Thread: US Army Gets New Rifle?

Originally Posted by Blademaster

The reason why the Army is still going for more M4s is because Army procurement sytems officer usually go working for those companies after they are discharged from the Army and they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Politics.

For starters I know the PEO Soldier, Mark Brown personally. He would NEVER do anything which he did not firmly believe was in the best interest of the Soldiers.

Second, the Army Acquisition Community does not determine requirements nor conduct testing. The combat developer (in this case, the Infantry School) determines the requirements and passes that to the materiel developer. The materiel developer then puts the requirments out there for industry to come up with solutions. Testing is conducted by Operation Test & Evaluation Command independent of the PMs.

The PMs procure the systems/equipment which industry can make to meet the needs which the combat developer approves of. Acquisition folks are responsible for cost, schedule and performance.

As for the M4...there are certainly some examples of where the weapon has not performed in the optimium manner for the environment...an a lot of them are apocryphal. The US Army has to procure weapons for world wide use. That is way the laws and regulations are written. And the procurement has to fit within the budget it is given.

And once again, I wonder what the level of training was in the units where the operational use was a problem. Were soldiers using the specified amount and type of lubrication which was called for in the environemnt? Where soldiers conducting the level of maintenance on their magazines which is called for?

Nothing works if not maintained properly...which is usually the underlying reason for most problems.

In each of the examples given, a soldier or a sergeant from one unit is quoted. What about the 3,467 other soldiers in that BCT? What was their opinion?

Does the US Army always procure the best? No...Gamma Goat, GOER or M60A2 anyone? But the idea that the failures are the result of corrupt military officials is absolutely false.

I would like to reference MARS TM-160 dated 15 Jan 1968. It was a report of the special subcommittee on the M-16 rifle program. By letter dated 3 May 1967, a special subcommittee on the M-16 rifle was established by Honorable L. Mendel Rivers, chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services.

Extensive hearings were conducted by the subcommitee between 15 May and 22 August 1967. Field investigations were conducted, along with visits to weapons manufacturing plants at Hartford, CT & M14 producers HRA & Olin-Mathieson. Here is the short version of this report.

27 Sept 1962 a report was submitted to the Secretary of Defense by the Office of the Comptroller, DOD. Essentally this report stated cost effectiveness comparison of the M14 be procurred by the Army to the AR-15 which was being procurred by the Air Force. Secretary of Defense directed a memorandum on 12 Oct 1962 to the Secretary of the Army stating he had evidence which appeared the M14 was inferior in firepower and combat effectiveness to the Soviet AK47. That the AR-15 was superior to the M14 in every respect of importance to military operations.

Secretary of the Army directed an impartial and objective evaluation of these three weapons on an Army wide basis. Well the tests were cheated up, rigged and some problems were omitted from the report, (like swollen stock during the rain test at Aberdeen Proving Ground.) Attitudes of personnel at USAIS & USAIB were favorable to the M14. I understand the Secretary of Defense, was to say the least, upset over this situation. He instructed the that the Secretary of the Army direct the Department of the Army IG investigate the Nov - Dec 1962 evaluation to determine their validity.

After much finger pointing, Secretary McNamara instructed: "so that begining with the fiscal year 1964 procurement only one rifle, rather than separate service versions, is produced and that is produced with minimum delay, modifications of the weapon & its ammunition are to be concurred in by all four services. Only such modification as are absolutely necessary should be made." Further Army memorandum of 5 Apr 1963 stated that consideration was given to sole-source procurement as expected to result in lower cost, earlier production, with fewer administrative, legal and employment problems. Much later, the subcommittee discovered possible conflict of interest & questioned the wisdom of Army Weapons Command, commanding General. He became associated with the company producing a rifle, contracted for by his immediate command, while he was on active duty. I hope this never did occur!

A production decision was made, but limited changes could not be made to the AR-15 rifle, unless approved by all services. Changes in propellent from IMR-4475 to WCC-846 ball powder caused weapon fouling. Quality assurance problems in 1964 affected early production. Uneven flow of weapons, resulting in rush and jamups which frequented towards the months end. It was not until Feb 1965 that Colt's quality assurance program was generally satisfactory. Add to the mix, poor troop training, with literature stating "this rifle will require the least maintenace of any type weapon within the Army arsenal today". "An occasional cleaning will keep the weapon functioning indefinitelly." Most of us remember how this rapid introduction of a new rifle, affected servicemen in Viet Nam. The problems were eventually worked out & the M16 served our armed services well for the last forty years. Training & maintance is imperative to keep the M16 working. I recall the beatup AK47s the 11th MI used for training in 1980 at Aberdeen Proving Ground. They "took a licking & kept on ticking". Hopefully, a new well thoughtout & effective rifle will appear for the next forty years.

I hope & pray we never forget the M16 introduction problems of the early 1960s. I am sure this would never occur again.