So you say direct injection doesn't work
- Thread starter kraigwy
- Start date
Son let me tell you, I don't know about the "military test" but I do know about "tet '68" having been a participant in that endeavor. I know damn will our A1s shot more then indicated in the army's test, and more then once, and more then one rifle, The country was full of GIs doing the "test" for real.
Maybe instead of reading test, do a study of the TET '68 and see what happened.
mapsjanhere
New member
This makes those water cooled Maxims of pre WWI fame so much more impressive, 10,000 rounds without stopping. Too bad no one shot youtube videos at that time.
Here's another similar one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wf6IYMNdeo
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
It is a function of time AND number of rounds fired. 600 rounds in 30 minutes will get a rifle very warm but is within the sustained rate of fire for the M16. 600 rounds in 3 minutes will destroy a barrel. Tet is before my time; but I doubt that GIs firing non-beltfed weapons at the rate used in the NSWC Crane tests is a common experience in any war.
EDIT TO ADD: Although I did come across this story of a Gurkha in Afghanistan who fired 400 rounds from two weapons in 15 minutes as he singlehandedly battled approximately 30 Taliban. Crazy story...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...an-awarded-Gallantry-Cross.html#ixzz1HbFyGlcA
Last edited:
speedyjerry
Moderator
Tis a fine line between R&D and Foolishness when explosions are present.
Im not sure what the government test really proves, other than the gun can and will fail at a certain point with sustained mag dumps.
Wouldnt the test have been more telling (and relevant), if the guns were fired in a more realistic manner and then shot to failure?
You can make anything break if thats your goal. Put three cars on a test machine, and run one at 70mph, one at 100mph, and the other into the red line, which is likely to fail first? Im betting on red line.
Does that really prove anything? Yea, dont run in the red ALL the time. The other two are probably still running like sewing machines, even after the report of "failure" came out.
Wouldnt the test have been more telling (and relevant), if the guns were fired in a more realistic manner and then shot to failure?
You can make anything break if thats your goal. Put three cars on a test machine, and run one at 70mph, one at 100mph, and the other into the red line, which is likely to fail first? Im betting on red line.
Does that really prove anything? Yea, dont run in the red ALL the time. The other two are probably still running like sewing machines, even after the report of "failure" came out.
I don't know what it proves.
Individual small arms are not designed to carry the heat load expected of a squad weapon, which is not designed to carry the heat load expected of a heavy machine gun.
At some point you have to go to mulitple barrel configurations because the heat load is too much for a single barrel weapon.
Even then, I am certain there are videos of Vulcans with white hot barrels.
Heat something up long enough, it is going to melt. This is physics, or at least thermodynamics.
Individual small arms are not designed to carry the heat load expected of a squad weapon, which is not designed to carry the heat load expected of a heavy machine gun.
At some point you have to go to mulitple barrel configurations because the heat load is too much for a single barrel weapon.
Even then, I am certain there are videos of Vulcans with white hot barrels.
Heat something up long enough, it is going to melt. This is physics, or at least thermodynamics.
Maybe you met my Uncle? He was MArine tho, not army. My neighbor Dave was/is a green beret, he wears it all the time and most folks done mess with him. I find him to be friendly and helpful tho, a good neighbor. He dont talk about it, nor do my other friends that were there. I was 17 when it stopped, was thinking I was gonna be drafted after high school as my cousins were.
Hope these threads dont bring any bad thought or memories to you.
Thanks for the service you gave. I truly respect that.
trg42wraglefragle
New member
This must be some brand new design! I've heard of direct impingement, but i've never heard of or seen a direct injection rifle before.
Whats next? Carburettor feed rifles
Whats next? Carburettor feed rifles
The people in the video in the OP. It was claimed that the vets in 68 did the same with more rounds. I pointed out that was clearly not the case and posted a citation to back up my claims that a standard M16 or M4 will catastrophically fail before that point if back-to-back mag dumps are done.
My goal was to point out that while they may have clearly been shooting fast in 68 they were not, and could not be, doing mag dumps back to back. The OP was discussing oranges, then kraigwy starts discussing apples and I simply point out their example is an apple and not an orange and bring in an orange to show that.
Crosshair.............Ever see a mad-minute? When coming off an operation we get rid of all our ammo so we can start fresh, we did in fact dump several mags as fast as we could from M16a1s, our basic load was 460 rounds, many of us carried more.
You never want to start a new operation with old ammo, it gives a chance to clean and re-charge your magazines, then thoroughly clean your rifle.
I still disagree with the posted test, and others who say a M16 can't do it, it can, I've seen it, I've done it.
Re-read the first post and you'll see its "oranges".
You never want to start a new operation with old ammo, it gives a chance to clean and re-charge your magazines, then thoroughly clean your rifle.
I still disagree with the posted test, and others who say a M16 can't do it, it can, I've seen it, I've done it.
Re-read the first post and you'll see its "oranges".
No Crosshair. YOU are wrong. kraigwy is correct. All you have done is dredge up a single one-off report of three weapons fired one afternoon by an engineering team. One of the weapons didn't even fail.
