Frankly I'm a bit surprised to hear of Bushys failing. They have gone through extensive testing without hiccups. That was several years ago - I wonder if there have been changes made to materials, manufacturing, etc. to cut costs or something that would compromise the reliability.
Gas piston or Gas tube
- Thread starter Quietstorm3155
- Start date
0
08steeda
Guest
Yeah I would like more information on this! Is this just an observation or is there some reliable source to validate this statement. I have had BushMasters for a long time now and one was a competition weapon that saw a tremendous amount of use (wear and tear) and I NEVER have had a problem. I mean we are talking thousands of rounds thru the weapon.
I do know that if you buy their higher end rifles they do have different receivers and I always went with a V-Match rig to start with. I never got a M-4 variant from them so I don't know if it has a different receiver or not. I would say my V-Matches are all as reliable as my Colt HBAR.
Can you be more specific or provide a source that confirms this?
Yeah, I saw it first-hand both on the range and in Iraq. Fortunately no one paid the price for it. My employer is no longer buying Bushmasters as a result - it's all 416s and Colt M4s now. I don't know how much closer to a source you can get... We had one break where the rifle would fire both pulling and releasing the trigger. We had another that would run away full auto (even in semi) when the first round went off. We had a few that would not cycle after a magazine - problem with the gas key. Just lots of misc. crap like that.
Most of you guys know a big part of success in combat is confidence in your gear. Needless to say, a lot of the guys I know won't come near a Bushmaster anymore. FWIW, I had a couple Bushmaster civilian guns before, too. No problems with them - it might just be an M4 thing.
I havent got my hands on these gas piston rifles as of yet. Still doing my .net research. So far I like what I have seen and read about the LWRC and the HK416. Heres a couple more vids backing these two up.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMZX5WO1uSk"]YouTube - LWRC TESTING[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU"]YouTube - HK (Heckler & Koch) versus Colt[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMZX5WO1uSk"]YouTube - LWRC TESTING[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU"]YouTube - HK (Heckler & Koch) versus Colt[/ame]
The 416 is amazing. I've fired thousands of rounds through both 10" and 14.5" versions (mostly w/EO-Techs). It's a hammer on full-auto - hardly any climb and a nice cyclic rate. It's no problem getting 1's and 2's off. As far as cleaning goes, it's just like an M4 without all the nasty powder residue. Even when cleaning the piston, it's much neater than the M4. Think FAL or AK and you'll know what I mean. I'd trust my life to a 416 any day - it's too bad there's no civilian version (and I can't take the gun home from work).
It's too bad most of our guys in harm's way DON'T have a choice. That needs to be reconciled ASAP.
HOLLiS
Verified Military
and?
Charlie had the AK, we had the M16. More of us came home than him. Maybe Gunnys today are not what they where back then.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
That's unfair.
The servicemen in our current conflict have a great kill ratio, one I wouldn't mind betting is comparable with the kill ratio in Vietnam.
HOLLiS
Verified Military
I wonder if Haji would agree with Mr. Charlies on the ineffectiveness of the M4/M16 based rifles.
A small note on the side, I would not be surprised that today's soldiers are more effective. You just have to be really proud of them.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
I wonder if there are stats out there with serious malfunctions etc...
I have to think the M series has been tweaked to make it more effective/reliable but that is based on nothing but hope people have done the right thing in the govt :uhh:
I have to think the M series has been tweaked to make it more effective/reliable but that is based on nothing but hope people have done the right thing in the govt :uhh:
I must say these are two excellent reviews I have found. The one talks about the LWRC and the other about the POF P415. Also for the guys that were asking... the 2nd review covers the "conversion" questions.
As (AssadUSMC) pointed out earlier, the HK 416 is not availible to purchase privately, so im focusing my research on the POF P415 and LWRC M6. Anyone with input on these two weapons is greatly appreciated!
http://www.lwrifles.com/content/LWRC.pdf
http://www.pof-usa.com/articles/415OCTGUNDIGEST07.pdf
As (AssadUSMC) pointed out earlier, the HK 416 is not availible to purchase privately, so im focusing my research on the POF P415 and LWRC M6. Anyone with input on these two weapons is greatly appreciated!
http://www.lwrifles.com/content/LWRC.pdf
http://www.pof-usa.com/articles/415OCTGUNDIGEST07.pdf
HOLLiS
Verified Military
Out side of the new and groovy factor. I have not really seen anything that says the M4 needs to be canned.
HOLLiS
Verified Military
I think needs is this situation is that the current battle rifle compared to what is available on the market or what is used by other militaries put our soldiers at a disadvantage. Some might say that current design changes, such as the gas piston, have sufficient advantages in use and maintenance that would warrant such changes. I am not sure that is actually a good reason to change to a gp battle rifle for a standard infantry battle rifle.
Example the change away from the 1911 colt design. I am a fan of the 1911, but current SA/DA autos have some features that make them more suitable for use as a military side arm (and LE)
The AR platform is a very versatile one. Also there are difference in needs. Guys on the teams, know what they need and should get what they want. A standard battle rifle can be chosen to fit the needs of the average infantry soldier and infantry unit, so far the M4 seem to do the job very well. Support units have different needs.
I own both GP and GT ARs. I can not really say, one is superior to the other, or even a noticeable difference.
Hollis - Here's the problem: AR types were designed as 20" rifles with gas tubes to match. When the M4 became mainstream, lots of problems popped up because of the shortened gas tubes. Too many to detail here, but there are some good articles online with SOCOM and JSOC's issues. Saved you some research:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
The gas piston rifles eliminate those problems. As for your AK vs. M16 argument, I could argue that if the Joes had AKs, our kill ratio might be even higher.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
The gas piston rifles eliminate those problems. As for your AK vs. M16 argument, I could argue that if the Joes had AKs, our kill ratio might be even higher.
HOLLiS
Verified Military
Assad, thank you for the link. My shorty is a 7 1/2 barrel GT. I guess for those who are serving, I am far enough out of the loop, so I am harmless.
My understanding with GT problem, it was poorly designed or manufactured models. The length and diameter of the GT is important. Like a weak buffer or wrong buffer can effect performance.
Again, I'll read the article. Thank you for post it.
Several of my friends, other Jar heads, we seem to agree. One is 27 Year retired Sgt Major (also was a Recon Gunny etc), another a avid shooter a Major. We shot this stuff pass each other. I don't think the AK was better. It is a good CQC battle rifle. AK Vs AR is one of those ad infinitum discussions. Probably best over BBQ, Beers and more beers. I am always available for those discussions. I have built a number of AKs and ARs. Personally I value the AR more.
HOLLiS
Verified Military
Assad, that is a good article. The advantage mentioned was heat and gasses in the chamber area. More critical concerns was sand.
Two statements stood out for me.
"The M4 is the highest-rated weapon by Soldiers in combat, according to the Directorate of Combat Development, Ft. Benning, Ga. In December 2006, the Center for Naval Analysis conducted a “Soldiers’ Perspective on Small Arms in Combat” survey. Their poll of over 2,600 Soldiers reported overwhelming satisfaction with the M4. The survey included serviceability and usefulness in completing assigned missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
"“We are not saying the [M4 and M16 are] bad,” said “The issue for me is do our soldiers have the best rifle in their hands…. The fact of the matter is that technology changes every 10 or 15 years and we should be changing with it. And that has not been our case. We have been sitting on this thing for far too long.”
It was also mentioned keeping it clean while one the move. Well my experience and you can ask any other RVN Bush Marine, that is what was our daily lives. We did not have a base that we operated out of. We were mostly always in the bush. Rain, Mud, Dust, ect. That point, was meaningless for me. I don't think my Gunny would accepted either.
Two statements stood out for me.
"The M4 is the highest-rated weapon by Soldiers in combat, according to the Directorate of Combat Development, Ft. Benning, Ga. In December 2006, the Center for Naval Analysis conducted a “Soldiers’ Perspective on Small Arms in Combat” survey. Their poll of over 2,600 Soldiers reported overwhelming satisfaction with the M4. The survey included serviceability and usefulness in completing assigned missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
"“We are not saying the [M4 and M16 are] bad,” said “The issue for me is do our soldiers have the best rifle in their hands…. The fact of the matter is that technology changes every 10 or 15 years and we should be changing with it. And that has not been our case. We have been sitting on this thing for far too long.”
It was also mentioned keeping it clean while one the move. Well my experience and you can ask any other RVN Bush Marine, that is what was our daily lives. We did not have a base that we operated out of. We were mostly always in the bush. Rain, Mud, Dust, ect. That point, was meaningless for me. I don't think my Gunny would accepted either.
FWIW, I primarily use an M4 when I'm overseas. I take great care of it, shoot on the range regularly, and monitor its performance (weak ejection, bad mags, etc.). I just know that my M16A2 in the Marines was SUPER reliable - I never once worried about it. Of course, the 416 is the best 5.56 gun I've ever used. Problem is, supply is limited so the door-kickers get 'em first. No argument from me - if I have to fire it, I'm in DEEP caca.
Similar threads
