Jump to content

US Army forces AWG to give up 416


Serellan
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=1111

HK416 Carbine/SBR Confiscation Program Unleashed on U.S. Army AWG

Posted on Thursday, March 20 @ 03:35:51 PST by davidc

Rifles and Carbines by David Crane

defrev at gmail dot com

March 20, 2008

DefenseReview was one of the first publications to report on the results of the Fall 2007 M4 Carbine "Extreme Dust Test". We published that story on December 18, 2007. Well, on December 19, 2007, we received two email communications (below) from one of our professional contacts in U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG), who shed some light on an HK416 confiscation program that was already in process as we were reporting the test results. This process, i.e. total HK 416 confiscation from AWG operators, has since been completed, whereby AWG warfighter were forced to turn in all their 416s (HK416s) (approx. 240+ guns, total).

Needless to say, our contact and the rest of the boys in AWG are not happy about this.

Below are the two email communications we received. Both messages have been sanitized for publication, and the second message has been slightly modified for readability. Here:

"From: XXXX

Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 8:44 AM

Subject: M4 vs M4A1

To: David Crane

David,

The AWG is losing its HK416 carbines and they are being replaced by M4s [Colt M4 Carbine] – not M4A1s [Colt M4A1 Carbine], but [just plain ol'] M4s. We’ve already turned in 30 to Lexington Army Depot and will continue to turn in 30 per week until all 240-something HK416s are turned in.

We see this as a huge waste of time and resources, with the end product being a less effective unit. There was a lot of range time and setup time that went into every one of those weapons. And now we’ll have to do the same thing with these M4s.

It wouldn’t be so bad if we were getting M4A1s. Most of us have had M4A1s, and although it isn’t as good as a HK416, it was workable. It was also very easy to get waivers to replace the trigger with a KAC match grade trigger.

With the M4 we do not have that capability. Nobody makes a match grade 3-round burst trigger (nor would it be cost effective). Therefore we cannot put a better trigger in the M4. If we put an aftermarket trigger in the M4 it would give it an auto capability vice a burst capability, thereby changing the “function†or designation of the weapon (which is frowned on). What’s worse is the 3-round burst trigger of the M4 is the most atrocious trigger on the market. It has 3 varying trigger pulls, all of them hard (between 11-14 lb) and the take up is different every 3rd round as well. At least the M4A1 has an 8-11 pound trigger pull that is very consistent, due to its full auto trigger pack. In order replace any functioning component of these weapons we have to file for a waiver (gas piston upper, free-float forend, etc.) and it is very difficult. But the trigger is the most important deficiency. We can’t do much about that burst trigger.

-XXXX"

The above message was followed by the following message:

"From: XXXX

Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 8:35 PM

Subject: M4 vs M4A1 part 2 (the HK416 turn in)

To: David Crane

David,

Some of these facts may not be perfectly accurate due to the second-hand nature of all of these conversations and speculations on the motives of others. Apparently when a bill came to the Senate with $375,000,000 going to Colt for the continuation of arming the US Army with the M4, Senator Coburn (R-OK) questioned the bill and took action as much as he could. He asked the Army why they are continuing with the M4 program when he had heard how unreliable it was from US Soldiers and also asked why elite units like Delta and AWG had switched to the HK416 due to reliability. GEN Brown of PEO Soldier defended the M4 with biased rhetoric like, “soldiers like the M4,†and retorted that the US Army had not authorized anybody to use the HK416, and that it must have been illegally developed and purchased.

The truth is that the SMU community did it legally, but not the traditional Army way (the expensive, 5 to 10 year, political Army way). But when some senators (Coburn included) asked the acting Secretary of the Army and Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (Gen Cody) why the SMUs have these better weapons and the regular Army is investing $375 Million in the M4, they responded that the SMUs and other SOF units (many SF Groups) were not authorized to purchase the 416s. The Vice COS (Gen Cody) ordered all units (including Delta) to stop using the HK416s due to political backlash. Most units (including the AWG) all but refused and gave every rebuttal possible. Delta fought it because it could technically be considered in their charter – but this wasn’t settled until recently. Two Tier-1 units were the only units allowed to keep their HK416s.

Gen Brown continued to urge Gen Cody to force those units to turn in the HK416s or the Army would face more political backlash for not competitively contracting the Army Carbine. Gen Cody determined that these HK416s weren’t worth the political backlash and ordered AWG and others to turning their HK416s. AWG fought back citing waste of resources, morale, and performance issues, but Gen Cody’s staff eventually gave a direct order to the AWG Commander to turn them in.

David -The important thing to convey to the public and politicians is that the HK416 fires the same rounds, uses the same magazine, and shares the same butt-stock, optics, accessories, and many, many parts as the M4. To stop buying the M4 and contract for the same amount of similarly priced HK416 would not be a major logistical/program overhaul, and would still allow the Army to pursue the future “leap-ahead†weapon technology."

End Message

DefenseReview's Suggestions/Recommendations: Instead of confiscating AWG's 416s (HK416s) and replacing them with M4s (Colt M4 Carbines), the more intelligent and logical approach would seem to be to allow AWG personnel to keep their 416s, which they seem to like, and also supply them with Colt M4A1 Carbines (which they prefer to the standard Colt M4 Carbine), so that they have both weapons at their disposal, depending on the mission--operations, instruction / training, etc. Or, issue the M4s with kits to convert them to M4A1s (still allowing AWG to keep the 416s, of course).

History lesson [from Military.com]:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,133962,00.html

Senator Tells Army to Reconsider M4

Military.com | By Christian Lowe | April 30, 2007

The debate over the Army's choice to purchase hundreds of thousands of M4 carbines for its new brigade combat teams is facing stiff opposition from a small group of senators who say the rifle may be inferior to others already in the field.

In an April 12 letter to acting Army Secretary Pete Geren, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said purchase of the M4 - a shortened version of the Vietnam-era M16 - was based on requirements from the early 1990s and that better, more reliable weapons exist that could give Army troops a more effective weapon.

Coburn asked the Army to hold a "free and open competition" before inking sole-source contracts worth about $375 million to M4 manufacturer, West Hartford, Conn.-based Colt Defense - which just received a $50 million Army contract for M4s on April 20.

"I am concerned with the Army's plans to procure nearly half a million new rifles outside of any competitive process," Coburn wrote in the mid-April letter obtained by Military.com.

A Geren spokesman said the secretary's office is putting together a reply to Coburn's letter, but provided no further details.

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

Coburn has banded together with a small group of like-minded senators to push the Army into a competition to determine whether the M4 is the best choice to equip newly-forming brigade combat teams, a top Coburn aide said.

The senator's concerns grew out of media coverage that showed the M4's design fails in critical situations and that special operations forces prefer other designs.

"Considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon," Coburn wrote. "A number of manufacturers have researched, tested and fielded weapons which, by all accounts, appear to provide significantly improved reliability."

Related Article: Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4

Special operations forces, including "tier one" units such as the Army's Delta Force and the Navy's SEAL Development Group - or SEAL Team Six - have used their own funds to purchase the Heckler & Koch-built 416, which uses a gas-piston operating system less susceptible to failure than Colt's gas-operated design.

"That's significant, because these guys don't screw around," the aide said.

In fact, Colt included four different weapons in the competition to build the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, none of which used the M4s gas system, the aide said.

In a routine acquisition notice March 23, a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbines. The M4 fires using a system that redirects gas from the expended round to eject it and reload another. The 416 and SCAR use a gas-operated piston that physically pushes the bolt back to eject the round and load another.

Carbon buildup from the M4's gas system has plagued the rifle for years, resulting in some close calls with Soldiers in combat whose rifles jammed at critical moments.

According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."