The RIA test lab deliberately ran the weapons to destruction, firing them at roughly ten times the weapon's sustained rate of fire (in order to destroy them...duh!). They were fired at belt fed rates precisely to cause the barrels to rupture...in about 3 minutes.
I could dip an M4 into hot magma and get it to fail in three minutes as well.
Just like the notorious "Dust Cabinet" (a so-called endurance test) from a coupla years ago, the RIA test medium was a completely artificial environment not able to be replicated anywhere in the real infantry world. Soldiers don't actually go through 540 rounds in 3 minutes precisely because:
1. Almost NOBODY today carries that amount of ammo (although 500-700 rd loads were not uncommon among Vietnam era recon teams ); todays mounting weight of infantry gear (armor) precludes that kind of load out.
2. If you are in the kind of contact requiring such volume of fire, you either have some supporting fire (from buddies with rifles and machineguns) allowing you to slow down a little or you are already dead from the volume of enemy fire. You won't personally go through 500+ rounds in 3 minutes because there is too much else going on for you to be able to sustain three minutes of robotic mag changes. Those other things require your immediate attention. The three minute figure is the relevant number here.
On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a US combatant to go through 500+ rounds over the course of a firefight that spreads across more than three minutes. The M4A1 will go far beyond the "book" sustained rate of fire (15 rounds per minute). I have repeatedly seen that.
My mentors (all SEA NCO vets of Ranger, LRRP, & SF units) routinely busted through 2-3 basic loads (210 rds) during their engagements and insisted that we (their 1970s era Privates) carry that kind of load.
The report merely proves that you can blow up barrels if you fire enough rounds fast enough (and in a manner designed to be unsafe). You can do the same with your car's engine by sitting in the driveway, flooring the pedal, and redlining the RPMs (in Neutral) until she blows.
As you no doubt failed to notice, there is a disclaimer at the front of the document which states that the results of this single test ARE NOT the official view of the US Army. Don't wave that report around as if it counts that way...
To place that particular test in context, the driving force for its conduct was a series of incidents involving Special Forces Soldiers in my unit experiencing cookoffs during the conduct of high volume of fire range exercises. I am personally familiar with those particular incidents, as I was then serving as a Special Forces Team Sergeant in one of the Groups named, recieving all the (then) current reporting and Safety of Use Message Traffic (to include your 15 year old report).
What is NOT included in the report is the fact that several other agencies conducted their own tests at that time (notably elements of USASFC(A), USASOC, and Crane NSW). RIA has nothing to do with M4A1 procurement for SOF units (which fall under Crane), and this one-off "test" was an additional one at the request of Army SF.
We merely wanted a base-line for destruction in order to put those warning figures out to the Regiment until a permanent solution was found. The solution was to adopt a heavier profiled barrel for the M4A1. That solution was implemented many years ago and with good result.
I have personally fired far more than 540 rounds on full automatic, through current M4A1s in just a few minutes. I have personally fired similar amounts through various M16A1 rifles as well.
During October of 2009, I fired 1140 rounds of M855 ball (38 x 30-rd magazines) without a stutter, from my M4A1, full auto...in under 28.5 minutes.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4380069#post4380069
Stretching out the ridiculous lab test timeline to more realistic field conditions, I've put that same amount of "barrel bursting" rounds (18 magazines) through an M4A1 in 9.5 minutes without issue. That's about 2 mags (60 rds) per minute out of an already scorching hot carbine.
Although I do not dispute that Mr. Windham blew the barrels on 2 out of 3 weapons during a single short test, kraigwy & I represent probably 50+ years of experience using real weapons against real people, under real conditions, to include expending a really huge amount of bullets in a real short amount of time.
Screw that report.
Last edited:
Sorry, I do not believe that or believe someone would be so reckless as to put their primary weapon on which their life depends through such abuse. Perhaps we have found the source of reliability problems of the M-16 and M-4
I have provided a citation showing how long an M-16 or M-4 will go before catastrophic failure on back-to-back mag dumps. You have provided nothing but conjecture. Your tough talking does not change that.
After you seriously damaged it with a 460 round back-to-back mag dump, yea right.
All you have dredge up to back up those claims.............nothing. Why again am I supposed to take your position seriously?
Oh yea, if you actually read the article I posted you would read that even though the #1 M4 did not fail catastrophically, the barrel was bulged, bent, and irreparably damaged by the test. Changes in metallurgy were also documented in the barrels.
Exactly, they performed a test similar to the one in the OP. Except in this case they were testing the magazines and they knew a standard M16/M4 would likely catastrophically fail so they used a heavy barrel and heavy gas tube.
All COMPLETELY irrelevant to the OP and the subject of back-to-back mag dumps. Those whole point of those back-to-back mag dumps was not to test realistic shooting, but to create a worst case scenario to see just how long an AR could go. The fact it failed should not surprise anyone or be controversial. Any would have failed because that was what the test was trying to do.
and I personally don't believe you. Either in the rounds fired or in the speed you were shooting. What was the condition of the gun afterwards?
