Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test

Scarecrow said:
Thats what the HK416 is.
Click to expand...

Right you are sir, but I was thinking more along the lines of conversions rather then 'OOB' firearms therefor allowing accross the board modifications of currently 'owned' equipment. Something like the ARES system, or the LWRC or some others that have been around for years?. (So they convert all at once when they come in for 'maintenance' rather then a slow switch to a different weapon re .hk416).
OR they can use HK uppers with the gas piston system on current lowers to expedite the process.
 
Last edited:
There are all very low percentage wise does that extra 0.5% mean its worth it to switch over to a different rifle anyways?
 
If DI is so great and reliable how come the M16/M4/AR platforms are the only guns ever to have used it. It always has been and will continue to be inferior for a combat rifle where reliability and simplicity are requirements.

Agreed more info. is needed on the testing, and I'm sure they went into greater detail, but with the overwhelming ammount of stoppages for the M4 150% that of the total of the other three COMBINED, it doesn't really matter anymore.
 
They have been complaining and whining for 50 years already, might as well wait for a few more years to get the 40kw plasma gun or telescopic munition.
 
This is interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Carbine#2007_Dust_Test

In the fall of 2007, four carbines were tested in "sandstorm conditions" at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The M4s was pitted against the Heckler & Koch XM8 carbine, FNH USA’s SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416. Ten of each type of rifle were used to fire 6,000 rounds each, for a total of 60,000 rounds per rifle type.[3] The M4 suffered a much greater number of stoppages than its competitors, 863 minor stoppages and 19 requiring an armorer to fix. [4] In comparison, the most reliable weapon, the XM8, had 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones.[5] It was followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages, and the HK416 with 233.
 
peckerwood said:
While the test results seem "interesting" they have little value to us civilians...

None of use live in a sandbox excluding southern Albertans.

None of us would bother to pay 11G for a G36, and then drag it by the sling through the sand while out on a short walk hunting coyotes.

None of us are going to pay for expensive parts for guns we don't see a lot of...whereas the AR15 is more common than the other three combined.

None of the above tests were done in -50 :D ( I live in the Yukon ;) )

As an additional point(more of a question really)...hasn't the M4 design been around since Vietnam? I seem to remember seeing pics showing specops troops carrying them as well as some other personnel.

Plus...would anyone here buttstroke someone to the head with a G36? and not fear it breaking up into a sh1tload of plastic bits? :D

Either way I agree with GT...I want more info regarding the exact data.
Click to expand...

Well since i own a G36, no, i wouldnt be afraid of it breaking in thousands of little pieces.

Additionnaly, I'll lend my G36 for a test if you lend your skull :p
 
Quote:
Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model. Here’s how they ranked, according to the total number of times each model stopped firing:

• XM8: 127 stoppages.

• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.

• 416: 233 stoppages.

• M4: 882 stoppages.
Click to expand...

if you think about these numbers, does it show that the 10 test guns in each group shot 60k each or 6k each? if it is 60k each and these are the total stoppages of all 10 guns, then 1.47/1000 is a pretty good crappy gun.
 
cancer said:
.....randomly selecting 1 Albertan and making him run an obstacle course against an Ontarian. Then declaring that because the Albertan won the race by 5 seconds and only tripped twice all Albertans are superior to Ontarians.
Click to expand...


I concur with this logic :D:p:evil:

But all kidding aside, like this information really matters to most AR owners in Canada, where AR's are taken to the range in a bag, cleaned after every trip, and owners are afraid of scratching the finish while "competing":runaway::runaway:
 
It's not difficult to make a better reliable weapon than the M4. It will just COST YOU MORE.

That test shows that any weapon will eventually stop if not properly taken care of. For me the only reliability test I'd consider would be the ammount of ammo fired before a stoppage in combat conditions and with combat cleaning routines.

If some of you guys have doubts about their ARs, PM me and I'll make it my duty to relieve you of your unreliable weapon.
 
At the end of the day, there is no XM8, SCAR or 416 to buy. You are stuck with the AR along with the CF.

Since you cannot change the fact, might as well get on the program, get used to it and learn to know its limitation. Say don't fire 6000 rounds in a sandstorm - hold on a second, when is the last time there is a sandstorm in Canada??
 
1: 6000 rounds in one hell of a firefight.
2: did each firearm have the same number of rounds thru it before the test began
3: how many of these "malfunctions" were attributed to the ammo or mags.
4: everybody and their grandmother knowns that the AR15/M16/M4 sucks, and has continually sucked since the 1950's when it was introduced, give it up already ! :D
 
P0WERWAGON said:
if you think about these numbers, does it show that the 10 test guns in each group shot 60k each or 6k each?
Click to expand...
It is 60,000 per model.

GIGGIDY said:
But all kidding aside, like this information really matters to most AR owners in Canada...
Click to expand...
greentips said:
At the end of the day, there is no XM8, SCAR or 416 to buy. You are stuck with the AR along with the CF.
Click to expand...
Who said that we were only allowed to talk about guns available to Canadian civilians? We also discuss types of military long range shells. Just because we can't buy it here doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.

Some like to talk about fighter planes, some fast cars. We like to talk about cool guns! Doesn't matter if we can buy them or not! :p

RobSmith said:
2: did each firearm have the same number of rounds thru it before the test began
Click to expand...
I think it would be safe to assume that all the guns were brand new. If you're going to do a proper test then that is the only way to do it. The gun costs are hardly the major cost when you are firing 240,000 rounds in the test!

RobSmith said:
3: how many of these "malfunctions" were attributed to the ammo or mags.
Click to expand...
Don't know about the mags but the ammo would have come from the exact same crates and ammo problems would be about equal across the models.


Fudd
 
FYI:
1 of the Hk416's created more than 90% of the stoppages with that platform.

The XM-8 did well since it had a proprietary mags that sealed the magwell, maybe not the only reaon - but it has a definite advantage.


I'd have been much more interested in a larger test (like 30-32 of a version)
and also incorporate improved mags.

From what I posted on M4C

Now granted it been a long time since I took Stats classes in university - but IIRC the sample size (N) is suppose to equal greater than 32 for a "better" (here is me not being currenent is stats) accurate rate in the test.

Thus to me they should have tested 32 M4A1's, 32 Hk416's, 32 Mk16, and 32 XM-8
- the mags should be standard- as should whatever else can be.

More realistically they should have had sub variants of systems as well
4 subsets of the Hk416
Hk416 system (Hk lower and Hk mag)
Hk416 - Colt M4A1 lower - USGI-MAG
Hk416 - Colt M4A1 lower - Hk Mag
Hk416 - Colt M4A1 lower - PMAG
Becuase realistically the beauty of the Hk416 is you can just buy the upper and drop it on an in service lower.

So by Kev's math the testing should have been

Colt M4A1 (baseline) USGI mags (all testing done with 32 units of each subset)
M4A1 - Hk Mag
- PMAG

XM-8 - XM-8 mag
- HK HR SA80A2 mag
- USGI mag
- PMAG

FN Mk16 - FN Mag
- USGI Mag
- PMAG
- Hk Mag

Hk 416 - Hk lower - Hk mag
- Colt M4A1 lower - Hk mag
- Colt M4A1 lower - USGI mag
- Colt M4A1 lower - Pmag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom