Home Portal Blog Links
Go Back   Military Forum > Military Forums: General Discussion > Armed Forces Discussions > Army Forums > Army General Discussion

Army General Discussion Discuss anything Army!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-30-2007, 07:50 AM   #1 (permalink)
SSGMike.Ivy
Guest

 
SSGMike.Ivy's Avatar
 
SSGMike.Ivy is
Posts: n/a
Threads: 2371
User Info
        

SSGMike.Ivy is  

Pi Question Mark Senator Tells Army to Reconsider M4

Not being up to date on current Army weapons is there a problem with the M4 or is this more political BS ?


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.
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."

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.

Last edited by Infantrymen; 05-05-2007 at 11:42 AM..
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links

» Support the Site!

Military Gear - Military Ltd Gear - Infantrymen Gear - Ranger Gear - Single Servicemen
Old 08-11-2007, 03:20 PM   #2 (permalink)
It's our job to arrange the meeting
BTDT

 
RR691983's Avatar
 
Group:
Sr. Infantrymen General

RR691983Leader is RR691983 isimli üyemiz çevrimdışıdır. (Offline)
AKA: JR
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 11,545
Threads: 63
UserID: 31
User Info
United_States  army  male  aries  chinese_dragon

POW_MIA
My current mood: Pissed
Reputation +/-Power: 20
Points: 498
RR691983 is a glorious beacon of lightRR691983 is a glorious beacon of lightRR691983 is a glorious beacon of lightRR691983 is a glorious beacon of lightRR691983 is a glorious beacon of light
RR691983Leader is RR691983 isimli üyemiz çevrimdışıdır. (Offline)  

Re: Senator Tells Army to Reconsider M4

There's been a problem with the M4 for years. It's a high maintenance weapon, no doubt about it. The fact of the matter is that now there are better rifles out there. In my opinion, the pentagon needs to quit wasting tax payers dollars on projects that aren't needed (ACU's, Black beret, New class A's, etc.) and spend those billions of dollars on equipment the warfighter NEEDS like a new battle rifle, better cold weather/wet weather gear, water purification systems, BALLISTIC body armor, etc.

They need to wake up in D.C. and start paying attention to what we NEED not what some asshat with a star wants us to have to get himself another star.

-JR


RR691983's Sig:

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: For thou art with me...Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies.
- 23rd Psalm

In Memory of:
SSG Anthony S. Lagman and SGT Michael J. Esposito Jr.
KIA 18 Mar 04 Mi Am Do, Afghanistan


SSG Dwayne P.R. Lewis
KIA 27 Feb 06 Baghdad, Iraq


1LT Robert A. Seidel, III
Sgt. Lonnie C. Allen, Jr
Pfc. Nicholas R. Cournoyer
KIA 18 May 06, Abu Ghraib, Iraq

"Deeds Not Words"
RR691983 isimli üyemiz çevrimdışıdır. (Offline)  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
army, reconsider, senator, tells



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Army Nurse Corps in World War II Navy6064 World War II 0 11-05-2006 07:34 AM
Operation Barbarossa: The Ultimate Strategic Miscalculation Batgirl World War II 0 09-10-2006 04:09 PM
Operation Bagration: Soviet Offensive of 1944 USMCRET6391 World War II 0 07-07-2006 08:26 AM
In Honor of MP's Killed in Iraq 66MP1 Military Police 9 03-17-2005 03:43 PM
History of INSCOM Field_Sailor Intelligence 2 09-26-2004 02:50 AM


New To The Site? Need Information?

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
Designed by MilitaryDesign.Com
MilitaryLtd.com, GoInfantry.Com, Infantrymen.Net, Infantrymen's Military Forum are © 2000-2008 MilitaryLtd.Com. All Rights Reserved.
Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any of the contents or images without express written consent is expressly prohibited.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253