Right here is where I KNOW you are exaggerating and trying to shove your apples into a discussion about oranges. Had you done what they did in the failure tests that should have only taken you 6 minutes. In the military tests the cyclic rate for the M4 was 180 RPM where they ran out of ammo and 170 RPM on the one that failed.
In the "test" you performed your average cyclic rate in 28.5 minutes was only 40 RPM, less than a quarter of the catastrophic tests. You even said that you shot 300 rounds in 3 minutes, which is a cyclic rate of only 100 RPM. Something that the test I cited implies the M4 is easily capable of surviving and something I would believe. You then let the gun cool, which is what they did NOT do in the catastrophic tests, they kept firing until the guns broke. You then fired another 300 rounds, rinse and repeat. The fact your M4 survived is not surprising, given the test I posted, but it in no way disproves the tests the military did.
Why are you people so hell-bent on cramming apples into this discussion about oranges? You're not proving anything.
Why does everyone have such a problem with the fact that an M4 will fail catastrophically after back-to-back mag dumps? Any gun will fail in such a test.
Well Son, don't know what to tell you, except, I don't care what you believe.
Some people base their beliefs on what they read on the Internet, some people base their beliefs on what they've done and seen.
We all have the option to choose what to believe, Internet or experience. Since the Internet wasn't around when I was in the game I had to do it to see what happened.
Frankly I don't care what you choose to believe or where you got your information.
Hey Crosshair...you amuse me. 
Let's recap:
1. kraigwy posted a video depicting an M4 successfully ripping through 500 rounds using some new Surefire magazines..
2. You said: "600 rounds is about the point of catastrophic failure of a standard M4 according to military tests, but that was with 30 round magazines." You then pulled out a single 15 year old report as "proof" of that claim.
3. kraigwy disagreed with you pointing out that he had personal wartime experience to the contrary.
4. You naturally blew off the experience of a man with impeccable combat, competition, and instructor level riflery credentials. Everything kraigwy has posted in this thread matches my professional observations to include the TTPs he practiced in Vietnam (e.g., combat loads, mad minutes, expending all ammo after re-entering the wire).
5. I mentioned that I was involved in the circumstances of that report and that the context was incomplete (and that the conclusion no longer applies). I also mentioned that my experience with full auto military ARs (M16A1 & XM177E1/E2s prior to that report) matched kraigwy's experience.
6. You (not liking to be contradicted) proceeded to argue some more.
7. You do not believe anything I say. You don't believe anything kraigwy says.
8. You believe that the results of a sidebar test of 3 rifles (conducted at the behest of my unit) defines the operating parameters of an entire class of weapons across half a century of employment.
9. You believe that you know the truth. I know that you don't have a clue.
10. You like fruit analogies...
I base my opinions on several decades of current professional user experience, employing the AR weapon system as a combatant, instructor, and unit leader. My own eyes and my life's work experience tell me what fact and truth look like. When I compare the flavor of your internet posts with those of kraigwy, I can clearly define who knows what they are talking about. Sorry...It ain't you.
I'm sure that TFL readers can make their own determination concerning separation of wheat from chaff...
Echoing kraigwy...I don't EVEN care what you believe. I'm just trying to help out the other readers.
Have a nice day.
Let's recap:
1. kraigwy posted a video depicting an M4 successfully ripping through 500 rounds using some new Surefire magazines..
2. You said: "600 rounds is about the point of catastrophic failure of a standard M4 according to military tests, but that was with 30 round magazines." You then pulled out a single 15 year old report as "proof" of that claim.
3. kraigwy disagreed with you pointing out that he had personal wartime experience to the contrary.
4. You naturally blew off the experience of a man with impeccable combat, competition, and instructor level riflery credentials. Everything kraigwy has posted in this thread matches my professional observations to include the TTPs he practiced in Vietnam (e.g., combat loads, mad minutes, expending all ammo after re-entering the wire).
5. I mentioned that I was involved in the circumstances of that report and that the context was incomplete (and that the conclusion no longer applies). I also mentioned that my experience with full auto military ARs (M16A1 & XM177E1/E2s prior to that report) matched kraigwy's experience.
6. You (not liking to be contradicted) proceeded to argue some more.
7. You do not believe anything I say. You don't believe anything kraigwy says.
8. You believe that the results of a sidebar test of 3 rifles (conducted at the behest of my unit) defines the operating parameters of an entire class of weapons across half a century of employment.
9. You believe that you know the truth. I know that you don't have a clue.
10. You like fruit analogies...
I base my opinions on several decades of current professional user experience, employing the AR weapon system as a combatant, instructor, and unit leader. My own eyes and my life's work experience tell me what fact and truth look like. When I compare the flavor of your internet posts with those of kraigwy, I can clearly define who knows what they are talking about. Sorry...It ain't you.
I'm sure that TFL readers can make their own determination concerning separation of wheat from chaff...
Echoing kraigwy...I don't EVEN care what you believe. I'm just trying to help out the other readers.
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
goodspeed(TPF)
New member
You mean like a Ford Powerstroke Diesel?
