Posted on 06/26/2008 6:52:28 PM PDT by LSUfan
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.
So, that's it for now.
the Air Force was originally given the task of replacing the 1911 with a 9mm. After all their tests which were conducted at Eglin AFB, the final winner was the Beretta 92,
the Army pitched a fit along with Smith and Wesson and were given authorization to conduct another round of tests. The result was the same. The Beretta model 92.
I wonder if FN could start turning out their FAL again? It really is a better rifle than the M14.
Make mine M-14...
Here’s the ideal round: 10 mm explosive tipped caseless. And the best choice for it is an m41a.
just my personal preference. =)
Don't count on it. Like the M14 our government will have them all destroyed. Most of them anyway.
An M-14 will shoot through a tree,,,
Also you could re-load the M-14 with stripper clips,,,
In The Dark...
Weapons are like airplanes, in that both are compromises of conflicting/competing design requirements.
//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.//
Like you say, but its not more the time of the war but the environment of the war. Your Afghanistan/Iraq comparison works well.
Kel-Tec RFB: Gas-operated 7.62 NATO (.308 Win), it accepts standard FAL-type magazines. RFB stands for Rifle Forward-Ejection Bull-pup.
The advantages would be an ambidextrous long barreled rifle with a shorter overall length by placing the receiver and action as far back as possible giving better balance to the weapon. From having shot both carbines and bull-pups, my grouping was tighter at longer distances, with faster target acquisition from recoil and ready position with the bull-pup design. My comparison was done with an M4A2 carbine and a Steyr AUG, both .223 cal. I am left handed and had to shoot both weapons right handed (however I practice shooting both handed, so I am fairly even when it comes to left or right handed) to get a proper comparison. Another advantage is by reducing the rifle length forward of the grip it makes it a more efficient choice for close quarters combat.
save
I hope they’re not considered “dangerous” according to tody’s Supreme Court ruling.
M14. Great rifle. Loved it so much while in service, bought an M1A when I retired.
I don’t care much for the M-14. I was tained on the M-1 Garand. However, the one saving grace of the M-14 was that it fired a bullet capable of KILLING the enemy with one shot. 7.62 or 30.06 - don’t know much of the inherent, if any, differences to prefer one over the other. But both KILL. Isn’t that the primary characteristixc of a military weapon? Or do we design a weapon that harmlessly captures rather than harms the enemy?
I think the idea behind the smaller caliber is that it’s designed to maim, rather than kill. The theory is that a wounded soldier is more of a liability on the battlefield than a dead one. He can’t fight effectively, and he’ll slow everyone else down. A dead soldier just gets left behind. FWIW.
According to our soldiers in Iraq, the 5.56mm is a poor CQ combat weapon.
I think they’re probably right. The theory it’s based on may be valid for open field combat, but breaks down in CQ/urban warfare. From what I’ve read the soldiers who went in to clean out the Japanese tunnels in the Pacific always used a .45, I suspect for good reasons.
The Soviets fought the Battle of Stalingrad with a 7.62x25mm round and the Germans were moving to a 7.92x33mm Kurz round.
I believe the idea of having more smaller/lighter rounds started with Kalishnikov, and was defining characteristic of the “assault rifle”.
Sorry - the 16 will never be available from the CMP for the same reason you can't get a 14 - the BATF says that "once a machine gun always a machine gun" and they cannot be "downgraded" to to a semi-auto.
Judging by the way my beloved USAF has screwed up the Tanker deal, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing!
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.