Това е материала за който говорехме с ПлясПляс и който понеже не намерих онлайн взех че преснимах. Дейвид Крейн е аналитик по оръжията във военното министерство и е главен редактор на Defence Review.com
Въпреки, че е голяма статията е доста подробна и информативна (според мене, аз разбира се може и да бъркам) и който има търпението да я изчете без предубеждения ще има малко по-ясна представа от стандарти и критерии за тестване.
За колежката :
Приятелко, нещата не са черно-бели а сиви, както много пъти съм споменавал на други места. Нито калашника е по-добър, нито М16 (М4) В бюрократичните машини на армиите на всяка една държава има малко логика и повече икономика. За такива като тебе дето никога не са пипали нищо повече от клавиатура ще бъде много трудно да разберат концепции за водене на бой, за тип амуниции , за поддържане на оръжие и неговата ефикасност в различни бойни условия. Калашника не е създаден такъв какъвто го определят сега защото конструктора му е бил гений а просто защото директивите му са били да направи нападателно оръжие което да се произвежда бързо и евтино , да използва патрон, ефективен на 400м и с достатъчно кинетична енергия да убива на 800м. Калашников е бил талантлив конструктор, който е имал за база една сполучлива система, разработена и проверена в бой от германците и един сполучлив патрон, модифициран от американски ловен патрон, с които да започне работа и нищо повече от това. Калашника е надежден заради големите си допуски, които обаче са функция по-малко на технически гений и повече на техническа изостаналост (най-грубо казано) и ехидноста ти към нашите пишман специалисти е абсолютно неоснователна и единствено показва колко разбираш ти самата от тази материя.
Един от най-добрите оръжейни сайтове които аз съм срещал е на наш "пишман специалист" и вместо да ровиш из интернет и да си търсиш антитези и цитати ходи почети малко и после дрънкай общи приказки за това кой е "специалист" и какво разправят самите американци. Смешното тук е, че ти самата не знаеш да определиш какво е "специалист" обаче знаеш да меткаш цитати.
Бъди здрава.
====================================================
Colt's M4 carbine came in dead last in an "Extreme Dust Test" (EDT) conducted in the fall of 2007
that pitted the current-issue carbine against the FN's Mk16 (SCAR-Light), HK's 416, and HK's XM8.
The impetus for the test, the second dust test conducted on the M4 in the same year (2007),
was Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who believed that more reliable assault rifles and carbines than the M4
existed and should be compared to the M4 before the u.S. Army issued an approximately $375-million
sole-source procurement contract to Colt.

In Apri12007, Gen. Coburn stated in a letter, "I am concerned with the Army's plans to procure nearly
half a million new rifles outside of any competitive process." So, Coburn asked that the Army hold
a" ... free and open competition."

Accordingly, the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Center (ATEC) team tested 10 sample guns of each
weapon system, 40 guns total, and exposed them all to 25 hours of "dusting." Dust testing consisted of
each rifle getting a heavy dose of lubricant, the muzzle being capped, and the ejection port cover closed.
Then, each weapon was exposed to a heavy dust environment in a dust chamber for 30 minutes.
After the dust bath, a tester fired 120 rounds through each weapon. Then, back in the dust
chamber they went for another 30 minutes of sand spray and dust bathing before having to fire another 120 rounds.
This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds. Then, all the weapons were wiped
down and lubed again with heavy lubrication, and put back in the dust chamber for 30 more minutes,
120 rounds fired again, repeated to 600 rounds. At the 1,200-round mark- and every additional 1,200round
mark thereafter- the weapons received a full cleaning and lubrication.

This continued until the testers had put a total of 6,000 rounds through each individual test weapon.
Ten guns per weapon type times 6,000 rounds each comes to a total of 60,000 sandy rounds through each
weapon type. When the dust finally settled- sorry- here's how all four test weapons stacked up, best to worst:

XM8: 127 stoppages/malfunctions
Mk16 SCAR-L: 226 stoppages/malfunctions
HK416: 233 stoppages/malfunctions
M4 Carbine: 882 stoppages/malfunctions

What's curious about the M4's performance in this test is the fact that the 10 samples that were tested to 60,000
total rounds- again, 6,000 rounds apiece- only experienced 307 total malfunctions/stoppages during a previous test
that summer. Why did Colt's malfunction rate nearly triple?
According to Brig. Gen. Mark Brown of the U.S. Army Program Executive Office Soldier (PEG Soldier).
"Test conditions for test two [summer] and three latest were ostensibly the same," So, what was different'?
Different test officials and different time of year. That's pretty much it, which indicates that the EDT
test protocol may not be repeatable.

