Did the Army rig the Carbine Competition?

[Perd Hapley]

It is claimed the trials were cut short, after some flashy newcomer made the AR-15 look old and unhip. Probably a gun with a smartphone, or something.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

[MechAg94]

3 page article and it won't say who the mystery rifle was made by.

[roo_ster]

The Army wouldn't know how to do a proper test for a rifle even if John Moses Browning's and Francis Galton's re-animated corpses walked through the door and shoved randomly-selected magazine fed rifles up the asses of every bureaucritter at TRADOC and PEO Soldier.

[MillCreek]

I wonder if the mystery rifle was the HK 416.

[Boomhauer]

It is claimed the trials were cut short, after some flashy newcomer made the AR-15 look old and unhip. Probably a gun with a smartphone, or something.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The article may claim it was because the rifle outperformed the M4/M16 but the truth of the matter is with the wars winding down and the military returning to a garrison status and cutting people left and right and such, they are simply not going to spend the money on a replacement when the current piece serves just fine, even if the tests were completed.

[brimic]

The article may claim it was because the rifle outperformed the M4/M16 but the truth of the matter is with the wars winding down and the military returning to a garrison status and cutting people left and right and such, they are simply not going to spend the money on a replacement when the current piece serves just fine, even if the tests were completed.

Yes.
Then there's the whole 'quantity ' and 'quality' of outperformance.
It could have been something as simple as the finish didn't wear away as quickly, or there was one less jam per 1o,ooo rounds.... Not worth replacing a 1/2 million rifles over.

[AJ Dual]

I wonder if the mystery rifle was the HK 416.

Either that or the SCAR.

[Jocassee]

I've taken the liberty to post my brother's take on this. He is an AR nerd but he also uses his rifles much harder than 90% of ARFCOM faggots. This is the response after I asked him (out of curiosity) why he (my brother) and our favorite tactical trainer push the merits of this platform so hard. (I am still resisting progress, preferring the simplicity of a tilting-block mechanism)

The M4 is not perfect, or even the best.
 
This is the Army's 3rd competition in 15 years. The M4 has lost every time. And what are we still using?
 
A few considerations that are commonly tossed around...
 
The Army's M4s are beat to crap. They are old, not well cared for, and also old, and old. M4s also use a carbine length gas system, which is reliable but produces premature parts wear because it is overgassed. The AR platform is about 50 years old now, actually older if you count the AR10. The Army is still using the one from 20 years ago. The civilian market has produced more and better ARs than the military needs or uses. For example, the BCM rifle I have now is better than any AR a soldier will ever carry. Better bolt, better barrel, better receiver, better trigger, better gas system, better profile, lighter, etc. It's just better. The rifles that most preppers are using are either much worse (people who buy the cheapest thing) or much better (like LMTs or BCMs, Daniel Defense, etc) than the Military M4s.
 
The M4 is made by the lower bidder. Also, the army usually takes a rack grade M4 and puts it up against hand selected models for the competition. This is not fair. No one can beat a hand picked SCAR 16 for reliability. In the last competition, for mean stoppages out of 10K rounds, the SCAR and HK416 had 230 stoppages, the M4 had 800. This is a very brutal test. Every gun beats an M4 on this count. These guns are also more accurate than the M4, more ergonomic, but heavier, and 4 times the price.
 
The two guns that are unquestionably better than the M4 from the last competition are the SCAR-L and the HK416. They are both also about 2 pounds heavier in stock configuration than an M4. They are both piston. They both also cost between 2-4K to buy, and the military pays 600 dollars for an M4. Technology has come a long way. An M4 in the SOPMOD II configuration, along with the special forces Mk12 rifle you saw in Lone Survivor (google them both immediately, I command you!) are the pinnacle of the military AR arsenal.
 
The Army, which is by the way the gayest ever when it comes to buying the right thing (see the multicam fiasco, I mean they picked ACUs without a competition and that has gotten people killed in the last two wars, and they won't buy multicam from crye for the same price they are paying Propper for their ACUs in that awful camo pattern). The Army is the literally the worst ever at buying stuff that works. Even the Marines are better than the Army at that, and the Marines never buy new stuff.
 
The .mil establishment also has to contend with the logistics of a new project. It would cost far more than cost of rifles to redo the logistics. The HK416 and SCAR have very little parts commonality with the m4. Changing rifles like that costs a fortune. Nothing compared to a few stealth fighters though, which is why people get their panties in a wad. Colt has great lobbyists too. The military procurement process is so screwed up, so corrupt, and so inept, and run by people who have never fired a weapon in anger, that the gun that Big Army uses will never ever be the best. Ever.
 
That said, I would take a BCM AR into real *expletive deleted*it in a heartbeat. Because it is a very very very good rifle. Mine is. I take care of it. And clean it, etc. Your average 18 year old with an M4 doesn't. There are guys on youtube who have fired 10K rounds through a BCM rifle without cleaning it and never had so much as a hiccup.
Are there better guns than the M4? Absolutely. I owned a scar which is demonstrably better in every way possible besides weight to an M4. But is it demonstrably better to the tune of 1500 more per rifle than an M4, and even more than that with the spare parts and logistics chain to go with it? I personally decided that it wasn't which is why I sold it and bought one of the best ARs money can buy (BCM). And why the Army hasn't been able to get rid of the M4 for the last twenty years despite frantically trying every 4 years, and wasting millions of research dollars from FN and HK among others. The army couldn't tell you which rifle they need if you shoved it up their ass and pulled the trigger til it went click click click. Clueless morons in the pocket of the military industrial complex.
 
One more thing. Compared to other dumb stuff the military does, like spending billions of dollars researching planes they never build, buying 500K SCAR 16s is chump change. They could get it if they wanted it. But they don't want it. Because they suck.

[Boomhauer]

Your brother is a bit off when he says "made by the lowest bidder"... The M4 is made by Colt to the M4 technical data packages which includes a lot of critical specifications. A factory new M4 or, as close as we can get it, the Colt LE6920 is a very good rifle when new. But as the rifles age and get round counts on them, parts maintenance and replacement must be kept up, just like any machine. This is often neglected (witness the numerous reports of soldiers getting issued beat to crap old magazines, rifles with worn ejectors and extractors, etc.

He does make a very good point- it's not just buying a rifle, it's buying rifles, spare parts, magazines (if the picked design does not use the M16/M4 mags) and lots of training and such.

The better interim solution is to be more proactive on maintenance and replacing worn out rifles and keeping up with training. The average soldier going into combat receives shockingly little weapons training, and the price for that has been paid in blood

Not to mention, the SCAR has it's issues from what I've heard that are still being worked out.

When it does come time for weapon replacement, it needs to be a full replacement including magazines, not an "improvement" of the AR platform (the SCAR is a lot of improvements in one rifle, for the most part).

[lee n. field]

"Buy a WASR and be done with it."

 

(not an EBR geek.  If mine ever comes out of the closet, the excrement has well and truly hit the fan.)

[MechAg94]

"Buy a WASR and be done with it."

 

(not an EBR geek.  If mine ever comes out of the closet, the excrement has well and truly hit the fan.)

That last is the way I feel about it.  I bought a cheaper Zastava AK for home defense simply because I don't care (as much) if it gets confiscated and I never see it again.  I really wouldn't want to lose my Tavor or my Vepr K.

[brimic]

For example, the BCM rifle I have now is better than any AR a soldier will ever carry. Better bolt, better barrel, better receiver, better trigger, better gas system, better profile, lighter, etc. It's just better.

Yes.
Colt makes really good rifles, that are to a certain spec, but BCM builds them from even better materials and parts. If the Army wants to do right, they need to update their specs, not pick a new platform.

Do a search on 'filthy 14'- its about one of Pat Roger's rifles that went something like 30,000 rounds with only one cleaning- and no malfunctions.

[AJ Dual]

Yep, tougher alloys, better coatings, and a more realistic replacement schedule would get the .mil 95% of where they claim they want to be with the M4's performance. I don't see the DI gas operation as a significant reliability detriment. Not since the whole McNamara ball-powder fiasco during Vietnam. Dust/dirt/sand failures are going to happen unless your design is as loose as an AKM, just the way it is.

The only other real issue is that they made the M4 so damn short in the first place, and that robs the 5.56 of a lot of it's terminal performance after 200 yards, give or take. And then the 62gr SS-formula 409 M- whatever penetrator because the 55gr ball didn't do a good job on mild barriers, but then you lose the explosive terminal performance of the under-stabilized 55gr pills with the Vietnam era 1-12" twist barrels...

IMO, the main drawback to the AR/M4 platform is the buffer tube/receiver extension which is required for the spring and the BCG to actually have somewhere to go under recoil. This prevents a true folding stock, and is then part of the justification for the velocity robbing short barrel.

Something like the Masada/ACR (don't get me started...) or the SCAR, with every last bug worked out, and a pound sliced off, in an optimized 6mm-ish caliber with slightly longer legs than 5.56 is what the U.S. Military "needs", but that's what EVERY Western modern military has "needed" since WWII, and never ever actually gets. 

[dogmush]

Didn't read the article.

Basic rule of thumb:  The Army Rigs everything. Competitions, training, hell we do our best to rig combat. It was rigged.  It may or may not have been rigged as described in the article.