Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Dec 17, 2007 14:50:05 EST
The M4 carbine, the weapon soldiers depend on in combat, finished
last in a recent extreme dust test to demonstrate the M4s
reliability compared to three newer carbines.
Weapons officials at the Army Test and Evaluation Command at
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., exposed Colt Defense LLCs M4, along
with the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USAs Special Operations
Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416 to sandstorm
conditions from late September to late November, firing 6,000
rounds through each test weapon.
When the test was completed, ATEC officials found that the M4
performed significantly worse than the other three weapons,
sources told Army Times.
Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total
of 60,000 rounds per model. Heres 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.
the results of the test were a wake-up call, but Army officials
continue to stand by the current carbine, said Brig. Gen. Mark
Brown, commander of Program Executive Office Soldier, the command
that is responsible for equipping soldiers.
We take the results of this test with a great deal of interest and
seriousness, Brown said, expressing his determination to outfit
soldiers with the best equipment possible.
The test results did not sway the Armys faith in the M4, he
said.
Everybody in the Army has high confidence in this weapon, Brown
said.
Lighter and more compact than the M16 rifle, the M4 is more
effective for the close confines of urban combat. The Army began
fielding the M4 in the mid-1990s.
Army weapons officials agreed to perform the test at the request of
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue
following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army combat
forces to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more
reliable. Coburn is questioning the Armys plans to spend $375
million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009.
Coburn raised concerns over the M4s long-standing reliability
problems in an April 12 letter and asked if the Army had considered
newer, possibly better weapons available on the commercial
market.
John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, who was traveling, said the
senator was reviewing the test results and had yet to discuss it
with the Army.
The M4, like its predecessor, the M16, uses a gas tube system,
which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the
weapon. Some weapons experts maintain the M4s system of blowing
gas directly into the firing mechanism of the weapon spews carbon
residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up
lubrication, causing excessive wear on parts.
The other contenders in the dust test the XM8, SCAR and 416 use
a piston-style operating system, which relies on a gas-driven
piston rod to cycle the weapon during firing. The gas is vented
without funneling through the firing mechanism.
The Armys Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in
2004 after tests revealed that the piston operating system
significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of
parts. The elite unit collaborated with the German arms maker to
develop the new carbine.
U.S. Special Operations Command has also revised its small-arms
requirements. In November 2004, SOCom awarded a developmental
contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace its
weapons from the M16 family.
And from 2002 to 2005, the Army developed the XM8 as a replacement
for the Armys M16 family. The program led to infighting within the
services weapons community and eventually died after failing to
win approval at the Defense Department level.
How they were tested
The recent Aberdeen dust test used 10 sample models of each weapon.
Before going into the dust chamber, testers applied a heavy coat of
lubrication to each weapon. Each weapons muzzle was capped and
ejection port cover closed.
Testers exposed the weapons to a heavy dust environment for 30
minutes before firing 120 rounds from each.
The weapons were then put back in the dust chamber for another 30
minutes and fired another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated
until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.
Testers then wiped down each weapon and applied another heavy
application of lubrication.
The weapons were put back through the same sequence of 30 minutes
in the dust chamber followed by firing 120 rounds from each weapon
until another 600 rounds were fired.
Testers then thoroughly cleaned each weapon, re-lubricated each,
and began the dusting and fire sequencing again.
This process was repeated until testers fired 6,000 rounds through
each weapon.
The dust test exposed the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand
conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to
during a systems assessment at Aberdeen last year and again this
summer. The results of the second round of ATEC tests showed that
the performance of the M4s dramatically improved when testers
increased the amount of lubrication used.
Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in the tests earlier in the summer,
the 10 M4s tested had 307 stoppages, test results show, far fewer
than the 882 in the most recent test.
in the recent tests, the M4 suffered 643 weapon-related stoppages,
such as failure to eject or failure to extract fired casings, and
239 magazine-related stoppages.
Colt officials had not seen the test report and would not comment
for this story, said James Battaglini, executive vice president for
Colt Defense LLC, on Dec. 14.
Army officials are concerned about the gap between the two tests
because the test conditions for test two and three were ostensibly
the same, Brown said.
There were, however, minor differences in the two tests because
they were conducted at different times of the year with different
test officials, Brown said. Test community officials are analyzing
the data to try to explain why the M4 performed worse during this
test.
Weapons officials pointed out that these tests were conducted in
extreme conditions that did not address reliability in typical
operational conditions, the test report states.
Despite the last-place showing, Army officials say there is no
movement toward replacing the M4.
The Army wants its next soldier weapon to be a true leap ahead,
rather than a series of small improvements, Brown said.
That is what the intent is, he said, to give our soldiers the
very best and we are not going to rest until we do that.
Col. Robert Radcliffe, head of the Directorate of Combat
Developments for the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., said the
test results will be considered as the Army continues to search for
ways to improve soldier weapons.
For now, he said the Army will stick with the M4, because soldier
surveys from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to highlight the
weapons popularity among troops in the combat zone.
The M4 is performing for them in combat, and it does what they
needed to do in combat, Radcliffe said.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
My question is...if they didn't intend to change at all so why
bother to conduct those tests in the first place? 
