SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    "This detailed report shows which M4 rifle design works the best" mid-length vs carbine
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
"This detailed report shows which M4 rifle design works the best" mid-length vs carbine Login/Join 
Member
posted
The link has a few stock photos plus a chart of cyclic rate for mid-length vs carbine.

https://www.militarytimes.com/...sign-works-the-best/

This detailed report shows which M4 rifle design works the best

By: Kyle Rempfer  

Using a mid-length gas system on an M4A1 carbine extends the life of the weapon system and increases the weapon’s performance over a carbine-length gas system, according to a detailed study by Naval Surface Warfare Center — Crane, obtained by Military Times through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The Navy’s Crane center is responsible for testing, evaluating, procuring and managing the life-cycle of U.S. special operations forces’ weapon systems. So, naturally, they tested the mid-length gas system on M4A1 carbines at the behest of Army Special Operations Command.

This study may not come as a complete shock to civilian shooting aficionados and U.S. special operations forces who customize their M4 variants, but it does offer data to back up what those communities have believed for some time.

For the uninitiated, the crux of the issue comes down to when the M4 carbine first replaced the M16 rifle.

In developing the M4, the M16’s gas system was redesigned, according to Crane. The M16 uses a 20-inch barrel and gas system, but the M4 designs were crunched down to fit a 14.5-inch barrel.

Because of the shorter barrel, the gas port was moved down and the dwell distance — the delay between where the bullet passes the gas tube hole to the point where the bullet exits the barrel — decreased.

That decrease in distance from bolt face to gas port on the M4 resulted in an increased port pressure compared to the M16 of the past.

The M4’s port pressure measured at 17,000 psi, while the M16’s was at 10,000 psi.

Many civilian clones of the M4 utilize longer barrels, but also place mid-length gas systems on their custom-built designs. This customization increases the distance from bolt face to gas port than what would be normal on a standard issue M4.

Crane — located in rural Indiana — switched the carbine length gas system on the M4’s 14.5-inch barrel and upper receiver group with the mid-length gas system. Then the study cohort shot 12,600 rounds of M855A1 5.56mm through both designs for comparison testing.

Findings:

The mid-length gas systems experienced a total of 30 malfunctions, while the carbine-length gas systems experienced more than double that at 65 malfunctions. Additionally, the carbine-length gas system suffered 13 unserviceable parts, while the mid-length gas system only suffered 9 unserviceable parts.

The study also found that the mid-length gas system experienced a decrease in bolt speed and a decreased cyclic rate of automatic fire.

Crane found no statistically significant differences between the two gas system types in terms of weapon precision, barrel erosion, terminal velocity or muzzle velocity. Nor did Crane find any difference in malfunctions or rate of fire between the two gas systems when testing at high and low temperatures, which were 160 and -60 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively.

The Crane study concluded that the mid-length gas system was “recommended for use,” but also decided to continue testing. Crane plans to test the two gas systems up to more than 30,000 rounds.
 
Posts: 13165 | Location: Eastern Iowa | Registered: May 21, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Jumper
posted Hide Post
Interesting, thanks for posting.

I wonder how many firearms were involved in the testing.
 
Posts: 2117 | Location: Dallas TX | Registered: December 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
That rug really tied
the room together.
Picture of bubbatime
posted Hide Post
The carbine gas "aficionados" are no doubt blowing a damn gasket right now on the "other" forums. They flat out deny that the mid-length is better. Most of us with a brain can see the benefits. Lower port pressure, less wear and tear, proper dwell time, easier extraction. Twice the reliability was a nice benefit as well.

Hopefully the military gets their head out of their ass pronto and some M4A? rifles hit the street. With new mid length barrels.


______________________________________________________
Often times a very small man can cast a very large shadow
 
Posts: 4640 | Location: Floriduh | Registered: October 16, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of awa762
posted Hide Post
Nice post and good to know!

It seems that they are comparing 2 rifles head-to-head. I really hope that they'll run something like 20 rifles head-to-head in order to make this more robust. Otherwise, this is pretty much an anecdote at this point. I.e., any of us with 2 rifles and 25,000 rounds of ammo to burn could do this test and share the findings.

I'd think that the military would jump at the opportunity to really test out wear and tear / longevity between the two gas lengths considering the stakes at hand, such as reliability, logistics of service times/frequency, parts usage, and ultimately, maybe even soldier survivability if rifles are being pushed very hard without optimal servicing.


Join and Support the NRA
 
Posts: 148 | Location: Greater New Orleans Area... see us on the news??? | Registered: October 17, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
fugitive from reality
Picture of SgtGold
posted Hide Post
I know this is a recent article but this is really old news. ARFCOM has more than it's share of geardos, gidiots, and tacticool wannabes who will never accept anything that's not in the TDP, but the superiority of the mid length gas system is pretty proven science.


_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 5852 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of DamageInc
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by awa762:
Nice post and good to know!

It seems that they are comparing 2 rifles head-to-head. I really hope that they'll run something like 20 rifles head-to-head in order to make this more robust. Otherwise, this is pretty much an anecdote at this point. I.e., any of us with 2 rifles and 25,000 rounds of ammo to burn could do this test and share the findings.

I'd think that the military would jump at the opportunity to really test out wear and tear / longevity between the two gas lengths considering the stakes at hand, such as reliability, logistics of service times/frequency, parts usage, and ultimately, maybe even soldier survivability if rifles are being pushed very hard without optimal servicing.


It sounds like it's 3 of each. Here is another article: http://soldiersystems.net/2018...creased-performance/

Many of us have known about the benefits of mid-length (over carbine gas) for over 20 years. It's a shame how slow our military can be to catch on.
 
Posts: 3383 | Location: WI | Registered: June 27, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yes, it's a benefit (and I prefer it), but still not substantial enough to get rid of a carbine you already have IMO.

Buying or building new? Yeah, go mid-length, there really isn't a downside.




“People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik

The world's a dangerous place, we can help! http://portlandfirearmtraining.com/
 
Posts: 3528 | Location: Oregon | Registered: October 02, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Security Sage
Picture of striker1
posted Hide Post
^ I agree. If you have a 6920, no worries, you’re good to go. Have a handful of carbine gas? Great! Want to pick up one or two middies? Go for it.

Either is fine, and the midlength may offer a few benefits that will slight increase bolt life plus offer a different (softer) recoil impulse.

I only have middies now, but I’d own a carbine gas if the price was right.



RB

Cancer (NHL) Survivor 2010 and 2014, now fighting Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.

“Did you hear about the statistician who recently drowned in an average of 5 feet of water?”


 
Posts: 6634 | Location: Michiana | Registered: March 01, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Green Mountain Boy
Picture of Jus228
posted Hide Post
Carbine gas is meant for 14.5" barrel. On a 16" it screws up dwell time as I understand it. Hence the reason for midlength. Thought it was that simple.


!~God Bless the U.S. Military~!

If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off

Light travels faster than sound, this is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak
 
Posts: 5506 | Location: Vermont | Registered: March 02, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigless in
Indiana
Picture of IndianaBoy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jus228:
Carbine gas is meant for 14.5" barrel. On a 16" it screws up dwell time as I understand it. Hence the reason for midlength. Thought it was that simple.



That arrangement was settled upon to keep capability to fit a standard bayonet on an M4. Mid-length works well on a 14.5 as well.


I have owned both and I can feel the difference, but I wouldn't worry about it too much if you own carbine length.
 
Posts: 13119 | Location: The Edge of the Ozarks | Registered: December 04, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    "This detailed report shows which M4 rifle design works the best" mid-length vs carbine

© SIGforum 2018