lily
04-21-2008, 02:54 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24229068/
Military’s gun of choice under fire
Lawmakers — and some soldiers — question Colt’s lucrative M4 contract
updated 5:18 p.m. ET, Sun., 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 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."
Military sticks to its guns
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."
Colt has competition
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.
Military’s gun of choice under fire
Lawmakers — and some soldiers — question Colt’s lucrative M4 contract
updated 5:18 p.m. ET, Sun., 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 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."
Military sticks to its guns
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."
Colt has competition
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.