Thread: First AR reccomendations

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

DI has however proven to be less reliable, however the open source articles I can find are rubbish - M4 may get tougher barrel, better mags | Army Times | armytimes.com

I know what I would prefer, and am happy at that

That article refers to the flawed 'Fall 07 Extreme dust test III' from the Army’s Individual Carbine competition. It tested the MK16, HK416, XM8 and the M4. 6,000 rounds were fire through each gun. 10 rifles of each model were tested.

Here it is


Notice the difference between the fall and summer tests for the M4. The M4s tested were used service issue guns sent over from the army. In the fall test 6 of them were worn and insufficiently sprung (buffer spring, ejector spring, extractor spring) and were responsible for most of the stoppages. The testers also didn't know how the burst mode worked and counted it as a stoppage every time they yanked the trigger and got less than 3 rounds (the trigger needs to be held to get a full burst).

The M4s in the summer test were still used, but serviceable. The other rifles were new, hand picked by the manufacturer to compete in the test and even 'hotted up' by increasing cyclic rate to give the bolt more energy to overcome dust in the action. THE M4 STILL HAD LESS WEAPON STOPPAGES THAN THE PISTON DRIVEN HK416 AND MK16

The US Army canned the individual carbine competition last year and are sticking with the M4.

If you still think relocating the piston to above the barrel increases reliability, then send me a PM, I've got some magic jelly beans you might be interested in.