Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: M4 in the harsh spotlight, again
Something Meatier    4/20/2008 11:01:21 PM
Colt's grip on military rifle criticized Associated Press, 4/20/08 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 M4s 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 M4, which can fire at a rate of 700 to 950 bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. It normally carries a 30-round magazine. At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 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 M4'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 M4 an excellent carbine. When the time comes to replace the M4, they want a combat rifle that is leaps and bounds beyond what's currently available. "There's not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4," 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 M4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally new weapon. "We haven't made up our mind yet," Radcliffe says. William Keys, Colt's chief executive officer, says the M4 gets impressive reviews from the battlefield. And he worries that bashing the carbine will undermine the confidence the troops have in it. "The guy killing the enemy with this gun loves it," says Keys, a former Marine Corps general who was awarded the Navy Cross for battlefield valor in Vietnam. "I'm not going to stand here and disparage the senator, but I think he's wrong." 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 M4. 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. And the relationship between the Army and Colt has been frosty at times. Concerned over the steadily rising cost of the M4, the Army forced Colt to lower its prices two years ago by threatening to buy rifles from another supplier. Prior to the warning, Colt "had not demonstrated any incentive to consider a price reduction," then-Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, an Army acquisition official, wrote in a November 2006 report. Coburn is the M4'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 M4, 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. "All I know is, we're not having the competition, and the technology that is out there is not in the hands of our troops," says Jack Keane, a former Army general who pushed unsuccessfully for an M4 replacement before retiring four years ago. The dispute over the M4 has been overshadowed by larger but not necessarily more important concerns. When the public's attention is focused on the annual defense budget, it tends to be captured by bigger-ticket items, like the Air Force's F-22 Raptors that cost $160 million each. The Raptor, a radar-evading jet fighter, has never been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the troops who patrol Baghdad's still-dangerous neighborhoods or track insurgents along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there's no piece of gear more critical than the rifles on their shoulders. They go everywhere with them, even to the bathroom and the chow hall. Yet the military has a poor track record for getting high-quality firearms to warfighters. Since the Revolutionary War, mountains of red tape, oversize egos and never-ending arguments o
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
flamingknives       4/30/2008 1:38:45 PM
The SAS aren't about take and hold. Many of their missions are raids or reconnaissance, where priority on the light weight or deniability is more important than with regular infantry, or line infantry, however you like to term it. The recce missions in particular are often nothing to do with shooting people to death. 

"Better" is really subjective. As in really, really subjective. It depends on your mission requirements and such things.
Even if the Armalite was demonstrably better than the A2 SA80, there's plenty of reason for not binning it and getting another 5.56 rifle. The British Army is trained to use it. Just like your experience with the armalite colours your perception of other rifles, one trained to use the SA80 would have a prejudice against conventional rifles.

The A1 version was a piece of yuck, and there are a number of interesting reasons for that, but we weren't discussing that, were we?


 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/30/2008 1:52:22 PM





As for rifles exploding - they don't.  The only way an SA-80 is going to misfire to the extent of risking injury to the shooter, is if the barrel becomes loose (which I think has happened something like twice in the last 25 years).  And even then the backblast is channeled out the ejection port, barrel, and magazine well.  There is no reason to be scared of the rifle.





They do. It is often caused by either obstruction or a failed cartridge that cause the barrel to break along the fault.

An over-powered or otherwise faulty cartridge isn't going to injur the shooter, although I grant it could cause considerable damage to the breach.
And if you don't allow your barrel to become obstructed - that isn't a problem.  All the same, the gasses will still be directed out the magazine well, away from the shooters face.
 
There is no reason to fear rifles, not bullpups or any other. 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/30/2008 4:53:32 PM


An over-powered or otherwise faulty cartridge isn't going to injur the shooter, although I grant it could cause considerable damage to the breach.

And if you don't allow your barrel to become obstructed - that isn't a problem.  All the same, the gasses will still be directed out the magazine well, away from the shooters face.
 
There is no reason to fear rifles, not bullpups or any other. 


Standard M855 cartridge should produce 55,000psi in the chamber. If chamber fails, go figure.

For comparison, your tires are filled to about 30psi, and typical paintball gun uses 3000-5000psi.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/30/2008 4:55:46 PM

"Better" is really subjective. As in really, really subjective. It depends on your mission requirements and such things.
Even if the Armalite was demonstrably better than the A2 SA80, there's plenty of reason for not binning it and getting another 5.56 rifle. The British Army is trained to use it. Just like your experience with the armalite colours your perception of other rifles, one trained to use the SA80 would have a prejudice against conventional rifles.


According to this reasoning, British army should still be using SLR, maybe chambered with 5.56mm. After all, why change user habit. SLR is, after all, a very good battle rifle.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       4/30/2008 5:33:52 PM
FN FAL in 5.56mm is the FN FNC, IIRC. 

Any number of reasons for choosing one rifle over another. Usually they are political. When you make a calibre change, you are getting new equipment whichever way you look at it. The powers that be make a decision as to what they want in a rifle and make a decision on that, taking into account things like: Weight, length, maintainability, ability to supply, tactical considerations, logistical considerations, cost, political support etc. 

Changing rifles in mid-life is a different kettle of fish. Whatever is new needs to be that much better than what it is replacing to justify the cost of changing everything else around.

Would you seriously advocate replacing the SA80A2 with an Armalite? If so, from who?




 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/30/2008 6:33:11 PM

FN FAL in 5.56mm is the FN FNC, IIRC. 

Any number of reasons for choosing one rifle over another. Usually they are political. When you make a calibre change, you are getting new equipment whichever way you look at it. The powers that be make a decision as to what they want in a rifle and make a decision on that, taking into account things like: Weight, length, maintainability, ability to supply, tactical considerations, logistical considerations, cost, political support etc. 

Changing rifles in mid-life is a different kettle of fish. Whatever is new needs to be that much better than what it is replacing to justify the cost of changing everything else around.

Would you seriously advocate replacing the SA80A2 with an Armalite? If so, from who?





1. FN FNC is a derivation (a very good one) from AK-47. The one that evolved from FAL is CAL, though the bolt is locked by rotation, not tipping.

2. It looks to me more like a British aristocrat elite screwed up, and asked other aristocrat elites to wipe his arse.

3. A fraction of the budget that will be spent on elevators of your new carriers will be sufficient to build rifles for all adult males in UK. As for operation habit, they didn't bother to care about Tommy when L85A1 was issued.

4. I advocate replacement of SA80 by any other decent assault rifle. Which one  I don't care.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/30/2008 6:45:08 PM
Yelli - chambers don't just "fail".  And even if they were to - as I previously said, the explosive gasses will be directed away from the shooters face.  Safety is a non-issue.
 
And the SA-80 is a very good rifle.  There is no need to replace it.  If anything, we should re-start production.  You have nothing to do with the UK armed forces - what is your vested interest in wanting us to replace our standard individual weapon?
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/30/2008 10:25:09 PM

Yelli - chambers don't just "fail".  And even if they were to - as I previously said, the explosive gasses will be directed away from the shooters face.  Safety is a non-issue.

 

And the SA-80 is a very good rifle.  There is no need to replace it.  If anything, we should re-start production.  You have nothing to do with the UK armed forces - what is your vested interest in wanting us to replace our standard individual weapon?


Gas at 55,000psi won't just vent itself out. It can tear apart metals and make fragments flying at high speed. Have you seen barrels teared into two?

SA80 is not a good rifle just because now it isn't as reliable as L85A1. It is a project that should have been canceled at its beginning. Everything can go wrong on developing a rifle happened on this one.  I don't know how you guys can tolerate this, but if you don't want next UK rifle to go that crap all over again, you should join my bandwagon of being picky.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       4/30/2008 11:50:11 PM



1. FN FNC is a derivation (a very good one) from AK-47. The one that evolved from FAL is CAL, though the bolt is locked by rotation, not tipping.

I go away for a few days and miss a thread as lively as this one . . . just don't have a clue where to wade into the topic, though . . .
On this immediate topic -- the CAL was a flop due to reliability issues, if I recall correctly.  I don't recall the specific issues, but apparently the Brazilians were able to sort out things with their 5.56mm version of the FAL (MD-2/3, IIRC), whereas FN dropped the CAL in favor of the AK based FNC.
 
On the broader topic -- for better or for worse, I think the rifle debate in official circles here in the US is far from over.  I don't know if we're guaranteed to see a new rifle adopted, but I think a lot more ink will be spilled on the topic, tests run, etc. in the coming months.

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       5/1/2008 6:23:12 PM
Yellichink,

regards point 3 above, that would be the case only if each rifle coast £1. If the same number were procured as SA80A2s, that budget would increase to all of £65 each.

Point 2. I don't know why you think to bring the aristocracy into this.

Point 4. From your level of argument, I would take a second opinion if you told me that the sky was blue, grass green and water wet.

Gas at 55,000 psi (55 ksi or 380 MPa to use more usual engineering terms) is nasty but:
a) There isn't that much of it.
b) Howitzer breech pressures reach twice that.

I'd gladly debate the SA80 debacle, as it is an interesting and cautionary tale.
However, as you have a tenuous grasp of the facts and seem to be somewhat prejudiced, I shan't bother. Good day sir.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics