Colt M4 Carbine's Future Uncertain: Dark Clouds Forming

Perhaps the single most exciting thing that happened at NDIA International Infantry & Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium 2008--away from the firing range, of course--was a confrontation between Jim Battaglini (Retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. James R. Battaglini) of Colt Defense and U.S. Air Force Col. Robert Mattes, the director of the Comparative Test Office for the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts, while Col. Mattes was giving a speech and promoting the idea of an open competition to determine the best infantry/assault carbine that can be supplied to U.S. military infantry warfighters. Specifically, the purpose of the competition would be to determine whether or not the Colt M4 Carbine is still the best carbine solution for our warfighters, and if there might be a better (i.e. more reliable and combat-effective) carbine out there M4.

Col. Mattes wasn't the first to promote the open-competition idea. In a short May 21 speech at the symposium, Bryan O'Leary, National Security Legislative Assistant for U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), also proffered the opinion that the Colt M4 Carbine should have to compete against other carbine candidates and thereby justifiy its continued existence as the standard U.S. Army and Marine Corps infantry/assault carbine. If it wins, it lives. If it doesn't, it dies (i.e. loses the contract). Pretty simple. O'Leary and Mattes might argue: what's Colt Defense afraid of? If the M4 is really the best carbine out there, it should be able to beat all the competing designs, no problem. Let's compete it and see.

Well, o.k., except let's look at it from Colt's perspective. Just like any other company, why would they want to take the risk of competing for a contract when they're the current contract holder, there might be a way to avoid it, and soldier satisfaction with the M4 is reportedly currently at approx. 89% (according to a U.S. Army report)? But this is soldiers' lives, you say. Well, that's true, but you have to prove that there's another weapon out there that's not only better, but appreciably better (i.e. more reliable and combat-effective) in order to justify the rather significant mass weapon-replacement costs, warfighter retraining costs, new-weapon production costs, supply chain issues, etc.

Now, while it's true that the M4 Carbine came in last in recent "extreme dust tests" when it went up against the HK416, FN Mk16 SCAR-Light (SCAR-L), and HK XM8 LAR (Lightweight Assault Rifle), it's questionable as to how combat-relevant those tests were, and how fairly those tests were conducted. I mean, let's face it, the Army has a problematic testing history (and that's putting it diplomaticly) when it comes to small arms and body armor, let alone higher-ticket items. Even so, the M4 represents the status quo and Colt is a favored contractor/DoD darling, so the M4 should hold the advantage in that regard.

By the way, it's DefenseReview's understanding that the original test protocol called for sand and dust, but this was changed to dust-only tests for some reason.

So, where does Defense Review come down on the open carbine competition issue? Well, we're actually for it, provided 1) the testing is conducted honestly, fairly and openly, 2) is videotaped at every step for later review, and 3) has civilian oversight (or some other type of trustworthy, non-Army oversight).

If the M4 is really the best assault/infantry carbine out there, it should be able to beat all comers, and Colt Defense shouldn't have anything to worry about. Our warfighters deserve the best weapon available, so may the best weapon win. That said, we believe that any/all testing/competing should be done in conditions that are as combat-relevant and combat-realistic as possible. Part of the testing should definitely be operational testing (OT) by infantry warfighters, including U.S. Army general infantry, Rangers, and Marines--but not necessarily limited to those three groups. Also, the weapon that should be competed is the true-full-auto-capable M4A1 Carbine with semi-auto and full-auto settings, not the M4 Carbine. The M4 Carbine's 3-round burst was a really stupid idea from the get-go, and needs to go away. The M4's trigger is lousy and not condusive to good marksmanship. The M4A1 is a much smarter idea and its trigger is far superior. If you don't believe me, ask members of the U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG). Don't take my word for it.

By the way, another proponent of open competition is Jim Schatz, former military sales manager for HK Defense (Heckler & Koch Defense) and vocal promoter of the the HK XM8 development program. Mr. Schatz, now working for the Technical Support Working Group, a test and evaluation agency under DoD (Department of Defense), gave a presentation at the symposium titled Time for a Change - U.S. "Incremental" Small Arms Fielding: Failures and Solutions. Needless to say, Mr. Schatz is not an M4 proponent, nor is he very satisfied with the U.S. military small arms development, procurement and adoption system. He believes its broken, and DefenseReview agrees. Schatz isn't stupid. The U.S. military small arms development and procurement system is, excuse our language, a total cluster#### (military term). Every independent analyst we've ever spoken with that's well-versed on the topic (U.S. military small arms development and procurement system), to a man, agrees that the system's broken, corrupt, counterproductive, pick your own negative adjectives. It's bad. Real bad.

