COLT vs H&K

[lipadj46]

Yes, they are around 0.28 to 1.3% more reliable in these extreme conditions.

There were 2 tests. I am speaking of the second one, whach one are you speaking of? You can spin the numbers any way you like because there is approxamately a 9 out of 10 chance that 98% of all M4 supporters would not agree with even 35% this test's conclusions anyways. You say the HK is only 1.1% more reliable I say the M4 had 4 times more malfunctions than the M4. The fact is that the M4 jammed 14.7% of the time and the HK jammed 3.7% of the time. That is an order of magnitude larger and is significant (out of 6000 rounds):

• XM8: 127 stoppages.

• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.

• 416: 233 stoppages.

• M4: 882 stoppages.

the results of the test were “a wake-up call,”

I am not knocking the M4 but this test offer evidence that the gas piston designs are more tolerant to dirt and dust. The next military rifle will be a gas piston design it is just a matter of time. Will that make you AR any less of a rifle? No. They replaced my personal favorite rifle back in the 60's.

[450NE]

This kind of arguement always cracks me up.

I was there when the M16 first hit the ground in Viet Nam. Man you should have heard the whining and crying. 80% of my fellow Marines were completely convinced that the furniture was being made by Mattel. And they weren't joking.

I own 4 FA M16's. All Colts except for a 416 clone (FA). I own three 416 uppers and an LWRC upper.

Do I own them because I think they are superior? No. I own them because they are such a great investment. Armchair warriors everywhere are spending their hard earned money on the 416 because of it's "coolness" factor and nothing else.

I mean seriously, who is going to spend all that money on an H&K and even allow it fall in the sand. In fact, judging by current pricing, if you even shoot your H&K upper you have just had a thousand dollar experience.

I know, I know. When the balloon goes up and the bikers, mutants and zombies are circling and you are trapped on the sandy volley ball course in Paduka, you'll be glad you spent extra on that 416 upper.

Personally, I love my Colts.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There were 2 tests. I am speaking of the second one, whach one are you speaking of?

There was the original M16 and M4 test in June. That test had the M4 at 307 stoppages. The second test was the M4, HK416, FN SCAR and HK XM8. That test had the M4 at 883 stoppages. I discussed both in my reply to you.

You can spin the numbers

Actually, you can't spin the numbers. They say what they say. That is the whole point of having an objective test like this. In this case, they say that the M4 is 1.3% less reliable in extreme sand conditions than the top finisher (the XM8).

You say the HK is only 1.1% more reliable I say the M4 had 4 times more malfunctions than the M4.

Under conditions where the rifles were only wiped down and lubricated every 600 rounds and only cleaned every 1,200 rounds, while going through a 25 hour dust storm and firing 6,000 rounds per rifle in a short time period. This test was hard enough on equipment that all of the rifles exhibited unsafe headspace after the test. In these types of extreme conditions, the HK416 was 1.1% more reliable than the second test and 0.13% more reliable than the M4 from the second test. Does that mean YOU will see that difference in reliability? Not necessarily since you won't be shooting in those conditions most likely.

Also take a look at how successful the wipedown and lube was in halting malfunctions for all rifles (see the link I gave earlier to the Powerpoint discussing results). Just re-lubing after every 300 rounds would further reduce stoppages and make differences in reliability even less obvious, even under these extreme conditions.

The fact is that the M4 jammed 14.7% of the time and the HK jammed 3.7% of the time. That is an order of magnitude larger and is significant (out of 6000 rounds)

60,000 rounds were fired (6,000 rounds out of 10 rifles). So your numbers are off and should be 1.47% for the M4 and 0.37% for the HK416. That is not an order of magnitude in difference, though it may be significant for some users.

Again, looking at the table, most of the malfunctions occured in cycles 15-25 for the M4 and on cycles 20-25 for the HK416 (which had a huge spike in malfunctions towards the end of the test as rifles wore out). This seems to suggest that the M4 wore out first, followed several cycles later by the HK416. It also points out the glaringly obvious - if you maintain your weapon and replace parts before they wear out, you will continue to get good, stoppage-free performance regardless of the weapon. Based on the sand test, the M4 needs preventive maintenance around 3,600 rounds if exposed to constant dust storms while firing and the HK416 needs preventive maintenance around 4,800 rounds in the same conditions.

So, if you clean your rifle and periodically inspect and replace worn parts - pretty much any of the four rifles tested will have negligble stoppage rates. If you don't do these things, then buying the HK416 or FN SCAR will get you an extra 1.1% reliability over the M4. That's a user choice and I can't say what solution is right for you; but you can buy a lot of CLP and spare parts if the price for the MR556 is in the $2-3k range.

I am not knocking the M4 but this test offer evidence that the gas piston designs are more tolerant to dirt and dust.

I think you are jumping to conclusions here. It offers evidence that modern firearms designed in the last five years are more tolerant to dirt and dust than a 10yr old modification of a 40yr old rifle design (the M4). If we look at some of the failures (magazine-related, bolt locking to the rear prematurely), it is clear that a lot of them have nothing to do with the gas system. On others (like the failures to extract), you could easily design a direct impingement with an improved bolt/extractor and barrel extension (and several companies have) instead of using a bolt/extractor designed for a 20" rifle. We also know that the M16 using a bolt/extractor designed for a 20" rifle did around 250 stoppages in the second dust test - pretty much comparable to the SCAR and HK416 despite the direct impingement system. In this case, it isn't the gas system that is the problem so much as it is using the same parts from a 20" rifle in a 14.5" carbine with only minor changes to accomodate the different pressures and work loads.

[450NE]

If I came across condescending that wasn't my intention and I apologize. Discussions like this are fun. No doubt about it. But they should be kept in perspective.

It is doubtful that any of our guns will ever be put through such a rigorous test and then be expected to work. Still it's fun to play "what if".

The problem with the MR556 is that it's not an AR. After they changed the pin to prevent the uppers from being used they destroyed the one thing that makes the AR platform so cool. The fact that it's modular and you can put it together any way you want.

I would imagine the MR556 will go the way of the SIG556. Yeah, they're cool but everyone want the AR platform.

HK416 parts will continue to climb in value (at least I hope so) because of their scarcity.

A very good friend of mine just returned from the SB and he used his own personal LWRC upper. He loved it. Is the H&K any better than LWRC? Better than POF? I don't know. Doubt it though.

Does H&K make excellent products? Sure they do. But so does Colt. I guess what really bothers me is the way people want to jump on the HK bandwagon and talk down Colts based on tests that don't really have that much real life application.

It's like when they feed a four ounce mouse a pound and a half of swee&lo every day and then announce that it causes cancer.

[publius]

I'd get an AR, the Colt if you can find one or a LMT. the AR-15 is a proven design, the HK is not and I don't really care for the way HK treats the civilian market.

[lipadj46]

I am talking down colt or talking up HK. I am just saying that a piston gas system is a more reliable system than DI. When colt comes out with their next generation design for the next big contract you better believe it will be a gas piston design (if they have not already I don't really follow these things too closely). Like I said above my M1A is my favorite military style rifle and I will probably never buy an HK anything or colt for that matter.

[HorseSoldier]

Combat proven indeed. That's exactly why Delta force were cooperating with HK on 416 development. Obviously these ungrateful bastards issued with a superb M4 without that obsolete whoopeedo pistons were just fancying a new shiny toys.

My last unit before I ETS'ed (white side SOF, not Delta or other JSOC guys) had some ODAs equipped with HK416s. When putting the 416 through its paces, some of the team guys noted that the HK rifles were notably less accurate than the M4A1s we otherwise had issued. Group sizes were about double what an M4 did at the same range, and in the case of M855 green tip the HK416s were just on the ragged edge of shooting 4 MOA, maybe a little sloppier than that.

4 MOA is combat acceptable for normal combat ranges, but it certainly isn't very good. On the other hand, the HKs run very well with suppressors, as Mr Roberts noted, and run cleaner if you're going to be shooting a bunch of rounds with a suppressor fitted.

My conclusion would be that CAG/Delta didn't purchase a hands-down superior weapon system, but rather that they opted for a different set of pluses and minuses that were better suited to their particular and peculiar operating requirements. The HK416 definitely does not seem to be a one-size-fits-all improvement.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I am just saying that a piston gas system is a more reliable system than DI.

Like I said earlier, maybe so if we are talking new rifles built from the ground up. I am less convinced that is the case when you try to shoehorn a gas piston system into the existing AR architecture.

When colt comes out with their next generation design for the next big contract you better believe it will be a gas piston design (if they have not already I don't really follow these things too closely).

Actually, Colt just won the Marines' Individual Automatic Rifle solicitation using a direct impingement M16 variant. I don't know all of the competitors against Colt; but I know at least one of them was a gas-piston AR.

[Wildalaska]

I am just saying that a piston gas system is a more reliable system than DI.

More parts to break and I have seen it already before you ask

WildspringsAlaska ™

[KChen986]

Mr. Roberts is right, Colt and some other large defense manufacturers advanced in the IAR selection over POF & LWRC--however a couple of things:

1.) First, this may have been based off of the company's reputation more so than its superior design. Only FN and Colt won--both companies have provided weapons in the past. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a company which won a defense contract have trouble meeting supply schedules?

Source: http://weaponizedculture.wordpress.c...risk-aversion/

2.) Colt's coming up with it's own Piston system--see the Short Compact Weapon--somewhat conceding that a piston system is more reliable than DI.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules...ticle&sid=1183

I will however agree though, that shoe-horning a piston system in to an AR isn't the most ideal--most notably both the SCAR and the XM8, piston systems, posted lower failure rates than either AR system (right? I'll double check the #'s later).

Just my .02

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Actually Colt proposed a gas-piston M16 during the 1960s and the Army was uninterested. Colt refloated the piston idea in 1990s when the Army was working out teething issues with the M4 and was declined again. Whatever else you can say about HK, they can market well.

As for Colt, they make what people want to buy. If black powder Kentucky rifles sold like ARs, Colt would manufacture one. I think Colt offering a piston is more about keeping market share than any actual advantages in that system -note that Colt also builds a DI-piston hybrid just to cover its bases.

[lipadj46]

I guess we will have to wait and see what the m4 replacement will be. Personally I don't think it will be a DI system. Do you guys really think it will be DI with the FN SCAR and HK rifles selected already?

More parts to break and I have seen it already before you ask

I don't know you don't hear many complaints about AK gas systems break.

[ZeroJunk]

I bought an AR15 from a guy that needed cash several years ago for $250. Having no interest in them I passed it to a friend for what I had in it. I must have been nuts.

[Wildalaska]

I don't know you don't hear many complaints about AK gas systems break.

Different system

WildthatswhyAlaska ™

[KChen986]

AFAIK, AR gas piston systems, at least the POF & LWRC all use short stroke systems, incorporating multiple parts.

There had been reports about short stroking (IIRC) if the POF piston was put in the wrong way. LWRC has *some* issues with the carrier key screws coming loose (from the shearing force of having a piston impact against a key that was not designed to take repeated solid impact).

So, although you might be gaining some reliability in one aspect, you're losing it since you're, again, adapting a piston system in to a rifle engineered to run DI.

On the other hand, the AK piston is just this one huge rod mated to the bolt....very simple and robust...

(Full disclosure, I am a *HUGE* LWRC fan and have two rifles on order).

As for Colt, they make what people want to buy. If black powder Kentucky rifles sold like ARs, Colt would manufacture one. I think Colt offering a piston is more about keeping market share than any actual advantages in that system -note that Colt also builds a DI-piston hybrid just to cover its bases.

Duly noted .

[IZZY]

Bart,

Thank you for the links...here is what I found a bit preterbing:

"...we don't yet know specifically who put it together, i.e. who created it (individuals and/or agency or unit). The brief may have come out of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), or it could have been generated independently. We simply don't know, at this point, but we'll try to find out, and we appreciate any assistance any of our readers can provide on this."


http://www.defensereview.com/modules...ticle&sid=1084


BASICLY they don't know where thier INFORMATION came from.... WOW

So I did a simple search on "m4 extreme dust test"

And I found what may be a better source...the 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. "

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...sttest_071217/

Further confusion is in order becuase there was MORE than ONE TEST:

"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."


AND

"Miltary.com reported that the US Army 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. Each weapon will be wiped down and lubricated every 600 rounds, with a full cleaning every 1,200 rounds. The firing, collection of data and analysis of data is expected to take approximately 5 months.

One’s first reaction upon seeing the proposed testing regimen was to compare it very unfavorably with the regimen Delta Force put the HK416 through, firing it day after day without maintenance for thousands of rounds. Or even the testing HK itself uses for its HK416s. Indeed, it seems on its face to be a test designed to minimize the very weaknesses in the M4 incumbent that have triggered this controversy. Those who believe the cycle is reasonable cite 300 rounds as the soldier’s 1-day load, and say that under sand storm conditions, a once a day wipedown is the bare minimum for any weapon. Every 600 rounds is thus a safety factor of 2 against the worst possible conditions. Of course, sandstroms have a way of lasting more than one day, and when they do – as in the initial portion of Operation Iraqi Freedom – even vehicle interiors may feature a fine particulate haze."

"...One source noted that the first dust test new M4s had 9,836 jams in 60,000 rounds – almost one jam every 6 rounds. The Army kept working on the test until they figured out a “generous lubrication” approach that used far more than the manufacturer recommended, but lowered jams to 1 in 88 rounds. A fair test must match the manufacturer’s manual for each weapon, or use the same lubrication for each weapon based on the minimum recommended among all test weapons."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...troversy-03289

[lipadj46]

OK you guys win the M4 and it's DI gas system will live forever and never be replaced because it is perfect. We shall see.

[LoneWolf22056]

FWIW, i've shot about 1000 rounds through my new AR-15 M4 clone and haven't had ONE stoppage, even with purportedly "crappy" ammo. And by "crappy", i do NOT mean wolf ammo. using steel cased ammunition in an AR style rifle is really asking for trouble in the long-ish haul. If I'm not mistaken, the extractor is made of steel, and a large percentage of the AR receiver is aircraft aluminum. Steel is harder than aluminum, and harder metals coming into contact with a softer metal with some force behind it causes abrasion, even if only at a microscopic level. Some have argued that the steel used in the casings isn't quite as hard as we typically think of common steel to be, but knowing what I know about properties of materials, I'd rather not take the chance.

Back to the AR platform.
This was my first rifle and I have to say that I am extremely pleased. I've shot plenty of other rifles, and this one by far is the best I've ever fired. It's reliable as hell, as far as I can see. I clean it with a fine toothed comb so-to-speak after each range trip, so I haven't really tortured it... But why would you torture your own rifle when you want it to last for years and years? I don't care that an AK can go for years in salt water environments without cleaning and still reliably go bang. I'm not one to neglect my personal property, even if that "neglect" doesn't truly affect its functionality. If I did own an AK, I'd still clean it just as I do my AR. It's an investment and should be looked after as such. Why pay the extra 1000 for something that won't even really affect anything considering your intents and purposes? If you go with the AR, you won't be sorry. They're excellent weapons and let's face it... they're just plain cool. the low recoil makes it perfect for target shooting because you can shoot it all day and not feel a thing, although your wallet might be hurting due to ammo prices these days

Now, for more on a direct argument AGAINST a gas piston rifle.

The piston in itself is just another piece, as others have stated before. The more pieces you have, the more you have that can possibly go wrong. The AR is cycled by gas. no pistons to worry about. Clean the gas tube, good as new! given that the rifle isn't physically damaged in any way, you will be reliably cycling for a long time.

In terms of the military and what they deem as being reliable-The M16 platform has been their weapon system of choice for over 40 years. Even some precision sniper rifles are modeled directly after this setup. Look at the knights armament M110. What does that resemble? looks a lot like an AR to me! The AR/M16 must be doing something right, because it's been in service longer than any other rifle in military history. That alone should speak volumes. Sure, it had its bugs and glitches in it's early days in Vietnam. But how often do we get something of new design that doesn't have quirks to work out? What we are left with is a truly great rifle.

[alberich]

LoneWolf22056 Well, we are talking a military infantry rifle design. With all due respect, that means that you will spend days and week in very rough condition, freezing, wet, wounded, feverish, crawling in mud, flounder rivers, spending nights outside in rain, storm, whatever. And your rifle will be with you all of the time and you want it to go bang every time you pull the trigger.
Well almost every rifle will likely work if you keep cleaning it 24/7 but just imagine you are in real deep **** somewhere, tired as a dog, wounded, hungry, sleepy, and yet you have to keep the [sic] thunderstick meticulously clean all the time.
Now imagine that you are in combat, you run and crawl with the rifle throught every imaginable ****, slip and fall into mud, water, whatever and keep shooting. You have seen on that video what happens to the DI system when you immerse it into water?
I like the ergonomy and balance of M4 but heck I do hate that DI. I just don't trust it. Sure thing I'm going to keep my guns clean but I feel good if I know that I have a gun which would work even if very very dirty, namely if I have to shoot it outside.

Glock won the service pistol market simply because it will survive anything, will keep shooting all the time, and is capable to hit alpha of a human sized target at 20 meters. I like to shoot my other handguns but if I'd have to go into a firefight I'd take a Glock every time.

So, to summarize it: just give me a M4 with a piston preferably chambered in 6.8 SPC or something like that and I'm a happy man. But I don't want to see anything with a DI system as a future service rifle in our (Czech) army. However it will be the brass and politicians who will decide what weapon it is (note: the people who will likely never shoot and be shot at), as always.

[kraigwy]

you will spend days and week in very rough condition, freezing, wet, wounded, feverish, crawling in mud, flounder rivers, spending nights outside in rain, storm, whatever. And your rifle will be with you all of the time and you want it to go bang every time you pull the trigger.

Now imagine that you are in combat, you run and crawl with the rifle throught every imaginable ****, slip and fall into mud, water, whatever and keep shooting.

Been there, done that, Only I found I jumped into the mud or water more then I slipped and fell. I don't know about vedios, didn't have one then. But my Non piston M16A1 worked. Never failed me.

I'm gonna add, I was an infantryman, I learned you take care of your equipment before you take care of your self, regardless of how tired, cold, hot, sleepy etc you are.

[IZZY]

Wild and Lone,

Seriously guys, I am not ANTI Ar/M16/M4.

But you are pushing the envalope, and completely wrong on parts count.

52 total parts ( INCLUDING magazine) to an AK...

I count 74 parts in an AR ( NOT including magazine!!!) and full auto has just a part or two more...

so lets say 49 for the AK Vs. 75 for the M-16 (full stock).

maybe if you ADD onto an ar/M4 a D.G. piston, you will have (even) more parts...but still less than the AK


But please don't go off the handle and tell me an AK has more parts...that plain "silly buggers."

L.W.,

Keep in mind you are using your AR/ M-forgery in conditions other than what was / is in "I-wacki", and was in Vietnam/cambodia.

Light Military /Civillian use is exactly what the ar/m-16 was designed for...and it IS an IMPROVEMENT over the m1 Carbine in most respects.

So enjoy your rifle...

[LoneWolf22056]

you can immerse a standard M16 in water and fire it, just tilt the muzzle downward and let the water run out before you squeeze the trigger. i've seen it done before.

[Wildalaska]

But you are pushing the envalope, and completely wrong on parts count.

What does parts cpount have to do with anything

WildyalostmeAlaska ™

[lipadj46]

In terms of the military and what they deem as being reliable-The M16 platform has been their weapon system of choice for over 40 years. Even some precision sniper rifles are modeled directly after this setup. Look at the knights armament M110. What does that resemble? looks a lot like an AR to me!

Well yeah if the AR is your main battle rifle and is a easily accurizeable platform then it makes sense from a supply line and training perspective to go AR. Like I said above I don't think the AR is a bad rifle but I believe when it is replaced the next rifle will not be DI.

[IZZY]

Quote:
I am just saying that a piston gas system is a more reliable system than DI.

More parts to break and I have seen it already before you ask

WildspringsAlaska ™

That what parts count has to do with it. You trash a Gas piston as "just annother part to break" Forgetting the AR has MANY more parts to break...

Now one also has to take into account which MAKER of AR or AK, pitting a Romanian WASR against a colt AR may not be a fair test