The M4 Situation

The AP ran an article yesterday questioning the reliability and cost of the military's primary rifle, the Colt M4. While the piece delves into the intricate mechanics and operation of the M4 -- and how the weapon is prone to jamming and requires more maintenance than similar models -- there is also an interesting judical and political side:

In 1996, a Navy office improperly released Colt's M4 blueprints, giving nearly two dozen contractors a look at the carbine's inner workings. Colt was ready to sue the U.S. government for the breach. The company wanted between $50 million and $70 million in damages.

Cooler heads prevailed. The Defense Department didn't want to lose its only source for the M4, and Colt didn't want to stop selling to its best customer.

The result was an agreement that made Colt the sole player in the U.S. military carbine market. FNMI challenged the deal in federal court but lost.

And then there is the cost:

More than $300 million has been spent on 221,000 of the carbines over the past two years alone. And the Defense Department is asking Congress to provide another $230 million for 136,000 more.

And now, as Congress considers whether to approve this request, critics are saying Colt's exclusive deal is bad for soldiers and tax payers.

TheRazor.org offers a solution:

Given the situation, why not have them all? Just standardize on the caliber so that ammo can be used by all the guns and let “the market” (soldiers in the field) decide which they want. I’d rather see them decide than an Oklahoma senator anyway.

"Fits" writes on the blog Shooting the Messenger:

Not wishing to get into a platform war, hey, who the hell has time to answer hate mail, $1500 is ridiculous for a mass produced jam-a-matic poodle shooter. The article does provide some interesting history of the battle to keep the M4 in service, however, and worth a look.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation