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.