Skip to comments.Colt's grip on military rifle criticized
Posted on 04/23/2008 1:17:21 PM PDT by LSUfan
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.
"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."
I never liked that little finger groove under the trigger guard.
Or is that not what they meant by criticism of Colt’s grip?
Wow, you’re right. $1500 is waay too much. Of course, now some knucklehead will want our guns made in China to save money, just like they did with the uniforms.
Magpulp Masada rules!!!
Well, there are all sorts of alternatives now this article did not even mention.
Piston based AR uppers from LWRC and Patriot Ordnance Factory.
The new Magpul/Bushmaster Masada ACR.
I’d like to see a piston-style weapon like the XCR or the new Magpul Masada, rather than the M-16 style direct gas impingement system. I’d also like to see it in something very similar to the 6.5 Grendel:
The 6.8 Rem wasn’t thought out the way it should have been, the Grendel is much more versatile and better at long range.
Oh yea. First on my “money is no issue” list. Heard civie versions should be to market this year (if not already)
Personally I never had a problem with it since they added that little finger shelf on the A2...
I bought a Bushmaster semi-auto version at Cabela’s two months ago for $1599 RETAIL. And my rifle came with a light, a carrying case and 3 magazines.
Colt is RIPPING the Army off.
“$1500 for a M4 at the volume that the DOD buys them is a HUGE rip off.”
Not really...we supply parts to Colt for the M4. High precision machined parts don’t come cheap.
Well here is a Colt M4 selling RETAIL for $1699 right now...
Seems like $1500 when you buy 400,000 of them is pretty lousy pricing.
But, hey, I could be wrong.
Bush's ties to Big Oi.....oh wait....
Bush's ties to the NRA.. yea that's the ticket.. BUSH'S TIES TO THE NRA!
Sort of makes you wonder what they charge other gov’t customers.
Of course not, they know where they can get a good job when they retire.
It is way past time to let the M16/M4 die a slow death.
YouTube link warning btw for people that don't like youtube.
The site of manufacture is important. I agree with that. But the country of origin for the design or company is less important in my book.
All the Marine Corps’ M16A4s are made by FN, a Belgian company, in South Carolina.
To me, the most important factor is that our troops get the best weapon available.
That hasn’t happened since our GIs went to war with M1 Garands in 1942.
Other than the barrel and the bolt what part would that be???
Here is a RETAIL Colt M4 selling for LESS than the US military pays!
And you would be, Colt can sell it's carbine to police (not private citizens) for $1,699 because the government is buying in bulk.
When I bought my AR15, about thirty years ago, they were cheaper - and so was gasoline.
I've watched this dance over costs of aircraft procured by the government - 'rip off' is a cornerstone of USG dogma - it's not true.
MANY years ago, and just for chuckles, a group of us obtained the USG specs for the $600.00 ash tray then being trumpeted: Of course you could have purchased an ash tray for $2.95 but if you followed the AF requirements they got a deal.
On the other hand, a piston system you could pin onto an existing receiver sounds like a really nifty upgrade.
Exactly right, all for PC crap, which existed then too! At the Infantry Museum at Ft. Benning, I always stop by the display case with the Chauchat for a good laugh. One time there were some local HS boys and let me tell you, those kids knew their military history. It was great listening to 16-17 year olds talk about the Chauchat and they brought up the Browning (BAR) issue as well as the .303 Lewis gun, also not used properly because of politics rather than good common sense.
Even more delightful was when one of them brought up the fact about Al Gore being against every successful weapon’s development (Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams M1 tank, body armor—the list is long), great kids!
Should retail be LESS than what DOD pays?
HK and FN both have subsidiaries in the US. The guns will be made in the US.
So was/is that piece of crap jam-in-the-sand Barretta but we were still issued that crap for way too long.
Piston has to be dialed in, and has to stay dialed in, or it jams too.
My Bushie ARs run fine, all day long, but the fit and finish of the Colt is better. I’d pay 15 for a Colt if I didn’t already have the Bushmasters for 12.
Wet and dirty runs a LOT better than dry and dirty.
You and the police alike can buy black guns for less than you might because the military contracts drive costs down due to volume...conversely, there are market influences as well; if people want 'em, the price will not go down until supply outstrips demand.
But the point seems to be that the government price, in hight quantities, is below that charged to police for lower performing weapons.
The only difference between this weapon and the DOD weapon is that this one is not selective fire. This Colt M4 costs LESS at RETAIL than the DOD is paying for their M4s.
Repost. There are a couple of big threads on this from a few days ago.
There is a huge difference between a select fire carbine and a one pull-one round sporter...pistol grip & telescoping stock or not.
There is also a huge difference in the profit one shop might be willing to take versus another shop - but you knew that.
Go to the annual National Match at Camp Perry and watch the civilian shooters with AR15s swapping out their commercial parts for MilSpec GI components where possible and legal, everything from GI match barrels to the GI 5-coil extractor springs instead of the 4-coil commercial ones. There's a lot more to the cost of a military contract item than that of the unit itself, including the cost of the inspection and acceptance process [I was an inspector on Ruger Security-Six revolvers purchased for DOD base security guards; one in three failed initial inspection] maintenance and future spare parts availibility contracts, and product engineering and development cost compensation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.