DefenseReview spoke with Mr. Schatz after the symposium and tried to get a written copy of his presentation for at least private review and analysis. We were unsuccessful, however.

Defense Review did, however, get to speak with Mr. Battaglini at the end of the symposium about his confrontation with Col. Mattes, and got his take on things. Battaglini believes in his product (the M4 Carbine), and feels like Colt Defense is being, essentially, ganged up on, and the M4 is being unfairly challenged, considering what Colt contends to be tremendous success in combat and overwhelming end-user satisfaction. On a personal note, I respect Mr. Battaglini for confronting Col. Mattes during Mattes' speech. Mr. Battaglini believes in his product and was defending it, just like any good corporate officer should. Can't knock him for it. We found Mr. Battaglini to be warm, friendly, and generally likeable when we spoke with him at the symposium.

So, is the M4 Carbine being treated unfairly? Maybe, maybe not. DefRev's going to analyze the situation and get back to you on it. Whatever the case, the next 1-1.5 years is going to be interesting for Colt Defense and the M4. The M4's going to be fighting for its life. In addition to potentially having to compete against gas piston/op-rod-driven carbines like the FN SCAR, HK 416, etc., Colt apparently is going to have to turn over the M4 technical data package (TDP) rights to the Army in 2009, and the Army may let other companies compete for future M4 contracts, not exactly a great confluence of events for Colt. The U.S. Army has budgeted $313M in M4 contracts for fiscal years 2010-2013.

That being the case, it's DefenseReview's opinion that Colt should seriously consider updating/improving the M4 with recent hardware and technologies that can bring the M4 Carbine into the 21st Century, optimize the M4's direct-gas-impingement operating system, and give it the best chance to win any future open carbine competition against the HK416, the FN SCAR-L, and any other gas piston/op-rod-driven carbine out there. We believe we know exactly what modifcations/improvements need to be made. However, even if we're right, it may be difficult for Colt to make any changes to the M4, at least in the near term. Since the M4 is made to a U.S. military specification and according to an exacting TDP (technical data package), even if Colt were willing to make changes to the weapon, they woud have to navigate through the military bureaucracy to do so. Specifically, they would have to make an engineering change proposal (ECP) for each and every change, and the government would have to agree to it. This is easier said than done, but we believe it needs to be done. Defense Review may discuss our recommended M4 mods/improvements in a subsequent article. We're not sure whether or not we should make these recommendations public, yet, based on some things that are currently going on behind the scenes.

If worse comes to worse for Colt Defense, they've got their own gas piston/op-rod select-fire AR carbine/SBR/subcarbine solution that's supposedly superior to the HK416, according to rumor (i.e. unconfirmed/unverified reports). It's Defense Review's understanding that Colt's gas-piston-driven system was competed in the 2004 SCAR competition and did quite well (unconfirmed/unverified). Colt's gas-piston/op-rod-driven SCAR candidate, which we believe was the Colt M5 Gas Piston Carbine (unconfirmed/unverified) was reportedly very reliable (unconfirmed/unverified). DefRev's seen and handled the Colt LE1020 a.k.a. Colt LE 1020 (at SHOT Show and other shows), which is the semi-automatic (semi-auto) version of the Colt SCAR candidate, and the system looks solid. We've seen the weapon broken down and the individual piston/op-rod components. The late Mike LaPlante (Michael LaPlante) showed us the gun. Mike was a nice man.

Got to fix the round first. 5.56 aint cutting it with the front line troops that I've been talking to. Have to double tap in order to be effective at putting the target down. That effectively cuts the ammo load in half. 6.5 Grendel, 6.8mm, 7mm WSM or 7mm-08 are becoming popular with a lot of leg troops.

Fix that first, then decide on the rifle / carbine to fit the load.

Whatever weapon platform they choose, they really need to get RID of the .223 Remington cartridge and go with something...anything 6mm to 7mm. There has been more than enough data gathered from Afghanistan and Iraq on "walk aways" from enemy strikes taken from AR type rifles. The statistics for the M-14 however (fires the 7.62 NATO - .308 Winchester) are very different. Not many enemy combatants walk away from that.

In addition however, Colt has some known technical shortcomings. They simply haven't "moved with the times". We own several Armalite AR rifles in various configurations and I was reading their technical bulletins one day and was amazed at the improvements that they have put into their rifles over the past five years alone. Colt has to go through mountains of red tape with the Army before they change anything. In a way, they're victims of their own success.

I'm not altogether sure that the M4 rifle is a bad platform. Colt's version might be though.

Sectional Density

No doubt! My Model 38 Swede with the 140 kills way better than the charts say. Especially with partitions, but it don't matter. If you can do that with an AR type, good deal.

Just like GM, Ford & Chrysler learned???
Learned what, exactly? Seems like recent contract/buyout news shows that they're starting to begin to try to learn that American union labor costs 3-5x more than foreign labor, but they're probably decades too late.

My vote is for the M14 as well. With a 20in barrel instead of the 22in barrel and a bird cage flashhider instead of the long flash hider and one of the telescoping stocks.

Is that a package that would be small enough to fit inside of an MRAP?

Today's war in Iraq requres a short barreled weapon for quick exit from an MRAP and for close quarter battle.

The standard M14 is fine in Afghanistan in the hills, but not for Sadr City.

We’re finishing a reloading job now... but bought the components a couple of weeks ago. It’s costing us .25 (twenty five cents) per round. Component prices haven’t quite caught up with commercial, or mil surplus ammo, and NOW is the time to reload if you can.

Yep.

My 6.5X50R in a 14” bbl. Contender is a very nice dual purpose round. 120’s at 24-2500 FPS with a 223 diameter case.

The 140 and 160 gr. bullets look about 3-4 feet long too. (grin)

Have fun with that Swede.

Regards

Here is a question for you folks ... what ever happened to the development of caseless ammo? This would lighten the load or allow for more ammo to be carried.

Something like used in the ficticious M41A.

I would figure that the problems of storage conditions and time would have been figured out by now.

I agree. I have never been in combat but have done a tremendous amount of shooting. From everything I have read, the .223 with the original light bullets was a deadly killer on Vietnamese in the jungle.

Since that light bullet loses energy and penetration at long range, they went to the heavy long bullets which in fact do shoot well at long range and do in fact penetrate.

The problem with the .223 is it can't do both. If loaded with heavy stable bullets in a short barreled carbine, they simply drill a small hole right through, creating what some call an ice-pick wound. It does not have enough diameter to make up for the lack of tumbling which the original bullet did.

The 6.5 is just large enough to have a lot of shock even tho it too just drills right through at short or long range. It also has the power to penetrate armor and shoot flat and most importantly without a lot of wind drift.

U.S. Air Force Col. Robert Mattes, the director of the Comparative Test Office for the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts, while Col. Mattes was giving a speech and promoting the idea of an open competition to determine the best infantry/assault carbine that can be supplied to U.S. military infantry warfighters.

Mattes is probably a great guy, but having the Air Force in charge of testing and picking out equipment for the Army seems strange, will the Army be choosing aircraft for the Air Force?

"I would love some 5.56 surplus for my mini 14. It is getting to the point where it is over $1.00 per round."

Not sure what you're buying but I sell Federal XM193 in my shop for well under $10 a box. You better shop around some!

“Bring back the M14!”
They are back....they’ve all been brought out of Army storage and issued to combat units....since the ATF considers them machine guns they were never sold to civilians....the Army has held them all this time....a small number were given to law enforcement and the Army has requested that those be returned at once...the strong demand for the M-14 is said to be driven by two factors:
1.The knockdown power of the .308 Winchester round.
2.They don’t require near the maintenence/lubrication of an M-4 to keep them running in desert conditions.
There were no doubt times over the last 40 years when the wisdom of holding on to these rifles was questioned....the Army was wise to keep them given what we know now.

I'd vote for the M1A in the SOCOM (I or II) or the Scout platform.

Maneuverable in tight spaces (like the M4 carbine); good knockdown to 500 - 600 yds (and one can make that shot); penetrates heavier cover that deflects .223...

Plus it looks cool...

What tends to happen in some of these discussions in which people get passionate about something like guns (can’t blame ‘em there) is that, pretty soon, here we are at caliber war time, again. I don’t recall anything in the posted article either for or against the 5.56X45 NATO round. It was about Colt, Colt’s monopoly status as an M4 supplier, and the threat it faces from other weapon designs and other manufacturers.
Colt, as many well know, was once a presence in the civilian and police gun market...but they let their prices increase, let their quality control drop, and stopped being anything other than a military rifle contractor...and contrary to what Colt’s CEO (Gen. William Keys, ret.) says, a military rifle supplier is all Colt is probably ever going to be at this point. Therein lies their problem: having abandoned all other markets, they are at the complete mercy of Uncle Sugar.
As for the whole caliber war thing,though, anyone who wants to can post on the Internet that, “All the soldiers I talk to hate 5.56 and want to go back to the M14 and its 7.62x51 cartridge...right now!” Who’s going to dispute it?

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.