Is Colt taking us for a ride on M4?

Status
Not open for further replies.

woof

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
1,571
Location
central Ohio
article from this weekend..... thoughts?

"HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M4s they trust with their lives. Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press. "What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. The M4, which can fire at a rate of 700 to 950 bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. It normally carries a 30-round magazine. At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines."
 
I strongly doubt that the US Government is paying $1500 per rifle for the M4.

What you have to remember is, military contracts are more then JUST the rifle.
There's also the entire support and spare parts program that people like Coburn quote to make it sound higher than it really is per unit.

Somewhere in the last year or so, I saw the actual price per unit the military pays, and it was a lot less then $1500.
 
They aren't paying anywhere near that amount for the M4 carbines.

A 6920 is about $1200 retail. Why would the govt, who is buying in bulk (not just a couple dozen rifles, we're talking thousands and thousands) be paying $1500/unit?

Maybe the senator believes that a hammer is really worth $10K??
 
News flash: Any Stoner-designed action requires a higher level of cleaning and lubrication to operate in combat than a Springfield or Kalashnikov action.

Welcome to 1968, Senator Coburn...
 
News flash: Any Stoner-designed action requires a higher level of cleaning and lubrication to operate in combat than a Springfield or Kalashnikov action.

Welcome to 1968, Senator Coburn...
I think you meant to say any direct gas impingement operated action requires a higher level of maintenance than a gas piston operated action. In addition to the AR-10 and AR-15, Eugene Stoner designed the piston operated AR-16, AR-18, and Stoner 63 rifles, all of the latter three are gas piston operated.

Learn your history before you make a smart comment BoilerUP.
 
Last edited:
I'll take 100 at that price. Call me when I can go pick them up.......

LOL. I didn't catch that at first, I'm a little short on cash these days, but I'll take 5 at that price for sure.




I'm guessing that Sen Coburn is pocketing a lot of money to act as a squeaky wheel. I wonder how much HK is selling their version of the AR-15 replacement per piece:scrutiny:
 
Here's the whole article:
Colt's grip on military rifle criticized

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press WriterSun Apr 20, 4:22 PM ET

No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M4s they trust with their lives.

Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press.

"What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

The M4, which can fire at a rate of 700 to 950 bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. It normally carries a 30-round magazine. At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines.

"And if you tend to have the problem at the wrong time, you're putting your life on the line," says Coburn, who began examining the M4's performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers. "The fact is, the American GI today doesn't have the best weapon. And they ought to."

U.S. military officials don't agree. They call the M4 an excellent carbine. When the time comes to replace the M4, they want a combat rifle that is leaps and bounds beyond what's currently available.

"There's not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4," says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. "To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense."

Colt's exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that point, the Army, in its role as the military's principal buyer of firearms, may have other gunmakers compete along with Colt for continued M4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally new weapon.

"We haven't made up our mind yet," Radcliffe says.

William Keys, Colt's chief executive officer, says the M4 gets impressive reviews from the battlefield. And he worries that bashing the carbine will undermine the confidence the troops have in it.

"The guy killing the enemy with this gun loves it," says Keys, a former Marine Corps general who was awarded the Navy Cross for battlefield valor in Vietnam. "I'm not going to stand here and disparage the senator, but I think he's wrong."

In 2006, a non-profit research group surveyed 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found 89 percent were satisfied with the M4. While Colt and the Army have trumpeted that finding, detractors say the survey also revealed that 19 percent of these soldiers had their weapon jam during a firefight.

And the relationship between the Army and Colt has been frosty at times. Concerned over the steadily rising cost of the M4, the Army forced Colt to lower its prices two years ago by threatening to buy rifles from another supplier. Prior to the warning, Colt "had not demonstrated any incentive to consider a price reduction," then-Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, an Army acquisition official, wrote in a November 2006 report.

Coburn is the M4's harshest and most vocal critic. But his concern is shared by others, who point to the "SCAR," made by Belgian armorer FN Herstal, and the HK416, produced by Germany's Heckler & Koch, as possible contenders. Both weapons cost about the same as the M4, their manufacturers say.

