US rifle reliability trials highlight M4 stoppages

Doesn't SOCOM or whatever it's called already use the 416/417?* As for general issue? Doubt it unless Colt gets in on the act.

*Funnily enough, I think that came about on the back of the A2 fixes.

 

I've used the M4 for ages, and never had a stoppage with it, I find it's very reliable. I've completed COD4 twice now!

 

There was a link put on here showing that M4/HK job. Looked like the M4 but the gas pasts looked like they were lifted right out of the A2. Their whole 'recoil spring' looks very ineficiant to me as well, but again I've never fired one, just going on what I've seen.


T C

 

I thought the idea of 5.56 was based around the amount of ammo you could carry, traded off against power and long range effectiveness. This being the case, 5.56 is the better choice, even though we are still running out of ammo quickly in firefights - albeit it lasts a lot longer than with the amount carryable in 7.62.

As for the shorter barrel argument - the propellent needs to burn faster, or more explosively and have done its job by the time the barrel-end is reached - thus, changing the powder would sort out the acceleration issue. As for stability of the round, that can be improved by fine-tuning the rifling/bullet - not easily achieved in mass-produced service weapons and ammo (see problems with .5 cal ammo from India or wherever the hell it came from). It's not like we are using match-grade ammo or barrels, and nor are the setics. We did the job nicely by having the bullpup configuration that allowed the longer barrel to be retained whilst shortening the weapon to make it more useable in more circumstances.

As for clogging up the working parts, that's a trade off between finely machined working parts with associated finer tolerances, and thus clogging in real-world scenarios, and highly reliable systems such as the AK range that have lousy accuracy. You could try and achieve higher reliability by having cleaner-burning powders and closing off access routes for dirt - but that costs more money, and let's face it, getting the weapon swamped in filth in battlefield conditions will negate that route.


HK, from what I understand, have worked wonders with the A2 by making a number of changes to the design, and the septic weapon could yet be improved along similar lines. The septics have got huge amounts of money, and could, as has already been said, achieve improvements before you could say "who farted?". Improving the design and working parts would be quicker than developing and testing a whole new system, before finding various real-world flaws, redeloping, more testing and so on.

One only has to look at the Porsche 911 for an example of long term reworking of essentially the same product - it beats most of the modern-designed vehicles into a cocked-hat.

 

Is not the pentagons policy on small arms to seek something thats miles
better than m4/m16 5.56mm rather than just a little better .
Had all sort of trials and spent lots of $ but nothing seems to be really that much better yet .

 

Its binned waiting for technology to mature whatever that means ?

 

The XM8 was put on hold, and then cancelled because Congress refused to hand out $29m to fund it, as well as pressure from other manufacturers who said it was an unfair advantage (the deal) and the competition should be opened up. Not only this, the US has a formal policy of picking own-brand solutions for their weapons, negating the purchase from H&K, who were British owned for a while before being bought back by the Germans.

The technical issues had not all been resolved when it was shelved.

Technical issues were: Melting handguard, short battery life for the scope, ergonomics and weight.

The ergonomics and weight were still being addressed.

The DOD has asked US manaufacturers to come up with something that matches the abilities of the XM8, but they haven't been able to yet - no surprise there.

Edited to add: The US policy on own-brand toys is something the EU is attempting to counter by having the same policy for EU forces equipment AFAIK - hence the pressure to buy Fuchs and other items despite better off-the-shelf US products being available. The dumb EU policy also attempts to cut out Commonwealth trade, and not just military products either.

Edited again for further update: (wiki)