# Army Agrees To M4 Sand Test Shoot-Off



## Boondocksaint375 (Jul 31, 2007)

Army Agrees To M4 Sand Test Shoot-Off
By Christian Lowe | July 27, 2007
After months of heated debate, the Army will conduct a side-by-side test shoot next month with its standard-issued carbine to see how well it can withstand extreme dust and sand environments. 

The tests, which will be conducted at the Army's Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland, will include three other rifles some say are better constructed to withstand the grueling environmental conditions often found in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The service yielded to critics - particularly lawmakers in Congress - who recently ratcheted up the debate over whether the current M4 carbine, manufactured by Colt Defense, is more susceptible to jamming in dusty conditions than other weapons used by Soldiers and special operators.
"The Army agreed to conduct testing of four carbine designs in an extreme dust environment," said Lt. Col. Timothy Chyma, product manager for individual weapons with Program Executive Office Soldier, in an email to Military.com. 
"The test results will inform the U.S. Army Infantry Center in the development of a potential new carbine requirement as part of their ongoing capabilities based assessment."
In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) insisted in a letter to then-acting Army Secretary Pete Geren that better weapons technology is available that can guard against stoppages stemming from dust and sand interfering with the firing mechanism of the M4. 
The Army's carbine uses a gas system that evidence shows is susceptible to stoppages unless it is frequently cleaned.
The shoot off will test the capabilities of the *M4/M16* operating system against three other rifles: the Heckler and Koch-built *HK416*, the FNH USA-designed *Mk16 SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle* and the previously-shelved, H&K-manufactured *XM8 carbine*.
All three competitors use a gas-piston operating system that requires less maintenance and has demonstrated in some tests that it can fire accurately even if completely fouled with sand, dust and mud.
"Considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon," Coburn wrote in April. "A number of manufacturers have researched, tested and fielded weapons which, by all accounts, appear to provide significantly improved reliability."
A December 2005 Center for Naval Analyses study commissioned by the Army indicated the M4 - when properly cleaned - exhibited few stoppages. But 20 percent of those who had complications with their M4s said they experienced bad enough jams that they had to pull out of the fight.
Many special operations units favor the HK416, due in part to its increased reliability. This month, Special Operations Command began operational tests on the Mk16 and the heavier-caliber Mk17 to eventually replace its M4 and HK416 stocks.
The sand tests will include 10 samples of each weapon through which engineers will fire 6,000 rounds. Each weapon and loaded magazine will be exposed to "extreme dust" for 30 minutes then test fired with 120 rounds, Chyma said.
"Each weapon will be wiped down and lubricated every 600 rounds with a full cleaning every 1,200 rounds," Chyma added. "The firing, collection of data and analysis of data is expected to take approximately five months."
Coburn said in his April letter to Geren that even though the M4 works, better weapons exist. He was so insistent that the Army compete new M4 contracts to outfit its expanded brigade combat teams that he placed a hold on the Geren nomination to become Army secretary until the service relented, a Coburn staffer confirmed.
The Army's willingness to hold the limited "sandstorm shoot-off" released the nomination, and Geren was confirmed by the Senate July 13.
The side-by-side sand tests "will be part of the ongoing Army assessment and requirements process - with the ultimate goal of continuing to provide the best possible weapons and equipment to our Soldiers," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jul 31, 2007)

How about setting it up in the desert not Maryland


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Aug 1, 2007)

agreed.  but at least they're willing to look at the issue.


----------



## Ravage (Aug 1, 2007)

Big question: is the SCAR really going in, or is it going out ?


----------



## Mikko1208 (Aug 1, 2007)

Big question 2 : should the M4/M16 be changed to another weapon ?


----------



## Ravage (Aug 1, 2007)

Never used it (combat or otherwise) so I'm not telling :)
Funny 'cus on forums like MP.net guys who never did military have the always something to say about how poor the M4 system is. Just funny I think.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Aug 1, 2007)

The M4 is a fine weapon.  I never had any issues with it during my deployments.  However, if there is something out there that would give us a significant advantage over the current system, of course I would be in favor.


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Aug 1, 2007)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> The M4 is a fine weapon.  I never had any issues with it during my deployments.  However, if there is something out there that would give us a significant advantage over the current system, of course I would be in favor.



definitely.  The M16 is a good weapon, and while "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is good sometimes, I think 40+ years of service is a good time to start looking at possible upgrades, especially if there are proven alternatives already available.


----------



## pardus (Aug 1, 2007)

Good to hear, testing is a good thing.

I'm a big fan of gas pistons.


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Aug 1, 2007)

HeloMedic1171 said:


> definitely. The M16 is a good weapon, and while "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is good sometimes, I think 40+ years of service is a good time to start looking at possible upgrades, especially if there are proven alternatives already available.


 

yeah, if anything, I think the units that are still using m16's should at least have them swapped out with m4s.


----------



## WillBrink (Aug 1, 2007)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> Army Agrees To M4 Sand Test Shoot-Off
> By Christian Lowe | July 27, 2007
> After months of heated debate, the Army will conduct a side-by-side test shoot next month with its standard-issued carbine to see how well it can withstand extreme dust and sand environments.
> 
> ...


*

My understanding is the HK416 may be the best of the lot and perhaps the best carbine ever produced. As I understand it, it builds on the many pros of the AR system and fixes the few negatives, such as having the gass blow back into the gun. According to the Army Times:

"Members of the elite unit linked up with German arms maker Heckler & Koch, which replaced the M4’s gas system with one that experts say significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing parts life. After exhaustive tests with the help of Delta, the H&K 416 was ready in 2004"

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

According to the article above, 416 has been used ever since in theater by that group with great success (though I will add a recently retired member of that group I spoke with at SOCOM show told me he liked the m4 just fine and  it never let him down)

It was produced as a project between them thar bad boys and HK. I fired one in 2005 and it was a great weapon, but it was at a range so that tells you little about it's value in combat and to SOF types as I am a cake eater type... According to the HK rep there at the time, they have put the 416 through stuff no m4 would be able to stand, but he was there to market 416s, so take it for what it's worth...*


----------



## Ravage (Aug 1, 2007)

You guys belive in the "Delta" part ?


----------



## pardus (Aug 1, 2007)

Hell will probably frezze over first but I have been a firm beleiver for many years now that the 5.56x45mm needs to be replaced!


----------



## Ravage (Aug 1, 2007)

7.62 STRONG ! ! ! !


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Aug 1, 2007)

uhhh no


----------



## DDSSDV (Aug 1, 2007)

*Wish they would test this*

View attachment 2111


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Aug 1, 2007)

drool..... SOCOM II.....  yum.


----------



## Ravage (Aug 1, 2007)

I like it I like it


----------



## Boondocksaint375 (Aug 1, 2007)

maybe if it had a collapsible stock


----------



## Crusader74 (Aug 1, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> Hell will probably frezze over first but I have been a firm beleiver for many years now that the 5.56x45mm needs to be replaced!




Back to 7.62?..think every one will agree that it has better penetrating power than the 5.56 but you can carry alot more of it than 7.62.  imo thats what it boils down to..:2c:


----------



## Ravage (Aug 1, 2007)

(RIP)


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Aug 1, 2007)

wow.  nice.


----------



## jordan (Aug 1, 2007)

eh.. good read. BUT..... statically, right now in Iraq, snipers have had more success on SKTs with the M4 than any other weapon.. The SAW was used just a few weeks back to waste two dudes planting an ied in or AO. Not a 240.. but a SAW.. Granted, 556 doesnt have the knock down power and if you hit a dude, you might not kill him right away and he has a better chance of living, but the numbers speak for themselves and most engagements are happening across the street. So in a very dense urban enviroment, such as Baghdad, 556 has worked great. And yes, we will tote around a 14. Only if we have a long stretch of road to watch over will we take the 24 out and very very rarely will you ever see a 107. 

so, if its not broke, why fix it?


----------



## pardus (Aug 1, 2007)

Irish_Army01 said:


> Back to 7.62?..



Nope I'm not advocating the 7.62x51mm returning for general use, though I think one per squad has merit.

We need a round between the two calibers IMO, the 6.5/6.8mm, that type of thing.

The Brits developed a 7mm IIRC after WW2 that was deemed to be the ideal intermediate round, though some upstart colonial country  ;) stopped it being introduced as the NATO standard by introducing their own larger round
only to abandon it as their standard service round less than 10 years later infavour of the 5.56x45mm.



jordan said:


> so, if its not broke, why fix it?



