Defending America: A rigged rifle test?

[Hazcat]

 By The Tribune-Review
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
 

Sticking to one's guns usually is admirable. But that's not the case when the Army rigs testing to stick with the latest iteration of its M4 carbine — despite results showing there's a potentially better rifle for combat soldiers on the front lines.

A confidential military report obtained by The Washington Times says the testing showed one of eight unidentified competing rifles was more reliable, firing more rounds before common failures occurred, than the M4A1. The report also says the Army switched in midstream to ammunition “tailored” for the M4A1, then abruptly canceled the testing. An Army statement even insisted that “no competitor demonstrated a significant improvement in weapon reliability.”

The M4's rapid-fire reliability issues long have been known; soldiers who've used the M4 in intense combat say it's so prone to jamming and needs such constant cleaning that many rebuild their M4s with better parts. Such criticism from the ranks led Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and others in Congress to demand the testing.

Mr. Coburn is outraged that a Department of Defense inspector general's report said the rifle testing wasn't needed because of the M4A1's improvements over the basic M4. But the greater outrage is the Army keeping the best possible rifle out of the hands of its soldiers, who deserve the best possible equipment as they defend America.

Read more: http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/6647501-74/rifle-testing-army#ixzz3BOrokWFz
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

[Big Frank]

They act like saving money is more important than saving lives and won't foot the bill for new rifles.

[Solus]

I had access to certain classified information when I was in the Army during the Viet Nam War.

One report I read was the a recommendation for the use/none use of thermal imaging film and cameras to lessen the need for recon patrols.

The film was stated to be capable of determining troop count and movement direction many hours (I seem to remember it was over a day..but not sure that is correct) after they had passed a location.  It also gave a good estimate of how long ago the passage was made.

The recommendation was not to use it because it was not cost effective.

Not sure what made it seem more expensive than the lives of the soldiers performing those patrols, but it did not sit well with me at the time.

[les snyder]

I don't think the Army has adopted the SOCOM enhanced bolt modification yet...remember the M4A1 was a SOCOM project..... as it was explained to me, the original Stoner design utilized a too small diameter ejector spring hole (and subsequent small diameter spring) that with sustained full auto fire caused the piano wire spring to fail.... upgrade to a space age metallurgy ejector spring and plunger, and the butyl neoprene "O" ring over the extractor spring solved a lot of problems....I've had the upgrade kit in my game gun since 95 or so...

[billt]

The M-4 has been mired in controversy since it's introduction. There is no way they'll replace either it or the M-9 pistol. They have too much money tied up in them. Not to mention this present administration hates the military, and won't spend a dime to improve or replace it.

The only reason the Special Ops. don't use it is because they have the luxury of having their own operating budgets. That's why there wasn't one in sight during the Bin Laden raid. All were H&K 416's.

[Sponsor]