Texas SOT

Report: 'Fat' Government Gun Contractor is Criticized for Exclusive War Deal

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • slim jim

    Official News Guy
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008

    Report: 'Fat' Government Gun Contractor is Criticized for Exclusive War Deal

    Sunday , April 20, 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 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 shoot hundreds of bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. 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.
    Development of the carbine was driven by a need for a weapon that could be used in tight spaces but still had plenty of punch. Colt's answer was the 7 1/2-pound M4.
    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.
    Along the way, Colt's hold has been threatened but not broken.
    In 1996, a Navy office improperly released Colt's M4 blueprints, giving nearly two dozen contractors a look at the carbine's inner workings. Colt was ready to sue the U.S. government for the breach. The company wanted between $50 million and $70 million in damages.
    Cooler heads prevailed. The Defense Department didn't want to lose its only source for the M4, and Colt didn't want to stop selling to its best customer.
    The result was an agreement that made Colt the sole player in the U.S. military carbine market. FNMI, an FN Herstal subsidiary in South Carolina, challenged the deal in federal court but lost.
    And since the Sept. 11 attacks, sales have skyrocketed.
    The Army, the carbine's heaviest user, is outfitting all its front-line combat units with M4s. The Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and special operations forces also carry M4s. So do U.S. law enforcement agencies and militaries in many NATO countries.
    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 M4. The project became bogged down by bureaucracy, however, and was canceled in 2005.
    Keane, the retired Army general, 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?"
    Within military circles there are M4 defectors. U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., was one of the carbine's first customers. But the elite commando units using the M4 soured on it; the rifle had to be cleaned too often and couldn't hold up under the heavy use by Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs.
    "Jamming can and will occur for a variety of reasons," concluded an internal report written seven years ago by special operations officials but never published. "Several types of jams, however, are 'catastrophic' jams; because one of our operators could die in a firefight while trying to clear them."
    Pointing to the report's unpublished status, Colt has disputed its findings. The M4 has been continually improved over the years, says Keys, the company's chief executive.
    Special Operations Command is replacing the M4s and several other rifles in its arsenal with FN Herstal's SCAR, which comes in two models: one shoots the same 5.56 mm round as the M4; the other a larger 7.62 mm bullet and costs several hundred dollars more. Both SCARs can accommodate different-size barrels allowing the weapons to be fired at multiple ranges.
    The SCARs are more accurate, more reliable and expected to last far longer than their predecessors, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Marc Boyd, a command spokesman.
    "SOCOM likes to be different," says Keys of Colt, using the acronym for the command. "They wanted something unique."
    With the SCAR not yet in full-scale production, Heckler & Koch's HK416 is being used by elite units like Delta Force, the secretive anti-terrorism unit. The command would not comment on the HK416 other than to say there are "a small number" of the carbines in its inventory.
    A key difference between the Colt carbine and the competitors is the way the rounds are fed through the rifle at lightning speed.
    The SCAR and HK416 use a gas piston system to cycle the bullets automatically. The M4 uses "gas impingement," a method that pushes hot carbon-fouled gas through critical parts of the gun, according to detractors. Without frequent and careful maintenance, they say, the M4 is prone to jamming and will wear out more quickly than its gas-piston competitors.
    "A gas piston system runs a little bit smoother and a lot cleaner," says Dale Bohner, a retired Air Force commando who now works for Heckler & Koch. "If the U.S. military opened up a competition for all manufacturers, I see the 416 being a major player in that."
    Outside of Special Operations Command, there seems to be no rush to replace the M4.
    Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Army office that buys M4s and other combat gear, traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan last summer to get feedback from soldiers on Colt's carbine.


    ARJ Defense ad


    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Feb 21, 2008
    Austin, TX
    Issue the FAL like they should have decades ago.

    Fixed. lol ;) I still like the M14 though.

    Honestly, I think the whole M4/HK416/etc etc thing has been blown out of proportion. Yes, the 416 definitely works better. The M4/M16 work just fine, unfortunately because of the direct impingement gas system they also have to be cleaned much more often and extensively as well. What our military needs is something that is basically the glock of assault rifles, meaning reliable as hell, easy to clean, not needing frequent or detailed cleaning, etc. What our military should do is have some private contractor build a rock solid gas piston conversion system to retrofit for current issue M16's /M4's. There are a handful of companies out there making inexpensive piston conversions (usually ~$300-500), though I'm not sure if any of those are quite "GI proof" or durable enough for military use. That would be a heck of a lot cheaper and easier from a logistics standpoint compared to converting to an entirely new weapon system, or paying lots of money for the HK 416 when it's relatively the same damn thing just with a piston setup (a bit more to it than that, but you get the idea). Oh, and BTW Colt M4's do NOT cost $1500 a piece for the military, that guy is off substantially on that figure. The military pays around $850-950 a piece for M4's from what I hear. I've heard talk that the military price for HK 416's would be closer to ~$1300-1500 a piece, but who knows for sure as I haven't seen anything to really back that up. That's a pretty substantial difference in price considering the only thing you really get worth the extra cost is a piston system. From a logistics standpoint, that is likely not quite a large enough technical improvement for the military to consider completely changing out their small arms arsenal.

    The XM8 was a dismal failure. Apparently some of those guns actually had problems with the polymer frames melting in some areas after lots of sustained fire. Not to mention they look ugly as sin! I really just don't understand what HK was thinking in building that thing. They should have just used entered the G36 into that program as it's already an established weapon system being used world wide by military and police forces.


    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 23, 2008
    San Antonio
    Congress needs to quit bitching about the money we're spending on guns to keep this country free. They need to get the government out of the social programs that are draining our treasury. The government's priorities are out of whack.
    Top Bottom