A long, but current read on the status of the military's right arm:
Table of contents:
The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy
The M4 Carbine
Nobody Loves Me but My Mother – and She Could Be Jivin’ Too…
The Cry for Competition: How Much Is That HK In the Window?
Any Last Words?
Updates: The Tests, Reactions, and Subsequent Developments
FY 2012 – 2013
FY 2009 – 2011
FY 2007 – 2008
M4 Carbine Contracts Announced to Date
Additional Readings & Sources: News & Developments
Additional Readings & Sources: Weapons & Background
Appendix A: Testing, Testing – Fairly?
www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4...e-controversy-03289/
The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy
May 02, 2013 15:14 UTC by Defense Industry Daily staff
DII
Latest update [?]
HK416 2 GIs
“No ICs for you!”
May 2/13: Military.com reports external link that the Individual Carbine’s Phase II firing tests are done, but the US Army is about to cancel the Individual Carbine competition, and direct its tiny $49.6 million in FY 2014 to other things. The original plan involved 3 Phase III contracts, and soldier user tests that would include a total of 800,000 rounds fired.
Overall, the budget for new carbines is $300 million through 2018, and the decision on how to proceed reportedly rests with Secretary of the Army John McHugh. This paragraph sums it up best:
“Gun makers involved in the competition said they have heard nothing from the Army about Phase III of the competition. Competitors didn’t want to be named in this story but said they would not be surprised if the effort was canceled because they never believed the Army was serious about replacing the M4 family.”
March 19/13: Inspector General. In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Pentagon’s Inspector General says they’ll audit the Individual Carbine program, as “DoD may not have an established need for this weapon nor developed performance requirements… such as accuracy, reliability, and lethality”.
Aside from the presumptuousness in the wake of incidents like Wanat, they’re also absolutely wrong on a factual level – the IC competition has had those standards for 3 years now. Source external link.
{click to shrink ^}
Keep reading for the whole story with recent events put in context
HK416 An M4 – or is it?
(click to view full)
The 5.56mm M-16 has been the USA’s primary battle rifle since the Vietnam war, undergoing changes into progressive versions like the M16A4 widely fielded by the US Marine Corps, “Commando” carbine versions, etc. The M4 Carbine is the latest member of the M16 family, offering a shorter weapon more suited to close-quarters battle, or to units who would find a full-length rifle too bulky.
In 2006 an Army solicitation for competitive procurement of 5.56mm carbine designs was withdrawn, once sole-source incumbent Colt dropped its prices. The DoD’s Inspector General weighed in with a critical report, but the Army dissented, defending its practices as a sound negotiating approach that saved the taxpayers money. As it turns out, there’s a sequel. A major sequel that has only grown bigger with time.
The M4/M16 family is both praised and criticized for its current performance in the field. In recent years, the M4 finished dead last in a sandstorm reliability test, against 3 competitors that include a convertible M4 variant. Worse, the 4th place M4 had over 3.5x more jams than the 3rd place finisher. Was that a blip in M4 buys, or a breaking point? DID explains the effort, the issues, and the options, as the Army moves forward with an “Individual Carbine” competition. But will it actually replace the M4?...
