thedrifter
04-24-08, 07:20 AM
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Colt M-4 under fire as military considers spending millions more on the weapon
Military defends Colt design amid contract scrutiny
By Richard Lardner, The Associated Press
Stars and Stripes online edition, Tuesday, April 22, 2008
HARTFORD, Conn.
No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M-4s they trust with their lives.
Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press.
“What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who’s gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
The M-4, which can shoot hundreds of bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company’s M-16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. At about $1,500 apiece, the M-4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines.
“And if you tend to have the problem at the wrong time, you’re putting your life on the line,” says Coburn, who began examining the M-4’s performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers. “The fact is, the American GI today doesn’t have the best weapon. And they ought to.”
U.S. military officials don’t agree. They call the M-4 an excellent carbine. “There’s not a weapon out there that’s significantly better than the M-4,” says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. “To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn’t make good sense.”
Colt’s exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that point, the Army, in its role as the military’s principal buyer of firearms, may have other gunmakers compete along with Colt for continued M-4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally new weapon.
“We haven’t made up our mind yet,” Radcliffe says.
In 2006, a non-profit research group surveyed 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found 89 percent were satisfied with the M-4. While Colt and the Army have trumpeted that finding, detractors say the survey also revealed that 19 percent of these soldiers had their weapon jam during a firefight.
Coburn is the M-4’s harshest and most vocal critic. But his concern is shared by others, who point to the “SCAR,” made by Belgian armorer FN Herstal, and the HK416, produced by Germany’s Heckler & Koch, as possible contenders. Both weapons cost about the same as the M-4, their manufacturers say.
The SCAR is being purchased by U.S. special operations forces, who have their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can’t.
Or won’t.
In 1994, Colt was awarded a no-bid contract to make the weapons. Since then, it has sold more than 400,000 to the U.S. military.
More than $300 million has been spent on 221,000 of the carbines over the past two years alone. And the Defense Department is asking Congress to provide another $230 million for 136,000 more.
A few years ago, the Army considered buying a brand-new carbine called the XM8. Designed by Heckler & Koch, the XM8 was touted as less expensive and more reliable than the M-4. The project became bogged down by bureaucracy, however, and was canceled in 2005.
Jack Keane, a the retired Army general who pushed unsuccessfully for an M-4 replacement before retiring four years ago, blames a bloated and risk-averse bureaucracy for the XM8’s demise.
“This is all about people not wanting to move out and do something different,” Keane says. “Why are they afraid of the competition?”
Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Army office that buys M-4s and other combat gear, traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan last summer to get feedback from soldiers on Colt’s carbine.
“I didn’t hear one single negative comment,” Brown says.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., says the troops may not be aware of the alternatives. He wants the Pentagon to study the options and make a decision before Congress does.
“Sen. Coburn has raised a good question: ‘Do we have the best personal weapon?’ And I don’t know that we do,” Sessions said.
“We’re not comfortable now. Let’s give this a rigorous examination.”
Sandstorm test proved tough on M-4
HARTFORD, Conn. — When the dust finally settled, Army officials sought to put the best face on a sandstorm test that humbled Colt Defense’s vaunted M-4 carbine.
The tests were conducted at an Army laboratory in Maryland last fall. Ten M-4s and 10 copies each of three other carbines — the SCAR from Belgium’s FN Herstal, and the HK416 and the XM8 from Germany’s Heckler & Koch — were coated in heavy layers of talcum-fine dust to simulate a sandstorm. Tens of thousands of rounds were fired through the rifles.
The M-4s malfunctioned 882 times. Bullets that didn’t feed through the rifles properly or became lodged in the firing chamber were the biggest problems.
The other carbines had far fewer hitches. The carbine with highest marks was the XM8, a gun with a Star Wars look that the Army considered buying just a few years ago but didn’t. The program collapsed due to bureaucratic infighting and questionable acquisition methods.
Despite the testing troubles, the Army and Colt are defending the M-4, the rifle U.S. forces rely on in combat. The tests, they stressed, were only meant for research purposes and didn’t represent actual conditions.
“This is not what soldiers encounter on the battlefield,” said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the officer who runs the Army acquisition office that buys rifles and other battlefield gear. “It doesn’t matter if you’re firing a flintlock from the Revolutionary War or you’re firing the M-4, you’ve got to clean your weapon.”
The XM8, Brown adds, had 10 cartridges break apart during testing — a flaw that can injure the shooter. The M-4 only had one ruptured cartridge.
In overall scoring, the M-4 finished the sandstorm test with a 98.6 — roughly 1 percentage point behind the others, according to Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga.
“That is good performance,” Radcliffe says.
But the M-4’s chief critic wasn’t buying the Army explanation spelled out in Power Point charts.
“What it shows is out of the four weapons tested, the M-4 is the worst,” says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “If it’s your son that’s the 1 percent that takes a bullet in the head [from the enemy] because his gun jammed, that 1 percent is pretty meaningful.”
A look at the options
M-4 - At 33.6 inches long and weighing 7.5 pounds when loaded, the Colt Defense’s M-4 is shorter and lighter than the M-16 but shoots the same battery-sized 5.56 mm round. The M-4’s compact design makes it ideal for troops traveling in Humvees or fighting in confined areas. An M-4 costs about $1,500. The weapon is used by all the U.S. military branches.
HK416 - Designed by Germany’s Heckler & Koch, the HK 416 carbine is slightly heavier than the M-4, but otherwise similar in appearance and feel. Heckler & Koch advertises its weapon as more rugged and accurate than the M-4. At $1,425 each (2007 prices), the HK416 costs about the same as the M-4. It also shoots a 5.56 mm round.
Elite U.S. military units such as the anti-terrorist Delta Force are using the HK416. Norway selected the rifle last year for its military forces.
XM8 - Also designed by Heckler & Koch, the XM8 weighs 8.3 pounds and fires 5.56 mm ammunition. Several years ago it was being pursued as a replacement for the M-4s in the U.S. military’s inventory. The project was halted in 2005. No pricing data is available.
SCAR - The Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, made by Belgium’s FN Herstal. Two versions of the weapon are being purchased by U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla. The lighter SCAR weighs 8.5 pounds loaded.
The command, which has its own budget for unique gear, says the SCARs are more durable and accurate than the M-4, and said they expect the light model SCAR to cost about the same as an M-4.
Ellie
Colt M-4 under fire as military considers spending millions more on the weapon
Military defends Colt design amid contract scrutiny
By Richard Lardner, The Associated Press
Stars and Stripes online edition, Tuesday, April 22, 2008
HARTFORD, Conn.
No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M-4s they trust with their lives.
Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press.
“What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who’s gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
The M-4, which can shoot hundreds of bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company’s M-16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. At about $1,500 apiece, the M-4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines.
“And if you tend to have the problem at the wrong time, you’re putting your life on the line,” says Coburn, who began examining the M-4’s performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers. “The fact is, the American GI today doesn’t have the best weapon. And they ought to.”
U.S. military officials don’t agree. They call the M-4 an excellent carbine. “There’s not a weapon out there that’s significantly better than the M-4,” says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. “To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn’t make good sense.”
Colt’s exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that point, the Army, in its role as the military’s principal buyer of firearms, may have other gunmakers compete along with Colt for continued M-4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally new weapon.
“We haven’t made up our mind yet,” Radcliffe says.
In 2006, a non-profit research group surveyed 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found 89 percent were satisfied with the M-4. While Colt and the Army have trumpeted that finding, detractors say the survey also revealed that 19 percent of these soldiers had their weapon jam during a firefight.
Coburn is the M-4’s harshest and most vocal critic. But his concern is shared by others, who point to the “SCAR,” made by Belgian armorer FN Herstal, and the HK416, produced by Germany’s Heckler & Koch, as possible contenders. Both weapons cost about the same as the M-4, their manufacturers say.
The SCAR is being purchased by U.S. special operations forces, who have their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can’t.
Or won’t.
In 1994, Colt was awarded a no-bid contract to make the weapons. Since then, it has sold more than 400,000 to the U.S. military.
More than $300 million has been spent on 221,000 of the carbines over the past two years alone. And the Defense Department is asking Congress to provide another $230 million for 136,000 more.
A few years ago, the Army considered buying a brand-new carbine called the XM8. Designed by Heckler & Koch, the XM8 was touted as less expensive and more reliable than the M-4. The project became bogged down by bureaucracy, however, and was canceled in 2005.
Jack Keane, a the retired Army general who pushed unsuccessfully for an M-4 replacement before retiring four years ago, blames a bloated and risk-averse bureaucracy for the XM8’s demise.
“This is all about people not wanting to move out and do something different,” Keane says. “Why are they afraid of the competition?”
Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Army office that buys M-4s and other combat gear, traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan last summer to get feedback from soldiers on Colt’s carbine.
“I didn’t hear one single negative comment,” Brown says.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., says the troops may not be aware of the alternatives. He wants the Pentagon to study the options and make a decision before Congress does.
“Sen. Coburn has raised a good question: ‘Do we have the best personal weapon?’ And I don’t know that we do,” Sessions said.
“We’re not comfortable now. Let’s give this a rigorous examination.”
Sandstorm test proved tough on M-4
HARTFORD, Conn. — When the dust finally settled, Army officials sought to put the best face on a sandstorm test that humbled Colt Defense’s vaunted M-4 carbine.
The tests were conducted at an Army laboratory in Maryland last fall. Ten M-4s and 10 copies each of three other carbines — the SCAR from Belgium’s FN Herstal, and the HK416 and the XM8 from Germany’s Heckler & Koch — were coated in heavy layers of talcum-fine dust to simulate a sandstorm. Tens of thousands of rounds were fired through the rifles.
The M-4s malfunctioned 882 times. Bullets that didn’t feed through the rifles properly or became lodged in the firing chamber were the biggest problems.
The other carbines had far fewer hitches. The carbine with highest marks was the XM8, a gun with a Star Wars look that the Army considered buying just a few years ago but didn’t. The program collapsed due to bureaucratic infighting and questionable acquisition methods.
Despite the testing troubles, the Army and Colt are defending the M-4, the rifle U.S. forces rely on in combat. The tests, they stressed, were only meant for research purposes and didn’t represent actual conditions.
“This is not what soldiers encounter on the battlefield,” said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the officer who runs the Army acquisition office that buys rifles and other battlefield gear. “It doesn’t matter if you’re firing a flintlock from the Revolutionary War or you’re firing the M-4, you’ve got to clean your weapon.”
The XM8, Brown adds, had 10 cartridges break apart during testing — a flaw that can injure the shooter. The M-4 only had one ruptured cartridge.
In overall scoring, the M-4 finished the sandstorm test with a 98.6 — roughly 1 percentage point behind the others, according to Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga.
“That is good performance,” Radcliffe says.
But the M-4’s chief critic wasn’t buying the Army explanation spelled out in Power Point charts.
“What it shows is out of the four weapons tested, the M-4 is the worst,” says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “If it’s your son that’s the 1 percent that takes a bullet in the head [from the enemy] because his gun jammed, that 1 percent is pretty meaningful.”
A look at the options
M-4 - At 33.6 inches long and weighing 7.5 pounds when loaded, the Colt Defense’s M-4 is shorter and lighter than the M-16 but shoots the same battery-sized 5.56 mm round. The M-4’s compact design makes it ideal for troops traveling in Humvees or fighting in confined areas. An M-4 costs about $1,500. The weapon is used by all the U.S. military branches.
HK416 - Designed by Germany’s Heckler & Koch, the HK 416 carbine is slightly heavier than the M-4, but otherwise similar in appearance and feel. Heckler & Koch advertises its weapon as more rugged and accurate than the M-4. At $1,425 each (2007 prices), the HK416 costs about the same as the M-4. It also shoots a 5.56 mm round.
Elite U.S. military units such as the anti-terrorist Delta Force are using the HK416. Norway selected the rifle last year for its military forces.
XM8 - Also designed by Heckler & Koch, the XM8 weighs 8.3 pounds and fires 5.56 mm ammunition. Several years ago it was being pursued as a replacement for the M-4s in the U.S. military’s inventory. The project was halted in 2005. No pricing data is available.
SCAR - The Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, made by Belgium’s FN Herstal. Two versions of the weapon are being purchased by U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla. The lighter SCAR weighs 8.5 pounds loaded.
The command, which has its own budget for unique gear, says the SCARs are more durable and accurate than the M-4, and said they expect the light model SCAR to cost about the same as an M-4.
Ellie