Should the M16 be replaced?

[extern]

And they also focus on saying the M4 was " LAST " out of all, but the " last " wasn't doing too bad either. 1.47% failure rate is pretty acceptable. It's just a clever ruse of letting you hear what they want you to hear. Research data manipulation is the oldest trick in the book.

Let do it without "data manipulation". Here is a data:

Newer Carbines Outperform M4 in Dust Test

The M4 carbine, the weapon U.S. soldiers depend on in combat, finished last in a recent “extreme dust test” to demonstrate the M4’s reliability compared to three newer carbines.

Weapons officials at the Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., exposed Colt Defense LLC’s M4, along with the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416 to sandstorm conditions from late September to late November, firing 6,000 rounds through each test weapon.

When the test was completed, ATEC officials found that the M4 performed “significantly worse” than the other three weapons, sources told Army Times.

Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model. Here’s how they ranked, according to the total number of times each model stopped firing:
XM8: 127 stoppages.
MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
416: 233 stoppages.
M4: 882 stoppages.

the results of the test were “a wake-up call.”


- 226 stopage on 60000 rounds isnt good. It means more than 30% probability of stopage on each 100 rounds. Assuming the soldier uses in avarage 3 magazines for any clash with the insurgent in Afgh. or Iraq. It means he has suffers stopage each 3 clash. A unit with 10 soldiears suffer 3 stopage each engagement in avarage. I should say it's VERY worring.

 

[Chino]

- 226 stopage on 60000 rounds isnt good. It means more than 30% probability of stopage on each 100 rounds. Assuming the soldier uses in avarage 3 magazines for any clash with the insurgent in Afgh. or Iraq. It means he has suffers stopage each 3 clash. A unit with 10 soldiears suffer 3 stopage each engagement in avarage. I should say it's VERY worring.

...how did you arrive at 30% stoppages for the SCAR?

 

[kato]

...how did you arrive at 30% stoppages for the SCAR?

226 stoppages in 60,000 rounds means 0.38 stoppages in 100 rounds.

That is, there is a 38% (=0.38) chance that there will be one stoppage when firing 100 rounds.
And that's what he says - "more than 30% probability of stoppage on each 100 rounds".

Yes, i had to think about the math at first too

 

[Cutaway]

Probably a 5.56 rifle version of the new TDI KRISS but wth M16 type parts(EG Handguards etc), The TDI KRISS uses a delayed-blowback operation so it should be safe to use rifle cartridges.

Still, I dont think it should be replaced if it is a good weapon, no matter how old it is.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I think they should replace the M16 and M4 with the M468 6.8mm that has fully automatic fire, seriously that whole 3 round burst thing is a joke, the AK-47 out guns the M16 by 2 to 1 because the AK has a full auto fire capability. Also the replacement for the M249 SAW known as the Infantry Automatic Rifle(IAR) should be in 6.8mm as well.

 

[kato]

seriously that whole 3 round burst thing is a joke

uh, you do realize that was later intentionally introduced for the M16?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

uh, you do realize that was later intentionally introduced for the M16?

Uh yeah I know that, its not like the 3 round burst thing just happened out of the blue. I was saying I don't like that, I prefer fully automatic. Most other countries that use 5.56mm or 7.62mm assault rifles are fully automatic. That includes the British, French, Germans, Russians, Canadians, Chinese and many many more. I think most people would agree that fully automatic is a good thing in a rifle in the 21st century unless it has to do with a sniper rifle or a rifle that needs accuracy at very long range, than a bolt-action/ semi-automatic is good.

 

[eckherl]

I think they should replace the M16 and M4 with the M468 6.8mm that has fully automatic fire, seriously that whole 3 round burst thing is a joke, the AK-47 out guns the M16 by 2 to 1 because the AK has a full auto fire capability. Also the replacement for the M249 SAW known as the Infantry Automatic Rifle(IAR) should be in 6.8mm as well.

So why is a three shot version a joke, we use other weapons for area suppression. A assualt rifle fired on a fully automatic mode is a real challenge for accuracy.

 

[9ak]

226 stoppages in 60,000 rounds means 0.38 stoppages in 100 rounds.

That is, there is a 38% (=0.38) chance that there will be one stoppage when firing 100 rounds.
And that's what he says - "more than 30% probability of stoppage on each 100 rounds".

Yes, i had to think about the math at first too

Well, you though of it wrong. 0.38 stoppages in 100 rounds is 0.38%.

 

[kato]

Well, you though of it wrong. 0.38 stoppages in 100 rounds is 0.38%.

However, there is a 38% chance that out of 100 rounds fired there will be one stoppage.

0.38% is not the chance of a single stoppage within 100 rounds, but the absolute number of stoppages occuring statistically within each 100 rounds.

There's a difference, you know.

 

[9ak]

However, there is a 38% chance that out of 100 rounds fired there will be one stoppage.

0.38% is not the chance of a single stoppage within 100 rounds, but the absolute number of stoppages occuring statistically within each 100 rounds.

There's a difference, you know.

I fail to see that. Care to explain.

 

[kato]

I fail to see that. Care to explain.

What i think we can agree on first is that if 226 stoppages occur in 60,000 rounds, statistically there will be exactly one stoppage for every 265 rounds fired (226/60,000).

Now, if we fire 100 rounds, there is a 37.7% chance (100/265) that this one stoppage for those 265 rounds will occur within exactly these 100 rounds fired.
There is a 0.377% chance (1/265) on every single shot out of those 100 rounds that a stoppage will occur.

 

[9ak]

What i think we can agree on first is that if 226 stoppages occur in 60,000 rounds, statistically there will be exactly one stoppage for every 265 rounds fired (226/60,000).

Now, if we fire 100 rounds, there is a 37.7% chance (100/265) that this one stoppage for those 265 rounds will occur within exactly these 100 rounds fired.
There is a 0.377% chance (1/265) on every single shot out of those 100 rounds that a stoppage will occur.

Got it. Thank you.

 

[Grand Danois]

However, there is a 38% chance that out of 100 rounds fired there will be one stoppage.

0.38% is not the chance of a single stoppage within 100 rounds, but the absolute number of stoppages occuring statistically within each 100 rounds.

There's a difference, you know.

Actually a 0.38% chance of stoppage per round would in probability terms translate to

1-(1-0.38%)^100 = 31.7%

of one or more stoppages per 100 rounds fired.

But it depends on how the average was derived.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Actually a 0.38% chance of stoppage per round would in probability terms translate to

1-(1-0.38%)^100 = 31.7%

of one or more stoppages per 100 rounds fired.

But it depends on how the average was derived.

Cmon boys this isnt mathematics today!

 

[1 Partisan]

Gentlemen, I may have missed it, but I dont believe anyone has talked about the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) which had been given the designation as XM29. The Rifle featured the standard NATO 5.56mmX45 round and a detachable 6 shot 20mm grenade launcher with a fire control computer that can utilize a laser range finder to find the distance to a target and then fire an explosive burst 20mm munition that will explode right above the target that the user ranged with the laser. This ,as you would guess, would enable a soldier to defeat a defilade target with an indirect munition exploding above. The rifle is in fact a variant of the HKG36 series that is given the "k" variant denoter. While I have understood that the Army came to the conclusion that the XM29 proved to be too costly, too bulky, and had concerns with the effectiveness of the 20mm grenades, this initial design has spawned LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technology) , the OCSW featuring the hefty 25mm grenade and the XM25.
The LSAT program was based on the G11 I believe and took some of the ideas associated with the G11 like caseless ammunition and made somewhat of a new hybrid rifle with some of the technologies seen in XM29 and G11. They will be using a rotating bolt that rotates around the centerline of the weapon as well as a composite barrel for weight reduction. I know that they are seeing significant weight savings with the latest variant and that the cost of a unit will be in the "target range" of the governments requirement. While admittedly there is a stark dichotomy between this weapon and a standard issue infantry rifle, it is a look of what the future holds for the squad automatic weapon options.

Here is a link to more info concerning the LSAT program and its objectives and features...Nevermind, I am new here and it wont let me put the link up..PM me and I can give you the link


As far as the G36K section of the XM29 , the American made Magpul Masada( which is a hybrid of a number of designs including the XM29/ and the Israeli made Tavor TAR-21 could both be viable options to the M-16. I personally love the TAR-21 due to its proven exceptional accuracy, lightweight and low cost at about $1000 a unit.

 

[kato]

The AAI LSAT is not in any way related to the H&K G11.

 

[1 Partisan]

Actually, I believe it is KATO...The LSAT used licensed technology derived from the G11 such as the composite cased ammo and caseless ammo designs along with the basic functioning of the rotating bolt design.

 

[kato]

such as the composite cased ammo and caseless ammo designs along with the basic functioning of the rotating bolt design.

The LSAT uses a telescoping ammunition. While the propellant composition and such (of the caseless version) is to some extent derived from the G11, the G11 used "normal" non-telescoping designs in that regard - leading to a whole different chamber design btw.
The polymer-cased ammunition is not related at all to the G11 ammunition.

The rotating bolt works on a G11 license, but rotates along the longitudinal axis instead of vertical feeding. Which was one of the reasons (other than the high rate of fire) why it was used in the G11 at all - to facilitate large-capacity box magazines on the rifle, which was an actual requirement (unlike the high RoF).

 

[metro]

Actually a 0.38% chance of stoppage per round would in probability terms translate to

1-(1-0.38%)^100 = 31.7%

of one or more stoppages per 100 rounds fired.

But it depends on how the average was derived.

Bare with me on this one, I am genuinely curious here.
I gave up on math/probability long ago... the number of known factors influencing my decision is far too long to list. As for any unknowns, well, i haven't made much/any progress, so they remain unknown. In all seriousness and/or just to humor me:

-Accepting there's a 0.38% chance of stoppage per round fired, how dow this translate to someone in the field, firing one round, for the first time. Is it still a 0.38% chance of stoppage? Or does a person more or less, have the probability that "the round will either correctly fire or it won't" (i.e. 50/50 chance or a "49.62%" chance the round will fire?).
Again, I always went to a math exam just expecting to pass. Anything above failure, I could accept happily. Perhaps foolishly, I always looked at the glass as half full... although, in the unlikely case of failure, I realize the glass could be used as a weapon. :unknown

-e.g. About 10 years ago, in the final 5-6 seconds of a Pistons vs. Bulls basketball game, the Bulls were losing by 1pt... Michael Jordan got the ball just inside of half-court and instead of trying to get to the basket and/or get fouled, he took one dribble, faced the basket, and shot the ball... Swish (3pts)! The Game ended and "my Pistons lost." After the game MJ was asked by a reporter, "Why didn't you attack the basket"? MJ said, "Does it matter if I tried to dunk the ball and win by 1pt or do what I did and win by two? Either way, the ball goes through the hoop or it doesn't. I decided I'd rather beat them by 2[pts]... any questions"?
He's technically correct, right? The ball goes in or it doesn't...:unknown

These are just a couple dumbed down examples/questions (good or bad), but things like this raise other issues (for me anyway) regarding many models that "offer [influential] predictions, statistical analysis, human behavior, etc..." especially when there are so many models that are complex, but are only built to crunch numbers and give a "result/trend/etc." Human behavior and/or interaction/reaction to an event in any random environment, is boarder line impossible to predict, especially when a person is trying to be as unpredictable as possible (a drunk man in a room with a dart board and darts deciding what his next action will be, it all depends upon where the darts land... or not).

Sorry for going *relatively* off topic, but it relates in a broader sense... depending on the totality from which everything is derived (JMHO)

Cheers!