You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
M4 and reliability: Debunking the piston myth
- Thread starter WeedWacker
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
5.56RifleGuy
New member
I would want a piston for a 5.45 gun because so much of that ammo is corrosive. I would think a piston would be easier to clean out than that tiny gas tube.
That is the only compelling reason I have ever seen.
That is the only compelling reason I have ever seen.
...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.
Everyone seemed to skip over the part where he mentioned the rifle was fail-zeroed. I don't think the military rifles are coated like that. People I have talked to that came out of service with the M4 had nothing but complaints about them.
I would want a piston for a 5.45 gun because so much of that ammo is corrosive.
The issue should be chrome lined parts and not whether we think we'd need a piston system...
The suplrus 7n6 is not really that corrosive anyway. Corrosive ammo means the primers are made with a Sodium base instead of heavy Lead-styphnate non-corrosive primer. Both can do damage if you don't clean your rifle like you're supposed to.
I run the 7n6 through my AK74 and it's fine. The head of the piston is not any harder to clean than when I run non-corrosive through it.
Basically, CLEAN YOUR RIFLES and you can shoot anything made to be shot in them.
HorseSoldier
New member
In my experience, the primary cause of stoppages is bad magazines or bad ammunition.
+1. I don't know if I've clocked the same round count as Pannone, but I did spend five years or so in a unit with essentially unlimited ammunition available to us for training and went to the range to shoot every time the 18-series guys did. Bad mags will kill an M4 (or anything else), but as far as carbon build up goes, just slop some more CLP or whatever into the action and it will run pretty close to forever.
Magazines have long been known to cause jams as well. H&K did high speed camera testing to design their metal mags for Special Forces.
Given how successfully H&K screwed that one up I'm not sure what this proves. When we were issued them, we had higher stoppage rates with the HK mags than with USGI mags from day one. Most guys discarded them as soon as possible.
Then comes the real question- how often do you call "Time Out" during an 18 hour firefight to clean, inspect, and PMCS weapons? I guess that one's up to the enemy.
I've kept my issue weapon running for weeks at a go with no more attention than wiping the bolt down with an oiled gym sock and then relubing the whole thing. No problems making that work at all.
When the ASWG started up, they chose the HK 416 piston driven rifle as their main weapon, only giving them up when DA forced them to switch to the M4.
Right, and if CAG was issuing rubber band guns to all their guys then AWG would have handed those out also. They had no operational need for the 416s, just knew that the cool kids were using them.
Last edited:
The dust chamber tests demonstrated what weapon reliability is like with no cleaning in a man made dust chamber. Read the bold until it sinks in.
Horsesoldier, another +1 on the mag comment. I've never had a malfunction with PMAGs because of the anti tilt follower (which is more like a NO TILT follower). I've only had malfunctions with the USGI mags and I'm 100% positive they were due to follower tilt.
Horsesoldier, another +1 on the mag comment. I've never had a malfunction with PMAGs because of the anti tilt follower (which is more like a NO TILT follower). I've only had malfunctions with the USGI mags and I'm 100% positive they were due to follower tilt.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
HKGuns said:What one deems reliable is open to debate.
Which is why I asked you the question and not everyone in the thread - So you consider a rifle that will only fire 2,440 rounds of ammo after being stripped of all lubrication as unreliable?
This is a very interesting and related read.....Lots of old information and some new in here.
Well, I didn't see much new information to me; but it is a great single compilation of the various M4 stories circulating on the web and it was funny. I enjoyed the part written prior to the second dust test complaining that the dust tests would minimize the problem with failures in the M4 system and wasn't even as rigorous as what HK uses to test the mighty 416 - then they do the actual tests and the HK416 fails 233 times more frequently than HK claimed it did in previous super-demanding tests that they felt were better than the dust test.
I also noted in the link that the USMC reported a MRBS of 5,000 rounds for the M16/M4 - which puts it about 1,500 rounds above the Swedish AK5 (an AK47 action) in terms of reliability.
I don't doubt the M4 can be improved upon. I just don't think many people have a good frame of reference for how reliable it already is in comparison to other rifles and I think that many of the Internet criticisms have unrealistic expectations of what any rifle can do.
essohbe said:Everyone seemed to skip over the part where he mentioned the rifle was fail-zeroed. I don't think the military rifles are coated like that.
I think you skipped over the part where he wrote "If I used those rifles or parts for my test, many would say “well those are custom coatings/guns and military guns don’t have that.” For that reason, BCM was kind enough to send me a stock 14.5” upper on which to do the test. "
He discussed three different rifles in the article. The Fail-Zero coating was on one of his own personal rifles. He used a different rifle (a stock 14.5" BCM M4) for the test in question.