Dissecting The Numbers

But let's dissect the numbers a bit. In the summer '07 test. which was actually the second "extreme dust test" for the Colt M4,
the M4 experienced 148 "Class 1 and 2" weapon stoppages and 148 Class I and 2 magazine stoppages,
for a total of 296 Class 1 and 2 stoppages. The M4 also experienced 11 Class 3 stoppages.

By contrast. in the fall version of the test, the M4 experienced 624 Class 1 and 2 weapon stoppages and
239 Class 1 and 2 magazine stoppages, for a total of 863 Class 1 and 2 stoppages. In this test,
the M4 also experienced 19 total Class 3 stoppages, meaning the M4 experienced 643 total weapon-related malfunctions.

The Army defines stoppages with different classes:

Class 1 stoppages take 10 seconds or less to clear by the shooter.
Class 2 stoppages take more than 10 seconds to clear by the shooter.
Class 3 stoppages require an armorer to clear.

Here's the breakdown for the other weapons:

Mk16 (SCAR-L):
191 Class 1 and 2 weapon stoppages and 19 Class 1 and 2 mag stoppages
for 21 0 total Class 1 and 2 stoppages; 16 total Class 3 stoppages.

HK416:
210 Class I and 2 weapon stoppages and 9 Class 1 and 2 mag stoppages
for a total of 219 Class 1 and 2 stoppages: 14 total Class 3 stoppages.

HK XM8:
98 Class I and 2 weapon stoppages and 18 Class I and 2 mag stoppages,
for 116 total Class I and 2 stoppages: 11 total Class 3 stoppages.

An interesting observation from this test is that all weapons exceeded their headspace limit by the end of the test.
This condition resulted in ruptured cartridge cases on several weapons towards the end of the test.
More specifically, this happened at or before 6,000 rounds had been fired under EDT conditions,
and required replacing the weapon's bolt.
There was "no significant difference in head space loss" between weapon types.

Doing The Math

If I've got the math right. the M4's 882 stoppages over 60,000 rounds amounts to a 1.47 percent stoppage rate,
which translates to 1.47 stoppages out of every 100 rounds fired, Now, one might argue that this means the M4 fired
over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds without a problem. That might sound satisfactory to a layman,
but if the EDT test protocol actually mimicked realistic infantry combat conditions, this stoppage/malfunction rate
would be way too high, The M4 stopped once for every 68 rounds fired. or one jam for a bit over every two magazines,
One stoppage in every 68 rounds is just way too high a failure rate for an infantry combat rifle.
However- and this is very fortunate for the grunts who are issued the M4- the protocol really doesn't mimic combat conditions.
By contrast, the next worst performer, the HK416, stopped once every 257 rounds. Quite a difference.
The second-place finisher, the FN Mk 16, stopped once every 265 rounds,
And, the winner, the XM8, stopped once every 472 rounds.
Another thing that really sticks out is the relatively high number of magazine-related stoppages the M4 experienced
versus all the other weapons tested. There were 239 (M4) versus 19 (FN MKI6J, 9 (HK416l and 18 (11K XM8), respectively.
A striking difference, and one that definitelv should be examined more closely and solved, realistic test or not.
Like the Japanese say, the nail that sticks out gets hammered.

By the way, in a PowerPoint brief authored by Lt. Col. Timothy Chyma on the M4 Extreme Dust Tests, there's mention of a soldier's "basic load."
In a basic load, soldiers only carry 210 rounds in seven 30-round magazines, which weighs about 7lbs.

A soldier carrying double the basic load will carry 420 rounds in 14 30- rounders, which weighs about 14 Ibs.

According to U.S. Army officials, in a typical combat engagement, soldiers expend less than one basic load.

Even more specifically, according to these officials, soldiers rarely fire more than 140 rounds in an engagement.

In actual combat conditions, weapons are not usually exposed to such a constant and unrelenting amount of dust,
dirt, grit and contaminants, and, even if they were, U.S. Army combat troops clean and lubricate their weapons more
frequently than was allowed for by thetest protocol.
However, it could effectively be argued that U.S. combat troops shouldn't know to clean and lubricate their weapons
more frequently than the test protocol allowed.
It could be argued that, since we're now eight years into the millennium our troops should know to maintain a
battle rifle nearly so diligentlv in order to keep the basic combat rifle working in sand and dust and other adverse environments,
which is, of course, one of the reasons Gen. Coburn and others are pushing for a gas piston/op rod-driven replacement for the M4 in the first place.

Soldier Satisfaction

So, considering that the Colt M4 Carbine lost the fall 2007 test by such a significant margin, just how satisfied are soldiers with the weapon?
Pretty satisfied, as it turns out.

A total of 2,607 soldiers were surveyed by the Center of Naval Analysis. Of those.
917 were actually assigned the M4 and had used it in combat.
Of those 917 who had been issued the M4, 816 reported "overall satisfaction" with the M4.
That works out to an 89 percent satisfaction rating, which is pretty good, considering.
Additionallv, 734 end users (80 percent) reported they were confident that the M14 would fire without any malfunctions in combat.
Eighty-three percent (7611 reported that they were confident the M4 would not suffer major breakage or
failure that would necessitate repair before further use.
A further 743 soldiers (81 percent) assigned the M4 in combat did not experience a single stoppage while engaging the enemy.
By contrast. 74 soldiers (19 percent) assigned the M4 did experience a stoppage during a combat/ enemy engagement.
Furthermore, 143 soldiers (16 percent) who experienced a stoppage during a combat engagement reported a "small impact"
to their ability to engage the enemy after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage.
That said, 31 soldiers (3 percent) who experienced a stoppage/malfunction during a combat engagement reported that
they were unable to engage the enemy during a "significant portion" or in the entire firefight after performing immediate or
remedial action to clear the stoppage.

Only 12 soldiers, or one percent, thought the M4 should be replaced.

Inside Skinny

One of my professional contacts - out of U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Croup (AWG) provided the following insight into the
test results hat provides some perspective on the dust test results:

"Because the HK416 and M4 were the only production weapons, the 10 HK4H; and M4 carbines were all borrowed sight unseen
[from Army inventory] and the manufacturers had no idea that they were in for a test.
The 10 SCARs and 10 XM-8s were all handmade and delivered to Aberdeen with pretty much full knowledge of a test.
The SCAR even got some addition help with extra lubrication.

"With the HK416, 117 of the 233 malfunctions were from just one of the 10 weapons.
"The survey that Brown and Col. Radcliffe are referring to where they cite that the 'M4 is very popular amongst the soldiers
deployed forward in combat' was based on the soldiers just getting their M16s replaced by M4s.
"They were asked if they liked it Icompared to the M16 and of course the answer is going to be yes.
It is lighter and smaller, with all these cool optics and lasers on them. Not to mention that average soldiers have no frame of
reference when it comes to small arms; they're not really weapons experts." Assuming my AWG concontact's information is accurate,
without that single bad HK4H test weapon, the HK416 might haw finished first in the test.
This is significant, insofar as the 416 is the easiest and cheapest replacement for the M4, You only have to replace the M4 's
direct-gas-impingement upper receiver with the 416's gas piston rod-driven upper- and perhaps a bet tcr magazine.

(Ето едно от качествата на М4 което я прави по-функционално оръжие от АК,когато говориме за превъоръжаване на цяла армия)

Either way, a much easier and less-expensive fix than buying an entire new weapons system, be it the SC\R-L (Mk16) orXM8.

David Merrill, military communications manager for FNH USA responded to the contention that the SCARs were hand-picked by writing:
"The weapons we sent were not 'custom' made, they were from our LRIP production line, Your inside information on the lubrication was
partially correct- our weapons received some additional lube, but it was just enough to bring them up to the same level as evervone else,
We started off the test with a lighter coating than all the other weapons,"

So, what's the Army planning to do? One thing they're not planning is replacing the M4 with any one of its three conquerors from the last test.
According to CoL Robert Radcliffe, Director of Combats, U,S, Army Infantry Center, FL Benning, Ga., the Army is going to stick with the
M4 because soldier surveys from the sandbox, like the one cited above, show that U.S. Army combat troops like the weapon,
at least as compared to the MI6.
And, according to Brig. Gen. Brown, the Arrnv is looking for a "leap ahead" advancement, a next -generation infantry small-arms technology
for a replacement weapon, not just minor, incremental improvements like those represented by the HK416, FN SCAR- Light, and HK XM8,
The quest for a replacement for the M4 will be a long one.



невидим

Редактирано от SR-71 на 20.03.09 05:05.