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

[Pathfinder]

From the AP as reported on FoxNews at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351887,00.html:

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.

<more of the article at the link provided above>

[ccd]

This same story resurfaces every six moths or so. Just one company, or in this cased two(HK, FNH), are using their politicians to attack    the Army and another's company's politicians(Colt). Not that there aren't any problems with the fixed no-bid contract that Colt got. The A3 contract can be broken up and bid on, but for some reason the M4 contract has never been. Colt has a long proud history of using politics to have the Army award it contracts over equal or superior competitors(some would argue Knight is guilty of the same thing). Don't see DOD switching from the M-16 platform (or including using piston uppers) anytime soon, so FNH and HK are SOL.

[Dougdubya]

It ain't FNH on the attack.  They've got PLENTY of business making '16's and M-4's.  AND they're at the top of the list on getting SCAR's into our guys' hands.

[tombogan03884]

It's been the same way since Sam first marketed the Paterson revolver in 1838. However I've never been a fan of .223 for military purposes. It is probably time to replace the M - 16 platform, its been in service longer than any other rifle since the founding of the US.Even the Garand and its spin off the m14 only lasted 30 years, there MUST have been some advances in rifle and material technlogy in the last 40 + years

[Pathfinder]

It's been the same way since Sam first marketed the Paterson revolver in 1838. However I've never been a fan of .223 for military purposes. It is probably time to replace the M - 16 platform, its been in service longer than any other rifle since the founding of the US.Even the Garand and its spin off the m14 only lasted 30 years, there MUST have been some advances in rifle and material technlogy in the last 40 + years

I agree, the AR platform is a tad long in the tooth. It is its flexibility that has kept it going all these years. I also believe that as with many gummint contracts, it has been extended well beyond its life by undue influence.

There have been advancements, small ones like pistons, mostly variants on a theme. Or the Sig 556, SCAR, Masada and the like, more of the same, looking cooler. The 6.x rounds are interesting, but no interest by the gummint that we know of. The OICW was a joke, I would never go into battle relying on a damn battery.

Perhaps the major advancements have either been quashed by the status quo, or quietly acquired and kept under wraps in R&D until the AR platform really can't hack it another 10 years. Things like cartridge-less rounds, maybe something like metalstorm. Hope we live long enough to see the next go-round.

[Sponsor]

[Overload]

Is this the same Colt that's been up for sale for the last 10 years?

I'm starting to read a book about news, and this story is not news, it's fark.

[gunman1911]

AS I have never fired a rifle in battle or to defend myself I do not feel justified in saying something either for or against the round or the gun. But I am curious about what those who have been that situation would feel about the AR-10 in .308 for a battle  riffle. What are the opinions of those who have served?