Army wastes $14 million on new rifle program
The Washington Times writes about the Army’s search for a new battle rifle that it didn’t want or need to replace the M4, with which the Army was perfectly happy because Tom Coburn made them.
The tale of the replacement search for the M4 carbine rifle — the preferred weapon of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan since first issued in 2010 — illustrates how military leaders and taxpayers can get squeezed by the whims of congressional players.
Under pressure from a powerful senator, the Army reluctantly launched the Individual Carbine program to find a replacement for the M4, even though top Army officials seemed pleased with the weapon’s performance despite a few cases of jamming in the field. Then, after a lengthy effort to test new alternatives, the Pentagon decided to stay with its current gun, leaving behind a hefty bill for browsing, not buying.
“The Army wasted about $14 million on a competition to identify a source to supply new carbines it does not need,” the Pentagon’s chief watchdog, the inspector general, warned in a report this month.
Well, that’s encouraging.
Category: Big Army, Congress sucks
Why do people try to fix things that aren’t broken?
A few cases of them jamming and we’re going to replace them all? A billion dollar version of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
Senator Coburn, shame. Oh, and if you don’t want them, I’ll be more than happy to take a few off your hands. I like my M4 plenty.
I just built from the ground up an M4 this month for about $1000, I sure could use $14 million to build a few more.
This from the 4sshole who writes the “Wastebook”…
Hey Tommy here’s hoping you have the honesty of character to put yourself in your next book on wasteful spending in the US government you 4ssclown….
At least they stopped at $14 million. The Marine Corps was tied in to that effort too so I am sure they helped to run up the cost.
What’s wrong with the M16?
And why are these weapons built without some kind of cooling systems or material that doesn’t allow jamming when they heat up? That’s just bad design.
For that matter, why doesn’t a .50 cal turret gun have a cooling system, too?
“The powerful senator” mentioned in the piece was Tom Coburn(R-OK.) I wrote a lengthy letter to him at the start of his squawking about the M4, the gist of which was “Spend the money on more training.” While I did get a personal letter back from him restating his position (I was pleasantly surprised it wasn’t a form letter asking for my vote) it did nothing to persuade me that this wasn’t a horrendous waste of time, money and effort.
This story is almost as shocking as the sun rising in the east this morning. Goes right along with sending tricons full of broken snow shoes to Afghanistan.
During both of my tours to Iraq my M4 did not jam a single time and I fired it alot.
My M4 never jammed while I was in A-stan, I *GASP!* kept it maintained, I cleaned it three times a week no matter what. Enough dust, dirt, gunk, moisture and rust can make ANY weapon fail!
Ex-PH2: the design trade-off regarding cooling on the M4 was between a simple, rugged (and hence more reliable) design and a more complex design giving better cooling. Same was true on the M2 and other machine guns.
Most are air-cooled for two reasons: weight and complexity. Air cooling also eliminates another consideration: where do you get the cooling fluid (water was required for some earlier machine guns, but is not common today). More complex generally also means heavier and less reliable.
From a military perspective, more reliable and simple is almost always more desirable. Anything that breaks easily under normal field use is kinda worthless. A more rugged design that might jam once-in-a-blue-moon under extreme conditions is a better choice than a complex design that breaks repeatedly under field conditions. Jams can be cleared; broken weapons are worse than useless. That’s why the AK-series of small arms was so good for so long – the design was incredibly simple and real-world reliable.
In any case, it seems to me like they got the cooling on the M4 about right if it’s only had a handful of jams that are heat-related in combat. (My guess is that most were probably due to the weapon being dirty, but maybe not.) A more complex design would likely have been subject to more breakage – and thus less reliable when it counted.
They should have pushed that money to allow same-sex couples to marry on the Army’s dime.
Satire, folks.
No surprises, it’s always been that way. I got two words, “GOER” and “Gamma Goat” , Well, that’s 3 words actually.
I guess we should be happy this one only cost us $14M wasted. For the Sergeant York program, we wasted between $1.3 and $1.5 billion. See page 9 of
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA29741
Didn’t the military try doing that with the XM8 OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon)? I remember reading the article many moons ago when I was bored during drill weekend. It could be reconfigured as an assault weapon/rifle, carbine/smg, sniper rifle, light machine gun, and had an optional shotgun and 40mm grenade launcher accessory. What ever happened to that thing?
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/XM8.html
I’ve never liked the M16, or the 5.56mm round, to be honest, and the same goes for the M-9 and the 9mm round. I was lucky enough to be co-located in Afghanistan with some teams that had the SCAR in 7.62mm and got to shoot it a few times. Awesome weapon, I can see why SOCOM purchased them. As soon as I had the chance, I bought the civilian version and shoot it when I can.
Best comment from one of the navy guys that was carrying a SCAR: “There are people out there that think getting the SCAR is a bad idea because it’s heavier than an M4. Jesus, just go to the friggin’ gym and stop complaining, its still 2 lbs lighter than the M1 Garand my grand-dad carried.”
@15. The XM8 was an offshoot of the overall OICW program which included the XM29 grenade launcher in an over-under configuration. There were problems with the electronic sights, so the Army decided to adopt the XM8 and when the technology caught up with what they were trying to do they would mate the two systems up. Arms manufacturers (Led by Remington) protested the decision citing DoD regulations that there was no fair competition for the adoption of a new service rifle. The protest was upheld and therefore the XM8 “died on the vine” so to speak.
Hondo and PH2 – not sure which episode of “Sons of Guns” but they run an M16 until the gas tube is glowing BRIGHT red-hot-
if you can keep one lubricated, heat related jams are really rare. Jams related to poor maintenance, improper lubrication, or operator headspace are probably 99% of the problems observed. Anything but air-cooled is VERY rare… I suspect you may be thinking of the gas piston vs. direct impingement debate – gas pistons guns run cooler and cleaner at the bolt (but as with any mechanical system, have their own issues related to the gas set-up.)
In the aforementioned testing, the FN SCAR won, but not by such a margin as to justify the expense of replacing the M-4.
How much did it cost to replace the M-1911? I have one in the family that was built in 1913 and has been carried by three generations of my family without ever having failed to fire when needed. The decision to replace it was surly political as its replacement is inferior in all respects. The only legitimate reason for its replacement was that its ammo was not a nato standard. To my knowledge no other weapon fires 9 MM ammo except the MP-5, but that is not a general issue weapon. Someone decided we needed a new pistol so we got one, damn the cost. And Damn the politicians that interfere for a few dollars from lobbyists.
Just wait until the full horror of the F-35 is exposed. That project just might wreck the DoD procurement system all by itself. It is truly staggering to see how much that
program is overbudget.
http://nation.time.com/2013/06/03/how-much-does-an-f-35-fighter-really-cost/
Compared to that sucker, rifles, vehicles, it’s all small potatoes. Maybe the LCS or the Ford class supercarriers could top it for FUBARness, but it’ll be tough….
@17, I got the chance to shoot the XM8 when they brought them up to the Cold Weather Test Center at Ft. Greely, Alaska.
Roger – making 9mm standard WAS the objective. Everyone in NATO except us used 9mm, so we were throwing a wrench in the overlal startegic supply system. I remember reading at teh time that multiple studies showed you could train a group up in less time, using less ammo, with fewer impossible-to-train rejections, with the 9mm as opposed to a .45. And if you check real-world stats from folks like Evan Marshall, in actual shootings 9mm FMJs and .45 FMJs perform similarly (there is a huge gap in effectiveness if you allow HPs, though.) There was a bid out to refurbish all the .45s to like-new which was about 1/3 of the price of the 9mms…. but the decision was made on the factors above. Not that it mattered… they were bound and determined to dump the 1911 somehow. Sad – it’s still one of the best fighting guns around. EVER!
David: I was speaking generically with the “simple vs. complex” argument. But for things to be used under field conditions in the real world, it’s been my experience that simple and reliable beats the hell out of complex but breakable – hands down.
Regarding the liquid cooled issue, the M1917 Browning was used up until the Vietnam era. However, it was heavy and thus wasn’t all that mobile. And using a liquid-cooled weapon in an arid environment raises another as well: you have to get the coolant somewhere. Air kinda supplies itself. (smile)
Twist, I got a chance to shoot one at Bragg back in 03. Nothing extensive, just a mag or two. I had my doubts about the polymer forend, it seemed kind of flimsy. I did like the translucent mags, tho.
You mean, no one can come up with a small-diameter wraparound pipe that sends coolant from a small well through the pipeline around the gun barrel every time it’s fired? Push the trigger, flywheel moves, pump pulses.
Howver, I guess that not being cleaned and maintained regularly explains why, when the Bomb Patrol guys were shooting their .50 calobre turret gun during an ambush, it jammed, even though the weather was quite cold and snow had fallen. Am I understanding that part correctly?
@22, the .45 has made a return in Special Operations at least. I never agreed with the change over to the 9mm. I never liked firing it, never felt comfortable as I did with the .45.
The M-4, only real negatives I heard about that was effective range being less than the M-16A2. There were still those also that wanted a 7.62. That said, it does not seem to have put our men and woman at a disadvantage and has performed very well.
Coburn holding up nominations to get this through… wonder who he knows that builds carbines? Politicians suck.
“You mean, no one can come up with a small-diameter wraparound pipe that sends coolant from a small well through the pipeline around the gun barrel every time it’s fired? Push the trigger, flywheel moves, pump pulses.”
PH2, The coolant and pump would add weight to the rifle. As a former infantryman, two saying come to mind:
“Ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.”
“I carry 100 pounds of lightweight gear.”
Ex-PH2: reliability and weight, dear lady. Plus thermal shock.
Squirting water on hot metal causes it to cool and contract – very quickly. Since the metal doesn’t cool evenly (the inside stays hot, while the outside is rapidly cooled), that generates internal stresses. Repeated over time, that can cause metal fatigue, stress cracks, and/or warping. Not good thing in any weapon’s barrel.
The system required to pump the fluid onto the barrel and distribute it also adds weight and complexity. If those fail – and the weapon is designed to require them – then you’re talking either a disabled weapon or one that may break at any time. If they’re not required for the weapon’s operation, then you’re talking more weight that simply isn’t needed.
Finally – the coolant itself. Water is heavy – over 8 1/3 lb per gallon. A soldier’s load in combat is already way heavier today than it was during World War II due to body armor. Using water to cool an individual’s weapon will either require the individual to carry more water (and thus more weight) or use some of their drinking water for that purpose. Neither are particularly good ideas.
Bottom line: there’s a good reason you don’t see water-cooled infantry weapons these days. With proper design, cooling even a machine gun simply doesn’t require it.
I don’t know of any current small-arms in common use these days that are water-cooled. Not my area of expertise, though, and I could be wrong about that last.
Hmm, if I remember correctly (I’ll have to check later, when another episode comes on), the Bomb Patrol guys on TV had an M240 as their turret weapon. I remember wondering why they had so much trouble when the M240s we shot in my last unit seemed to run just fine in summer, winter, dust and grit, etc… (we used them as door-guns in the UH-1 and Mi-17, same thing with M60s. Finally got some PKMs right before I retired as well…)
I remember looking at the cover of the Dick Couch book “The Sheriff of Ramadi” and it had a picture of Michael Monsoor, the SEAL who was awarded an MOH in Ramadi. That guy must have been a beast, he’s carrying an M240 modified to fire from the shoulder and he’s carrying it at port arms like an M4. Now that’s some serious firepower to get from one guy….
Here’s the pic of Monsoor with his “personal” weapon, in case anyone was curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monsoor.jpg
There have been ancedotal reports of occasional jams with the M4 in combat mostly from the weapon being dirty or heating up. Coburn demanded stress experiments with the M4 and leading competitors. The M4 did the worst in the dust exposure tests than the other rifles. The gas tube system and the magazine design were found to be the primary culprits. The mags were redesigned but we still have the gas tube while most modern assault rifles use a piston. The Army launched the replacement competition, but it was only willing to buy a rifle with a generational leap in improvements. The Army also did a pretty good job of sabotaging the competition by requiring the competitors to release their blueprints in such a way that would give up propreitary technology to the other guys. Many of the best rifles were withdrawn from the competition as a result. The competition was officially shut down a few months ago due to budget cuts.
@30. That’s a Mk 48.
M4 issued since 2010?
I carried one in 2006-08 in Diyala. Mine never jammed except for twice…but I’m pretty sure it was that mag…cause after some SPORTS it kept on firing.
Now I have one at my house. Same config as the one I carried. Keep it clean and never jams
I’ve been seriously thinking about writing a book about the silliness of the decade-long camo debacle viewed from both the science angle, and a economic/organizational perspective. A PopSci/PopEcon blend of Mary Roach, Tim Harford’s “Adapt,” and “Bleeding Talent,” with an dash of Mark Liebovitch’s “This Town.”
“Hide and Seek” or “Patterns of Waste”? I can’t decide.
Guns are like cars and women. Everyone has their opinions and their favorites.
@31. “…but we still have the gas tube while most modern assault rifles use a piston”
A traditional design would feature a piston system. The direct gas impingement system (Or, more accurately the Stoner Expanding Gas System) used in the M16 FOW provides a couple of advantages over a traditional gas piston rifle. The first is simplicity – a DI rifle has fewer moving parts than a gas piston operating system. There is a concurrent drop in weight for the rifle as well.
The second is accuracy. Stoner’s system allows the recoil to travel in a straight line, reducing muzzle jump. There’s no reciprocating mass from an operating rod over or under the barrel that allows it to move naturally as the round travels through the bore (known as “Barrel whip”.) This makes the round’s POI more consistent, aiding accuracy.
The design’s center of gravity is more toward the center of the rifle and closer to the shooter. This allows the shooter to transition through multiple targets quicker.
The downside to the DI system is an increase in heat and carbon residue deposited in the upper receiver. This is mitigated by using more lubricant on the bolt/bolt carrier.
Not water, you guys. Antifreeze. Circulating through a pipe or jacket. Pulling the trigger acts the way the release lever works in a spring-driven watch; it drives a cog wheel and a hammer.
The coolant you put in your car’s radiator is alcohol. It doesn’t freeze and it doesn’t shock the engine block.
It was just a question. But Browning developed a water-cooled heavy machine gun used in WWI by 1917, and the Brits were using a water-cooled heavy machine gun by 1912.
@29 – When I watched Bomb Patrol, they kept referring to the turret gun as a ‘.50 cal’, not a Ma Deuce. But they were Navy EOD guys, not Army, so that may be the difference.
PH2, regardless of type of liquid, it’ll still have weight. And the Browning M1917 was modified a couple of years later into the M1919, an air cooled version, in order to make it lighter and more man-portable as well as allowing it to be mounted in aircraft.
@37- the antifreeze would need some sort of heat sink. If not, once the antifreeze became the same temperature as the barrel, and it would happen very quickly with the small amount you are suggesting, it would just provide an additional layer of insulating material before air reached the barrel.
I would not want to have that thing near my face or hands when it decided that it had had enough heat and the relief valve lifted, or if it sustained a leak from battle damage or improper maintenance.
@35Beretverde
“Guns are like … women.”
[Reads comment above.]
[Googles technical descriptions for Russia’s AK-47.]
[Reads: “Few moving parts.” “Loose.” “Anyone can use it.” “Long service … despite poor maintenance … and rough treatment.” “Can be maintained with alcohol.” “Readily available online/for cash.”]
[Thinks back to the women he’s met in Russia. Laughs hysterically.]
Yup.
The Army spent just as much researching a new APFT, then disregarded all the recommendations and changed exactly…..nothing.
Ex-PH2: as teddy996 observes above, a closed loop system like you propose would require either a large tank of extra coolant (to serve as a heat sink) or a heat rejection system (AKA a radiator). It would also need a circulating pump, and a way to power said circulating pump.
A large tank for an individual weapon to be carried around by hand is obviously a non-starter (if the tank isn’t pretty large, pretty soon it and the weapon will get too hot to handle anyway). Ergo, you’re looking at the need for a heat rejection system (radiator and fan).
While not requiring as much coolant, a closed loop system with radiator will require a coolant pump. The radiator and associated hoses will also get hot as hell, so they’ll require some insulation to protect the user. The radiator will also almost certainly require a cooling fan of some sort to force enough air through it to carry away sufficient heat to keep the system from either bursting from internal pressure or getting hot enough for the weapon to overheat.
Coolant/radiator/insulation/hoses all add weight, as do cooling pumps and fans. Powering the latter two also requires either a battery (more weight) or using part of the weapon’s recoil to power the pump (possible, but adds complexity and lowers reliability). Fans and pumps also add additional complexity themselves. And all form additional points of failure for the system.
Plus, virtually all anti-freeze is toxic. It is NOT something you want to get into a wound.
Bottom line: air cooling works well enough. Liquid cooling is not required, and would be much more trouble than it’s worth.
FWIW: the Browning M1917 used water as its coolant. It also weighed over 100lbs (water included), had a 4-man crew, and required periodic water replishment.
Hondo, I remember seeing the SGT Yorks parked in a lot at Bliss when I was stationed there in the mid 80s. Seem to remember them painting the drones with radar reflective paint and they still couldn’t hit ’em. I believe the CG was invited to retire over that one.
I spent 2 years on the Army staff working equipment capabilities and integration issues. This is nothing. I remember listening to a 2 star pitch the case that we needed to spend billions on upgrades for a vehicle that would be in depot in 5 years. He got his billions in OCO funds.