Colt M4 Carbine's Future Uncertain: Dark Clouds Forming

AR/M4 AR General Discussion
1

Colt M4 Carbine’s Future Uncertain: Dark Clouds Forming
Defense Review ^ | 24 June 08 | David Crane

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1144

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.

2

Defense Review is typically NOT a reliable source.

3

What are they going to do when they wind up with a piston-driven 6.8 and the average soldier still can’t hit the broad side of a barn and doesn’t perform the basic maintenance to keep the gun running?

4

I thought they were going to do a new round of testing with all aforementioned models?

5

+1

They keep looking for technological solutions to what amount to largely training problems.

I am all for superior gear, but they would be wise to match the Gucci gear funds with additional training funds.

6

Don’t know about them, but I’m going to buy a pistol-driven 6.8, that’s for sure. :wink:

7

I plan to keep my Colt M4, but I do plan to buy me an H&K 416 (or whatever they will call it) when they become available!

:cool:

8

I agree that training and maintenance are lacking. I see it all the time here in country from they way they carry their weapons around and bang them against shit to the lack of basic maintenance. However, we should always be evaluating and exploring small arms technology and give the troops the best that we can field.

9

I see no danger in an open competition.

If the M4 is the best, it will be the best in an open competition.

If it isn’t the best, than the right amount of innovation and technology has finally arrived and a new frontline weapon should be issued.

This fear and stonewalling of competition needs to end.

I’m starting to wonder if any of the main solutions being proposed are a valid solution.

The XM8 is dead, never to return I hope.

The 416 is way too much of a stopgap solution.

The SCAR…well…I was reading on http://www.professionalsoldiers.com that it isnt exactly loved, and is proving to be problematic and unreliable to such a degree that some would rather have their M4’s back.

Who knows what the future holds? Regardless, not having an open competition is a travesty…

10

O.R.M. = Operational Risk Management

This is what some dumbass in the Military dreamed up to “red tape” all the real training.
“Train like you fight” is a myth for the general military, but the words are still vomited out by pussified commanders everywhere.

11

i’d say the money spent trying to issue a new rifle would be better spent on upgrading body/vehicle armor.

the M4/16 isn’t perfect, but it’s a known entity, and it really does have a lot going for it.

12

Thekatar, three questions:

  1. What’s the basis for your statement (above) about DefenseReview?

  2. Do you have a specific problem with my article that JSandi reprinted (above)? Do you differ with anything I wrote in it, specifically?

  3. Are you one of the owners of M4Carbine.net, or just a moderator?

13

Assuming full and open competition eventually results, am I to understand that Colt can enter two weapons: both the M4 and any other variant they’d like, or are they limited to just entering the M4? Or does the govt enter the M4 and then vendors enter whatever they want?

If everyone’s hellbent on selecting something new just because they believe the M4 is outdated/flawed, then Colt ought to have a shot at that competiton.

Having to turn the TDP over could be a big deal. Even if the govt decides in th end to keep the M4, there’s no guarantee Colt will get any follow-on work.

14

I wonder how much money would be saved if the FOBbits only had pistols to use on a daily basis? Then we could possible afford the “Ueber Weapons”. I see soldiers at some of the FOB’s who have a weapon simply because the policy says so, and not out of necessity.

It would also be interesting to know how many troops in theater actually use their weapons on a daily basis.

15

Sig line material right here, folks.

16

Marine Corps adopting 45 GAP
LeMas blended metal technology bullets
Openly second-guessing DocGKR’s knowledge of ballistics
Dragon Skin

My opinion is that your DEFREV site is more of a tactical tabloid than hard news. Some facts in there but a lot of rumor and conjecture.

I have nothing to do with M4C other than I volunteer my time to moderate. My opinions are my own.

17

Rob, not sure what your experience is with the average soldier, but I think they are a bit better than you give em credit. Hell, they are way better now than what I saw back in the late 70’s.

18

Not to speak for Rob, but I think he is simply employing a bit of hyperbole to suggest that better training will probably yield more positive results than a simple change in caliber/platform.

I would tend to agree, though better hardware is always, well… better.

19

I guess I only come in contact with the ones that can’t shoot.

Given that you have three people, a cop, a soldier, and a regular joe, that all come out to a match or training class, and given that their attendance at same indicates at least a passing interest in firearms, the marksmanship skills I have witnessed would be ranked (and clearly there are always exceptions) as:

  1. Regular Joe
  2. Soldier
  3. Cop

The knowledge base, in terms of what makes the gun work, what keeps it working, what leads to good accuracy, etc. would be ranked as:

  1. Regular Joe
  2. Cop
  3. Soldier

This is not a knock on cops or soldiers. However, from what I have seen, the training necessitated by the bureaucracy of such entities leads to a “do what I say” methodology to training that is not always based in reality or fact but often based on the needs of the bureaucracy, the shear numbers of trainees, and the “teach to the dumbest guy” mentality, more than anything else.

At every single carbine or handgun course I have attended there has been a former (or current) Marine, Soldier, Cop, etc. that is taking commercial training for the first time. And at every single one they have all come to the same conclusion when they’re done; “I didn’t know what I didn’t know”.

The truth of the matter is, or at least appears to me to be, that the training available in the commercial market (given that one knows where to look) is vastly superior to that given your average troop. Some, like a former USMC LT Col. and Gunsite instructor, have posted very interesting information that seems to support this on other sites.

and now that this has been totally hijacked…

This isn’t to say that I don’t want our troops to have the very best option that’s available and feasible. It’s just to say that, from where I’m sitting (which is comfortably in an office in SE Florida, not in some desert hell-hole), it appears that much of the complaining about lethality of projectiles and reliability of weapons comes from people that simply can’t shoot and don’t properly maintain their firearms.

20

I would have been happy to see their office burned to the ground that day. The CEO at SIG got a call from Sauer gleefully blaming him for losing this huge contract that he’d never heard of. He in turn ripped my boss, the VP for Gov/Mil sales, a new hole. My boss in turn called me and read me the riot act for being ignorant of this huge sale. I was at the Crimson Trace Master Trainer Summit at the time, and had to bow out of some of the activities while I gathered “proof” that no such sale occurred.

How anyone even casually familiar with military procurement could believe that a sale like that would be possible without long (and publicly announced) procedures is absolutely beyond me. Even when the big “secret” units buy new pistols, everyone in the industry knows who & what. And hopefully the folks at Defense Review know that the United States Marine Corps is not a small classified unit. :rolleyes: