I’ll grant the inaccurate aspect. “Dangerously unreliable”, however, indicates to me that the ammunition in question is beyond simply having feed errors or misfires, and into the realm of cartridge failures or similar.
Unreliability in ammunition is inherently dangerous.
The writer of the unnecessary duplication is trying to get this contract through.
Very likely there is only one manufacturer that can produce the ammunition that has been proven, that the troops want and need, and that can be procured in a reasonable time.
But the requirements for a sole source contract have to be met, and this is the way the writer is doing it.
We have bound ourselves into bureaucratic knots, that make it nearly impossible to get things done quickly, even when it makes sense.
The article compared this ammo to the Navy’s Mk 266, saying that the main difference is in the luminosity of the tracer rounds, that being too bright may affect the plane’s electro-optic sighting system.