Many times I have been asked what destruction testing tells us and how we look at firearms afterwards in terms of quality and durability. This is a very involved question in that there are many factors that go into it.
First and most importantly, the question is what is the requirement of the firearm? In the case of the M16 and M4 carbine for the US government, it is a 6k round endurance test where the cooling and cleaning parameters are specified. Is this all the rifle is designed to do? Not at all. The rifles well exceed the defense departments requirements. Out of every lot of rifles provided to the US government by Colt or FN, they must have randomly selected rifles which go through interchangeability and endurance testing. Testing protocols must have parameters. You must fire X amount of rounds in Y amount of time with less than Z number of malfunctions. When testing concludes, the rifle either fails, meets or exceeds the specification. When one wants to make a generalization on what the durability of the M16 and M4 are, they must use actual M16 or M4 rifles! The plethora of AR-type rifles on the market are not what I consider proper representations of government built Technical Data Package rifles.
These rifles have drawings for every single component that specify what the part must meet for materials, manufacturing, heat treat and finish. If a part does not meet the drawing, the manufacture must reject that batch of parts. In fact, many of the manufacturers who make commercial firearms wind up with these rejected components. In the case of barrels, the manufacturing process, heat treat, chrome plating process are specified so the government knows exactly what the life of that part is. Most every video I have seen show AR-type rifles that all suffer from different forms of destruction and at different intervals. When you look at a Mil-Spec Colt or FN rifle, it is quite predictable of what will fail and when depending on the platform (M16A2/A4, M4, M4A1).
First and most importantly, the question is what is the requirement of the firearm? In the case of the M16 and M4 carbine for the US government, it is a 6k round endurance test where the cooling and cleaning parameters are specified. Is this all the rifle is designed to do? Not at all. The rifles well exceed the defense departments requirements. Out of every lot of rifles provided to the US government by Colt or FN, they must have randomly selected rifles which go through interchangeability and endurance testing. Testing protocols must have parameters. You must fire X amount of rounds in Y amount of time with less than Z number of malfunctions. When testing concludes, the rifle either fails, meets or exceeds the specification. When one wants to make a generalization on what the durability of the M16 and M4 are, they must use actual M16 or M4 rifles! The plethora of AR-type rifles on the market are not what I consider proper representations of government built Technical Data Package rifles.
These rifles have drawings for every single component that specify what the part must meet for materials, manufacturing, heat treat and finish. If a part does not meet the drawing, the manufacture must reject that batch of parts. In fact, many of the manufacturers who make commercial firearms wind up with these rejected components. In the case of barrels, the manufacturing process, heat treat, chrome plating process are specified so the government knows exactly what the life of that part is. Most every video I have seen show AR-type rifles that all suffer from different forms of destruction and at different intervals. When you look at a Mil-Spec Colt or FN rifle, it is quite predictable of what will fail and when depending on the platform (M16A2/A4, M4, M4A1).
The barrel failed on the M4 Carbine Destruction Test at 450 rounds. I have heard on several videos that the gas tube was designed to fail before the barrel as a safe guard. This is only true for the 20” standard rifle. Stoner did design the AR-15 that way. The gas tube will warp and stop the rifle before the barrel will fail from reaching transformation temperature (loss of heat treat) where the metal will structurally fail. This was with the original gas tube, which were replaced in the early days of the Vietnam war for a better material to stop the issues of corrosion. Stoner did not develop the carbine! Colt developed the carbine. With the shorter gas tube and the gas port being much closer to the chamber, the barrel will fail before the gas tube. As with any scientific test, the gas tubes must be made to military specifications. What you see in the industry are not often made to this quality.
I had consulted with a manufacturer who was in the business to make semi-automatic only commercial rifles. As they started to grow, they decided they wanted to break into the military market. So half cocked (literally), they figured all they had to do was modify the lower to take full auto components, and they were good to go. They submitted rifles without testing, and the rifles were delivered to a South American customer. Within 3 consecutive magazine dumps, the gas tube curled up like a curly French fry which caused the M4-type rifles to fail. They realized, in a very embarrassing way, that the components they used are not manufactured to military specifications/standards. Of course their commercial customers who fire semi-automatic only will never see this. They will never get the gas tube this hot on commercial semi-auto only rifles. So when I see a gas tube fail on an internet destruction/meltdown video, I know immediately that these are not military grade parts. This also means that these rifles are NOT a standard for which this weapon platform should be judged.
I had consulted with a manufacturer who was in the business to make semi-automatic only commercial rifles. As they started to grow, they decided they wanted to break into the military market. So half cocked (literally), they figured all they had to do was modify the lower to take full auto components, and they were good to go. They submitted rifles without testing, and the rifles were delivered to a South American customer. Within 3 consecutive magazine dumps, the gas tube curled up like a curly French fry which caused the M4-type rifles to fail. They realized, in a very embarrassing way, that the components they used are not manufactured to military specifications/standards. Of course their commercial customers who fire semi-automatic only will never see this. They will never get the gas tube this hot on commercial semi-auto only rifles. So when I see a gas tube fail on an internet destruction/meltdown video, I know immediately that these are not military grade parts. This also means that these rifles are NOT a standard for which this weapon platform should be judged.
Destruction of barrels in a mil-spec rifle are very predictable. Every barrel which leaves a government manufacturer is test fired with a 70,000 psi proof cartridge and then magnetic particle inspected to be sure it is free of stress fractures. In carbine barrels, the point of which they structural fail has to do with the configuration of the barrel. The point in which a proper barrel will fail is once it’s temperature reaches between 1,100℉ and 1,375℉.
Depending on whether it is a standard M4 profile or M4A1 SOCOM heavy barrel, this temperature range remains the same, but the difference is how many rounds it will take to get there. The heavier the barrel, the longer it will take to reach that temperature. When the barrel fails, the rupture in the barrel will be on the left side of the barrel right behind the gas block. This is the hottest part of the barrel. In the case of the standard M4 barrel, it will be around the 450 rounds of consecutive full auto fire. In the case of the M4A1 heavy SOCOM barrel, it will be around the 900 rounds of consecutive fire. An interesting note is that if the slats were not cut for the M203 grenade launcher, I believe this threshold would increase to around 1,000 rounds because the location of the failure, due to it being the thinnest part of the barrel. To give some perspective, the Colt IAR, with a 16” extra heavy barrel along with a heat sink will continue to fire up to around 1,080 rounds. However the failure will not be due to the barrel failing but the bolt failing. As previously stated, this is predictable due to the manufacturing Mil-Specification of the GI barrels. During the last 100 or so rounds, you will be able to see the lighter M4 carbine barrel begin to droop, so you can see when it is about to fail. The gas tube will become red hot, but the proper mil-spec gas tube will not fail. In fact, the Colt IAR uses a standard carbine gas tube and both the gas tube and barrel outlast the bolt.
You will see very clearly watching the many meltdown/destruction test videos, with many firearms, and many testers, a wide variety of results. This is due to the wide variety of barrel types (lengths, profile, weight, type of barrels material, finishing processes), type of ammunition (propellants which provide chamber and port pressure as well as cartridge case) and the quality of the gas tube. The true military grade weapons as previously stated are precisely predictable.
You will see very clearly watching the many meltdown/destruction test videos, with many firearms, and many testers, a wide variety of results. This is due to the wide variety of barrel types (lengths, profile, weight, type of barrels material, finishing processes), type of ammunition (propellants which provide chamber and port pressure as well as cartridge case) and the quality of the gas tube. The true military grade weapons as previously stated are precisely predictable.
The Colt LMG developed in the 90’s, utilized a massively heavy 20 inch barrel. Due to the the gas tube being designed to fail at temperatures conducive with the standard lightweight barrels, Diemaco was forced to use a special, extremely heavy and thick gas tube, so it would not fail with the high volume of fire of the extremely heavy barrel on the M16A2 open bolt Light Machine Gun.
|
|
|
|
When you view many internet/meltdown videos, many things are evident. First is often the weapons are improperly gassed. Several videos I see, the guns are over gassed. Cyclic rate is very misunderstood. Gas port erosion (fire cutting) is a byproduct of firing the rifle. Every time the bullet passes by the gas port, this fire cutting takes place. As the port erodes (gets larger), the more gas is let into the system. Thus a higher cyclic rate of fire. The cyclic rate limit for a new M4/M4A1 is 750 to 950 rounds per minute. However, after the rifle goes through a 6,000 round endurance test, that upper limit is increased to 1,025 rounds per minute. The more that barrel is fired, the more erosion and thus a faster rate of fire. Once you reach 1,100 or so rounds per minute, the rifle will end up with failures to eject due to the bolt velocity being faster than the ejector can keep up with. Also, failure to extract in later stage, due to the bolt unlocking before the residual pressure has dropped. This means the extractor will either slip off the rim or tear the rim right off. Another issue will be failures to feed if the magazine springs are worn. The magazine spring will not be able to raise the shot column fast enough to keep up with the bolt velocity.
|
|
Buffers also play into this equation. There are two carbine buffers, which are delivered to the US government. The standard steel buffer slug has a weight of .65 ounce and the Tungsten slug has a weight of 1.5 ounces, which is more than double the weight of the standard steel weight. The first is the H buffer (one Tungsten and two steel weights), which weighs 3.8 ounces. This is for use with the standard profile M4 carbine 14.5” bbl. The second is the H2 buffer (two Tungsten weights and one steel weight), which weighs 4.7 ounces. This is for use with the M4A1 carbine with the 14.5 inch Heavy SOCOM barrel. This heavier buffer is necessary to prevent the bolt carrier from bouncing off the barrel extension, which will cause a failure to fire on fully automatic or burst fire. The heavier the mass of the barrel, the more elastic it is for the bolt carrier. So the heavier the barrel, the more the carrier will bounce back off the barrel extension, causing a brief time of the unlocking of the bolt after the auto sear releases the hammer. By the time the bolt locks again and the hammer settles on the firing pin, there is not enough inertia on the firing pin to detonate the primer. This is known as "bolt carrier bounce".
The H buffer is also used in the 10.5 inch Mk18. The mass of the barrel is the catalyst, not the length. In several videos, it is also seen that the wrong buffers are being used. There was a couple of times that it was easy to see the buffers were too heavy for the barrel/gas port combination. The US government cannot mix and match parts. They are not permitted to do “gunsmithing” on firearms. They cannot throw an unauthorized part in a rifle, they have to replace the barrel when these problems arise. As a civilian, you can play around with buffer weights and aftermarket gadgets, which may then alter the balance of the weapon system.
The H buffer is also used in the 10.5 inch Mk18. The mass of the barrel is the catalyst, not the length. In several videos, it is also seen that the wrong buffers are being used. There was a couple of times that it was easy to see the buffers were too heavy for the barrel/gas port combination. The US government cannot mix and match parts. They are not permitted to do “gunsmithing” on firearms. They cannot throw an unauthorized part in a rifle, they have to replace the barrel when these problems arise. As a civilian, you can play around with buffer weights and aftermarket gadgets, which may then alter the balance of the weapon system.
There are many that think they have clever ideas in how to decrease recoil and other things using heavier buffers. Colt has done a huge study on buffers. There is a reason the specific weight buffers are used in each weapon system. The weapons must work in the extreme cold to the extreme heat. There is a fine window during firing a cartridge that extraction, ejection, feeding, chambering and locking have to happen. Military ammunition (M193, M855 and M855A1) is designed to maintain the proper chamber and port pressures. For example, on a 70℉ day, the average chamber pressure of a 14.5 inch barrel is approximately 51,082 psi with a port pressure of 17,645 psi. When the same rifle and same ammunition were subjected to an environment with a temperature of 125℉, the chamber pressure rose to 55,722 psi (+4,780 psi) and the port pressure rose to 18,175 psi (+ 490 psi). When the same ammunition and rifle were exposed to -25 ℉ the chamber pressure decreased to 48,317 psi (-2,830 psi) with the port pressure decreasing to 16,725 psi (-925 psi).
Along with these numbers, you must take into account the change in the burning rate of the propellant due to the drastic temperature changes. These numbers were averages from two 10 round samples.These are precise numbers from testing conducting in a ballistic laboratory by myself. Built into the specification are temperature stability to make this ammunition maintain proper port and chamber pressures to work in both cold and hot environments. In extreme cold environments, the chemical reaction of the propellant produces lower chamber and port pressures. However with the 14.5 inch barrel, with carbine gas system, with X size gas port with proper buffer, this combination of weapon, cartridge case, primer, propellant and projectile will function this weapon 100% in all climatic scenarios.
Ammunition is another interesting factor seen in many of these videos. As previously mentioned, the ammunition is critical in the overall reliability of the M16 and M4 weapon systems. Many of the videos I have seen utilize cheap Wolf ammunition. Now for commercial purposes, whatever. If you want to represent the mil-spec durability and reliability, this is NOT the ammunition you use. First, and most importantly, Wolf and other steel cased ammunition are not loaded to SAMMI and definitely not to NATO specifications. The port and chamber pressures are found to be lower.
Along with these numbers, you must take into account the change in the burning rate of the propellant due to the drastic temperature changes. These numbers were averages from two 10 round samples.These are precise numbers from testing conducting in a ballistic laboratory by myself. Built into the specification are temperature stability to make this ammunition maintain proper port and chamber pressures to work in both cold and hot environments. In extreme cold environments, the chemical reaction of the propellant produces lower chamber and port pressures. However with the 14.5 inch barrel, with carbine gas system, with X size gas port with proper buffer, this combination of weapon, cartridge case, primer, propellant and projectile will function this weapon 100% in all climatic scenarios.
Ammunition is another interesting factor seen in many of these videos. As previously mentioned, the ammunition is critical in the overall reliability of the M16 and M4 weapon systems. Many of the videos I have seen utilize cheap Wolf ammunition. Now for commercial purposes, whatever. If you want to represent the mil-spec durability and reliability, this is NOT the ammunition you use. First, and most importantly, Wolf and other steel cased ammunition are not loaded to SAMMI and definitely not to NATO specifications. The port and chamber pressures are found to be lower.
For example, a few years ago I worked with a Police Department/SWAT team in upstate New York on a problem they had. When the ammunition shortage was at its worst, the department could not get the quality ammunition they normally use. In the case of this department, they normally used Federal American Eagle or XM193 for training and Federal LE 5.56mm 77gr OTM (now discontinued, they since switched to Black Hills Mk262). The police department issued Colt 11.5” Commandos with a few 14.5” M4’s and two 20” AR15A2 HBAR’s for containment rifles. Due to the severe shortage they were unable to train because they could not get ammunition. This was in dead winter time in upstate NY (negative temps).
They received a phone call from their distributor that they received a pallet of Wolf .223 Rem 55gr FMJ and asked if they wanted it. Without talking to me, they bought it. It was about 20,000 rounds. So they load up and hit the range. Every single one of their Commandos short stroked. Not enough chamber or port pressure to cycle the actions. The 14.5 worked intermittently and the 20” cycled fine. They now had 20,000 rounds they cannot use. So to put this into perspective of many commercial Black Rifle shooters, they feel the sign of a quality rifle is that it works with all ammo, including this non NATO spec ammunition.
While at Colt, if a customer sent us back a rifle that they claimed malfunctions, we would take the rifle to the range and fire M855 ammunition through it. If it worked properly it was sent back. These are military rifles, which are designed to fire military ammunition. This is an ammunition issue, not a rifle issue. Commercial manufacturers have been forced to redesign rifles around the cheep, widely available and widely used ammunition. Military manufacturers who make military firearms design their weapons to military standards and not to function with substandard non NATO specification ammo. For this reason, when I test AR’s, I only use brass cased NATO and SAMMI Spec ammunition from companies who manufacture their ammunition designed to work in Military Grade firearms in use with military and law enforcement agencies. I use the steel case Russian ammunition when firing AK47/AKM and AK74-type rifle, rifles that were designed to shoot it.
When anyone wants to make a video where they want to say “this is how a AR-15 holds up," it must not be taken literal. You can see how that particular rifle holds up, but that is not the standard that is used for the US Army, as well as many others throughout the world who use these rifles everyday in life and death situations. That standard will only be seen by using military grade rifles with military grade ammunition, made to the military technical data package standards. There are companies outside of Colt and FN, other companies whom have their own TDP’s that they make sure all conform to all military testing protocol, interchangeability, temperature and environmental testing and so forth. Those companies are most often the ones who manufacture most of their critical components in house and have stringent quality control on outsourced parts. Preferably parts that are made to that company's own drawings and not just generic AR parts. All AR’s are not created equal. This is not at all saying the you only buy high end rifles. Not at all. What I am saying is if you want to test an AR-type rifle and say this is an example of its durability and reliability of the actual military platform, use guns and ammo that represent the military rifle.
They received a phone call from their distributor that they received a pallet of Wolf .223 Rem 55gr FMJ and asked if they wanted it. Without talking to me, they bought it. It was about 20,000 rounds. So they load up and hit the range. Every single one of their Commandos short stroked. Not enough chamber or port pressure to cycle the actions. The 14.5 worked intermittently and the 20” cycled fine. They now had 20,000 rounds they cannot use. So to put this into perspective of many commercial Black Rifle shooters, they feel the sign of a quality rifle is that it works with all ammo, including this non NATO spec ammunition.
While at Colt, if a customer sent us back a rifle that they claimed malfunctions, we would take the rifle to the range and fire M855 ammunition through it. If it worked properly it was sent back. These are military rifles, which are designed to fire military ammunition. This is an ammunition issue, not a rifle issue. Commercial manufacturers have been forced to redesign rifles around the cheep, widely available and widely used ammunition. Military manufacturers who make military firearms design their weapons to military standards and not to function with substandard non NATO specification ammo. For this reason, when I test AR’s, I only use brass cased NATO and SAMMI Spec ammunition from companies who manufacture their ammunition designed to work in Military Grade firearms in use with military and law enforcement agencies. I use the steel case Russian ammunition when firing AK47/AKM and AK74-type rifle, rifles that were designed to shoot it.
When anyone wants to make a video where they want to say “this is how a AR-15 holds up," it must not be taken literal. You can see how that particular rifle holds up, but that is not the standard that is used for the US Army, as well as many others throughout the world who use these rifles everyday in life and death situations. That standard will only be seen by using military grade rifles with military grade ammunition, made to the military technical data package standards. There are companies outside of Colt and FN, other companies whom have their own TDP’s that they make sure all conform to all military testing protocol, interchangeability, temperature and environmental testing and so forth. Those companies are most often the ones who manufacture most of their critical components in house and have stringent quality control on outsourced parts. Preferably parts that are made to that company's own drawings and not just generic AR parts. All AR’s are not created equal. This is not at all saying the you only buy high end rifles. Not at all. What I am saying is if you want to test an AR-type rifle and say this is an example of its durability and reliability of the actual military platform, use guns and ammo that represent the military rifle.
Here is another example....and this one really pissed me off. Years ago while writing for Small Arms Review and Small Arms Defense Journal, an article was published, which was set out to see which Internal Piston (DI) or External Piston (Piston) rifles were more durable. So the author grabbed two full auto lowers and two uppers of which I have no clue where they came from. First, he fired the internal piston and within a few magazines the gas tube bent and the rifle stopped. The external piston fired significantly more. I don’t recall the numbers. So he declared the external piston the better of the two systems. This was a totally unprofessional test and conclusion. If one wishes to put the system to the test, you use a proper mil spec upper receiver, which in this case should have fired around 450 rounds before the barrel failed.
Here is the reality of this conclusion. The proper mil-spec upper receiver (barrel, gas tube, bolt and buffer) put next to a quality external piston rifle with the exact same profile barrel would both fail at the same time! The barrels will hit transformation at the same round count! What will decide down to the nano second would be which rifle had a faster cyclic rate. That would make a slight difference. You cannot compare two different barrel configurations. The test has to be done scientifically under controlled circumstances. The operating system will not make the difference in a destructive test. If either system is substandard and a bolt, operating rod, gas tube or improperly heat treated barrel cause failure, the test is invalid. Tests clearly show both systems will cycle without interruption or malfunction till the barrel fails.
What I hope the reader takes away from this is that all AR’s are not created equal. That these weapons are a system. When something is altered from the system bad things can happen. The standard to how an M16/M4 rifle functions and holds up is the Mil-Spec rifle and ammunition. The hodge podge of parts put together rifles in this industry are not held to any standard. Many manufactures have no drawing or TDP’s. They just buy the cheapest generic AR parts that they can buy and assemble rifles. The attitude is these are commercial and they don’t have to go to the extremes that government contractors must do to ensure they are battle rifles.
The legendary AR vs AK is another really interesting thing we see in these tests. If we want a realistic look at the military AK vs the military AR or even to get a reliable gauge of how durable the AK is, we do not look at custom commercial VEPR’s. If you were to go down range in Iraq or Afghanistan or even go back to Vietnam, what rifles will you find? You will find large numbers of cheap Romanian AKM’s (Purchased by the Iraqi Army) in Iraq, along with Yugo stamped rifle variants. You will run into some East German and Hungarian AKMS, built to basic Soviet drawings and manufacturing techniques. In Afghanistan, I saw Soviet stamped AKM and AK74 rifles and a hodge podge of Romanian, as well as, many Khyber Pass hybrids. In Vietnam a vast majority of the AK’s were both Chinese stamped and milled rifles and some Soviet same. Testing these gets you the real AK reliability and durability. Looking at a VEPR, which have RPK receivers and massively heavy barrels are NOT realistic and will give the viewer the unrealistically skewed idea of how true military issue AK will perform. When watching these internet videos, it is entertainment. Do not take it as gospel.
Here is the reality of this conclusion. The proper mil-spec upper receiver (barrel, gas tube, bolt and buffer) put next to a quality external piston rifle with the exact same profile barrel would both fail at the same time! The barrels will hit transformation at the same round count! What will decide down to the nano second would be which rifle had a faster cyclic rate. That would make a slight difference. You cannot compare two different barrel configurations. The test has to be done scientifically under controlled circumstances. The operating system will not make the difference in a destructive test. If either system is substandard and a bolt, operating rod, gas tube or improperly heat treated barrel cause failure, the test is invalid. Tests clearly show both systems will cycle without interruption or malfunction till the barrel fails.
What I hope the reader takes away from this is that all AR’s are not created equal. That these weapons are a system. When something is altered from the system bad things can happen. The standard to how an M16/M4 rifle functions and holds up is the Mil-Spec rifle and ammunition. The hodge podge of parts put together rifles in this industry are not held to any standard. Many manufactures have no drawing or TDP’s. They just buy the cheapest generic AR parts that they can buy and assemble rifles. The attitude is these are commercial and they don’t have to go to the extremes that government contractors must do to ensure they are battle rifles.
The legendary AR vs AK is another really interesting thing we see in these tests. If we want a realistic look at the military AK vs the military AR or even to get a reliable gauge of how durable the AK is, we do not look at custom commercial VEPR’s. If you were to go down range in Iraq or Afghanistan or even go back to Vietnam, what rifles will you find? You will find large numbers of cheap Romanian AKM’s (Purchased by the Iraqi Army) in Iraq, along with Yugo stamped rifle variants. You will run into some East German and Hungarian AKMS, built to basic Soviet drawings and manufacturing techniques. In Afghanistan, I saw Soviet stamped AKM and AK74 rifles and a hodge podge of Romanian, as well as, many Khyber Pass hybrids. In Vietnam a vast majority of the AK’s were both Chinese stamped and milled rifles and some Soviet same. Testing these gets you the real AK reliability and durability. Looking at a VEPR, which have RPK receivers and massively heavy barrels are NOT realistic and will give the viewer the unrealistically skewed idea of how true military issue AK will perform. When watching these internet videos, it is entertainment. Do not take it as gospel.
I have been involved throughout my career with the development and testing of military weapons (not commercial). In my career, the questions about what systems are better is real, militaries and LE all over the world are looking for their next battle rifle. When I would go do demos and sales pitches, I would have to educate the customers on what the durability and reliability of all these platforms are. It is difficult to try to educate when there is so much misinformation out there. In my position of trying to sell Colt military grade rifles, I would often have to explain to countries who purchased Bushmaster, DPMS and Olympic versions of M4-Type carbines that the problematic rifles they purchased were not of the same quality as the combat rifles I was showing them. These were in fact totally different firearms.
My world again was not commercial and with the studying of this weapons platform my whole life the one thing that can be said is this is perhaps one of the most misunderstood weapons in history. Many of the opinions about it from the moment the first rifles were shipped to Vietnam were heavily emotionally charged without the mechanical understanding of what was going on. The soldier does not understand rusted or pitted chambers, ammunition pressure curves, cyclic rate, bolt carrier bound or lubricants. They know the rifle failed and they hated it because someone did not do their job in getting the rifle out to them. They know perceived causes not actual causes. They think the rifle would not work dirty when the real cause of the malfunction was corroded chamber that caused the cartridge case to get stuck in the chamber, causing them to knock it out with a cleaning rod. They know the rifle misfired on full auto but don’t understand the non conforming to spec ammo they were issued caused bolt carrier bounce because it sped their rate of fire from a rifle designed to fire 600 rounds per minute to nearly 1,000 rounds per minute. Up to this very day with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who have M4’s malfunction due to lack of depot maintenance and using outsourced parts in their rifles that do not conform to the TDP which cause malfunctions. There is a science to this. Like anything else, if the formula is not right, the reaction will not work properly.
My world again was not commercial and with the studying of this weapons platform my whole life the one thing that can be said is this is perhaps one of the most misunderstood weapons in history. Many of the opinions about it from the moment the first rifles were shipped to Vietnam were heavily emotionally charged without the mechanical understanding of what was going on. The soldier does not understand rusted or pitted chambers, ammunition pressure curves, cyclic rate, bolt carrier bound or lubricants. They know the rifle failed and they hated it because someone did not do their job in getting the rifle out to them. They know perceived causes not actual causes. They think the rifle would not work dirty when the real cause of the malfunction was corroded chamber that caused the cartridge case to get stuck in the chamber, causing them to knock it out with a cleaning rod. They know the rifle misfired on full auto but don’t understand the non conforming to spec ammo they were issued caused bolt carrier bounce because it sped their rate of fire from a rifle designed to fire 600 rounds per minute to nearly 1,000 rounds per minute. Up to this very day with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who have M4’s malfunction due to lack of depot maintenance and using outsourced parts in their rifles that do not conform to the TDP which cause malfunctions. There is a science to this. Like anything else, if the formula is not right, the reaction will not work properly.
Donate to SAS:
RSS Feed