"The USMC created a āSole Sourceā purchase request and that was protested with the GAO by FN Herstal who is the contractor for the US Army M4A1 (note: the USMC has not purchased an M4/M4A1 [foot stomper unit cost $1329.00] since Colt Defense was the contractor). Iāll come back to that. The GAO adjudicated in favor of the USMC and an RFP was prepared to purchase M27s for every Rifleman in every USMC Rifle Squad (and potential issuance to members of Combat Engineer Squads, Reconnaissance Teams, etc.).
Yes, $150 million divided by 50,000 (possible AAO) is $3,000.00, however the M27 DOES NOT COST $3,000.00. While the USMC has only alluded to the actual cost, the USMC has publicly stated that the new cost of each M27 IAR is āless than was paid for each Colt M4/M4A1.ā I am not authorized to release that cost, but one can do the math and see there appears to be some āextra moneyā mysteriously floating about in this equation. One need only look at the other RFIs that have been recently issued by MCSC for small arms. Readers should consider that the USMC requires more than just the basic rifle. Naturally, the USMC might want to equip Infantrymen with suppressors and variable power optics."
Sounds like BS to me. There is a ZERO % chance that HK416s are going to be cheaper than Colt or FN made M4s.
Id love to hear how accurate these rifles will be after theyāve been in hands of a few boots who will probably end up wrecking the barrel with improper cleaning procedures. Not to mention the life cycle cost? Hopefully they wrote in the contact that parts NEED to be produced domestically. It would be a damn shame if every part needed to shipped from Germany during wartime. The article reads more like an HK ad than critical review every numbered bullet point in that article has something wrong it and I just dont care enough to refute them all right now.
On one hand Im glad the Marines are getting a better rifle(and yes the HK is better overall rifle and not just ācus pistonā like some people moronically like to think). But it comes at a great weight and financial penalty.
Please tell me more about how one can destroy a hardened steel barrel with CLP, cleaning patches and a chamber brush.
As to life cycle costā¦what would that be exactly? Rifles in line companies arenāt getting shot anywhere near enough to wear parts out before the entire system is replaced. In fact the only weapons I ever recall being sent to division for maintenance were belt feds.
Note I said improper cleaning procedures which is basically what cleaning for a white glove inspection turns into.
Remember, some of these M27s are going to be used in the IAR role. Now how to keep track of the M27 which are used in full auto vs as a rifleā¦and how we maintain those weapons.
That generally entails babywipes, pipe cleaners and q-tips. None of which will ruin a barrel. Some guys use dental picks to clean carbon off of the bolt but thatās about it.
Even in the IAR role the rifles are still getting less than 2k rounds a year through them on the high end. Line companies just donāt do that much shooting, unless things have seriously changed in the last few years.
Tracking them isnāt an issue. The IAR is issued with a bipod, SDO and considerably more magazines than a standard rifle.
Just FYI you canāt look at the ceiling price of the contract and determine any cost from it. The ceiling is alway high to factor in other components that may or may not join in. Our handgun contract at work had a $1,000,000 ceiling. We only spent $245,000 but other agencies purchased off our contract. David
If theyāre buying Elcan Specter optics on 'em those could make up a big chunk of the differenceā¦ IIRC those are $2000 scopes, expensive enough for me to have told the girlfriend āIāll build a C8-clone rifle and keep it in the locker for you, but youāll have to buy and bring your own scope.ā (The Specter DR is IIRC a LPVO they already issue.)
So you donāt think the Marines can go to H&K and say āhey we want to buy 50,000 M27ās but we donāt want to pay more than $1328 each and have H&K say OKā. Because thatās exactly what I think happened. And I donāt believe the author of that article retired CWO Christian Wade is blowing smoke either.
On the Army side, Iāve seen many a M4/M16 muzzle crown ācleanedā with a variety of metallic ātoolsā. Probably sub-optimal.
USMC buys M4ās for $1329? If we are counting optics, accessories, magazines, etc., then we cannot directly compare cost of M27 Vs M4.
I have seen dollar amounts on my hand receipts, and can say for sure that if I look at just the rifle, the M4 costs less than a 416. Why doesnāt the Army have S1 clerks running around with 416ās? Because they are expensive.
You have to realize that the $1329 M4 price quoted in the article is from the time when Colt was sole source for M4ās and sitting on the TDP. For several years back then while FN was making M16ās Colt claimed that they couldnāt share the M4 TDP because it wasnāt āfinalizedā and that the only way they could make M4ās was because of their well experienced and skilled work force. And because of this they were justified in charging what I guess was $1329 while FN M16ās were less than half of that. Now can HK make money on selling M27ās for less than $1329 on a 50,000 rifle order, I donāt see why not.
Outside of boot camp I never saw that. Whenever a boot would try to do it heād be gently corrected by his team/squad leader.
I see people complaining a lot about money, but we could give every grunt a suppressed 416, quad tube NVGās, dual comms and the best body armor known to man for a fraction of the money spent on the new amphibious landing vehicle. Which is essentially pointless for todayās battlefield.
Iāve mostly seen that type of abuse in training environments. Iām thinking āgently correctedā is Marine-speak for āI bet he wonāt try that shit againā . Iām onboard with that. We need better cleaning guidelines in the DoD.
I thoroughly agree that our budget priorities are AHEM ā¦misguided.
