GUN Colt's grip on military rifle market called bad deal

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by TL1000RSquid, Apr 20, 2008.

  1. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    Colt's grip on military rifle market called bad deal
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-04-20_D905N05G0&show_article=1&cat=breaking
    Apr 20 12:29 PM US/Eastern
    By RICHARD LARDNER
    Associated Press Writer
    Write a Comment
    HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - 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.

    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 over bullet size and gunpowder have delayed or doomed promising efforts.

    The M16, designed by the visionary gunsmith Eugene Stoner, had such a rough entry into military service in the mid-1960s that a congressional oversight committee assailed the Army for behavior that bordered on criminal negligence.

    Stoner's lighter, more accurate rifle was competing against a heavier, more powerful gun the Army had heavily invested in. To accept the M16 would be to acknowledge a huge mistake, and ordnance officials did as much as they could to keep from buying the new automatic weapon. They continually fooled with Stoner's design.

    "The Army, if anything, was trying to sideline and sabotage it," said Richard Colton, a historian with the Springfield Armory Museum in Massachusetts.

    Despite the hurdles, the M16 would become the military's main battlefield rifle. And Colt, a company founded nearly 170 years ago by Hartford native Samuel Colt, was the primary manufacturer. Hundreds of thousands of M16s have been produced over the years for the U.S. military and foreign customers. Along with Colt, FNMI, an FN Herstal subsidiary in South Carolina, has also produced M16s.

    Development of the carbine was driven by a need for a condensed weapon that could be used in tight spaces but still had plenty of punch. Colt's answer was the 7 1/2-pound M4. The design allowed the company to leverage the tooling used for the M16.

    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 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.

    Keane, the retired Army general, knows how difficult it is to develop and deliver a brand-new rifle to the troops. As vice chief of staff, the Army's second highest-ranking officer, Keane pushed for the acquisition of a carbine called the XM8.

    The futuristic-looking rifle was designed by Heckler & Koch. According to Keane, the XM8 represented the gains made in firearms technology over the past 40 years.

    The XM8 would cost less and operate far longer without being lubricated or cleaned than the M4 could, Heckler & Koch promised. The project became bogged down by bureaucracy, however. In 2005, after $33 million had been invested, the XM8 was shelved. A subsequent audit by the Pentagon inspector general concluded the program didn't follow the military's strict acquisition rules.

    Keane 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?"

    As Colt pumps out 800 new M4s every day to meet U.S. and overseas demand, the company is remodeling its aging 270,000-square-foot facility in a hardscrabble section of Connecticut's capital city. New tooling and metal cutting machines have been installed as part of a $10 million plant improvement.

    Many of the old ways remain, however. Brick-lined pit furnaces dating back to the 1960s are still used to temper steel rifle barrels.

    "Modernizing the plant while trying to maintain quality and meet deliveries has been a challenge," says James Battaglini, Colt's chief operating officer.

    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.

    When the M16 was condensed into an M4, the barrel and other key parts had to be shortened. That changed the way the gun operated and not for the better, concluded an internal report written seven years ago by special operations officials but never published. Dangerous problems ranged from broken bolt assemblies, loose and ruptured barrels, and cartridges stuck in the firing chamber.

    "Jamming can and will occur for a variety of reasons," the report said. "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. The M4 may not meet the exacting standards of U.S. commando forces, he adds, but it fills the requirements spelled out by the regular Army.

    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."

    The top half of the Heckler & Koch gun—a section known as the upper receiver that includes the barrel and the gas piston—fits on the lower half of the M4. So if the military wanted a low-cost replacement option, it could buy HK416 upper receivers and mate them with the lower part of the M4 for about $900 a conversion, according to Bohner.

    Yet 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.

    "I didn't hear one single negative comment," Brown says. "Now, I know I'm a general, and when I go up and talk to a private, they're going to say everything's OK, everything's fine. I said, 'No, no, son. I flew 14,000 miles out here to see you on the border of Afghanistan. The reason I did that was to find out what's happening.'"

    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."

    __

    Cliffs: Senator thinks we should go with FN or H&K cause its a better gun for the same price.
    $1500 a piece for the M4, I would of thought the gov got a much better deal then that.
     
  2. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    They do. It doesn't cost that.
     
  3. Paul Revere

    Paul Revere OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    38,936
    Likes Received:
    177
    Location:
    Cali-NO NFA-fornia
    LOL @ H&K
     
  4. PlutoBHG

    PlutoBHG New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Somewhere out there (Houston=home)
    agreed, get them and beretta the hell out if they dont come up with something better soon
     
  5. Aequitas

    Aequitas If it keeps on raining, levee's going to break.

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    I could see not upgrading until something completely blows the M4 out of the water. Having to maintain it a little more rigourously doesn't seem to outweigh the cost that would be associated with implementing a new rifle.
     
  6. larskyle

    larskyle New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    teh 949
    i've looked up the replacement cost of an m4 on fedlog and it is only 5 hundred something.
     
  7. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    exactly. Plus our troops have been trained with these rifles, and they know them well. It's also hard to argue against the acuracy of the design -- it is a great rifle... And like any other precision machine, it requires certain preventative maintenance. I personally find the maintenance required to be reasonable, and not excessive.

    However, it may hold value to end the exclusivity of Colt's contract. They do make a quality product, so I'd hate to see quality drop if we went simply with the "lowest bidder". But allowing others (such as S&W) to bid for the contract could give us a high quality M4 for less money, and that's always a good thing.
     
  8. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    I don't see anything coming a long that'll completely blow it out of the water unless its chambered in something other then 5.56, but the hk416 and the SCAR do perform alot better reliability wise, even according to the militarys own studies, the 416 wouldn't really require any new training for regular infantryman, just the armorers.
     
  9. Aequitas

    Aequitas If it keeps on raining, levee's going to break.

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida

    I'm still waiting on the rifle with the video camera mounted to it and the 80lb battery pack. The one that was in practically every history channel show about the military a few years ago. "We're working on the design, but right now it weighs 80lbs and has a battery life of 2 hours."
     
  10. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    The XM8? It was cancelled
     
  11. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    a company released one that fit on the rail of a handgun and everything was enclosed in something no-bigger than a typical LAM. Was marketed to police departments to auto-record once a firearm was removed from it's holster and help determine the legality of deadly-force incidents and to aide in training.

    I'm not sure it's gained much acceptance, however.
     
  12. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    no, the XM8 was a carbine... not a camera system.
     
  13. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    Thought a camera was one of the add ons they had for the XM? Not part of the rifle itself but it mounted on top of it I think.
     
  14. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    nevermind i'm thinking of the oicw
    [​IMG]
     
  15. Aequitas

    Aequitas If it keeps on raining, levee's going to break.

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    I can't remember what it was called, but it wasn't special except it allowed the soldier to shoot around corners and was heavy as fuck.
     
  16. TL1000RSquid

    TL1000RSquid ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    14,257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    Missed that I think, I've seen the one built up on a glock I think, that has a hinge that lets you shoot around corners.
     
  17. Aequitas

    Aequitas If it keeps on raining, levee's going to break.

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    I'm trying to find a picture. They always had the solider standing in a dark foggy area with a green tint.
     
  18. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    that's just a scope/range-finder/camera that could really be attached to any firearm.
     
  19. GTP

    GTP New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    17,344
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    In my lab. In Canada.
    They should let Norinco table bids
     
  20. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    ???
     
  21. Cannondale

    Cannondale OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    83,585
    Likes Received:
    490
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I don't see a plus with going and buying from another single manufacturer. The other "options" are all specialty weapons made by specific companies with non-interchangeable parts. The beauty of the M4, is that is uses parts available everywhere. Going to an XM8, which doesn't even use STANAG mags for crying out loud, is a ridiculously stupid idea. Not only would they have to replace a weapon system, but use a different magazine.

    I say break ties with Colt, let other companies that make M4-equivalent rifles sell them to the US armed forces, and call it a day. Why remove a working infrastructure and replace it with an even more difficult one?
     
  22. Wave

    Wave Carlos Spicy Weiner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2000
    Messages:
    3,524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Yeah... I remember that. I think it was a very early version that was mounted on an M16 or M4 before the XM8 was even around. Just a proof of concept setup.

    I think the final plan was to mount a smaller version on the XM8 like the pic above.
     

Share This Page