M4 places at bottom of Army dust testing

This is a discussion on M4 places at bottom of Army dust testing within the Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...sttest_071217/ news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217 Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test By Matthew Cox - Staff writer Posted : Monday Dec 17, 2007 9:25:16 EST The M4 ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: M4 places at bottom of Army dust testing

  1. #1
    Member Array GotSig?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pinellas Park, FL
    Posts
    474

    M4 places at bottom of Army dust testing

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...sttest_071217/
    news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217
    Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test

    By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
    Posted : Monday Dec 17, 2007 9:25:16 EST

    The M4 carbine, the weapon 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 Center 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,” but Army officials continue to stand by the current carbine, said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, commander of Program Executive Office Soldier, the command that is responsible for equipping soldiers.

    “We take the results of this test with a great deal of interest and seriousness,” Brown said, expressing his determination to outfit soldiers with the best equipment possible.

    The test results did not sway the Army’s faith in the M4, he said.

    “Everybody in the Army has high confidence in this weapon,” Brown said.

    Lighter and more compact than the M16 rifle, the M4 is more effective for the close confines of urban combat. The Army began fielding the M4 in the mid-1990s.

    Army weapons officials agreed to perform the test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army combat forces to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Coburn is questioning the Army’s plans to spend $375 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009.

    Coburn raised concerns over the M4’s “long-standing reliability” problems in an April 12 letter and asked if the Army had considered newer, possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.

    John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, who was traveling, said the senator was reviewing the test results and had yet to discuss it with the Army.

    The M4, like its predecessor, the M16, uses a gas tube system, which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Some weapons experts maintain the M4’s system of blowing gas directly into the firing mechanism of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication, causing excessive wear on parts.

    The other contenders in the dust test — the XM8, SCAR and 416 — use a piston-style operating system, which relies on a gas-driven piston rod to cycle the weapon during firing. The gas is vented without funneling through the firing mechanism.

    The Army’s Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004 after tests revealed that the piston operating system significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts. The elite unit collaborated with the German arms maker to develop the new carbine.

    U.S. Special Operations Command has also revised its small-arms requirements. In November 2004, SOCom awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace its weapons from the M16 family.

    And from 2002 to 2005, the Army developed the XM8 as a replacement for the Army’s M16 family. The program led to infighting within the service’s weapons community and eventually died after failing to win approval at the Defense Department level.

    How they were tested

    The recent Aberdeen dust test used 10 sample models of each weapon. Before going into the dust chamber, testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to each weapon. Each weapon’s muzzle was capped and ejection port cover closed.

    testers exposed the weapons to a heavy dust environment for 30 minutes before firing 120 rounds from each.

    The weapons were then put back in the dust chamber for another 30 minutes and fired another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.

    testers then wiped down each weapon and applied another heavy application of lubrication.

    The weapons were put back through the same sequence of 30 minutes in the dust chamber followed by firing 120 rounds from each weapon until another 600 rounds were fired.

    testers then thoroughly cleaned each weapon, re-lubricated each, and began the dusting and fire sequencing again.

    This process was repeated until testers fired 6,000 rounds through each weapon.

    The dust test exposed the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to during a “systems assessment” at Aberdeen last year and again this summer. The results of the second round of ATEC tests showed that the performance of the M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of lubrication used.

    Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in the tests earlier in the summer, the 10 M4s tested had 307 stoppages, test results show, far fewer than the 882 in the most recent test.

    in the recent tests, the M4 suffered 643 weapon-related stoppages, such as failure to eject or failure to extract fired casings, and 239 magazine-related stoppages.

    Colt officials had not seen the test report and would not comment for this story, said James Battaglini, executive vice president for Colt Defense LLC, on Dec. 14.

    Army officials are concerned about the gap between the two tests becaus the “test conditions for test two and three were ostensibly the same,” Brown said.

    There were, however, minor differences in the two tests because they were conducted at different times of the year with different test officials, Brown said. test community officials are analyzing the data to try to explain why the M4 performed worse during this test.

    Weapons officials pointed out that these tests were conducted in extreme conditions that did not address “reliability in typical operational conditions,” the test report states.

    Despite the last-place showing, Army officials say there is no movement toward replacing the M4.

    The Army wants its next soldier weapon to be a true leap ahead, rather than a series of small improvements, Brown said.

    “That is what the intent is,” he said, “to give our soldiers the very best and we are not going to rest until we do that.”

    Col. Robert Radcliffe, head of the Directorate of Combat Developments for the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., said the test results will be considered as the Army continues to search for ways to improve soldier weapons.

    For now, he said the Army will stick with the M4, because soldier surveys from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to highlight the weapon’s popularity among troops in the combat zone.

    “The M4 is performing for them in combat, and it does what they needed to do in combat,” Radcliffe said.
    Reply With Quote
    كافر(Infidel)
    He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
    German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array goawayfarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fork Union, Virginia
    Posts
    2,681
    After seeing how the Dragon Skin armor was MIS-tested.....I don't have much faith in their 'tests'!
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

  4. #3
    Member Array GotSig?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pinellas Park, FL
    Posts
    474
    User Info IM User Email User Reply Quote Report

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...aring_071217w/


    "M4 may get tougher barrel, better mags

    By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
    Posted : Monday Dec 17, 2007 1630 EST

    Army weapons officials said Monday they are considering equipping the M4 carbine with a more durable barrel and improved magazines during a Pentagon briefing that discussed why three newer carbines outperformed the M4 in a recent reliability test.

    Army test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., completed an “extreme dust test” in late November that looked at the M4’s reliability compared to the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416.

    The weapons were exposed to 25 hours of heavy dust conditions over the course of the two-month long test that fired 6,000 rounds through each test weapon.

    In the end, XM8 finished first, SCAR finished second, 416 finished third and M4 finished fourth.

    Despite the findings, Army weapons officials are still pleased with M4’s performance, said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, commander of Program Executive Office Soldier, the command that is responsible for equipping soldiers.

    Brown described the Colt Defense LLC M4 as a “world-class weapon,” at a briefing with reporters.

    “There is a very high satisfaction rate with this rifle,” Brown said, adding that soldier surveys give the M4 an 89 percent approval rating.

    Army weapons officials say there is no movement toward replacing the M4 but say they will continue to improve upon the design.

    “We want to increase reliability,” said Col. Robert Radcliffe, the head of the Directorate of Combat Developments for the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga.

    One of the upgrades that may be coming in the future is a more reliable magazine. The test revealed that 239 of the 882 stoppages M4 suffered were magazine-related.

    The hope is that upgrades, such as stronger springs, will increase the magazine’s ability to feed rounds more effectively, Radcliffe said. If all goes well in testing, the improved magazines could be ready by next spring.

    Another upgrade under consideration is a “hammer-forged” barrel, Brown said.

    While there is no timeline in place, Brown said switching to this specific manufacturing process could yield M4 barrels that “have a longer life.”

    Army weapons officials agreed to perform the test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army combat forces to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Coburn is questioning the Army’s plans to spend $375 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009. "
    كافر(Infidel)
    He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
    German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

  5. #4
    Member Array JaredMcLaughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    69

    I'm not convinced.

    The heavy lubrication caught me. I'm not sure about the rest of you who have practical experience with this weapon system in the sort of theater where this might be a problem, but mine never jammed. If you heavily lubricate it, you'll create a good place for sand to go. I'm sure that'll cause some problems. All they have proven is that the M4 fails more when improperly maintained in these environments.

    Is there anyone out there that was under the impression that the m16 series requires no maintaining or knowledge of local operating conditions? I mean, we recheck our ironsights due to changes in temperature, can we not change how we lubricate the weapon in fine sand? Is this a suggestion to replace a fully functional weapon because some testers couldn't figure out how to maintain the thing correctly?

    Oops. Sorry. Didn't mean to rant so much. I never liked the thing until I carried it every day. Experience proved it to be among my favorite rifles.

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,631
    Goawayfarm, those "media" tests of the dragon skin were so fatally flawed as to be meaningless, never mind the fact that Dragon skin is 30lbs heavier and the laminate glue fails under high heat...but that's another story.

    As to the M4: A failure rate of .010717 during 25 hours in a dust chamber just ain't too bad. Could be better, apparently, but I'd hardly call that a bad result in general.

    Also, I'd really like to know what the number of magazine-realted failures were for the other weapon systems tested... After all, the SCAR and 416 use the same mags.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  7. #6
    Member Array GotSig?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pinellas Park, FL
    Posts
    474
    The army just did a test not too long ago which proved heavy lubrication was BETTER and produced fewer jams in dusty/sandy conditions, hence the heavy lubrication for this testing. Heavy lube flows sand/crud away from parts.
    كافر(Infidel)
    He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
    German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array Roadrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NW PA
    Posts
    737
    “Everybody in the Army has high confidence in this weapon,” Brown said.
    Someone forgot to tell me then. Just about every time I've gone to the range one of those things has jammed on me.
    - Kurt
    “Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.” ~Pericles of Athens
    Primary Carry - Colt Commander .45 in a Brommeland Max-Con V

  9. #8
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Goawayfarm, those "media" tests of the dragon skin were so fatally flawed as to be meaningless, never mind the fact that Dragon skin is 30lbs heavier and the laminate glue fails under high heat...but that's another story.
    And the tendency of diesel to dissolve the laminate glue proved to be a slight issue with soldiers familiar with convoy attacks.

    I'm dead serious as I say this, but I'm very surprised that the USGI magazine as it is now has lasted as long as it has without replacement. A dedicated R&D for steel mags or polymer mags should have been done YEARS ago.

    As for the dust test... Eh, so far as I've discerned the only thing useful that came out of the XM8 project was new types of 5.56 ammo and a great weapon sight. I really like the SCAR and the HK416 isn't bad either, but is replacing a whole weapon system necessary? The 416's would just be replacing an upper; that sounds like the best way to go if it were to be done. I wonder how the M4 would have fared if dry-lubed and with better mags. For that matter, I wonder how the M16 would have fared.

    I do find it funny that they want the next weapon to be a "leap ahead" and not a series of small improvements, but they're considering upgrading the mags and barrel. Oh those Army guys...


    -B

  10. #9
    Member Array JaredMcLaughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by GotSig? View Post
    The army just did a test not too long ago which proved heavy lubrication was BETTER and produced fewer jams in dusty/sandy conditions, hence the heavy lubrication for this testing. Heavy lube flows sand/crud away from parts.
    I know that one person's experience isn't a scientific study, but my practical experience was using a modern silicon (or was it graphite?) based lubricant nearly dry never failed. Other people who used much more generous amounts of lubrication from third party to military issue type had occasional issues. Heavy lubrication seemed to fail every time.

  11. #10
    Member Array JaredMcLaughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    69

    Sounds like a bad experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roadrunner View Post
    Someone forgot to tell me then. Just about every time I've gone to the range one of those things has jammed on me.
    Ever try a lubricant other than the army issue (storage) stuff? I don't know your situation, but I had problems with weapons that I didn't use and maintain daily; the ones that were just handed to me for a range qual and I never got a chance to mess with. I've definitely messed with some I thought needed rebuilt.

    Like I said, I don't know your situation, but I'm assuming this wasn't a rifle you carried on a daily basis. I know if it was mine, and it acted up, I'd either solve it or hit up the armorer.

    I believe that more extensive knowldege of the weapon should be promoted within the ranks. As soon as I had the chance, I took the complete lower apart. Doing that every so often allowed me to get at some really hard to reach places. When it's your life on the line, you don't really mind much what the regs say.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array Skygod's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    635
    Let me get this straight. The Army took brand spankin new SCAR's and XM8's and 416's and tested them agains't Colt M4's that had probably been shot several thousand times and attempted to compare their reliability to one another ??

    The XM8 is a cumbersome weapon. I don't like the control points one I oda and it does not support most of the accessories that one needs to outfit his or her rifle with.

