First of all, whoever keeps saying the Russians don't use an AK is dead wrong. Their current standard weapon is the AK-74, an AK-47 in 5.45mm. Second, to that guy who said that soldiers should be given $900 for a personal 5.56mm weapon, as in the G-36, Steyr AUG, SIG 551, etc. obviously dosn't know all that much abotu the pricing of guns. Even the civilian semi-auto variants of these guns can't be had for that price. With $900, soldiers could at best afford a semi-auto M-4 with absolutely no accesories. That solves nothing. That being said, this is absolute B.S. that the military is stuck with these P.O.S's. The DOD wouldnt even have to buy a new gun, just get the HK 416 upper and throw it on an M-4 lower. It would work a hell of a lot better then the M-4. Maybe thats why several SF units arre latching onto the 416, because it works!! And to whoever was questioning how an AK would stack up against an M-4 reliability wise, I have put thousands of rounds through my cheap ass Romanian AK. I occasionally clean it with a few patches down the barrel, but not regularly. This weapon has yet to jam on me once! In a reliability test, I would wager on an AK over virtually any other assault rifle. This is the reliability we need in the sands of Iraq.

Posted by: Devin at March 27, 2008 08:15 PM

There's been a lot of misinformation about this test. Let's set the record straight.

This was the third in a series of tests.
Summer 2006: M4 and M16
Summer 2007: M4 with added lubrication
Fall 2007: M4, SCAR, HK416 and XM8. All with added lubrication

Summer 2007 M4 + lube = 307 jams.
Army credits it to the additional lubrication.

Fall 2007 M4 + lube = 882 jams.
Army has no clue, claims test is ostensibly the same.

THE TEST IS INVALID.

But people only saw the numbers for the last test and didn't do any research or even read the full report.

I don't claim to know what caused it or why, but a difference of 575 jams in a test that averages less than 400 is far from reproducible and defensetech should report this or update their article.

Source: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/

Posted by: Justin at February 7, 2008 12:47 AM

How about this?
Let market decide which 5.56mm NATO standard rifle is good. Give to solders 900$ allowance to buy shoulder arms of their choice (can be 416, SCAR, G-36, Styer, Tavor,SIG etc)
I think their live are worth more, than pity 800 bucks. Also let them have Dragon skin vest (

Posted by: SGTPPR at January 2, 2008 10:49 PM

Way back in 1890 or so,our future thinking Govt.
armourors,stated that our troops don't need a rifle holding more than 1 rnd. Then in 2 years,decided that we'd go with an inferior rifle used by Denmark.Still clinging to the "One" shot idea and hold four in reserve . Our old 30 US. Krag. Meanwile Most of the worlds armies were using a proven Mauser design that blew our troops away in Cuba.Only in the 1930's did Uncle Sam make a 'mistake' and arm our guys with one of the best rifles ever, The Garand. IT too was shunned by the bolt action crowd.
We need someone in our country to quit cow-towing to these "Fat Gen's on the take" and get rid of them with NO pension. We need a new shoulder weapon- NOW!

Posted by: duffy at December 22, 2007 04:59 PM

Forget about the shortcomings of the AR system and current 5.56 caliber but the sheer fact that the services are switching to even a lesser lethal rifle (M4) carbine than the full M16A2/4 rifle is pathetic. The carbine as a lower lethal range (tumbling) due to the shorter length barrel and velocity.

And I agree with one of the previous posters in why is that the service cannot look to a domestic solution (Robinson Arms XCR for example) because their getting greased by HK and FAL that's why.

Posted by: Mike at December 19, 2007 12:13 PM

"...AS USUAL THE GUYS MAKING THE DECISIONS ABOUT THE M-16 , M-4 RIFLES ARE'NT THE ONES CARRYING THEM INTO COMBAT. THERE ARE BETTER RIFLES OUT THERE AND I THINK THEY SHOULD FIRE ANYONE WHO DOES'NT THINK THE GRUNTS DESERVE THE BEST AND MOST LETHAL WEAPON THEY CAN GET...."

Why not put the folks making a decision like that on the line for a few months and see if the opinion changes. I agree M1 could fire rocket grenade, any combat rifle today should do that!

Posted by: Chuck at December 19, 2007 08:05 AM

(including me)

Posted by: Mang at December 18, 2007 06:07 PM

Fact: the "POF" rifle and the Masada are going nowhere. They will be purchased mainly by civilian enthusiasts.

A lot of half-baked observations are constantly made by people who like guns. It's the same with football fans.

Posted by: Mang at December 18, 2007 08:55 AM

Congratulations to Roy Smith for his series of what are the most spectacularly stupid comments I have yet to see on this site. His comments here have been abysmal even by the extremely low standard of comparison with his other inane comments regarding other stories! You go, Roy.

Posted by: Lugo at December 18, 2007 08:46 AM

I would be curious to know how the new Israeli Tavor would stack up. A bit more oriented to CCQ but might be an interesting to see what the competition might do if opened up to new challengers.

Shocking to me that the M4 is so bad relative to others. This isn't rocket science- most of the technology is pretty much 50 years old now.

Posted by: rix at December 18, 2007 08:32 AM

All of our military equipment is falling apart.We are declining & falling like the Roman Empire & the Soviet Empire.The Navy has had to ground most of their P-3C Orions.WE already know about the F-15s & our having to ask the Canadians to cover the air for us in their F/A-18A(CF-188) "Not a Super Hornet" jet fighters.I'm telling you that the day is coming where Mexico will have the strongest armed forces in North America by default.BY DEFAULT,because we pissed away our military edge all the while talking about the brand new high tech "superweapons" coming down the ever elusive pike.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 18, 2007 07:47 AM

I agree with whoever mentioned the Masada as a replacement weapon.I really do not understand what makes the M-16,or its variations,the "greatest weapon of all time." Sure the AK-47 was made for expendable illiterate throwaway soldiers,but it did develop a well deserved reputation.As far as the Russians not using it anymore.They are still using a variation of the AK-47,just like we are with the M-4 being a variation of the M-16.I bet the rifles that the Russians are using today still causes your trigger finger to lose all feeling when you fire automatic just like the AK-47 does.I also bet that the Russians still "pray & spray" with their current rifles just like they did with the AK-47.The XM8 looks too bulky & too much like a "phaser" rifle out of Star Trek or a ray gun out of any other SciFi movie.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 18, 2007 07:37 AM

This is just not my week here. I'm agreeing with that General but for different reasons. The M4 was initially suppose to be a Personal Defense Weapon for vehicle/certain aircrew, Officer's and SNCO's and finally as a close quarters weapon for Special Forces. To compare it to full size battle rifles is not doing the M4 justice. As far as the bitching about cleaning weapons, well thats been going on since the days of the Romans. I'm sure some Roman soldier bitched about sharpening his sword constantly. Also Soldiers and Marines buy the latest snuggle gear, Ipods and have lap tops in Iraq so spending a little personal money (or better yet have some enlightened SNCO request it come from unit funds) to get one of the products on the market that make CLP look as prehistoric as it is-is not beyond reason. The procurement branches haven't shined with glory but I do believe that the stuff coming out of Infantry Boards of the Army and Marines are light years ahead of what was being issued even 5 years ago. I just don't believe that this is an issue they've failed on. If the M4 is substandard then revert back to the M-16A4...and wait for the next generational advancement before we do an Air Force and cry for something that we really don't need.

Posted by: Solomon at December 18, 2007 04:52 AM

No surprise with that test. Why didn't they test the other models available, built here and designed here in the USA. The POF version and the Masada.

We also need a new round to defeat potential future threats. Soon everybody will be using body armor and we need a more powerful round that is somewhere between the 5.56 and 7.62. We already have them in the 6.8mm and the 6.5mm. The 6.8mm can be used with the same bolt and magazine in an M4/M16 based weapon, same lower and upper receiver too, basically it just needs a new barrel.

Our Armed Forces procurement nabobs do it again. Research their history going back to the civil war and you will see the most incompetent Army bureaucracy at work. How many soldiers lives we could have saved all those years and all those wars?

This is the side of our country I am ashamed of.

Posted by: Big Daddy at December 18, 2007 03:18 AM

I had the pleasure of testing the XM8 last year here in the UK. It was one of a number of weapons being tested by the Royal Marines as part of the UK's plans to replace the SA-80 by 2014.

I found it to be an excellent weapon, and having fired the other weapons in the test you mention, it's probably the best of the 4 on the list.

However having said that both the XM8 and Mk 16 are only prototype weapons only a small number of each have been produced. Whereas the M4 and HK 416 are production weapons, and as we all know, indeed as history has taught us, prototypes are ALWAYS more reliable than the final production version.

So scrap the M4 replace it with th HK 416 for the time being and get on with developing the XM8, Mk 16 and other weapons for the future.

Posted by: Wren Mandagorn at December 18, 2007 03:09 AM

Maybe the Pentagon doesn't trust their troops to shoot at the enemy only.Maybe they are afraid of increased "fragging" incidents if the troops get reliable weapons.In other words,the Pentagon has "trust issues" with the men & women serving in the Armed Forces.I'm not advocated or saying that the men & women harm their leaders.I'm just saying that maybe the Pentagon is so paranoid & distrusting,that they would deliberately give s**tty weapons to their own troops.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 18, 2007 02:16 AM

Can we also see the M16A2/A4 tested under the same conditions?

Posted by: Thag at December 18, 2007 12:28 AM

Plus, the Army et. al. can sell the old uppers through the CMP, and if Heller VS DC goes the right way, they could just sell the whole M4 to us civies.

Posted by: Sam Adams at December 17, 2007 10:02 PM

We may need a new weapon, but the immediate action is to stop buying M4s, start buying complete 416s instead. Also start buying 416 uppers and refurb all lowers to the 416 spec. That is assuming this is a relevant test, and wasn’t rigged.

Going with the 416 while we have immediate purchase needs would be easier than switching to an entire new weapon system. Much more interchangeability, minimal retraining.

Forward deploy 416 to all front line troops, and the REMS keep the M4 for now. CONUS troops train on M4.

Posted by: Sam Adams at December 17, 2007 09:59 PM

Wouldn't it be funny if Moms, Dads, & Soldiers said, "FTA, we're buying XM8s for those deploying".
I truly hope the Brig.Gen. has solid data to put forth, in order to back up a statement like that. If he doesn't, then Brig.Gen. is a rank/responsibility that he should not bear. For too many young lives are at stake with issues, such as this.

Posted by: Camp at December 17, 2007 09:30 PM

This is especially funny (as in pathetically funny) given the fact that the Army had to be dragged kicking and screaming into adopting the M-16/M-4. And now they cant let it go.

Assuming they get some sense knocked into them, can we please look at the effectiveness of 5.56mm vs. 6.8mm next?

Some of our traditions are deadly to the enemies soldiers, and some are deadly to ours.

Posted by: ExurbanKevin at December 17, 2007 08:25 PM

Also, I wonder how much noise this is going to make in the national media. Body armor and vehicle armor was certainly a big issue in the runup to the last election. Democrats hammered the administration with it.

But they can't really hit Bush with this again, because he's already a lame duck with no credibility. And the Republican party candidates are distancing themselves from him as much as they can. Will the Democrats adopt this M4 rifle thing, with everything it says about corporate patronage and the Pentagon wasting money? Will it be a bipartisan issue (after all, it was a Republican's pet project)? Will the only people who care be a few Republicans?

Or will anyone care at all? Aside from the military itself.

Posted by: Mang at December 17, 2007 07:31 PM

I've been disgusted with this weapon since my introduction to it in boot camp. A significant amount of my time conducting training with this weapon has consisted of performing drills to clear the many expected stoppages during combat. What makes it even worse is the cheap cleaning agent we are given (CLP) which probably does more harm than good, by attracting even more dirt and dust. This whole subject sickens me.

Posted by: CE1371 at December 17, 2007 07:22 PM

About fucking time. Thanks for following up on this!!! Wow, maybe the army really will get a new rifle...

Posted by: Mang at December 17, 2007 07:16 PM

M-16/M-4 family of weapons has been around for awhile. What's keeping them from being replaced? Knowing the Army, someone (probably a logistician) is concerned about trying to support two wholly different weapons in wartime to include training, spares, etc. I say, Get over it!

And speaking of the AK-47, the Russians don't even use it anymore. Can we move on, too?

Posted by: doc75 at December 17, 2007 06:56 PM

Pretty nice for someone who sits behind a desk to determine that a near 7X in failures is acceptable. Things like this anger me. We aren't asking for gold plated weapons. We're asking for weapons that work.

Posted by: Jack D. Ripper at December 17, 2007 06:56 PM

Off topic,somebody start a new thread about the F-22 & grounded F-15s please.I just watched a segment on Fox News "Special Report" about the Navy grounding their P-3 Orions & the Air Force grounding their F-15s & then emphasized the controversy over the Air Force using this to request more F-22s.
On the subject of M-4 rifles.I have to seriously question the patriotism & loyalty of the flag officers & Pentagon civilians who refuse to give the best equipment to the troops.There is more than being bribed by Colt Arms involved in this.

Posted by: Roy Smith at December 17, 2007 06:55 PM

Joe and Simon do raise a couple of interesting points:

1) How would a AK fare in those conditions?
2) How many engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are typically at 300 meters? 100 meters? <100 meters?

Personally, I'd say that the weapon we use should be the best one for the fight we're in. At the engagement ranges we typically are fighting in. Not some hypothetical engagment, but documented, real world stuff.

Posted by: EM2(SS) at December 17, 2007 06:51 PM

The great shame is that updating the U.S. military's carbine is not expensive. Every single carbine used in Iraq can be replaced for the cost of about 2 F-22/F-35s or 1 Littoral Combat Ship. Also, realistically, the expenditure would be spread across a few years.

Better small arms won't make American soldiers faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, or anything so dramatic, but a modest price to upgrade something used every day by more than a hundred thousand soldiers in war zones, once every generation or two, seems worth the price.

If something much better comes along a few years later, we can buy that then. The best is the enemy of the good.

Posted by: ohwilleke at December 17, 2007 06:47 PM

Engage an enemy at 300 meters with an AK.

But I agree the M-4 is 50 year old technology. Lot like using a Krag/Jorgensen in WW2.

Posted by: Joe at December 17, 2007 06:21 PM

Just for laughs, I'd like to have seen them run an AK-47 through the same tests. It'd be nice to know how reliable (or not) your enemies weapon is compared to your own.

Or perhaps it'd make them look bad?

Posted by: Simon at December 17, 2007 05:40 PM

Hmm, interesting results, but nothing too out of the ordinary. I knew that the XM8 would do well, but to beat the potential special forces weapons says a lot about the quality of weapons that our forces are getting. The wiki article on the ACR program seemed like some of the weapons would have been a better fit for todays needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Rifle

Posted by: Sam at December 17, 2007 05:26 PM