M4 and reliability: Debunking the piston myth

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quentin2

New member
Didn't see thesheepdog's post while I was writing mine. I agree, Kraig's comments were very well worded and attacked no one here. We've all seen bozos who abuse tools and equipment, nothing wrong with speaking in general of such things. We all know this stuff happens. I'm glad Kraig wrote about his experiences and they shed light on this topic.


ETA:
my experience and understanding is contrary to that.

Even adjusted for cleaning, mean rounds between failure is higher for AR/M16 platform than other platform.

It's my understanding that other studies(DOD) found it to be the same.
theinvisibleheart, can you provide links to support that?
 

mehavey

New member
My own experience with DI says it is in fact 'self-cleaning' while actively shooting. The only problems I've encountered is when I haven't pulled the [AR] bolt/carrier group apart after shooting, and instead let it lie over many periods/weeks of intermittant use. The formerly soft fouling hardens, creates a surface that then doesn't self-clean as efficiently, and gradually turns to a substance known technically as "crud." That 'crud' will then increasingly gum up bolt rotation on its cam pin and slow things down to produce ... voila.... a stoppage.

Not the gun's fault.

Pull/disassemble the bolt carrier group; spit clean/dry things with your shirt tail, reassemble and within 60 seconds resume shooting.

I haven't tried the "squirt oil in the exhaust ports" trick before. Sounds interesting.
 

thesheepdog

New member
That 'crud' will then increasingly gum up bolt rotation on its cam pin and slow things down to produce ... voila.... a stoppage

Happens with every gun. I had a Mini-14 that wouldn't get cleaned too often and black residue would dry and harden on the gas piston. I never could clean that stuff off of there, even with heavy solvents.
Even the Mini-14 was dirty. Yeah the piston helps a small percentage, but I think what the piston does better more than anything, is keep heat off the bolt face compared to the DI system; eventually the bolt face will heat up on a piston gun. But heck, if your barrel is too hot to hold, then you probably won't be stripping your bolt apart either-until the metal cools a bit.

I've always wondered this: Does the DI system work better for cold environtments? Like artic cold? I think you would get like a "hot start" and that hot gas would help warm your bolt up for more reliability. Hmm, kinda irrelevant, but a thought.
 

Slamfire

New member
Rebuilt M16’s, maybe M4’s regularly fire 6000 rounds in lot acceptance tests in Anniston Army Depot.

This gentlemen fired 2500 rounds and proved what? He sure did not prove that gas impingement is better than gas piston. He also had to swap out parts, but since this was not a GI rifle I don’t know if GI rifles would have had the same problems.

Gas impingement blows gas residue right back into the action. It is no wonder his bolt looks like it grew shaving stubble. No other military weapon uses gas impingement. That ought to be telling, the system was not, never was, and never will be the best. Period.

As a veteran, he said 80% of the problems in Iraq were magazine issues.

It has been 47 years since the M16 was introduced into the Army. Why the heck does our front line rifle still have magazine problems?!

Why do the "aftermarket alternative" rifle work better with aftermarket parts? Should it not work better with the GI equivalent parts?

I don’t shoot 2400 rounds through a firearm without cleaning. Usually I shoot 88 rounds in an XTC and the rifle gets a nice clean and lube, so I don’t have any comparison for Garands or M1a’s. However I never heard any WWII, Korean, or M14 carrying veteran who had to clean their rifle three times a day. Just before Xmas a Vietnam Line Officer told me the trick to keeping M16 malfunctions down was to make the men clean their M16’s on every march break. That is one heck of a lot of maintenance.

As for keeping a rifle dripping wet with lubrication. That won’t work in the Artic cold.

The Canadians will kick American butts with their Lee Enfields :rolleyes:
 
Quentin2, re: post

Quentin2 said:
Didn't see thesheepdog's post while I was writing mine. I agree, Kraig's comments were very well worded and attacked no one here. We've all seen bozos who abuse tools and equipment, nothing wrong with speaking in general of such things. We all know this stuff happens. I'm glad Kraig wrote about his experiences and they shed light on this topic.


ETA:
Quote:
my experience and understanding is contrary to that.

Even adjusted for cleaning, mean rounds between failure is higher for AR/M16 platform than other platform.

It's my understanding that other studies(DOD) found it to be the same.
theinvisibleheart, can you provide links to support that?

According to 2006 CNA study commissioned by DOD, "Soldiers Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat," after interviewing 2,600 combat soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, 19% of soldiers using M4, reported that they experienced stoppages with their M4 during combat.

What's amazing about that study is that most of the soldiers who had experienced stoppages expressed confidence in their weapon.

Here's a link to CNA study: http://www.militec1.com/pdf/cna_m4_study_d0015259_a2.pdf

BTW, here's a simple test to do: shoot same ammo lot from both AR15/M4 and gas piston system such as AR-180/G36/DR200/etc., and see how much cleaner the gas piston system is.

There are bunch of other tests Congress/military has done over the years BTW. M4 didn't come out on the top.

CNA study also found out that M4 and M16 exhibited similar level of reliability.
 
Last edited:

Rob3

New member
Bartholomew Roberts et all, I'm sorry if I didn't address all of your points and questions directly. I am new to this forum and you guys are a lot more intense than the Harley forum I usually keep up with.

I totally agree with you guys that there are several ways to look at every test and every decision the military makes.

I also realize that anybody can say they are Superman on the internet. I only gave my background to show my frame of referance and where I am coming from. If you ever come by Ft Bragg send me an e-mail and we'll grab a beer and talk guns. Isn't this what forums are all about anyway?

For the record, I do think the M4 is a good weapon. On another thread I gave reasons why I think it is better than the Scout Rifle concept. There are guys on my team that love the M4 and and are insulted that the Army would even think about changing it. Others would like to try something else. We got the SCARs and loved them, only to have them taken back. I personally own a Daniel Defense DI M4 and love it, though it is much higher quality than any COlt M4 I have ever been issued.
 

jhenry

New member
The M16 has been cussed and discussed since it's adoption. I happen to like it just fine, but I would like to see another weapon adopted for the simple fact that these arguments get old after a few DECADES, and I would like to see some new arguments regarding a new weapon and how horrid/wonderful the NEW one is.
 

Chindo18Z

New member
EXTRACT FROM AN OCT 2009 TFL THREAD ON M4 RELIABILITY:

Chindo18Z: Today I conducted an impromptu and completely unscientific test of my weapon (M4A1) in order to see if I had merely imagined my faith in the little beast.

With this thread fresh in my mind, I broke out 10 brand new GI issue, aluminum body, green follower, Center Industries 5.56 magazines and proceeded to load them with 30 rds each. Not 26, 27, or 28...30 rounds each.

I then proceeded to successfully fire 1140 rds (38 magazines) of M855 62 grain "Greentip" 5.56 through my well used M4A1, on full auto, and in well under 30 minutes.

I checked my watch, noting start time, and began firing the first 10 mags in 3-5 round bursts at a 5 meter target, from a standing position, and executing medium speed combat reloads as each mag ran dry. Shoot to bolt lockback, drop mag, insert new mag, resume fire. 10 times...300 rounds in about 3 minutes.

I then let the rifle cool for about 8 minutes while I reloaded all 10 mags.

Rinse. Repeat. 10 mags in about 3 minutes.

Gun cooled for exactly five minutes while I reloaded all 10 mags at a slightly faster pace.

Rinse. Repeat. 10 mags again in under 3 minutes with slightly longer bursts of 7-9 rds each. By this time, I had lowered the weapon to "hip fire" (just in case...rather have a cookoff or malfunction away from my face).

Last iteration. Let carbine cool while I loaded 8 mags in under 5 minutes. I didn't have a new case of ammo open and I didn't want to slow down the proceedings. Fired all 8 from the hip as fast as I could reload (in about 1 minute and 30 seconds, full auto, trigger depressed until magazines were empty. No attempt at burst fire.

38 x 30-rd magazines fired without a stutter,...in under 28.5 minutes, without a jam, misfeed, doublefeed, cookoff or failure to completely chamber, extract or eject. It hummed like a sewing machine, put all rds on target (except for a few flyers from the hip), and never changed a beat with regards to getting sluggish from fouling.

