Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test
- Thread starter Scarecrow
- Start date
Let's not forget that the XM8 / G36's bolt carrier is exposed at the top of the receiver. Much more exposed that the other weapons as well as exposed to the right side where it ejects. This is a disadvantage as the other designs are much more "sealed up" in the bolt / bolt carrier area.
The feeding of the XM8/G36 mag is superior to the other mags as it is designed similar to the AUG mags. When a round is being "striped" and moving forward to the chamber the mag directs the round towards the center/chamber to aid feeding, rather than just letting it hit the feed ramps to find it's own way into the chamber (German engineering is not given enough credit these days).
It is true that the G36 mags seal up the mag-well better from the bottom than the other designs but I think that any advantage here is more than cancelled by the exposed bolt carrier.
Can anyone shed light on the idea that exposing the bolt/bolt carrier to heat would cause more sand/crud to stick to the lubed parts than on the piston driven guns that do not have heat introduced to their bolt/bolt carriers? I don't know if this would be a valid theory or not. If it is valid, it might explain why the weapon with "hotter" working parts attracted more sand and failed a bit more than the others.
Just some thoughts,
Rich
The feeding of the XM8/G36 mag is superior to the other mags as it is designed similar to the AUG mags. When a round is being "striped" and moving forward to the chamber the mag directs the round towards the center/chamber to aid feeding, rather than just letting it hit the feed ramps to find it's own way into the chamber (German engineering is not given enough credit these days).
It is true that the G36 mags seal up the mag-well better from the bottom than the other designs but I think that any advantage here is more than cancelled by the exposed bolt carrier.
Can anyone shed light on the idea that exposing the bolt/bolt carrier to heat would cause more sand/crud to stick to the lubed parts than on the piston driven guns that do not have heat introduced to their bolt/bolt carriers? I don't know if this would be a valid theory or not. If it is valid, it might explain why the weapon with "hotter" working parts attracted more sand and failed a bit more than the others.
Just some thoughts,
Rich
I'd be curious if the KAC E3 bolt would hold up better than the standard (with its radius's)
WRT heat issue -- my guess is more with the heat the bolt is burning off lube and the sand/dust is more of an impedment - with lube it just eases out of the way.
WRT heat issue -- my guess is more with the heat the bolt is burning off lube and the sand/dust is more of an impedment - with lube it just eases out of the way.
Kevin,
Any pic's of the KAC E3 bolt? Is KAC working on a piston driven AR?
With respect to the sand test, makes sense that heat would burn off lube. I was thinking in respect to firing the weapons until hot then applying the fresh coat of lube and exposing them to dust again before firing.
I was reading on another web site a few months ago that at the Russian "Ishmaiz" (spelling) factory sand testing the only weapon that they could find that would pass their sand test, other than the AK, was the SG 550 series guns.
Rich
Any pic's of the KAC E3 bolt? Is KAC working on a piston driven AR?
With respect to the sand test, makes sense that heat would burn off lube. I was thinking in respect to firing the weapons until hot then applying the fresh coat of lube and exposing them to dust again before firing.
I was reading on another web site a few months ago that at the Russian "Ishmaiz" (spelling) factory sand testing the only weapon that they could find that would pass their sand test, other than the AK, was the SG 550 series guns.
Rich
All that I have right now.
I was told KAC has thought of scaling up their PDW into 5.56mm and 7.62x51 - but not investing heavily as there is no (has been no) demand
This sand test is an EXTREME test - and frankly unrealistic. However its interesting to note the few stoppages even in the M4 series (keep in mind those numbers are out of 60,000 rds not 6,000 as they are totals).
I'm rather skeptical of a lot of testing unless its utterly open and fair.
Furthermore I'm disappointed they did not include a 7.62mm test for the M110/Mk11 and some M14's to see the M14 gag and choke, as its about the worse sand system I've seen - and it would final shutup all the deluded M14 fans.
I was told KAC has thought of scaling up their PDW into 5.56mm and 7.62x51 - but not investing heavily as there is no (has been no) demand
This sand test is an EXTREME test - and frankly unrealistic. However its interesting to note the few stoppages even in the M4 series (keep in mind those numbers are out of 60,000 rds not 6,000 as they are totals).
I'm rather skeptical of a lot of testing unless its utterly open and fair.
Furthermore I'm disappointed they did not include a 7.62mm test for the M110/Mk11 and some M14's to see the M14 gag and choke, as its about the worse sand system I've seen - and it would final shutup all the deluded M14 fans.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
The Finns use an AK variant (Rk 62) as do the Israelis (Galil) and the South Africans (R4). They are modern armies.