Simply because we can do better.

I like using the 5.56, its a very easily controlled round, but it is lacking in certain areas, range, knockdown power, penetration for example, its not a bad round at all (I personally think it is a great round for jungle warfare) but it can be improved on.


----------



## rangerpsych (Aug 1, 2007)

Bullet compisition would be better changed than changing the caliber. 5.56 works well enough, and allows for a soldier load that is ok.

I need to find an AR upper that supports 454 casull...


----------



## RescueSig (Aug 1, 2007)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> maybe if it had a collapsible stock



Our new toy is the EBR, enhanced battle rifle.  Just another mod of the M14.  We were hitting man size targets at 800m in "the Ghan" with a 10x Leopold scope.  Mmmmm, good stuff.


----------



## pardus (Aug 1, 2007)

rangerpsych said:


> I need to find an AR upper that supports 454 casull...



Ive seen an upper that uses something like that, I'll look when I get home.




RescueSig said:


> Our new toy is the EBR, enhanced battle rifle.  Just another mod of the M14.  We were hitting man size targets at 800m in "the Ghan" with a 10x Leopold scope.  Mmmmm, good stuff.



Nice cammo! :doh:  lol  

Apart from that looks like a cool rifle.


----------



## RescueSig (Aug 1, 2007)

Yeah, we're waiting for our digital blue tigerstripe camo.  It should look good underwater.  But it has a pocket for a Blackberry.  Built around the USAF SOF operator.   GARBAGE!


----------



## Crusader74 (Aug 1, 2007)

RescueSig said:


> Our new toy is the EBR, enhanced battle rifle.  Just another mod of the M14.  We were hitting man size targets at 800m in "the Ghan" with a 10x Leopold scope.  Mmmmm, good stuff.



Its 7.62? /DMR?


----------



## RescueSig (Aug 1, 2007)

7.62, 20 round magazine, selectable semi or fully auto.  I'm not really sure why we have it (PJs), but it's fun to shoot


----------



## pardus (Aug 1, 2007)

rangerpsych said:


> I need to find an AR upper that supports 454 casull...



It was a .450 I seen

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC0f5wvgGew"]YouTube - Hornady 450 Bushmaster[/ame]


----------



## Pete031 (Aug 1, 2007)

Well, we used 77 grain in A-Stan and the bullets would move....
I think that you can still improve on the ballistics of the 5.56mm round and that is the key instead of replacing the actual weapon.


----------



## Ravage (Aug 2, 2007)

RescueSig said:


> Our new toy is the EBR, enhanced battle rifle.  Just another mod of the M14.  We were hitting man size targets at 800m in "the Ghan" with a 10x Leopold scope.  Mmmmm, good stuff.



Confirmed:
(these are DoD so no PERSEC issues here - I hope)


----------



## WillBrink (Aug 2, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> It was a .450 I seen



How about the new .50 Beowulf conversion for the AR platform?


----------



## pardus (Aug 2, 2007)

WillBrink said:


> How about the new .50 Beowulf conversion for the AR platform?



http://www.alexanderarms.com/beowulf.htm


----------



## SgtUSMC8541 (Aug 2, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> http://www.alexanderarms.com/beowulf.htm


 
I have the .458 SOCOM.  GREAT RIFLE!!!!


http://www.teppojutsu.com/458.htm


----------



## WillBrink (Aug 2, 2007)

pardus762 said:


> http://www.alexanderarms.com/beowulf.htm



Yes, that's the one. Anyone with any experience with it? Looks like it could have its uses. Sort of like a shotgun slug from an AR: a real thumper at 100 yards or under.


----------



## Vedel (Sep 2, 2007)

*how about a 416 in 6.8?*

Can I dream?  If so, mine is as follows...   A HK 416 in 6.8spc. :uhh:


----------



## rangerpsych (Sep 2, 2007)

Shot the .50 beowulf at English range on benning... guy had one and let me put a mag thru it. Definately known thumper, but it's limited in terms of utility... I would rather have a 12g, cheaper, larger rounds, more versatility.

Cool gun, but not something I would drop the coin on.