Last edited:
We all understand the concept that if you keep it clean and oiled the M4 will run forever. Soldiers have been told this since Vietnam. We got it.
The problem is that this is not always possible, and when an M4 gets water, snow, sand, dust, mud, or excessive carbon in the action it will have a lot of stoppages and there is little a soldier in a bad situation can do to fix quickly and safely. The same may or may not be true for any gun. I think it is a great idea that the Army has chosen to start another round of tests now that it owns the patents and cannot be sued by Colt. May the best gun win and get in the hands of soldiers ASAP. If it's the M4, great. If not, we will have something new to bitch about.
Magazines are a problem too, got it. Most soldiers have access to PMAGs if they want them. Some units issue them, they are sold in SSSC stores and I have even seen them for sale in the PX at KAF. Plus there is always the internet and mail.
The problem is that this is not always possible, and when an M4 gets water, snow, sand, dust, mud, or excessive carbon in the action it will have a lot of stoppages and there is little a soldier in a bad situation can do to fix quickly and safely. The same may or may not be true for any gun. I think it is a great idea that the Army has chosen to start another round of tests now that it owns the patents and cannot be sued by Colt. May the best gun win and get in the hands of soldiers ASAP. If it's the M4, great. If not, we will have something new to bitch about.
Magazines are a problem too, got it. Most soldiers have access to PMAGs if they want them. Some units issue them, they are sold in SSSC stores and I have even seen them for sale in the PX at KAF. Plus there is always the internet and mail.
Last edited:
I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who's kept up that the M4 is reliable. In this or any economy it would be insane to replace it with something roughly equivalent. Much better to keep what you've got and use the money to equip soldiers with things they really need - and pay them better.
Yes, WE got the M16/M4 needs daily maintenance. Why that doesn't happen in the field is supervisor negligence.
If operations are being conducted in high dust environments, you make it a priority. Do it. The problem is that people won't. It's a boring repetitive practice that seems to have no immediate reward. Combat actions aren't happening at a high tempo. Hence the name, Low Intensity Conflict.
It's possibly the worst case scenario, drag the carbine around for days, if not weeks, before actually needing to expend a few magazines reacting to an ambush, or more likely, simply discovering the IED didn't quite kill you. Most units are just doing their primary duty, which odds are, isn't chasing Joe Haji down. Only the sharpest end of the stick is getting that, I suspect their weapons are just fine from frequent use. They have a reason to maintain it.
The rest of the soldiers interviewed are not combat arms, 90% of the Army isn't. I don't honestly care for polls citing their concerns, the M16/M4 is not their primary tool, it's something else. Their non combat perspective is largely anecdotal to me. I was happy to hear them discuss their area of expertise, I rarely ran across one who had much insight into combat operations. Surveys and polls are not the most accurate data gathering method, people tend to say what they want to project, which is not necessarily the absolute fact.
"The POS gun jammed on me!" Research the Garand and M14, you find a lot swept under the rug with the previous generation. Not putting a roller bearing on the bolt at the op rod was a major debate in certain circles, because it jammed and killed soldiers. The general public was unaware of it, and lacked the knowledge and experience of a generation working with them.
Today, 9 million DI AR's later, with over 20 million trained users, we know more, and the internet lets us get to the facts much easier. There are still some who push the misinformation that the DI dumps gas in the action - and yet all self loading actions are equally guilty. Regardless of where the piston is, it gets dirty. Gas blows around the brass onto the bolt. Magazines are a serious cause of malfunctions. Troops don't keep the weapons functional, aren't engineers, and certainly not trained in discovering actual causation.
If anything, not having an actual firearms engineer is a blessing, they would like have knowledge of a lot of issues we're cheerfully ignorant about. Check Vuurwapen's high speed video on M4 bolt bounce.
Which is a consideration, much of what gets discussed is an alphabet soup of generalities, which include both rifles and carbines, ignoring the known differences and painting them with the same broad brush. That's not a scientifically empirical method, either.
If operations are being conducted in high dust environments, you make it a priority. Do it. The problem is that people won't. It's a boring repetitive practice that seems to have no immediate reward. Combat actions aren't happening at a high tempo. Hence the name, Low Intensity Conflict.
It's possibly the worst case scenario, drag the carbine around for days, if not weeks, before actually needing to expend a few magazines reacting to an ambush, or more likely, simply discovering the IED didn't quite kill you. Most units are just doing their primary duty, which odds are, isn't chasing Joe Haji down. Only the sharpest end of the stick is getting that, I suspect their weapons are just fine from frequent use. They have a reason to maintain it.
The rest of the soldiers interviewed are not combat arms, 90% of the Army isn't. I don't honestly care for polls citing their concerns, the M16/M4 is not their primary tool, it's something else. Their non combat perspective is largely anecdotal to me. I was happy to hear them discuss their area of expertise, I rarely ran across one who had much insight into combat operations. Surveys and polls are not the most accurate data gathering method, people tend to say what they want to project, which is not necessarily the absolute fact.
"The POS gun jammed on me!" Research the Garand and M14, you find a lot swept under the rug with the previous generation. Not putting a roller bearing on the bolt at the op rod was a major debate in certain circles, because it jammed and killed soldiers. The general public was unaware of it, and lacked the knowledge and experience of a generation working with them.
Today, 9 million DI AR's later, with over 20 million trained users, we know more, and the internet lets us get to the facts much easier. There are still some who push the misinformation that the DI dumps gas in the action - and yet all self loading actions are equally guilty. Regardless of where the piston is, it gets dirty. Gas blows around the brass onto the bolt. Magazines are a serious cause of malfunctions. Troops don't keep the weapons functional, aren't engineers, and certainly not trained in discovering actual causation.
If anything, not having an actual firearms engineer is a blessing, they would like have knowledge of a lot of issues we're cheerfully ignorant about. Check Vuurwapen's high speed video on M4 bolt bounce.
Which is a consideration, much of what gets discussed is an alphabet soup of generalities, which include both rifles and carbines, ignoring the known differences and painting them with the same broad brush. That's not a scientifically empirical method, either.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Rob3 said:The problem is that this is not always possible, and when an M4 gets water, snow, sand, dust, mud, or excessive carbon in the action it will have a lot of stoppages and there is little a soldier in a bad situation can do to fix quickly and safely.
You keep saying this; but you keep declining to be be more specific when asked to give examples. My general experience has been that "sufficient maintenance" to keep the AR running consists of dumping lube into the two holes on the BCG until it resumes running. In my experience, that is 4-5 drops of lube and about 10 seconds total time.
Using this article as a measuring stick, it looks like it takes somewhere around 2,400 rounds to cause an M4 to stop purely through excessive carbon fouling. If this is even remotely close as a number, then the issue of carbon fouling is a red herring unless A) it isn't viable to lubricate an M4 period or B) it isn't viable to lubricate an M4 at least once every 2,400 rounds.
So what is this experience you have that makes you feel that giving an M4 sufficient maintenance running reliably is not possible in some realistic scenarios? Specifically, I'm curious as to what you have found to be "sufficient maintenance."
Seriously? Really? What are you wanting? You want specific examples of times, dates, and cicumstaces that an M4 has jammed due to carbon fouling? Sorry, but you're not going to get that from me. I have not kept detailed journals of every day of my 19 years in the Army.
If "sufficient maintenance" works for you, great. What are you worried about then? Are you going to change my mind? No. Am I going to change your mind? No. Do I care? Again, no.
As I have stated several times before, it is my opinion (and only that) that the article proves that one tested Noveske/Bravo Company rifle can go 2400 rounds before carbon fouling jams it up. Sounds like a great rifle. It is not the same rifle as a government issued Colt M4, nor does it prove whether a piston driven or DI action is better. It just proves that that particular Noveske/Bravo Company rifle can shoot 2400 rounds before fouling causes it to jam. It does not debunk any myths about the Colt M4.
If "sufficient maintenance" works for you, great. What are you worried about then? Are you going to change my mind? No. Am I going to change your mind? No. Do I care? Again, no.
As I have stated several times before, it is my opinion (and only that) that the article proves that one tested Noveske/Bravo Company rifle can go 2400 rounds before carbon fouling jams it up. Sounds like a great rifle. It is not the same rifle as a government issued Colt M4, nor does it prove whether a piston driven or DI action is better. It just proves that that particular Noveske/Bravo Company rifle can shoot 2400 rounds before fouling causes it to jam. It does not debunk any myths about the Colt M4.
It's a good debate, and good information. I do believe the the DI system is a sound one. The fact that neither the DI nor the piston has been proven superior to the other seems to prove that the DI system is at least equal.
And Rob, welcome to the forum. Sounds like you have some very good experience.
Would that be 5th or 7th Group?
And Rob, welcome to the forum. Sounds like you have some very good experience.
Would that be 5th or 7th Group?
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Rob3 said:Seriously? Really? What are you wanting?
Let me try explaining this again, since it is pretty clear the first explanation didn't get through. You repeatedly state:
We all understand the concept that if you keep it clean and oiled the M4 will run forever. Soldiers have been told this since Vietnam. We got it.
The problem is that this is not always possible, and when an M4 gets water, snow, sand, dust, mud, or excessive carbon in the action it will have a lot of stoppages and there is little a soldier in a bad situation can do to fix quickly and safely.
From this, I get the impression that you are saying the M4 cannot be kept clean and oiled at all times. I don't think there is anything controversial about that. Rifles are going to get dirty. However, the other impression I get from it is that you are saying that an M4 will get dirty to the point it becomes unreliable before a user has a reasonable chance to address this.
My experiences on the other hand; have been that it takes the M4 a long time to get dirty, that the M4 runs well even dirty so long as it has generous lube and that it is fast and easy to clean to a functional level even when it is so dirty it doesn't function. So my first thought is that we have different environmental conditions (and I'm sure we do); but that doesn't seem to account for it since what HorseSoldier and Chindo18Z describe is a lot closer to my own experiences than yours and they have used the rifle in the same environmental conditions you claim to have used it in.
So it seems to me that either the cleaning you are using isn't working for you, or that the cleaning that does work for you is so extensive that it cannot be worked in at a reasonable interval.
So how are you maintaining your M4s that they either aren't working for you or that it takes so much time to do that you can't work it in safely during an 18-hour firefight? Why does your experience differ from mine and the other posters in this thread? That is what I am curious about. I'm kind of surprised that you aren't.
It is not the same rifle as a government issued Colt M4,
And once again, it is the SAME rifle as a government issued M4 in every respect except the O-ring, buffer and action spring. It is not a Noveske. You are confusing the personal rifles the author mentioned with the rifle he used in the test.
theinvisibleheart
New member
Bartholomew Roberts, re: post CNA study
CNA study only looked at small arms(M9, M4/M16, M249 SAW) in current usage by US military, not against gas piston G36, SCAR, HK416, AUG, SAR-21, etc.
In other tests where M4 was compared against alternative gas piston system(combat carbines/assault rifles), I don't recall M4 gas impingement system coming out on top even once despite some claim that gas impingement system is just as reliable as gas piston system.
What CNA study shows is that:
- rate of stoppage with M4 is very similar to that of M16 and short nature of M4 system is not a problem
- rate of stoppage in M4 in actual combat is more than statistically significant
The only small arms in same category as M4 in CNA study was M16, and both M4 and M16 experienced similar rate of reliability problem.
I would bet that field stoppage/malfunction rate in combat would go down if gas piston system like G36(based on AR-18/180) was used instead.
BTW, I wouldn't compare the reliability of belt-fed and pistol to that of combat carbine. Ammo belts on belt fed are more exposed and sand/grit/foreign element are more likely to get into action than compared to combat carbine.
PS
BTW, all soldiers in all military need to have confidence in their weapons, whether better weapons exist out there or not. It's not wise to go into battle, lacking confidence in their gear, whether justified or not.
Also, if you can reduce stoppage just by switching to different operating system(gas piston), that would have to be a positive thing, making life better for a soldier in combat.
Bartholomew Roberts said:Quote:
Originally Posted by theinvisibleheart
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?
CNA study only looked at small arms(M9, M4/M16, M249 SAW) in current usage by US military, not against gas piston G36, SCAR, HK416, AUG, SAR-21, etc.
In other tests where M4 was compared against alternative gas piston system(combat carbines/assault rifles), I don't recall M4 gas impingement system coming out on top even once despite some claim that gas impingement system is just as reliable as gas piston system.
What CNA study shows is that:
- rate of stoppage with M4 is very similar to that of M16 and short nature of M4 system is not a problem
- rate of stoppage in M4 in actual combat is more than statistically significant
The only small arms in same category as M4 in CNA study was M16, and both M4 and M16 experienced similar rate of reliability problem.
I would bet that field stoppage/malfunction rate in combat would go down if gas piston system like G36(based on AR-18/180) was used instead.
BTW, I wouldn't compare the reliability of belt-fed and pistol to that of combat carbine. Ammo belts on belt fed are more exposed and sand/grit/foreign element are more likely to get into action than compared to combat carbine.
PS
BTW, all soldiers in all military need to have confidence in their weapons, whether better weapons exist out there or not. It's not wise to go into battle, lacking confidence in their gear, whether justified or not.
Also, if you can reduce stoppage just by switching to different operating system(gas piston), that would have to be a positive thing, making life better for a soldier in combat.
Last edited:
theinvisibleheart
New member
Rob3, re: post "expensive carbines"
I'm not sure even if that's true. Very expensive/high end carbines have failed under high round condition in mud/sleet/rain/ice.
It's one thing to shoot couple of mags, take a rest under shade/protected roof/vehicle and another to crawl/kneel in highly adverse condition(very wet/cold/shot/ice/dirt) for hours and shoot very high round.
Rob3 said:As I have stated several times before, it is my opinion (and only that) that the article proves that one tested Noveske/Bravo Company rifle can go 2400 rounds before carbon fouling jams it up. Sounds like a great rifle. It is not the same rifle as a government issued Colt M4, nor does it prove whether a piston driven or DI action is better. It just proves that that particular Noveske/Bravo Company rifle can shoot 2400 rounds before fouling causes it to jam. It does not debunk any myths about the Colt M4.
I'm not sure even if that's true. Very expensive/high end carbines have failed under high round condition in mud/sleet/rain/ice.
It's one thing to shoot couple of mags, take a rest under shade/protected roof/vehicle and another to crawl/kneel in highly adverse condition(very wet/cold/shot/ice/dirt) for hours and shoot very high round.
Bartholomew Roberts, you make some good points. It's difficult to compare people's experiences even in the same AOR. The mountains of Oruzgon in the winter time is a far different environment than the streets of Kandahar in summer, even though they are relatively close. Like I said before, guys on my own team have very different opinions. You want to see some guys get really fired up? Start a debate about cammo patterns, combat boots, sunglasses, knives, GPSs, GMVs vs MRAPs, optics, cold weather gear, etc. It's hard to order equipment for a small 10-12 man team because you can't get everyone to agree on anything, let alone a company or the whole Army.
"However, the other impression I get from it is that you are saying that an M4 will get dirty to the point it becomes unreliable before a user has a reasonable chance to address this."
Yes, this is what I have said. The second you step off a UH-60 and do your two-step-drop you are covered with dust and sand from the rotor wash and your weapon must be held ready in the prone firing position. The dust covers help, but it takes a pretty small bump for them to pop open. Riding a vehicle often covers you in powder-fine dust and pulling security and looking for IEDs precludes weapons maintenance. Often, it is at night under blackout conditions. Ambushes never happen at a set time and place making perfect preparations impossible. All this means is that soldiers should be given the most reliable weapon possible. Is that the M4? Maybe, maybe not. There are lost of ways to construe all the tests that have been done. I can only speak from my own experiences, and I have admitted that they are anecdotal and certainly not better than anyone else's.
Dobe, I'm in 3rd Group. Thanks for the welcome.
"However, the other impression I get from it is that you are saying that an M4 will get dirty to the point it becomes unreliable before a user has a reasonable chance to address this."
Yes, this is what I have said. The second you step off a UH-60 and do your two-step-drop you are covered with dust and sand from the rotor wash and your weapon must be held ready in the prone firing position. The dust covers help, but it takes a pretty small bump for them to pop open. Riding a vehicle often covers you in powder-fine dust and pulling security and looking for IEDs precludes weapons maintenance. Often, it is at night under blackout conditions. Ambushes never happen at a set time and place making perfect preparations impossible. All this means is that soldiers should be given the most reliable weapon possible. Is that the M4? Maybe, maybe not. There are lost of ways to construe all the tests that have been done. I can only speak from my own experiences, and I have admitted that they are anecdotal and certainly not better than anyone else's.
Dobe, I'm in 3rd Group. Thanks for the welcome.
theinvisibleheart
New member
anecdotal (Silver Star recipient Capt. Self's M4 jammed in Afghanistan)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13233811/ns/dateline_nbc/
Rescue on Roberts Ridge
Army Rangers on a rescue mission in the Afghan mountains were caught in an ambush. It was a battle within that battle that came at a heavy price.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13233811/ns/dateline_nbc/
Rescue on Roberts Ridge
Army Rangers on a rescue mission in the Afghan mountains were caught in an ambush. It was a battle within that battle that came at a heavy price.
Captain Nate Self said:As I started to shoot, my weapon jammed, the round didn’t extract. I knew that I’d seen casualties at the ramp, so I threw my weapon down and went back and grabbed Brad Crose’s weapon and moved back into the fight with his rifle.
theinvisibleheart
New member
Quentin2, re: post
what I don't get is why not switch to more reliable platform?
If you do suppressive fire with gas piston system vs. M4A1, gas piston system will be more reliable(full auto fire is a major factor in determining M4 reliability according to a study done by Colt years ago).
Quentin2 said:All I can say is if there's time to have a smoke then there's more than enough time to clean your M4.
And which is better for your health!
what I don't get is why not switch to more reliable platform?
If you do suppressive fire with gas piston system vs. M4A1, gas piston system will be more reliable(full auto fire is a major factor in determining M4 reliability according to a study done by Colt years ago).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.