Shooting the Options
As someone who has field tested numerous select-fire and semi-automatic M16 and M4 variants, I recently began to wonder if there is any advantage to adopting a piston-powered M4, a mid-length direct impingement M4, or a mid-length piston-powered M4 over a traditional direct impingement design.
To conduct the test, I assembled a group of shooters and five semi-auto M4 variants. Our test weapons included a carbine length direct impingement powered Colt 6940, a carbine length direct impingement Colt 6920, a mid-length direct impingement Bravo Company EAG Tactical Model M4, a mid-length piston-powered LWRC M6A2 Special Purpose Rifle (M4), and a piston powered SIG 516 (M4). All rifles were tested using Winchester 55-grain 5.56 FMJ, Federal 55-grain 5.56 FMJ, and Israeli 62-grain military surplus ammunition.
Once the various M4s were sighted in using iron sights, Aimpoint red dot optics, and a Trijicon TAO1NSN ACOG magnified optic, we began the test. The evaluation was conducted from the standing unsupported position at a range of approximately 30 yards.
The first test compared the mid-length direct impingement Bravo Company EAG Tactical Model M4 to the mid-length gas piston-powered LWRC M6A2 SPR M4 to see if the mid-length operating system displayed a noticeably softer recoil impulse. Each member of the testing team fired numerous rounds from each M4.