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.
Absolutely. The M14 has its place, but it's nowhere near the proper weapon for widespread use in predominantly urban terrain. We had two M14s per PLT during my Iraq tour, and we used them in security positions fairly infrequently. Generally the areas are so tight (especially in Sadr City as you mentioned) that an M4 is all you need.
Plus, unless you have one of the new-fangled M14s with the rail systems, you won't be able to use any of the IR sights with it, making it next to useless at night.
Better idea:
Have the BATF pull targets for the civilians at Camp Perry.
How about having them hold the targets.
Here's the a$$hole responsible:
My father always hated Robert Mcnamara and his "whiz kid" bean counters. They got a lot of folks killed with their stupid decisions that were always based on the bottom line.
We'll be making popcorn when this rat bastard finally takes his dirt nap! (He's gotta be at least 90, so it won't be much longer.)
His birthday was June 9th. He’s 92.
....the M-14 was remarkedly accurate....you could take a trainee with no prior firearms experiance and teach him to hit silhouette targets at 400 yards using nothing more than a peep sight....I know.....I lost a battalion shoot off by one target to a pacifist from San Francisco....and I had been shooting since I was six.
....I always believed that part of the reason the M16 was adopted was with an eye towards international arms sales....many foreign soldiers are of smaller stature than Americans and the M16 is easier to carry and handle....not to mention the weight reduction of the ammo.
Actually the Russians used the PPsh submachine gun first.
It can be argued that the .30 Carbine round was one of the first assault-type medium cartridge, but in reality it was closer to a pistol cartridge than rifle cartridge in performance.
Howerver, the M1 Carbine that fired it was incapapble of full-auto fire. The selective fire M2 was not introduced until 1944, around the same time at the STg.
Therefore, in my mind at least, it was not the first assault rifle.
The PPsh fires the 7.62x25 round. Is this not a pistol cartridge?
If so, then this puts the PPsh in the submachine gun category along with the Thomson and the
German MP38 and MP40, and therefore clearly not an ‘assault rifle.’
The SCAR is impressive. Notice that it isn’t chambered in some fancy new oddball cartridge? 556 or 308. There’s nothing wrong with those two rounds. I’d like to have a scar heavy myself. Those advocating something between a 556 and a 308 are off on the wrong track, imo.
The nice thing about the m16 though is how slim and slender and easy to tote around it is. Especially the carbon 15 series from bushmaster.
See post # 91.
Certainly not, but it certainly had a role in the development of the concept and design, especially on the US side of the house. German tactical doctrine made much more extensive use of the submachine gun (MP38/40) and the desire was for a similar weapon with a cartridge falling somewhere between a pistol abnd a primary battle rifle.
The U.S. on the other hand, was not looking at a primarily offensive round, but something for logistics and rear area soldiers which was not as cumbersome as a Springfield or Garand, but had substantially more range than a 1911. In some ways, the .30 carbine was actually the Pederson Device brought forward by about 20 years, and which had been designed for front-line infantry.
I personally like this poster which shows the M1A1, not in the primary lineage of the modern assualt rifle, but in a "weird uncle" kind of role that can not be entirely excluded, either.
Latest episode of future weapons, Mack fired a M-4 chambered with 6.5mm Grendel. It was awesome!!!!!!!
It's a neat little round, with the big plus of being a ready-fit for the M16/Mk4 family of weapons. Having said that, I've long thought the venerable .250 Savage, which has been around since 1915, would be an incredibly capable military round, expecially if stoked up with modern brass, powders and bullets. For a round with nearly a century behind it, it's ballistics compare quite favorably with the little Grendel.
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
thx...
I forgot about that. They were against it because it was also going to make it cost a little more too. Then after they finally chromed the chamber, most of the jamming problems mysteriously went away.
I bet Mcnamara sleeps like a baby.
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.