The SCAR is being purchased by U.S. special operations forces, who have their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't.

Or won't.

"All I know is, we're not having the competition, and the technology that is out there is not in the hands of our troops," says Jack Keane, a former Army general who pushed unsuccessfully for an M4 replacement before retiring four years ago.

The dispute over the M4 has been overshadowed by larger but not necessarily more important concerns. When the public's attention is focused on the annual defense budget, it tends to be captured by bigger-ticket items, like the Air Force's F-22 Raptors that cost $160 million each.

The Raptor, a radar-evading jet fighter, has never been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the troops who patrol Baghdad's still-dangerous neighborhoods or track insurgents along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there's no piece of gear more critical than the rifles on their shoulders. They go everywhere with them, even to the bathroom and the chow hall.

Yet the military has a poor track record for getting high-quality firearms to warfighters. Since the Revolutionary War, mountains of red tape, oversize egos and never-ending arguments over bullet size and gunpowder have delayed or doomed promising efforts.

The M16, designed by the visionary gunsmith Eugene Stoner, had such a rough entry into military service in the mid-1960s that a congressional oversight committee assailed the Army for behavior that bordered on criminal negligence.

Stoner's lighter, more accurate rifle was competing against a heavier, more powerful gun the Army had heavily invested in. To accept the M16 would be to acknowledge a huge mistake, and ordnance officials did as much as they could to keep from buying the new automatic weapon. They continually fooled with Stoner's design.

"The Army, if anything, was trying to sideline and sabotage it," said Richard Colton, a historian with the Springfield Armory Museum in Massachusetts.

Despite the hurdles, the M16 would become the military's main battlefield rifle. And Colt, a company founded nearly 170 years ago by Hartford native Samuel Colt, was the primary manufacturer. Hundreds of thousands of M16s have been produced over the years for the U.S. military and foreign customers. Along with Colt, FNMI, an FN Herstal subsidiary in South Carolina, has also produced M16s.

Development of the carbine was driven by a need for a condensed weapon that could be used in tight spaces but still had plenty of punch. Colt's answer was the 7 1/2-pound M4. The design allowed the company to leverage the tooling used for the M16.

In 1994, Colt was awarded a no-bid contract to make the weapons. Since then, it has sold more than 400,000 to the U.S. military.

Along the way, Colt's hold has been threatened but not broken.

In 1996, a Navy office improperly released Colt's M4 blueprints, giving nearly two dozen contractors a look at the carbine's inner workings. Colt was ready to sue the U.S. government for the breach. The company wanted between $50 million and $70 million in damages.

Cooler heads prevailed. The Defense Department didn't want to lose its only source for the M4, and Colt didn't want to stop selling to its best customer.

The result was an agreement that made Colt the sole player in the U.S. military carbine market. FNMI challenged the deal in federal court but lost.

And since the Sept. 11 attacks, sales have skyrocketed.

The Army, the carbine's heaviest user, is outfitting all its front-line combat units with M4s. The Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and special operations forces also carry M4s. So do U.S. law enforcement agencies and militaries in many NATO countries.

More than $300 million has been spent on 221,000 of the carbines over the past two years alone. And the Defense Department is asking Congress to provide another $230 million for 136,000 more.

Keane, the retired Army general, knows how difficult it is to develop and deliver a brand-new rifle to the troops. As vice chief of staff, the Army's second highest-ranking officer, Keane pushed for the acquisition of a carbine called the XM8.

The futuristic-looking rifle was designed by Heckler & Koch. According to Keane, the XM8 represented the gains made in firearms technology over the past 40 years.

The XM8 would cost less and operate far longer without being lubricated or cleaned than the M4 could, Heckler & Koch promised. The project became bogged down by bureaucracy, however. In 2005, after $33 million had been invested, the XM8 was shelved. A subsequent audit by the Pentagon inspector general concluded the program didn't follow the military's strict acquisition rules.

Keane blames a bloated and risk-averse bureaucracy for the XM8's demise.

"This is all about people not wanting to move out and do something different," Keane says. "Why are they afraid of the competition?"

As Colt pumps out 800 new M4s every day to meet U.S. and overseas demand, the company is remodeling its aging 270,000-square-foot facility in a hardscrabble section of Connecticut's capital city. New tooling and metal cutting machines have been installed as part of a $10 million plant improvement.

Many of the old ways remain, however. Brick-lined pit furnaces dating back to the 1960s are still used to temper steel rifle barrels.

"Modernizing the plant while trying to maintain quality and meet deliveries has been a challenge," says James Battaglini, Colt's chief operating officer.

Within military circles there are M4 defectors. U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., was one of the carbine's first customers. But the elite commando units using the M4 soured on it; the rifle had to be cleaned too often and couldn't hold up under the heavy use by Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs.

When the M16 was condensed into an M4, the barrel and other key parts had to be shortened. That changed the way the gun operated and not for the better, concluded an internal report written seven years ago by special operations officials but never published. Dangerous problems ranged from broken bolt assemblies, loose and ruptured barrels, and cartridges stuck in the firing chamber.

"Jamming can and will occur for a variety of reasons," the report said. "Several types of jams, however, are 'catastrophic' jams; because one of our operators could die in a firefight while trying to clear them."

Pointing to the report's unpublished status, Colt has disputed its findings. The M4 has been continually improved over the years, says Keys, the company's chief executive. The M4 may not meet the exacting standards of U.S. commando forces, he adds, but it fills the requirements spelled out by the regular Army.

Special Operations Command is replacing the M4s and several other rifles in its arsenal with FN Herstal's SCAR, which comes in two models: one shoots the same 5.56 mm round as the M4; the other a larger 7.62 mm bullet and costs several hundred dollars more. Both SCARs can accommodate different-size barrels allowing the weapons to be fired at multiple ranges.

The SCARs are more accurate, more reliable and expected to last far longer than their predecessors, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Marc Boyd, a command spokesman.

"SOCOM likes to be different," says Keys of Colt, using the acronym for the command. "They wanted something unique."

With the SCAR not yet in full-scale production, Heckler & Koch's HK416 is being used by elite units like Delta Force, the secretive anti-terrorism unit. The command would not comment on the HK416 other than to say there are "a small number" of the carbines in its inventory.

A key difference between the Colt carbine and the competitors is the way the rounds are fed through the rifle at lightning speed.

The SCAR and HK416 use a gas piston system to cycle the bullets automatically. The M4 uses "gas impingement," a method that pushes hot carbon-fouled gas through critical parts of the gun, according to detractors. Without frequent and careful maintenance, they say, the M4 is prone to jamming and will wear out more quickly than its gas-piston competitors.

"A gas piston system runs a little bit smoother and a lot cleaner," says Dale Bohner, a retired Air Force commando who now works for Heckler & Koch. "If the U.S. military opened up a competition for all manufacturers, I see the 416 being a major player in that."

The top half of the Heckler & Koch gun — a section known as the upper receiver that includes the barrel and the gas piston — fits on the lower half of the M4. So if the military wanted a low-cost replacement option, it could buy HK416 upper receivers and mate them with the lower part of the M4 for about $900 a conversion, according to Bohner.

Yet outside of Special Operations Command, there seems to be no rush to replace the M4.

Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Army office that buys M4s and other combat gear, traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan last summer to get feedback from soldiers on Colt's carbine.

"I didn't hear one single negative comment," Brown says. "Now, I know I'm a general, and when I go up and talk to a private, they're going to say everything's OK, everything's fine. I said, 'No, no, son. I flew 14,000 miles out here to see you on the border of Afghanistan. The reason I did that was to find out what's happening.'"

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., says the troops may not be aware of the alternatives. He wants the Pentagon to study the options and make a decision before Congress does.

"Sen. Coburn has raised a good question: 'Do we have the best personal weapon?' And I don't know that we do," Sessions said. "We're not comfortable now. Let's give this a rigorous examination."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_re_us/the_gun_wars;_ylt=AhfctHbArE2cC9Ph6DYcQapI2ocA
 
They are paying FN (current manufacturer) about $800 per copy.
Colt has a single-source for the M-4's. FN has/ had contracts for A2 and A4 rifles. $800 is pretty in line on those, the Bushmaster A3 Contract is $715 per.
 