I'd beg to differ
Divide 863 (total stoppages per platform) by 60000 (total rounds per platform)
and tell me what percentage you get
or if you prefer, divide 86.3 (average stoppages per rifle) by 6000 (rounds per rifle)
your two answers should look amazingly similar. and should be nowhere near the 14% your math implies (alot closer to 1.4%)
My math could be wrong, but I don't think so......
and tell me what percentage you get
or if you prefer, divide 86.3 (average stoppages per rifle) by 6000 (rounds per rifle)
your two answers should look amazingly similar. and should be nowhere near the 14% your math implies (alot closer to 1.4%)
My math could be wrong, but I don't think so......
I'll second FraserJ20's math. The answer is 1.4% not 14%. Couple that with the fact the tests are extreme and the testing isn't/wasn't exactly fair and I am not worried about the reliability of a DI rifle system.
TDC
TDC
You are right, I thought that 863 failures was per individual rifle as opposed to per weapons platform. Still, you get a jam after every 69 rounds on average, which is not that much if you are shooting in full auto.
Only an average. Does not mean anything about the distribution of stoppages.
ht tp://elementsofpower.########.com/...nd-others.html
read the whole article. Very informative. The only information I have seen concerning the actually statistics of the test.
As for me?
I keep my 3 DI rifles for serious work (as serious as one can get in Canada I suppose), my piston guns are plinking toys.
ht tp://elementsofpower.########.com/...nd-others.html
read the whole article. Very informative. The only information I have seen concerning the actually statistics of the test.
As for me?
I keep my 3 DI rifles for serious work (as serious as one can get in Canada I suppose), my piston guns are plinking toys.
I was waiting for this thread to turn into "THE TEST IS NOT FAIR". The FACT of the matter is that no-one hear (execpt one or two very well connected people) have any detailed data on exactly how the tests were conducted.
Another FACT is that the Colt Defence M4 lost, to all other systems tested. Please take this for what it is. No one is saying that the M4 is a bad system, that FACT remains that there are better systems out there, most likely the ones that beat the M4 in the tests.
Are those systems that much better that millions of dollars should be spent to change out US and Canadian Forces immediately? Probably not. I just can't believe how people defend their DI systems to the death. Get over it already. I'm sure there are arm chair commandos that could have done a better dust test with more expertise even though most of them have never carried a weapon to face people who are trying to kill them.
I for one think that all of the guns did very well in such an extreme conditions test.
This reminds me of years ago when everyone hated the M16 and were going to stick by their M14's to the death. Now some are going to stick by their DI systems to the death because nothing will ever be better.....
My rant is over,
Rich
Another FACT is that the Colt Defence M4 lost, to all other systems tested. Please take this for what it is. No one is saying that the M4 is a bad system, that FACT remains that there are better systems out there, most likely the ones that beat the M4 in the tests.
Are those systems that much better that millions of dollars should be spent to change out US and Canadian Forces immediately? Probably not. I just can't believe how people defend their DI systems to the death. Get over it already. I'm sure there are arm chair commandos that could have done a better dust test with more expertise even though most of them have never carried a weapon to face people who are trying to kill them.
I for one think that all of the guns did very well in such an extreme conditions test.
This reminds me of years ago when everyone hated the M16 and were going to stick by their M14's to the death. Now some are going to stick by their DI systems to the death because nothing will ever be better.....
My rant is over,
Rich
Nice rant but, who said the test wasn't fair? There are questions of the statistical validity for sure, but I don't recall anyone saying the test was unfair.
The only reason I chimed in in the first place was because someone believed the failure rate for the m4 was 14%, which is not true.
Maybe thats my problem, if someone says the sky is any color but blue, I feel inclined to argue. So I guess I am pretty easy to bait.
The report mentions that the weapons were given very generous amounts of lubrification, then exposed to very dusty conditions. Does anyone else see the problem here? In dry and dusty conditions you are supposed to apply very little amounts of lubrification and only on critical parts such as the bolt body. This brings me back to the second point in the list located on a reply on the 1st page of this thread - the M4 works well when used by someone who knows how to maintain it. In dusty conditions like that applying generous amounts of lubrification on a gun will only make the dust stick to it, thus creating endless stoppages; at least thats what we're taught in the CF. I think the test is biased in that sense. Of course its only natural that gummy, sticky guns won't work well. Your thoughts?