This performance was delivered by a stock military issue M4A1 that has seen 10s of thousands of rounds down the barrel, probably 5 combat deployments, several months worth of PMT (Pre Mission Training for combat deployments), several shooting schools, and many months of team ranges at home and abroad.

My carbine was relatively clean and I oiled it prior to firing as I stood on the range. I shotgunned the upper receiver, dripped some CLP on the trigger group, liberally coated the charging handle, chamber, and bolt carrier group (without disassembling the bolt from the bolt carrier) and slapped it back together. Aimpoint M68 "on", nomex clad hands on pistol grip and vertical foregrip, KAC quad-rail run exposed with no rail covers (don't need 'em or like 'em).

1140 rounds. Thats three times as much ammo as a normal infantryman would be likely to ever carry on his body, thirty-eight magazines, more than five basic combat loads...all on full auto...in well under thirty minutes. Nemo Problemo.

The upper receiver was still a bit too hot to touch (rear rail, barrel, and ejection port area) without gloves after 10 minutes, but the lower receiver was good to go barehanded.

I took an assumed risk (induced weapon failure) and wore adequate protective gear, but (as it turned out), nothing was necessary. Didn't even need gloves as the vertical foregrip stayed cool.

Someone will no doubt question my ability to conduct such a "test" on a military range. I'll simply say that I have enough rank that very few folks question what I do or why I want to do it.

It's not the first time I've put a lot of rounds down an M4A1, but it's the highest round count I've shot recently in such a short period of time.

Of course, this just an anecdotal account of my experience with just one weapon, but my faith in the M4A1 remains affirmed.

People tend to forget that the primary reason for certain units going with piston driven uppers was to ensure reliability with shorty CQB weapons. 20" and even 14.5" configurations work with DGI, but once you start going shorter, it is possible to run into issues. AWG went with 416s 'cause certain other outfits were already using them. They had the patronage (at the time) to ask for cool kit and get it. The AWG decision wasn't really that complicated or even based on good science...they just went with a fashionable choice. ;)

In my rather extended (but purely anecdotal) ODA universe, the M4A1 works just fine...in training...in combat...in dust...in Iraq...in Afghanistan. BTDT.

BTW: HK's steel 5.56 mags suck and most have been relegated to range box storage across my Group. The Germans could over-engineer a toothpick...it would be made of carbon fiber, splinter easily, cost $2.00 a pick...and still not work better than a sliver of wood.
 

krinko

New member
I remember the arguments when we decided to put stone points on the end of our sticks and call them "spears".
I still maintain that the stone makes it harder to clean and increases fail rates.
-----krinko
 
I've never had a failure of any kind due to "fouling". I am not saying you can't, but if the gun is properly maintained and lubed fouling will NEVER be an issue.

I don't see the need for a piston. It makes the gun heavier, less accurate, and is one more part that can break.
 
theinvisibleheart said:
Even adjusted for cleaning, mean rounds between failure is higher for AR/M16 platform than other platform.

According to the CNA link you posted, the M16/M4 was the most reliable weapon out of the four evaulated (M9 - 26% stoppages, M249 - 30% stoppages, M16 and M4 both at 19% stoppages).

CNA also polled the impact the stoppage had on the fight and the M4 came out on top (82% of those who had stoppages reporting it had a small impact) with the M16 close behind (80%). The "small impact" numbers for the M9 were 62% and for the M249 they were 59%.

When CNA polled soldiers on number of repairs required, the numbers for 3 of the 4 weapons are virtually identical.

So I am not seeing where you got the notion that MRBF is higher for the AR than for other firearms from the CNA study. Maybe you could clarify that?

Rob3 said:
There is no way to keep a weapon spotless or keep the oil clean in a desert environment while on patrol. It is a serious problem plagueing soldiers right now.

Well, we have Chindo18Z, Michael Pannone and you sharing experiences; but you seem to be reaching different conclusions about this. Why do you think that is?

Also, you use the phrase "spotless"; but it seems pretty conclusive that ARs will run in conditions that are far, far worse than spotless. Since you aren't actually discussing your personal experiences in any detail, I am not getting the problem you have with this article. Are you saying that the maintenance described in that article doesn't work for the M4 in your personal experience or are you saying that it is impractical?
 

Rob3

New member
My experiences will naturally be different than others. My opinions are just opinions. The problem I had with the article is that a Bravo Company/Noveske rifle is not identical to a Colt M4 that has been drug around in the woods and desert for a decade, nor did his parts replacements yield any serious performance gains (5% more rounds). The title of this thread states that this article debunks the myth of reliability and I hardly think this is the case. This weapon has been debated for 50 years will likely still be for 50 more. People still argue about 1911s.
 

Quentin2

New member
Rob3, interesting that you mention the 1911 in the same breath as the M4/M16 family. Both have been criticized heavily. And praised. Both have the longest record of service in the US Armed Forces in their category. There is a reason for that - and in my opinion it is reliability. And effectiveness.
 

WeedWacker

New member
I think the point of the article was missed. It was not an endorsement of the M4 platform issued to our marines a la mallninja IT'S-THE-BEST-EVER!!!!!!!!! It's a comparison of the civilian market for the defensive rifle application, not calling the M4 the best weapon for our military.he even goes so far as to say that the issued weapons were nowhere near the quality of his newer rifle. I had a GI hold my Del-ton/RRA build and he said the fit and finish was better than his issued weapon (made more noise than a baby's rattle when you shook it, his words).
 
The problem I had with the article is that a Bravo Company/Noveske rifle is not identical to a Colt M4 that has been drug around in the woods and desert for a decade

I think you are confusing the different rifles mentioned. He mentioned he used a Noveske N4; but the test rifle was a Bravo Company M4. Except for the o-ring around the extractor and a different action spring and buffer, it was as close to a stock M4 as you can get. It may not have had 10 years of wear and tear but it did have all the lube stripped from it.

The title of this thread states that this article debunks the myth of reliability and I hardly think this is the case.

I think the article demonstrates that a properly built M4 is plenty reliable.
 

KChen986

New member
So the question becomes:

If we stuck a Sprinco buffer spring, an H3 buffer, and a crane extractor in to the issue M4s, will we see a significant increase in reliability?
 

HKGuns

New member
I find that article to be extremely funny.

The Big M4 Myth: “Fouling caused by the direct impingement gas system makes the M4/M4A1 Carbine unreliable.”

Then he goes on to prove the Big Myth is actually true!!

Here are the findings of my testing:
When the rifles become fouled, they have more drag (friction) inside the upper receiver, which slows down the bolt carrier group. This along with the pressure on the bottom of the bolt carrier from a loaded magazine will slow the BCG down enough to keep it from reliably going into battery during the counter-recoil cycle.

I don't have a dog in this fight as the only AR I own is DI, I just find it funny he claims to have dispelled the myth when he actually proved it accurate. Now you can argue about how many rounds are "good enough" but you can't argue he proved the myth true. I'd be interested in how many rounds a piston upper could do bone dry before it starts binding from fouling.
 

Flatbush Harry

New member
I have never used an M16 or derivative in combat, though I qualified with one and had one issued. That said, My Colt AR15A2 has never malfunctioned in more than 21 years with factory ammo or reloads. In the interest of full disclosure, I clean it after I shoot it.

As a former USAF zoomie , I was a strong believer in the Mk 84 2,000lb GP bomb...to the best of my knowledge, none of mine malfunctioned when I "got my rocks off" (as we used to say back in the '60s) on a target.

FH
 
KChen986 said:
So the question becomes:

If we stuck a Sprinco buffer spring, an H3 buffer, and a crane extractor in to the issue M4s, will we see a significant increase in reliability?

Well considering that the H3 buffer in this case lowered the point where stoppage occurred by about 80 rounds, I'd guess not.

HKGuns said:
Then he goes on to prove that the Big Myth is actually true!

So you consider a rifle that will only fire 2,440 rounds of ammo after being stripped of all lubrication as unreliable? I'm interested in learning what rifles exceed that test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top