    These reports never cease to amaze me.
    Perhaps your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

  13. #12
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    Add one more factor to that Sky, The other rifles were most likely test rifles since I do not believe any of them are in mass production yet. Therefore they are the perfect example of individual or limited runs verses the reality of mass production.

    Funny thing is I think I saw a report about a similar test being done a few months ago but with half as many of the malfunctions on the M4. Makes me wonder what kind of statistical sensitivity the testing has...
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Roadrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NW PA
    Posts
    737
    Jared, yes, this was a "here's your rifle, go shoot" type of deal, not my issue weapon. I'm in the reserves and intel to boot, so we don't exactly get the latest and greatest. All the same the experience over the last six years has left me with little love for the AR platform.
    - Kurt
    “Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.” ~Pericles of Athens
    Primary Carry - Colt Commander .45 in a Brommeland Max-Con V

  15. #14
    Member Array GotSig?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pinellas Park, FL
    Posts
    474
    http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...cation_070716/

    Army weapons officials might have found a way to improve the M16 family’s performance in the desert.

    “Dust chamber” tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., last year show that M16 rifles and M4 carbines perform dramatically better when the weapon’s bolt assembly is heavily lubricated.

    During each phase of the two-part “system assessment” at Army test and Evaluation Command, testers fired 60,000 rounds through 10 weapon samples of each model.

    Treated with light lubrication, new M16A4s and M4s, performed poorly in the extreme dust and sand conditions of the test, according to a January report from ATEC.

    But when testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to the weapons, the test results showed a “significant improvement.”

    Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in each phase, the M4 stoppage-rate dropped from 9,836 with light lubrication to 678 with heavy lubrication.

    The M16A4 stoppage-rate dropped from 2,124 with light lubrication to 507 with heavy lubrication, results show.

    For years, Army weapons officials have preached to soldiers to virtues of applying a light coat of lubrication during weapons maintenance.

    But the test results reinforce a recent change in weapons maintenance guidance Army units are practicing in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Col. Carl Lipsit, project manager for Soldier Weapons.

    At the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the Army will conduct a similar dust-chamber test in August, pitting the M4 against the Heckler and Koch 416, the H&K XM8 and FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle.

    All of the participating weapons will be treated with a heavy coat of lubrication during the test, Lipsit said.
    كافر(Infidel)
    He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
    German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    This is taken from a very similar discussion on another board about this topic. It is stated far better than I ever could state it, so here you go. I do not have a stake either way, just sounded well reasoned.


    So let's see out of their 60,000 that leads to:

    1.47% chance of a jam on the M4 or 0.512% chance of a jam in the previous test and 0.991% if averaged
    &
    0.212% chance of a jam on the XM8, which had the fewest jams

    Assuming Law of Large Numbers is valid, which it apparently isn't quite here. That's with 600 rounds between basic cleanings and five exposures to a heavy dust environment for 30 minutes at the 120 round mark for each 600 rounds. Thorough cleanings only after 1,200 rounds, and each weapon individually had to put up with 6,000 rounds with this treatment. I'd say that qualifies as rather harsh treatment for the test criteria.

    It's noted that last time the M4 only had 307 stoppages per 60,000 instead of the 882 per 60,000 this time. 239 of the ones in this test were magazine related. No note is made of a major critical failure by any of the rifles.

    My take on this is that it pretty much establishes the precept that the M4 can't handle dust is absolute nonsense. I see steep diminishing marginal return for the other rifles. They all naturally had stoppages, as would an AK for that matter before someone makes an idiot of themselves, and the difference is not really statistically significant. The fact the M4 could vary between 1.47% and 0.512% in an apparently identical test shows the inherent error in the test is more significant then the difference between weapons, or in other words the test is incapable of establishing the difference between weapons is appreciable and thus why it's statistically insignificant.

    Measurements and Data Analysis concepts practices favor the M4 as being good enough for the difference to not be appreciable with that test. If the measured difference between weapons is less then your tests inherent precision error it's kind of hard to even justify the results are meaningful in relation to comparison.

    In short: The test's Evident Precision Error > Difference that can be derived from test with any real confidence between rifles. That says to me that it's good enough. As does ~1% chance of a jam with that kind of harsh testing.
    and

    You're using the numbers in ways neither the statistics or the test justifies you to use them. QC analysis and otherwise would teach you not to be so rash with statistics. There's a reason there's tolerances on everything, and in the case we're talking within the apparent test tolerances of 0 for all. Besides that test went 1,200 rounds and ten heavy exposures to dust before a cleaning, that's more then dirty. That's more along the lines of abusive negligence.

    Further the test doesn't give you reason to conclude that the others wouldn't do just a poorly, as the variance in the M4's performance shows.

    Their numbers this time were:

    • XM8: 127 stoppages.

    • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.

    • 416: 233 stoppages.

    Compared to 307 previously for the M4. You want to claim that given the M4 had a better day last time, that the competitor's might just happen to be having a good day? Or that this time wasn't just a really bad day with the other being merely an average day for the M4, with it able to do better? Especially when the other test weapons are probably prototypes with unreal QC that wouldn't be matched in actual production, like the M4s they undoubtedly used basically off the rack.

    Given the parameters of the test there's no indication of actual stoppages, as opposed to just pull back the charging handle and clear it jams. Given how cleaning was incorporated into the testing process, stoppages in the way you seem to be implying didn't happen as otherwise there should be a note of had to field strip the weapon out of test cleaning parameters X times.

    So from the test, due to the more excessive dirt and use, we have what's closer to a maybe you'll have to clear it once in your entire 240 round load out, or maybe you'll have to clear it twice or three times if it's just not your day. Spun like you're trying to it's "guaranteed have to clear it once verse maybe once, twice, or three times in a full load out." How's that a major difference?

    1911s are vastly more jam prone then the results for any of these weapons and I don't hear half the vitriol against them as ARs on the net. Perhaps the most moronic part of the vitriol against the AR is the constant ripping on its gas system, while wanting to maintain the accuracy that owes a large part to its gas system encouraging less barrel harmonic issues. Pistons are the older technology compared to Stoner's direct gas, not the new one. Given the Israelis have been using them for a long time now, I think any real major issues would have already come to light.

    And at the end of the day the guys on the ground are satisfied with their AR pattern rifles in the surveys, and the AR series has a massive investment in existing parts, hardware, training, and operation manuals. Better, even if you could establish it, doesn't mean better enough to compensate for diminishing marginal return. You can always make something better, value analysis of whether it is worth the extra time, money, and otherwise however needs to always be respected.

    From my standpoint I have no confidence in the others being measurably better in this criterion with reasonable maintenance protocols being followed, and training to prevent people from doing nonsense that tends to make guns blow up. Seems as how that is the major selling point of the piston guns over the existing AR series, that leaves them in a rather weak position from my perspective.

    Honestly how much of the ARs bad rep would be still exist if we removed their use of nasty powder and no cleaning kits early on, because they were so impressed with its reliability in testing?
    Source link: http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewt...r=asc&start=24
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Rock bottom price for getting yourself into a Glock?
    By Ram Rod in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2009, 09:33 AM
  2. Dumb bottom feeder question.
    By Ghuqu2 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 21st, 2007, 11:46 AM
  3. Closed Bottom...benefit?
    By jtmo3 in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 14th, 2007, 04:09 PM
  4. Project #4 Flat Bottom Firing Pin Stops
    By Bud White in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: July 4th, 2007, 04:17 PM
  5. Hi Noon Bottom Line rig
    By P95Carry in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 15th, 2006, 11:16 PM

Search tags for this page

2007 assault rifle dust test

,

army dust-chamber test

,

army tests m4 against the heckler and koch 416

,

atec rifle test parameters

,

link to m4 dust test video

,

m4 dust test

,

m4 dust test results statistical significance

,

nietzsche matthew cox

,

precision delta bullets load data

Click on a term to search for related topics.