M14 Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Weve all seen the full-auto torture test videos that fire until the barrel bursts. Those really dont tell me much in terms of what the weapon can realistically handle. No one runs a carbine like that in the real world, ever.

Ive been looking for, but cannot find, a test that more realistically shows what the M4 can hold up to under realistic sustained fire conditions, and at what point malfunctions under these conditions start to arise. Doctrine specifies 15 RPM sustained, 45 per minute rapid. What I am looking for is a test on sustained fire, or even rapid fire, before weapon malfunction or failure. No one seems to have performed this test that I can find.

In real combat conditions, heating over time, not just from sporadic fire (or unrealistic 650 round full auto fire) has said to cause issues in the M4 carbine. Ive never had problems like some of the ones described, however Im looking for some information or data on the subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,966 Posts
In real combat conditions, heating over time, not just from sporadic fire (or unrealistic 650 round full auto fire) has said to cause issues in the M4 carbine.
I've never heard of that from any of my deployed friends. One of them liked the AK better and another carried an M14 but none of them said that their M4s gave them issues. I really think all the stuff about the M4 being a POS or whatever originates as propaganda w/o much basis in reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
I've never heard of that from any of my deployed friends. One of them liked the AK better and another carried an M14 but none of them said that their M4s gave them issues. I really think all the stuff about the M4 being a POS or whatever originates as propaganda w/o much basis in reality.
The Army just stopped the testing for a better rifle after the M4 lost in the middle of testing to the HK556, and the HK started to nudge ahead. Maybe contracts and lining the pockets of some entity is better than replacing the weapon with a better rifle/carbine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,417 Posts
The Army just stopped the testing for a better rifle after the M4 lost in the middle of testing to the HK556, and the HK started to nudge ahead. Maybe contracts and lining the pockets of some entity is better than replacing the weapon with a better rifle/carbine.
Thats because the HK is double the cost for just marginally better performance. The Army does those tests to burn their 'use it or loose it' budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
If you go to US Army military history site they have a pdf on the battle of Wanat with 173 airborne. Almost all there m4 malfunction but that was due to extremely high rate of fire as they were outnumbered by about 10-1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,966 Posts
If you go to US Army military history site they have a pdf on the battle of Wanat with 173 airborne. Almost all there m4 malfunction but that was due to extremely high rate of fire as they were outnumbered by about 10-1
Yeah but that was after 20mags in like 2-3 mins the barrel warps. Also the gas tube can blow off. I don't think you could do that with a semi-auto one unless you put it in a rack and bump fired it with 6 drum mags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
When I went through armorers school we were told to expect gas tube failures starting around 220 rnds sustained fire on full auto. We were even shown videos of gas tubes melting while being fired. That being said, I've never seen it happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,891 Posts
There's a thing called a water cooled Browning machine gun, and the M4 isn't it. It also isn't an M61 gatling gun, or a Phalanx CIWS.

People seem surprised that if they fire a closed bolt carbine on sustained full auto it will eventually melt. It's not a surprise, it's not designed or intended to do that. It's physics.

If a unit is overrun because they were ripping off so many mag dumps on full auto that they melted their weapons, I'm sorry for those soldiers but that is not a weapon failure. That is a failure of command for putting them in that situation with the wrong weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,898 Posts
The Naval Warfare group did conduct continuous fire tests(read destructive testing) and can't remember the exact numbers, but M4 was expected to fail at some 1750rnds.
It was decided to set the bar to twice that number in order for a replacement of the M4 be chosen. Some came close but no competitor reached the number of some 3500rnds.
The M4 is to remain in service for the foreseeable future and no further contests will be conducted. Probably out there somewhere but would like to see such test results for the AK47 or it's variants.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top