McCain: Army misfires on pistol purchase and Marines buy the M4
The Army replaced the venerable M1911 handgun with the M9 about 30 years ago. I remember when it happened. Now, they’re considering making a change to the handgun that soldiers will carry into combat, but Senator John McCain says that the process is needlessly complicated adding a cost to the gun that the Army will eventually pick up according to the Washington Times;
“The Army’s effort to buy a new handgun has already taken 10 years and produced nothing but more than 350 page[s of] requirements micromanaging extremely small unimportant details and Byzantine rules and processes the Army wants followed, many of which are unnecessary or anticompetitive,” he said.
Mr. McCain said the excess paperwork is adding $50 in cost per-gun, or about $15 million “wasted on paperwork and bureaucracy.”
I don’t know what the problem could be – some units already have handguns other than the M9, why they can’t make their choice from a combat proven platform is beyond me. Of course, I was mad when they went from the 1911 to the M9, so what do I know?
Meanwhile, the Marine Corps has decided that they’ll make the M4 their standard battle rifle, according to the Marine Corps Times;
Commandant Gen. Robert Neller has signed off on the switch making the M4 the primary weapon for all infantry battalions, security forces and supporting schools no later than the end of September 2016, according to an internal memo released by Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, deputy commandant for Plans, Policies and Operations via the Automated Message Handling System.
[…]
“We found out that the M4 actually outshoots the A4 at all ranges out to 600 meters with the new ammunition,” [Chris Woodburn, a retired lieutenant colonel who now serves as the deputy Maneuver Branch head for the Fires and Maneuver Integration Division of Marine Corps Combat Development Command] said, referring to the 5.56mm AB49 Special Operations Science and Technology cartridge the Corps is looking to make the standard.
Of course, many Marines were using the bolt action 1903 while they were fighting the Japanese in the Pacific and Army units were using the semi-automatic M1 Garand. the Marines hate change, I guess.
Category: Big Pentagon
Yes, we hate change!!!! 🙂
Bring back sateens!
Bring back khakis!!! (oops, I just carbon-dated myself).
You say that like it’s a bad thing?
Hey, my ’03A3 is a great rifle. But my M1 has gotten me laid!
Well, I had various weapons out for a dance on Sunday afternoon at the Hillbilly Hunt Club Fall Festival of Mayhem and the one that always gives me a chubby is my 1911. Sure, the RPK was fun, same with the Mosin and the AR. The shotgun was always a hoot, but when I was doing a slow dance with the 1911……..I think I need a smoke, now.
“We found out that the M4 actually outshoots the A4 at all ranges out to 600 meters with the new ammunition,”
I beg your pardon? MAYBE the M4 “outshoots” the A4, if the M4 is using the new ammo and the A4 is using OLD ammo. But you’re telling me if both platforms are using the same ammo, the M4 is performing better in all respects at 600 than the A4? I would LOVE to see the data on that…
I have a hard time believing that too, so let’s just say I’m NotBuyingIt.
I’m no expert, but I do know a tiny little bit about guns, and I have my doubts about that claim too.
But again, I’m no expert.
Bingo. Longer barrel in general equals more muzzle velocity equals flatter trajectory using the same round. That generally means better long-range accuracy and performance.
I think it’s plausible. The shorter barrel of the M4 leads it to actually be stiffer, and therefore probably more conducive to accuracy, than the 20″ tube on the A4. And when you’re using optical sights, the longer sight radius of the A4 offers no benefit.
I’ve found that shooting both the M16 and the M4 that there is difference in accuracy.
However, the M16 was far easier to be accurate with for me and others. It is a more stable platform, the longer barrel helps as well, and I think on a firing range it can be more comfortable to fire.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, it was much more preferable to have the M4 though, easier in vehicles, better for inside buildings, more comfortable across your chest with a quicker action time.
I’m going to take a stab that the new ammo might not be able to be fired in the M16? Some of them are like that. You couldn’t fire ammo for the M16A2 in an A1. Something to do with projectile force. But I can’t recall all the fanciness of that.
Maybe they had that new gender-mixed Marine unit fire the 16A4s and a male infantry unit fire the M4s? Badum-tish!
Think you are thinking of the weight of the bullet being stabilized by different rifling twists – early specs on .223/5.56 called for a 1:12 twist which works well with at most a 55 grain bullet. They have changed (starting with the A3) to faster twists (1:9 or even 1:7) to stabilize heavier bullets. Th heavier bullet ammo will shoot in the older weapons… but unless you just plain get lucky and grab a weapon which bucks the odds, it won’t be accurate with the heavier bullet. Similarly, the faster-twist barrels will most likely shoot like crap with lighter 50-55 grain bullets.
I knew there’d be a bullet geek here who could explain better than me. I just ordered ammo for training, can’t explain it to save my life. lol
Question: Don’t the A4 and the M4 have the same 1:7 rifling twist rate? If so, I’d think the A4 would have better ballistics at longer ranges than the M4, if they were using the same ammo. But, like TOW, I acknowledge that I’m no expert.
That’s my understanding, and Wikipedia (yeah) says the same. And this article (based on physical testing) indicates a 1:7 twist rate seems to work quite well with both lighter and heavier bullets.
https://plus.google.com/+LuckyGunner/posts/ZZPNiRXyqYm
“We found out that the M4 actually outshoots the A4 at all ranges out to 600 meters with the new ammunition,”
Okaaay… so how did the M4 do with the old ammo? Since there’s still a metric buttload of it around, and stuff.
On that topic, were the A4 and the M4 using the same ammo in the test? or was the the A4 loaded with the old stuff and the M4 with the new? Bueraucratic doublespeak…
I can’t imagine why the process for picking a new sidearm is so arcane and byzantine but if I were to guess I’d say it’s probably because if the Army picks one choice they can plan on getting legally dogpiled by a coalition of the non-selected brands asserting flawed tests, inaconsistent standards, unfair this or that, etc. The contract to make pistols for the US military is a lucrative one and you can bet that the companies that lose out on that sweet pile of taxpayer cash are going to start a shitstorm.
Which is stupid. It’s not an F-35 for god’s sake, it’s a pistol. It either goes “bang” or it doesn’t.
Police departments across the country (and around the world) are much more invested in their sidearms (because unlike soldiers, for whom the rifle is a primary weapon and a pistol only secondary, for the cops the sidearm IS their primary weapon) and yet they seem to be able to select a pistol with a minimum of fuss.
Just like the uniform fisascos that seem to plague the Army, this has the stench of a combination of bureaucratic infighting and the desire to try and please everybody, something that is simply not possible.
Unfortunately the Army’s civilian masters refuse to apply the whip and as a result this kind of crap will continue.
I would say from extensive finance experience, and a bit of acquisition/contracting experience, a lot of the “arcane and byzantine” processes are a direct result of Congress rules and restrictions, which the right honorable Senator from Arizona had a significant hand in crafting, so perhaps he should just STFU and STFD. But that’s my ever so humble opinion…
So, like, we change from a rifle to a carbine because it shoots that particular round and load better? What happens when or if the load, bullet weight, etc, get changed as has happened like four times for the Marines with this caliber? Will a 14.5 ” barreled weapon with a history of broken bolts, blown gas systems and other malfunctions still be superior to the M16A4 series rifles? I would also like to see 600 meter results from a rifle and a carbine. I call bullshit on the carbine outshooting the rifle at those ranges.
Sounds a bit like it’s an underhanded job by the L/Cpl Mafia that’s just sick and tired of the whole M-16 family and all it’s knockoffs, setting the whole thing up for fail.
These reports might be generated by officers and assisted by SSNCOs, but it’s L/Cpls that type them out, so who knows what the original findings were?
The Army just last year “upgraded” to a new 5.56 ammo as well. Now its AB58, it was A059 before that. As I understand AB58 is “green” ammo, but its also more powerful than the A059 round used before.
Not sure what the Marines are using / were using.
We had green tip’s in 2012 working with SOTF-A my guy’s were always asking why we were using different ammo I said that is because that is what SF has and that’s what will use but we also had M4’s as our pack out with them.
I don’t see what the issue is really. KISS:
Set requirements for the pistol (safety switch, between 9mm and 45, etc).
Then, give one Ranger Battalion or SF Bn 100 of each to fire and train with, they go out and test, write up what the best ones were, done. If they say a weapon is good, its good. If they say its a piece of shit, its a piece of shit.
Granted, that won’t work well with the “lobbyists” who “donate” to certain campaigns to ensure their weapon is the one that gets selected….
Ditto that, I think it’s not how good your product is, it’s who you know, blow or bribe (*OOP*, make campaign donations to).
I used an A4 for pretty much my whole time in uniform that I wasn’t assigned a SAW or 240 and I was very good with it. I only got to shoot an M4 a few times and it was definitely a different ballgame. Even though it would complicate things I’d really like to see the Army go to aa more modular weapon system. Long barrels for more traditional combat, shorter barrels for urban/counterinsurgency. Probably too complicated for Joe though, so it’ll never happen.
Silence! You make too much sense! Do not confuse the issue with logic!