Any Comments on the "inferior" M-4 article

[azmg]

I am curious what the SOF/SF folks have to say in regard to this article found on
Military.com written by Chritian Lowe.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...ESRC=army-a.nl

The debate over the Army's choice to purchase hundreds of thousands of M4 carbines for its new brigade combat teams is facing stiff opposition from a small group of senators who say the rifle may be inferior to others already in the field.

In an April 12 letter to acting Army Secretary Pete Geren, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said purchase of the M4 - a shortened version of the Vietnam-era M16 - was based on requirements from the early 1990s and that better, more reliable weapons exist that could give Army troops a more effective weapon.

Coburn asked the Army to hold a "free and open competition" before inking sole-source contracts worth about $375 million to M4 manufacturer, West Hartford, Conn.-based Colt Defense - which just received a $50 million Army contract for M4s on April 20.

"I am concerned with the Army's plans to procure nearly half a million new rifles outside of any competitive process," Coburn wrote in the mid-April letter obtained by Military.com.

A Geren spokesman said the secretary's office is putting together a reply to Coburn's letter, but provided no further details.

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

Coburn has banded together with a small group of like-minded senators to push the Army into a competition to determine whether the M4 is the best choice to equip newly-forming brigade combat teams, a top Coburn aide said.

The senator's concerns grew out of media coverage that showed the M4's design fails in critical situations and that special operations forces prefer other designs.

"Considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon," Coburn wrote. "A number of manufacturers have researched, tested and fielded weapons which, by all accounts, appear to provide significantly improved reliability."

Related Article: Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4

Special operations forces, including "tier one" units such as the Army's Delta Force and the Navy's SEAL Development Group - or SEAL Team Six - have used their own funds to purchase the Heckler & Koch-built 416, which uses a gas-piston operating system less susceptible to failure than Colt's gas-operated design.

"That's significant, because these guys don't screw around," the aide said.

In fact, Colt included four different weapons in the competition to build the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, none of which used the M4s gas system, the aide said.

In a routine acquisition notice March 23, a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbines. The M4 fires using a system that redirects gas from the expended round to eject it and reload another. The 416 and SCAR use a gas-operated piston that physically pushes the bolt back to eject the round and load another.

Carbon buildup from the M4's gas system has plagued the rifle for years, resulting in some close calls with Soldiers in combat whose rifles jammed at critical moments.

According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."

Yet the Army has still declined to buy anything other than the M4 for its regular troops, requesting about $100 million in the 2007 wartime supplemental to buy M4s for its Soldiers.

The office in charge of equipping Soldiers said in a March 30 statement the service has no plans to purchase the HK416.

"I am certain we can all agree that America's Soldiers should have the best technology in their hands," Coburn wrote. "And there is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers the best weapon - not just a weapon that is 'good enough.' "

The Army has not yet responded to Coburn's letter, but his aide said if the senator doesn't receive a response to the letter by Monday, Coburn plans to call Geren personally to address the issue.

"Our feeling is once people see the facts on the face of it they're going to say that this is ridiculous and demand that the Army does it right and competes the contract," the aide said.

[Pete]

A weapon is a tool.

My wife uses a butter knife and my good chisel as screw drivers.

A tool is no better than the person using it and it works best when used as it was intended for.

Pete

[Team Sergeant]

Things to remember about military.com, it’s owned by civilians with an agenda.

While I don’t know who Chritian Lowe is I do know who david crane is and that moron also writes for military.com.

david crane's (of defensereview.com) articles are nothing more than tabloid crap. crane lacks any military experience yet quite often pens ludicrous articles concerning military equipment as if he has real experience. And military.com prints them.

I’d like to know who told Chritian Lowe that certain units (we don’t discuss) are purchasing HK 416’s? Can Chritian Lowe substantiate his "claims"?

Sure sounds a lot like some of the pinnacle armor "claims" that they make their dragon skin "for American Special Forces" (a direct quote from their website)
When in FACT no American Special Forces personnel actually wear dragon skin body armor.

SOV™ flexible armor is completely fabricated in the USA for American Special Forces, Police Tactical Teams and approved foreign militaries.
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php
Chritian Lowe would you please tell us who in fact told you that these units are in fact using the H&K 416’s?

Now step back from the article and ask yourself why we’re spending hundreds of millions on AMERICAN made weapons vice GERMAN made weapons.

Do you see an issue or agenda outside of the rifle issue?

If we were going to spend the money on H&K’s gas piston weapons, Patriot Ordnance Factory already makes piston action rifle and is AMERICAN owned and operated.

http://www.pof-usa.com/P-415/p-415gaspistonrifles.htm

Those units the article refers to have a much different mission than the rest of the Army, different mission different equipment.

Do you think all the military units should also have silencers, IR lasers, etc etc etc?

Maybe we should outfit every soldier with his or her own tank!

There’s a bit of a difference experiencing a very infrequent weapons jam with thirty heavily armed combat infantry soldiers at your side then experiencing the same infrequent weapon jam after storming into a room of thirty armed terrorists with three Special Operations soldiers at your side. Compare and contrast.

Do you think if we simply trained soldiers to take better care of their weapons that this inferior weapon (M-4) might actually work better?

It’s an article with an agenda, a profit motive and lots of politics, nothing more and nothing less.

Team Sergeant
Owner of a couple gas operated M-4’s

[Aoresteen]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

..... I do know who david crane is and that moron also writes for military.com......

It’s an article with an agenda, a profit motive and lots of politics, nothing more and nothing less.

Team Sergeant
Owner of a couple gas operated M-4’s

Well said TS

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by azmg

"I am certain we can all agree that America's Soldiers should have the best technology in their hands," Coburn wrote. "And there is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers the best weapon - not just a weapon that is 'good enough.' "

"Our feeling is once people see the facts on the face of it they're going to say that this is ridiculous and demand that the Army does it right and competes the contract," the aide said.

You know, I think the Army already tried this, and wound up with the OICW/XM28 fiasco.

The longest serving rifle in US Army history is now the M-16, going over 40 years.

The HK416 is a good weapon, from the Germans. Some SOF units have them. The SCAR, built by FN (Belgian rehash of the FNC), is also a good weapon, and is being adopted by SOF. The Swiss SIG 552 is a nice rifle as well. Maybe we need a nationally owned and subsidized weapons company of our own, and to stop frivolous lawsuits against legitimate firearms manufacturers, or to somehow protect them from misguided individuals and municipalities. The government arsenals are mostly closed, and civilian firearms companies lose money at a prodigious rate, in the last major country I am aware of that allows significant private firearms ownership. Maybe if there was a potential market for a couple of million privately owned assault rifles, we would have some development and manufacturing capability right here at home.

The US was once at the forefront of small arms development, and John M. Browning was probably the finest designer of all times. Garand, Stoner, Thompson, et al were all great designers. Sad to see how far we have fallen.

As I have repeatedly stated, many of the M-16/M-4 series' problems are based upon the failure of the Army to maintain round counts, to rebuild weapons when required, and to trash them after their service life is exhausted. I was issued a full-auto AR-15 upon my arrival on my first team in 1985. That must have been a 20 year old rifle, at least.

Furthermore, we use 20 year old mags, without training the soldiers to clean or maintain the weapons properly, and then we blame the design of the weapon. Again, a good M-4, with the right mags and ammo, should be able to fire 5,000 rounds reliably without cleaning, IF NECESSARY. I have seen troops focus way too hard on cleaning parts of the weapon that are not prone to dirt induced failure, and fail to clean or lube the parts that needed it. How many rifles have you seen with loose retaining pins from excessive removal and installation of the steel pins in an aluminum receiver, in order to chase a speck of lint or dirt? I would wager that more military weapons are damaged by improper cleaning and blank fire than by live fire.

I have shot the M-4 a lot, and the HK416 a bit, and given a choice, would take the 416, but would not complain if issued a good M-4. I have not shot the POF extensively, but do not believe that they are capable of building the million or so weapons that would be required in a complete conversion. I have attempted to contact them before a couple of times, but they never replied. I have not shot the Colt or DSA piston systems at all.

IMHO, we should be looking for the next generation of weapons right now, and there should be fair and open competition among all makers, without the specs being written to exclude any one design. In the event of a tie, home team gets the advantage. The weapon must be ergonomically friendly, reliable, accurate, durable, reasonably priced, and easy to clean and operate under all conditions. Maybe we should let Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov run it?

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[kgoerz]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You know, I think the Army already tried this, and wound up with the OICW/XM28 fiasco.

The longest serving rifle in US Army history is now the M-16, going over 40 years.

The HK416 is a good weapon, from the Germans. Some SOF units have them. The SCAR, built by FN (Belgian rehash of the FNC), is also a good weapon, and is being adopted by SOF. The Swiss SIG 552 is a nice rifle as well. Maybe we need a nationally owned and subsidized weapons company of our own, and to stop frivolous lawsuits against legitimate firearms manufacturers, or to somehow protect them from misguided individuals and municipalities. The government arsenals are mostly closed, and civilian firearms companies lose money at a prodigious rate, in the last major country I am aware of that allows significant private firearms ownership. Maybe if there was a potential market for a couple of million privately owned assault rifles, we would have some development and manufacturing capability right here at home.

The US was once at the forefront of small arms development, and John M. Browning was probably the finest designer of all times. Garand, Stoner, Thompson, et al were all great designers. Sad to see how far we have fallen.

As I have repeatedly stated, many of the M-16/M-4 series' problems are based upon the failure of the Army to maintain round counts, to rebuild weapons when required, and to trash them after their service life is exhausted. I was issued a full-auto AR-15 upon my arrival on my first team in 1985. That must have been a 20 year old rifle, at least.

Furthermore, we use 20 year old mags, without training the soldiers to clean or maintain the weapons properly, and then we blame the design of the weapon. Again, a good M-4, with the right mags and ammo, should be able to fire 5,000 rounds reliably without cleaning, IF NECESSARY. I have seen troops focus way too hard on cleaning parts of the weapon that are not prone to dirt induced failure, and fail to clean or lube the parts that needed it. How many rifles have you seen with loose retaining pins from excessive removal and installation of the steel pins in an aluminum receiver, in order to chase a speck of lint or dirt? I would wager that more military weapons are damaged by improper cleaning and blank fire than by live fire.

I have shot the M-4 a lot, and the HK416 a bit, and given a choice, would take the 416, but would not complain if issued a good M-4. I have not shot the POF extensively, but do not believe that they are capable of building the million or so weapons that would be required in a complete conversion. I have attempted to contact them before a couple of times, but they never replied. I have not shot the Colt or DSA piston systems at all.

IMHO, we should be looking for the next generation of weapons right now, and there should be fair and open competition among all makers, without the specs being written to exclude any one design. In the event of a tie, home team gets the advantage. The weapon must be ergonomically friendly, reliable, accurate, durable, reasonably priced, and easy to clean and operate under all conditions. Maybe we should let Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov run it?

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

I always thought that these companies have to be loosing a lot of money if they don't get the contract and have to make up the cost thru civilian sales. Just not good enough to put it on paper, can I use this by the way? This HK thing is everywhere. The amount of people buying into the notion that soldiers are running around while parts are falling off their M4's is incredible. I got into an argument on the same subject TS stated. How and who told these Units have this weapon. Did they buy one or did they replace their entire stock?? No direct answer was given.

[longrange1947]

Maybe we should let Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov run it?

Naw, his weapons are too loose and never jam.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

I always thought that these companies have to be loosing a lot of money if they don't get the contract and have to make up the cost thru civilian sales. Just not good enough to put it on paper, can I use this by the way? This HK thing is everywhere. The amount of people buying into the notion that soldiers are running around while parts are falling off their M4's is incredible. I got into an argument on the same subject TS stated. How and who told these Units have this weapon. Did they buy one or did they replace their entire stock?? No direct answer was given.

Help yourself.

The units do have the HK weapons, just like a lot of other non-standard equipment. It really shouldn't matter, as noted, it is all about what the guy behind the trigger can do with it. I would rather have a couple of good, solid team guys with AKs than a platoon full of idiots with OICWs.

The question I am asking is why Rep. Coburn from OK is involved when none of the weapons are made in his district. In fact, as a minimum, he would put German made parts on a US weapon, and at worst, dump the US weapons for foreign ones entirely. Is he also some kind of weapons expert? Odd position.

Note that the military designs have not all been winners. We got the worst of the MG-42 in the M-60 design before eventually coming back to the M-240/MAG-58, which we could/should have adopted in the first place (or the MG-42/MG-3), and the M-14 over the FAL, which the drawings for the prototypes were mysteriously not converted from the metric dimensions properly.

It would be nice if we developed, produced, maintained, and then replaced worn out gear on time, and did not sink money into beltway bandit pet projects like the OICW. A shootout between a dozen each brand new M-4s, 416s, SCARs and SIGs over 100,000 round cycle each would not cost that much, and would suit me just fine.

And I would love to be able to buy a 416 upper (or complete rifle, with a full auto lower), if the price was right.

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Naw, his weapons are too loose and never jam.

You know, I have seen some US modified AKs that shot pretty well. Might be worth a look. I would rather hump a PKM than an M-60 or an M-240.

TR

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

As long as I can remember, which is longer than some, we have been looking for a better weapon, good boots, and a whole lot of light weight gear. You can argue calibers, magazine content, weight, ballistics, and everything else ad nauseum but a rock from a sling placed above your snot locker and between your eyes will kill you seriously dead just as quick as the latest and greatest ballistic miracle round on the market. So will some stupid requirement issued by a moron. I guess my point is this, you are going to have to use to the best of your ability and operate within the constraints of what you can get your hands on and it matters not whether is was made by the krauts or the martians, it will always be about shot placement. Some folks will always have something better, bigger, newer, sexier but the finest tool in the hands of the untrained is just additional weight. I will now withdraw under my poncho liner, sleep, and remenisce about the days of the M-1, the bayonet, and a simple lensatic compass. Wake me when this has been resolved.

[incommin]

"I will now withdraw under my poncho liner, sleep, and reminisce about the days of the M-1, the bayonet, and a simple lensatic compass. Wake me when this has been resolved."

COL Jack, looks like you'll get to take a long nap on this one....... soldiers are always going to argue over equipment....... and it all boils down to personal preferences. Some people hate 1911's and I love them. Doesn't make either one of us wrong as long as the equipment isn't junk and you are trained will enough to use it.

Jim

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

As long as I can remember, which is longer than some, we have been looking for a better weapon, good boots, and a whole lot of light weight gear. You can argue calibers, magazine content, weight, ballistics, and everything else ad nauseum but a rock from a sling placed above your snot locker and between your eyes will kill you seriously dead just as quick as the latest and greatest ballistic miracle round on the market. So will some stupid requirement issued by a moron. I guess my point is this, you are going to have to use to the best of your ability and operate within the constraints of what you can get your hands on and it matters not whether is was made by the krauts or the martians, it will always be about shot placement. Some folks will always have something better, bigger, newer, sexier but the finest tool in the hands of the untrained is just additional weight. I will now withdraw under my poncho liner, sleep, and remenisce about the days of the M-1, the bayonet, and a simple lensatic compass. Wake me when this has been resolved.

What, no wooden handled entrenching tool, with the folding pick? What about the mess kit and steel canteen? And a P-38?

I am surprised that you took the woobie over the wool blanket.

TR

[Tuukka]

With the amount of factual comments posted above, I might be beating a dead horse, but correct me if im mistaken, but many who argue on the Errornet, on the merits of the HK416, do seem to put too much focus on the operating system allowing for less fouling in use and also proclaiming some other issues that might not be the most relevant ones, than the fact that the operating system allows the weapon to run much cooler, therefore allowing more rounds to be put through the weapon before parts replacement / overhaul.

In addition to use in the U.S, the HK416 was recently adopted to use in Norway, where they had previously already had long trials over a new 5.56mm calibre weapon.

Shoud have one with two uppers here in about a week, it´ll go into use immediately and will see a lot of rounds fired.

PS. We also have some AKs over here that shoot good, usually called Sakos and Valmets The three I were issued did not fail me once, nor did I see many other issues with them either.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Didn't we do this already?

I wonder, has the Senator thought about will happen to our primary weapons supplier the next time we have to conduct a punitive expedition into a country that the EU is fond of?

And before I get pshawed on here, it is already happening to others. Glock will not deal with a particular S. American country because of it.

[jatx]

Is excessive wear to the bolt/BCG due to heat really an issue? I like the added convenience of the gas piston and own one myself, but IIRC other discussions around here seem to have ended with the point that you will shoot out a barrel before damaging the parts which are now supposed to run cooler. And I haven't seen any claims about the gas piston designs extending barrel life.

It seems to me that the one group which might really benefit from gas piston rifles is shooting SBR's, which do foul more quickly. An HK 417 though? Seems kind of suspect, when the direct impingement alternatives run well and typically have much longer barrels.

[Ret10Echo]

Despite all the "Global group hug" that flies around, the US should be able to arm and equip our armed forces without working beyond our borders.
These same representatives that will cast the first stone should be pressuring the manufacturers to build a better system. If it's broke, fix it...if you don't we'll go someplace else to shop. It's called a market economy.

Do you ever start a conversation with...." I went back to the store that ripped my off last time and..." ?