Yet the Army has still declined to buy anything other than the M4 for its regular troops, requesting about $100 million in the 2007 wartime supplemental to buy M4s for its Soldiers.

The office in charge of equipping Soldiers said in a March 30 statement the service has no plans to purchase the HK416.

"I am certain we can all agree that America's Soldiers should have the best technology in their hands," Coburn wrote. "And there is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers the best weapon - not just a weapon that is 'good enough.' "

The Army has not yet responded to Coburn's letter, but his aide said if the senator doesn't receive a response to the letter by Monday, Coburn plans to call Geren personally to address the issue.

"Our feeling is once people see the facts on the face of it they're going to say that this is ridiculous and demand that the Army does it right and competes the contract," the aide said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Giving our boys the best tools available" only works if those "best tools" are made by a certain company. I'm disgusted. In this case, "An army goes to war with the contra....tools it has at hand"

Edited by durka-durka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a similar article today on the Army Times very sad

I bet most regular soldiers are happy with the m4 because they just got upgraded from regular m16a2 as a matter of fact in my FOB you can still see lot's of soldiers (40% to 50%) with the old but good m16a2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

"Giving our boys the best tools available" only works if those "best tools" are made by a certain company. I'm disgusted. In this case, "An army goes to war with the contra....tools it has at hand"

I agree, but to be honest, I would have gone with a domestic rifle with a gas system. There are a couple that readily come mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to understand what would be so hard about replacing the M4's gas system with an HK-style gas system. On the other hand, I suppose I do understand. Bureaucracy at its finest.

Drop in conversion:

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=1109

I have been keeping an eye on these people, but apparently they have still not filled their orders to LE & military. I would love to try one of these out on one of my project guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to understand what would be so hard about replacing the M4's gas system with an HK-style gas system. On the other hand, I suppose I do understand. Bureaucracy at its finest.

Drop in conversion:

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=1109

I know they make them, but thank you for the link. :) I was just commenting tongue-in-cheek on the fact that the solution to all this is relatively simple. It would be much more cost-effective to convert current M4's and M16's to use an HK-style gas system like you linked. But no. The military has to spend millions and millions on R&D for a new weapon that fires the same cartridge, functions largely the same, and at a huge cost to the US taxpayer. If soldiers love their M4's so much, then just fix the damn things. That would seem intuitive to most, but it seems that to be in any form of upper management, be it civilian, government, or military, you have to trade in your common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current M4 has more problems than just the gas system, and if you've ever seen an Army contractor move then you know how painful that will be for the wallet- you'd think they were getting paid by the hour. It MIGHT actually be cheaper in the long run to do a whole new weapon from scratch, though I think the 416 is the RIGHT rifle- it's an off-the-shelf replacement that gives us fixes to most of the existing problems in a VERY familiar package that Joe Snuffy could operate efffectively from Day One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that letter to DefenseReview is a load of horse dump and here are three reasons why.

First, there are channels for reporting these issues. I mean channels that let you seriously elevate the problem to the levels that can do something. If a unit like AWG felt it was an issue, then there wouldn't be an issue. That makes the entire article smell like 3 day old fish right there.

Second, you do not go out to the public or a civilian publication and belly ache, reporting exact unit numbers of weapons stocks and such that may be indicative of unit capabilitites and resources. No person worth their salt would take this outside the CoC and air it in public. This jackass may be some clerk with a gripe. Either way if he does exist he should be taken out behind the unit and shot. From an operational security standpoint the individual writing the letter needs to be investigated.

The M4 doesn't have the issues that HK would like you to believe it has. Is the HK system better? Absofrickenlutely. Is the M4 a hunk of junk that malfunctions at the worst possible moment? No. Not in the least.

As an addendum, what someone thinks this General or that General said or did usually turns out not to be the case. I am not saying these facts above do not exist, but seriously who can sit here and not think the entire matter doesn't smell odd.

Edited by Hatchetforce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...