Colt already has a piston driven AR waiting for customers. The government can easily switch without much hassle.
 
allright....what am I missing here....?

Is a $1500 M4 a good deal or what?? Obviously it's impossible to compare a select fire M4 with semi-auto's but I imagine that the production cost of a select fire is not much more than semi-auto, and a $1500 for an M4 seems rather steep to me.....
 
Considering that new production M-4's come with a cleaning kit, 7 mags, BUIS, and a Knight M-4 rail system I think we are getting the best bang for our buck.
 
I thought I had read that Colt came up with enough changes to the origonal CAR-15 platform to get a patent on the M4?

Intelectual property rights are not something I want to see the government selectively blowing off.

Give Colt their due untill their patent rights expire and then toss it out to bid.

That's when you'll see the next wave of inovation hit the deck.
 
Add the Knights Armament railed front handguard and a Trijicon or Aimpoint optic along with lights, laser designators, verticle grips,and other ancillaries such as slings and onboard magazine pouches and the cost of the individual weapon is actually closer to $2500.00 U.S.

I haven't seen a data sheet on the M4 in a long time, but I believe the contract price is $890.00 for the basic weapon with equiptment,i.e. silent sling, five 30 shot magazines, cleaning kit.

Anybody priced a B2 aircraft lately.
They don't work as well as anticipated either but get the job done just like the M4 carbine.
 
You also need to factor in unfoseen problems, like the powder fiasco during the early years of the M-16. Not every problem can be fixed before the rifles go to war.

I think it's better to go with a design where all the flaws are known and can be fixed easily than a design that might work a little better, but also might have unforseen flaws.

I don't believe the M-4 is that terrible of a weapon that we should re-tool our entire logistical system for a slightly better rifle. I think HK and FN are just trying to steal some action from Colt, and some beauracrats are looking for some extra cash.
 
it's impossible to compare a select fire M4 with semi-auto's but I imagine that the production cost of a select fire is not much more than semi-auto

Why is it impossible to compare them? All that seperates them is a few pins, springs... The cost difference is pennies.
 
I will just say, i have fired my share of m-16 variants over the years, and I will pretend to be no expert; from my time in Big Army, to lots of stuff during my civi time. However, i fired a Dudes piece this weekend- he is a contractor, and has a coyote colored Lietner-Wise, with all the bells and whistles. Micro mini red dot, sitting atop a trijicon, fully railed, front grip with drop out bipod, you name it , it had it, and all tan colored. He let me rip through a mag, and I made sure to use all sighting systems, flip ups , triji, and the micro red dot, all from the bipod.
A fabulous weapon!!!! just outstanding, he told me his rig ran like a sewing machine over in the Afghan Whigs... The sound was diff, the recoil was slight and slow, just overall a diff animal alltogether, is what I thought.
As much as I disliked the ar, simply because of it's cleaning regimen, I could really get into this type rig.
 
Thanks for the friendly correction...
BoilerUP I hope I didn't come off as sounding too harsh. Stoner was a rather interesting fellow in that he had no problem combining elements from other firearms or other fields into his designs. He and the folks at Armalite were amongst the first to apply to firearms high strength lightweight aluminum and plastics from the aircraft industry. His choice of direct gas impingement on the AR-15 design, borrowed from the French MAS 49/56, will probably be questioned by firearms buffs long after the AR-15/M-16 family of weapons are replaced.

You are right though, in that Senator Coburn needs to get a better understanding of the capabilities and limitations of gas impingement vs. gas piston operation.
 
Quote:
it's impossible to compare a select fire M4 with semi-auto's but I imagine that the production cost of a select fire is not much more than semi-auto

Why is it impossible to compare them? All that seperates them is a few pins, springs... The cost difference is pennies.

Please read, that's what I said. And do YOU know the exact cost difference?? NO. This is a defense contracting business, anything goes, logic does not rule.

In addition, they are buying "BULK". You can't compare that kind of special deal with individual semi-autos with retail stores buying in "bulk".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top