M4，MK16 SCAR，HK416，XM8沙尘暴大PK，结果出来了

Aberdeen Extreme Dust Test I = M4 vs M16A4 test in 2006
Aberdeen Extreme Dust Test II = M4 test summer of 2007
Aberdeen Extreme Dust Test III = M4 vs MK16 vs HK416 vs XM8 test November 2007

Carbines/rifles were subjected to 25 hours of constant, heavy dusting in laboratory conditions at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., 10 of each weapon fired 6,000 rounds apiece. They were fired in 50 120-round cycles. Each was then wiped and re-lubricated at the 600 round mark. After 1,200 rounds were fired from each weapon, they were fully cleaned and re-lubricated. All weapons exhibited significant wear that rendered them unsafe for firing beyond 6,000 rounds without replacement of the barrel and/or bolt.

MRBS (Mean Rounds Between Stoppage) for Class 1, 2, and 3 combined. A class 1 stoppage is one a Soldier can clear within 10 seconds; a class 2 stoppage is one a Soldier can clear, but requires more than 10 seconds; and, class 3 is a stoppage that requires an armorer to clear:

XM8: 472.5 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test III)

MK16 SCAR-L: 265.5 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test III)

416: 257.5 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test III)

M4: 195.5 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test II)

M16A4: 118 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test I)

M4: 89 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test I)

M4: 68 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test III)

M16A4: 28 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test I with light lube)

M4: 6 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test I with light lube)

MRBF data, this is a Class 3, meaning mean rounds before it is inoperatable (I can only find partial data):

XM8 5,454.5 MRBF (Extreme Dust Test III)

M4 5,454.5 MRBF (Extreme Dust Test II)

M4 3,158 MRBF (Extreme Dust Test III)

www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/

Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Dec 17, 2007 9:25:16 EST

The M4 carbine, the weapon soldiers depend on in combat, finished last in a recent “extreme dust test” to demonstrate the M4’s reliability compared to three newer carbines.

Weapons officials at the Army Test and Evaluation Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., exposed Colt Defense LLC’s M4, along with the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s 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. 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.

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 Army’s 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 Army’s plans to spend $375 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009.

Coburn raised concerns over the M4’s “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 M4’s 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 Army’s 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 Army’s M16 family. The program led to infighting within the service’s 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 weapon’s 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 becaus 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 weapon’s 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_m4_hearing_071217w/


"M4 may get tougher barrel, better mags

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Dec 17, 2007 16:08:30 EST

Army weapons officials said Monday they are considering equipping the M4 carbine with a more durable barrel and improved magazines during a Pentagon briefing that discussed why three newer carbines outperformed the M4 in a recent reliability test.

Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., completed an “extreme dust test” in late November that looked at the M4’s reliability compared to the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416.

The weapons were exposed to 25 hours of heavy dust conditions over the course of the two-month long test that fired 6,000 rounds through each test weapon.

In the end, XM8 finished first, SCAR finished second, 416 finished third and M4 finished fourth.

Despite the findings, Army weapons officials are still pleased with M4’s performance, said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, commander of Program Executive Office Soldier, the command that is responsible for equipping soldiers.

Brown described the Colt Defense LLC M4 as a “world-class weapon,” at a briefing with reporters.

“There is a very high satisfaction rate with this rifle,” Brown said, adding that soldier surveys give the M4 an 89 percent approval rating.

Army weapons officials say there is no movement toward replacing the M4 but say they will continue to improve upon the design.

“We want to increase reliability,” said Col. Robert Radcliffe, the head of the Directorate of Combat Developments for the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga.

One of the upgrades that may be coming in the future is a more reliable magazine. The test revealed that 239 of the 882 stoppages M4 suffered were magazine-related.

The hope is that upgrades, such as stronger springs, will increase the magazine’s ability to feed rounds more effectively, Radcliffe said. If all goes well in testing, the improved magazines could be ready by next spring.

Another upgrade under consideration is a “hammer-forged” barrel, Brown said.

While there is no timeline in place, Brown said switching to this specific manufacturing process could yield M4 barrels that “have a longer life.”

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 Army’s plans to spend $375 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009. "

Heres a quote from DocGKR on another forum...

The Army is trying hard to spin this one. As Brett states, the actual report goes into much more detail. The M4 did NOT do well in this test. The 416 did better than indicated, as there was one problematic 416 that had numerous failures, while the other nine 416's ran better than XM8. Note, that while the XM8 is a POS, that I despise for many reasons, it does have a good reliable gas system.

卡宾枪也许还是HK416的性价比最高。
虽然作为自动步枪HK416的精度不如M16，但是作为卡宾枪就差距不那么明显了。

ＸＭ８跟Ｇ３６是不是有些关系啊？
是不是能认为Ｇ３６的可靠性也不错呢？？
我是问问题
不是说Ｇ３６可靠性不错
请大家不要砸

仅仅是沙尘环境么，我觉得可靠远比百米精度上差距一点半点要命，xm8确实不错

原帖由 zhengyi88 于 2007-12-22 14:58 发表
ＸＭ８跟Ｇ３６是不是有些关系啊？
是不是能认为Ｇ３６的可靠性也不错呢？？
我是问问题
不是说Ｇ３６可靠性不错
请大家不要砸

XM8容留泥沙空间比G36更大。XM8其实是G36 Pro++:D

XM8那个开放式上机匣，对于风沙状态的可靠性究竟是有利还是不利？

有利的地方：容易排沙；不利的地方：沙子容易进机匣。看着很矛盾，可是总的来说，究竟是什么情况呢？

如果是有利的，那么我不喜欢G36/XM8的敞开上机匣就没有道理了：XM8的重量很轻，并没有为机匣刚度问题付出重量代价，如果对可靠性也有利，那应该是相当好的设计了。

http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/p/2007-12-23/1027477892.html
大家可以去看看。

我系蝇盲  看不懂赢文```

美军研究讨论的是更换比现役5.56mm更好弹药然后才是考虑换枪

以M16系的精致紧凑，差一点也情理之中

原帖由 霏菲飞 于 2007-12-24 13:30 发表
以M16系的精致紧凑，差一点也情理之中

说M16/M4系有多精致，可真的谈不上，这点看QBQ上黄岛主的《细品AR-15》那贴可知。 非常紧凑才是真的

弹匣啊......弹匣..........
http://www.dlsports.com/ar15_extreme_duty_magazines.html





另外送个MM给大家欣赏..........