Is The M4 A Bad Deal?

Hartford Afghanistan Military defends M4 weapon; critics call it overpriced

by Associated Press

Published: Sun, April 20, 2008 - 12:27 pm CST Last Updated: Sun, April 20, 2008 - 12:41 pm CST

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - No weapon is more important to tens of
thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine
rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one
company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Connecticut, to make the M4s
they trust with their lives.
Now, according to interviews and research conducted by The
Associated Press, as Congress considers spending millions more on
the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad
deal for American forces as well as taxpayers.
The M4, which can shoot hundreds of bullets a minute, is a
shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used
40 years ago during the Vietnam War. Republican Senator Tom Coburn
of Oklahoma says that at about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced,
jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, and requires far
more maintenance than more durable carbines.
U-S military officials don't agree. They call the M4 an
excellent carbine. When the time comes to replace the M4, they want
a combat rifle that is leaps and bounds beyond what's currently
available.
Director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in
Fort Benning, Georgia, Colonel Robert Radcliffe says that there's
not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4 and
that to replace it with something that has essentially the same
capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense.
Colt's exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that
point, the Army, in its role as the military's principal buyer of
firearms, may have other gunmakers compete along with Colt for
continued M4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally
new weapon.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

WKRG.com » News Stream » Technology

Photo
Map

WKRG.com Related

Discuss this in the forum

Email to a Friend

Printer Friendly

claycitymadness Says:

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:42 am

bushmaster makes a fine weapon to shoot a few times a year, to look good on your shelf, and to make you feel good about owning an ar 15, but colt is the real weapon of choice, they are the ones that went through the extensive metalurgic testing, colt bore all the developmental costs, and if the new and improved version is only 1500,00, but them, support an american company, remember the prisoners stuffing wadding ointo the german shells during wwII?? another reason i dont trust air bus. imagine if they put a back door on the tanker computers so when they didint agree with us they could just ground our tankers.

Madcap Says:

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:52 am

The military says the M-4 is a good weapon and it seems to me that they would be the ones to know. Sen. Coburn was never in the military and I doubt he has ever seen an M-4. The Associated Press doesn’t say who they interviewed or elaborate on the research they did so maybe they talked to the folks at Smith & Wesson. $1500 is a fair price if it protects the soldiers.

mari Says:

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:38 am

I think that the military should ask several companies to submit rifles that each company thinks is best. I’m talking several hundred of each type. Let combat troops use them and then make reccomenations on which is the best. Then let these companies bid on producing the best model. Let the military choose the best company. But, then they will need to check with Congress before they award the contract, because Congress might not like the company they choose.

Madcap Says:

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:12 am

Trust your life to the lowest bidder!!

Lee308 Says:

Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:49 am

Tax payers getting screwed again! I can buy this same rifle made by Bushmaster or several others in the semi-auto version brand new RETAIL for $800! These are quality firearms just as good if not better than Colt. Someone’s getting a kickback!

The only difference is a few trigger parts which really make no difference in the price. Write your Congress Critter about wasteful spending.

I personally think the AK47 should be revamped, upgraded and replace the M4. Much more reliable, simple and cheap. Of course, saving money has never been a government goal :-(