----------



## DoctorDoom (Sep 3, 2007)

Stupid question, but why not buy new SAW's?  Seems to be a good weapon when they aren't 25 years old and shot out...

Incidentally, a more reliable rifle that requires less cleaning and uses our current stock of 5.56mm ammunition, sounds good to me.


----------



## rangerpsych (Sep 4, 2007)

DoctorDoom said:


> Stupid question, but why not buy new SAW's?  Seems to be a good weapon when they aren't 25 years old and shot out...
> 
> Incidentally, a more reliable rifle that requires less cleaning and uses our current stock of 5.56mm ammunition, sounds good to me.



well, the barrels are replaced when they gauge bad, the parts are replaced when they break, no reason to replace operational parts.

Using that chain of thought, some of the M2HB .50 machine guns should be replaced, since they DID see duty back in WWII... yet they're winning wars a half inch at a time, even now


----------



## DoctorDoom (Sep 4, 2007)

Yeah, that's what didn't make sense to me.  

Does this mean the SAW is a poor weapon?  Or just another victim of bad Army Acquisition policy?  I'm still confused as to why it's being phased out.  Weren't gunners complaining that the SAWs are so loose they are falling apart?

Regardless, seems like the testing of the newer M-16/4 derivatives or updates is a good call.

Sorry about the hijack.


----------



## rangerpsych (Sep 4, 2007)

I honestly don't know what you are talking about bro, the M4/M16 is completely different than the M249 other than the fact that it shoots 5.56

Everything can be replaced on a M4 just like on a M249, M240, etc. Stuff breaks, fix it.

If the weapon operator doesn't bring problems to light, it doesn't get fixed.

I never had any problems with any SAW falling apart, even with the old stock my gunner had in my fire team. 

I have never heard of the SAW being phased out, this is news to me, but if it is true then it damn well better be lighter, more accurate, and easier to clean.  Otherwise, don't dick with what works.


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Sep 4, 2007)

The idea, and I'm trying to find a source, is a Light and a Heavy weapon... similar parts, but one and auto one semi, one to replace the rifleman's weapon and one to replace the gunner's weapon that use more of the same parts for ease of use, maintenance, and more cost-effectiveness.  I'll post something for a source if I can find somting more reliable than wikipedia.


----------



## rangerpsych (Sep 4, 2007)

that's not really possible, because the amount of rounds a gunner in a fire team goes through is plain silly, the entire reciever would need to be hardened up and that just won't work because that's the big thing you want to retain commonality with!


----------



## DoctorDoom (Sep 5, 2007)

rangerpsych said:


> I honestly don't know what you are talking about bro, the M4/M16 is completely different than the M249 other than the fact that it shoots 5.56
> 
> Everything can be replaced on a M4 just like on a M249, M240, etc. Stuff breaks, fix it.
> 
> ...



I'm probably confusing information I read... and sorry this was kind of a hijack.  but there has been reports that since the USMC is looking for a new LMG, the Army has been thinking about replacing the SAW.  I understand this is why the Mk46 has come on line, due to SAW's falling apart after being around since the 1980's, and of reports of jams in dusty environments.  Maybe I am confusing the Marine Corps' complaints with Army agitation about the SAW and potential replacements?

To get back on topic, I guess there's so much info out there I can't make heads or tails of it... not that it matters I guess, I'm the rearest of REMF's... but it seems like the M-16's and M-4's have had a lot of charges of dust induced failures/jams and fouling/field maintainence difficulty levied against them, and yet many on the ground say it works just fine.  

From an outsider perspective, it seems like the ammo and the weapon are two issues.  And I frankly think a new caliber round is chaff, while a better weapon with less cleaning requirements is the wheat of the debate.

Thanks for answering my question, man.


----------



## HeloMedic1171 (Sep 5, 2007)

rangerpsych said:


> that's not really possible, because the amount of rounds a gunner in a fire team goes through is plain silly, the entire reciever would need to be hardened up and that just won't work because that's the big thing you want to retain commonality with!



true.  I think it's silly they want to go to a whole new weapon instead of fixing the broke one....  just upgrade the existing colt smal arms family, why build the SCAR?  but then, I'm in a different realm than a lot of you guys, i don't know the real issue.  I just want an M4 that doesn't jam every other round in the sand.  I hope this test proved that I'm not alone.


----------

