seem determined to force us to get (more) foreign supplied equipment. Dumb idea if you ask me.

Interesting.

Kind of bogus to include the XM8 IMHO. Seems like someone is trying to throw HK a bone by letting them enter two different weapons. The HK416 is more legitimate because it’s actually in use by US troops (granted, in very limited numbers).

It will be interesting to see how much difference the piston system actually makes.

I’m much more concerned about a red-hot bolt full of carbon than I am a gun that’s dusty.

Piston guns lock up the same way DI guns do. I never understood the dust thing. It’s a fouling/heat issue as a result of firing. A dust test will just prove dusty guns run when lubed and XM8s suck in general.

That is sig line material.

I agree with M4GURU, hell with sand, carbon is the issue… The Ft Benning guys know this too…

I don’t want it to seem like dust can’t inhibit the function of a weapon, but I think carbon buildup and extreme temperatures are much more of a problem.

The true benefit of a decent piston system I feel will be the service life and smaller amount of parts breakages, as well as the reduced malfunction rate due to less fouling.

I’d use an HK416 or even LW if they were free , but I see no point to dump my Colt as of right now from a reliability standpoint. I go through bolts and barrels at a rate of 6-8 per year at a minimum, though. It would be nice to scale that back.

Like I said on 10-8,

Where were all these politicians that “care about the troops” 10 years ago, when I couldn’t get 7 mags and cleaning kits for my squad, or the 82d didn’t have the money to jump?

First we didn’t have enough armored vehicles and body armor, then the they had enough, but it wasn’t good enough, now the M4 is no good. Gimme a break, he may be the one politician who truly does care, but it just sounds like a thinly veailed attack on the “war”.

Now you care!?

Bob

ETA: as far the piston, my uneducated thoughts would be , since the piston runs cooler, it will burn off less lube, thereby being a little more reliable.

M4Guru,
Will the piston guns somehow “scale back” the number of bolts AND barrels you go through each year, or will they only save on the number of BOLTS you go through yearly??? Does a piston rifle affect barrel wear???

I don’t think the barrel issue would be greatly affected, but I think I’d break less in the way of bolts.

I swap barrels out at 10K on our work guns, bolts as they break CONUS or 4-5K in theater. Extractors every 2K. The barrels exhibit a marked drop in accuracy due to 1K+ days on the flat range. If the firing tables were less strenuous they may last longer. I have seen short barrels go in as little as 3K rounds.

The results of ATEC assessment show that the performance of M16s and M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of weapons lubrication used.

Obviously, they’re not doing their due diligence in the research end of things there. If they did, they’d know that the above statement is false, and the dude on BARFCOM that called LAV “a tool” for saying the same thing is who they should be consulting with. How can one possibly run a wet gun in desert environments? They clearly have not consulted the experts on this topic.:smiley: (where’s that damn sarcasm smilie when I need it…)

As mentioned by other posters, this whole thing strikes me as a waste of a half million dollars. Is there no way to do a significant test that doesn’t take as long and cost as much? I’m betting that at the end of the test, they’ll have found nothing that wasn’t already known. Seems to be a case of a Senator getting wedged in where he really doesn’t belong to throw some weight around. If I’m misreading the situation, educate me, please.

I went to the range the other day and there were two guys from colt testing an M4 by putting it in a tub diatamacious earth and riping it full auto. They were comparing to the HK 416. We spoke to them and thy told that the powder they were using is comparable to what the sand is in Iraq or Afghanistan. So we know at least cold is testing it out on thier own as well. Cause let me tell you they loaded up these rifles as much as they could with this powder, and then let them rip and while we were there they had no fail to fire.

Do you recall how the rifle was set up while they were doing this? Dust cover closed, mag in, or something else? Seems to me that if you wanted to make it choke, you could do that the same way you do with any other rifle: lock the bolt back and have both the dust cover and the mag well open. I doubt that proves anything at all, though, other than that being a universal gun stopper.

The dust cover was open the bolt was back and there was a mag in the mag well. They filled the weapon the best they could before sending the bolt home and sending rounds down range. I was only there for about 15 min of testing and neither weapon once jammed. They had a meter to measure the speed it was firing and the colt slowed down a little, but only one time. They also only ran clp through them once before starting the test.

If I read this correctly they were firing a Colt M4 and a 416? Or were both rifles M4’s? Just curious.

They were testing an M4 and a 416, it was a side by side comparison.

Bet Colt had to “pony up” some cash for the 416, can’t see HK giving one away to them.

Ouch!

They’ll just take the cost off the taxes at the end of the year as an operating expense.

how sad… it costs 1/2 million dollars just to test a few weapons… i could scientifically do this test for like 10,000 easy… how ridiculous :mad:

i’m cheering on the M4!