U.S. Army: M4 Replacement Candidates Weren't Reliable Enough

X-man

X-man

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
249   0   0
Location
Newfoundland
U.S. Army: M4 Replacement Candidates Weren’t Reliable Enough

Posted on June 17, 2013 by Nick Leghorn
​


We’ve reported a few days ago about how the U.S. Army had stopped the competition to find a replacement for the current M4 carbine, and now we’re getting the details about why they did it. Turns out none of the competitors, which included Colt, FNH USA, Beretta, Remington and others, could meet the reliability requirements . . .

Military.com has an official “in the know” source who says that the bar for reliability was set at a little over 3,500 rounds through the gun before a stoppage. That’s an average round count, by the way, which means that if you make it to 6,000 rounds before your first stoppage and then 3 rounds before your second, you’re cooked.

Having had some extensive experience with the SCAR 16S (the civilian version of the SCAR-L, upon which the FNAC in the competition is based) and I think I’ve got it figured out as to what the issue was. The SCAR works amazingly well — provided you feed it properly. Feed it some delicious Hornady ammunition and it runs like a Swiss clock. Try using the dregs from the bottom of your ammo can and it won’t last past one magazine.

The SCAR works great with standard M855 ammunition, but for the test the army switched to the newer M855A1 EPR round that is making its way into the field these days. The newer round uses a lead-free projectile, protruding steel penetrator, and a different propellant than the older M855 round that is currently in service. All of these changes could have thrown off the gun’s mojo and made for a substandard result.

The Army says that it is going to work with the companies to keep working towards a better replacement for the M4, but for the time being the 50+ year old gun remains in service. FYI, the M4 lasted less than 1,700 rounds on average before a stoppage.


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/06/foghorn/u-s-army-m4-replacement-candidates-werent-reliable-enough/?fb_source=pubv1
 
Last edited:
Interesting times we are in.

The AR-15 had a tumultuous introduction, but the kinks have pretty much been entirely worked out now.

They key is to make sure that a replacement is worth the cost/ benefit ratio over a rifle that has proven to be effective for around 40 years now. (I won't count the early Vietnam years as they were a disaster for a variety of reasons).

Strange to think how differently the Army and the Government views a new rifle as a priority.
 
This whole sad saga has been a joke, the M4s were "rack grade" using mags out of the turn in box, while the SCAR and H&K entries (for example) used proprietary magazines...

Some of the entries were "production guns" while others were hand fitted and hand made;

but, do you really think that FN is going to send 100 guns to the US military on a blind contract?? Of course they knew the guns were trials guns, so they were hardly "rack grade" "production" guns...
 
There was some shades of history repeating itself if you look back at the M-16's early days. Stoner had tuned the rifle to run perfectly using the load specified. Then the bean counters switched to a less expensive ball powder that was exponentially dirtier causing critical reliability issues in the field, made all the more serious by the fact that the troops lacked cleaning kits and had been told the rifle didn't require regular maintenance.

Here you have another new load that would appear to be dirtier than the standard M855 NATO load that is causing similar issues with candidate rifles

This process has been dragging on, in one form or another since the early 90s. After spending tens of millions on R & D, participating manufacturers have got to be getting the point of total frustration. Until the next great leap in hardware happens, I think the US/NATO should be concentrating on improving the 5.56mm's terminal performance or exploring alternate chamberings using the same platform. They made a half-hearted attempt with the 6.8mm SPC round, but never really pursued it to its natural conclusion/refinement. If switching to a bullpup is off the table and they're sticking with the 14.5" bbl, that is the place to drop some coin.
 
X-man said:
There was some shades of history repeating itself if you look back at the M-16's early days. Stoner had tuned the rifle to run perfectly using the load specified. Then the bean counters switched to a less expensive ball powder that was exponentially dirtier causing critical reliability issues in the field, made all the more serious by the fact that the troops lacked cleaning kits and had been told the rifle didn't require regular maintenance.

Here you have another new load that would appear to be dirtier than the standard M855 NATO load that is causing similar issues with candidate rifles

This process has been dragging on, in one form or another since the early 90s. After spending tens of millions on R & D, participating manufacturers have got to be getting the point of total frustration. Until the next great leap in hardware happens, I think the US/NATO should be concentrating on improving the 5.56mm's terminal performance or exploring alternate chamberings using the same platform. They made a half-hearted attempt with the 6.8mm SPC round, but never really pursued it to its natural conclusion/refinement. If switching to a bullpup is off the table and they're sticking with the 14.5" bbl, that is the place to drop some coin.
Click to expand...

While ball powder was a major issue, it was not the only one.

Major pitting and corrosion due to the lack of chrome line chambers and barrels were a massive issue, as was brass that was too soft, allowing it to expand into the pitting in the non chrome line chambers and cause fail to extracts, even after the first shot fired.

Ball powder may have been an accelerant to the problem, but the lack of cleaning kits, chrome lining, and up to spec brass/ ammo combined into a potent recipe bound to fail.

I digress though, we are seeing a good number of the same attempts to shun advancement as was seen in the Vietnam war with the M-16 platform, and it is more than a touch disheartening.

Long story short, history seems bound to repeat itself.
 
Yeah ?? The XM8 was proven super reliable but they just don't want to pay the price which German asked lol
 
Well not sure about that part but any rifle will go bad if you shoot them like a MG

during their 2005 test XM8 only jammed under 100 compared
to both SCAR and 416 which jammed 150-160

And M4 jammed like crazy at 880 something

After fired 50000

ztunelover said:
Didn't the xm8 have problems with melting receivers?
Click to expand...
 
ztunelover said:
Didn't the xm8 have problems with melting receivers?
Click to expand...

Yes. Handguard melted around the gas block after prolonged fired. Apparently H&K didn't even bother to use glass filled nylon polymer, it was just regular unshielded plastic.

That being said, even if that had been fixed (I'm sure it was subsequently), the pricetag would indeed have been too high for the army to pick up the mass-production tab.
 
In other words, they designed the failure. The ADCOR has gone in two separate independent tests to 6000 rounds without a single failure. I find it hard to believe that the FN SCAR, Colt, HK entries etc weren't reliable enough. Reliability wasn't the main issue at this time. Keeping that reliability with accuracy, and keeping costs along with all the modularity benefits of the M4 platform was the real issue. This just smacks of BS. The explanation appears to be a manufactured one.
 
sewktbk said:
Yes. Handguard melted around the gas block after prolonged fired. Apparently H&K didn't even bother to use glass filled nylon polymer, it was just regular unshielded plastic.

That being said, even if that had been fixed (I'm sure it was subsequently), the pricetag would indeed have been too high for the army to pick up the mass-production tab.
Click to expand...

It thought the xm8 was a tweaked and fettled g36 that ran a different bodykit?
 
I won't say the hand guard melted is a big issue
G36 is a floating barrel design it shoot even without a hand guard

Both The G36K and G36C hand guard I have which come with the metal shield inside
and the the new IDZ version hand guard are made 100% aluminum

The BT made hand guard also are 100% aluminum
so I think this issue have been dealed with

As the US army dropped the new rifle again. I will say because they are now broke and cheap
simple as that ....
 
Has more to do with politics and lobbyist’s than the actual performance of the weapon system, it's been that way for a very long time.
That would be a lot of jobs and money gone overseas and out of the American economy.
 
Conte said:
The only replacement for the M4 . . . another M4. :p
Click to expand...

Well, frankly, as long as they are sticking with the same calibre/cartridge, what's the point of looking for a completely new rifle to replace the M4 anyway? The M4 seems to get about as much power and accuracy out of the current service cartridge(s) as you can realistically expect from a mass-produced service rifle, and does so with decent reliability. And after 40 years, the entire US military from top to bottom are trained on it by now, including the trainers and all the armourers, plus they have 5 armed services worth of logistic trains loaded with M4 bits and bobs.

So unless a changeover is going to produce some truly remarkable improvement in combat performance, why bother?

Looking back over the global history of military rifles between the 1850s and now, most countries have changed out their service rifles for one of three reasons: (a) major change in ammunition (e.g. .30-06 to 7.62mm to 5.56mm); (b) major change in rifle action (bolt to self-loading or SA to selective fire); or (c) original design found to absolutely suck rocks in battle (Canadian Ross to SMLE in mid-WW1).

This ongoing American search for the "improved infantry carbine" doesn't seem to fit into any of those categories. Which might be why the US military has looked at replacing the M16/M4/whatever repeatedly over the last 20-odd years but never actually pulled the trigger on it.
 
With all the testimonials of Norinco reliability, I guess that old embargo is a real thorn in the side right now! Just imagine the US army sporting the latest hardware that China has to offer!
 
The US Marines ordered 10,000 Colt 1911's so reliability and life span of the M4 can't be the issue .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom