View Full Version : Colt lands $54.5 million Army contract for M4 PIP upgrade program
TacMedic556
03-13-14, 07:27
I didn't see this posted yet so pardon me if I missed it in my searching here:
Colt lands $54.5 million Army contract for M4 PIP upgrade program
http://www.guns.com/2014/03/05/colt-lands-54-5-million-army-contract-m4-pip-upgrade-program/
Unnecessary waste of money by Big Army. They continue to prove that they are totally and utterly broken from the top down.
$155 to rebarrel with the new profile barrel, and swap the safety and FCG...
Can't say that Colt's "overcharging" so I'm curious why one would think of this one as a waste? Your thought that they should wait until the barrels are shot out until the upgrade?
$155 to rebarrel with the new profile barrel, and swap the safety and FCG...
Can't say that Colt's "overcharging" so I'm curious why one would think of this one as a waste? Your thought that they should wait until the barrels are shot out until the upgrade?
Given my current M4 barely passed the gauging for throat erosion before deployment, I'd gladly take a new barrel. A consistent semi-auto pull thanks to the lack of a burst cam in the FCG would be nice, too. And an ambi safety selector...you get the point. These are all good upgrades if it means we can basically "reset to zero". Next step is getting competent armorers at the Company level who give a shit and not just sticking some shitbag E4/E5 in the spot because he's worthless in the field...
My rifle has been through 4 deployments that I know of with the same barrel with training cycles between each one. It's beat to shit and, save the extractor and extractor spring I replaced myself, has all the original parts it came with. That $155 could save the next Soldier who uses my rifle's life.
Anniston Army Depot to modify Army M4 carbines (http://www.army.mil/article/121783/Anniston_Army_Depot_to_modify_Army_M4_carbines/)
24750
ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT, Ala. -- In October 2013, Anniston Army Depot began gearing up to modify M4 carbines throughout the U.S. Army.
The M4 Product Improvement Program has two phases. Currently, the small arms repair fielding team members are assembling new M4 carbine uppers, adding heavier barrels and compiling kits of parts to be used in the second phase.
Kit assembly is a coordinated effort by a team of individuals from the directorates of Production and Material Management.
"Right now, we have over one million parts being inventory managed by DMM in the Logistics Management Program," said Kerry Anderson, site manager for the M4 PIP for the depot's Directorate of Production Management.
As each kit is built, parts are tracked, managed and counted to ensure the correct number of components are allotted for each weapon to be modified in the field.
"Every part is identified during the kitting process and, at the end, we count to ensure we have the appropriate number of parts in each bag," said Willa Mason of DMM.
Once the kits and other M4 components are assembled, they are shipped to units for assembly on-site by the small arms repairers.
There, modifications will turn the M4 carbine into an M4A1 and give it the capability of fully automatic fire, as opposed to its current three-round burst configuration.
The M4 PIP was tested in February with a pilot program, during which 290 kits were assembled in one week.
During the pilot, according to Ronny Parker, the fielding operations supervisor over the program, employees also learned to operate laser engraving tools, which will be used to eradicate the current nomenclature on the weapon's selector switch and replace it with the M4A1 nomenclature.
As each weapon is modified with the new components, fielding team members will ensure it conforms to specifications and cycle dummy rounds to test its functionality.
The exchanged parts from each unit will also have a chance at a second life.
"Once fielding for the modifications begins, the uppers from each unit's M4 carbines will come back to Anniston to be reworked for this program," said Parker.
The returned uppers will be disassembled and inspected. Then, new parts will replace worn or damaged ones as needed during the assembly process.
"This program is a big advantage for the depot," said Parker, adding the upgrades are expected to take approximately five years to complete. "This is a big program."
Other supporting contracts were awarded to Colt and FN for bolts, and another company for Ambi-safetys.
PM SW completed its best value M4 bolt and bolt carrier assembly competition in April 2012, though the competition was scheduled to conclude in summer 2013. More than six months of testing and evaluation determined that none of the 11 competing designs met the overall requirements outlined in the solicitation. The M4’s current bolt and bolt carrier assembly outperforms the competing designs in the areas of reliability, durability, and high-temp/low-temp tests. The Army saved nearly $2 million as a result of the early completion of the competition.
No word on the FRAK.
Anniston Army Depot to modify Army M4 carbines (http://www.army.mil/article/121783/Anniston_Army_Depot_to_modify_Army_M4_carbines/)
24750
ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT, Ala. -- In October 2013, Anniston Army Depot began gearing up to modify M4 carbines throughout the U.S. Army.
Other supporting contracts were awarded to Colt and FN for bolts, and another company for Ambi-safetys.
No word on the FRAK.
So when these guns are rebuilt (either at the unit level or at Anniston) do they get a new bolt and carrier to go with the new barrel? You'd think they might go hand-in-hand (?).
So when these guns are rebuilt (either at the unit level or at Anniston) do they get a new bolt and carrier to go with the new barrel? You'd think they might go hand-in-hand (?).
Sorry I was not clear enough.
Colt and FN were awarded contracts to supply new bolts (not carriers) with each barrel. From the article all uppers will be built at depot. Lowers will be modified (new ambi safety & A1 triggers) on site and remarked as A1's.
I have not heard of a supporting timeline behind this, very little in the way of details open source at this time. Just multiple contract awards and now this announcement.
Belmont31R
03-27-14, 21:06
The BC does not have to be replaced. The burst trigger group is awful. People think run of the mil semi auto FCG's are awful...burst is WAY worse.
Can anyone explain why the .mil would go from Safe/Semi/Auto to Safe/Semi/Burst and now apparently going back towards Safe/Semi/Auto?
Tac's upgrade link also referred to a new enhanced 5.56 rd that operates at almost proof load pressures. Would not this ammo require tweaking of the gas system and changes in buffer specs? Increased cyclic rate, muzzle blast, and recoil will be noticeable. I wonder if the new round is or will be designed to tumble in human targets.
Can anyone explain why the .mil would go from Safe/Semi/Auto to Safe/Semi/Burst and now apparently going back towards Safe/Semi/Auto?
Because the Army mistook a training issue for a hardware issue, essentially. Same mentality that brought us 24/7 PT belts.
Can anyone explain why the .mil would go from Safe/Semi/Auto to Safe/Semi/Burst and now apparently going back towards Safe/Semi/Auto?
Someone saw some film clips from Vietnam and thought "That is a waste of ammunition". Enter the 3-round burst. Then when it became apparent that sometimes you just might need a high rate of fire (such as if you're about to be overrun like at Wanat) the epihany of a return to FA occurred.
davidjinks
03-28-14, 07:43
After I reclassed to EOD and was assigned to my unit, I was given the secondary job of unit armorer. Now an EOD company was only 20 soldiers when I first started. Now they're playing the big army game and much larger then they were.
I had 20 M16, 1 M9, 1 M2, 2 M82A1. I gave a shit when it came to weapons. Coming from 11B land, it was part of my DNA.
The problem with unit level armorers is; the ****ing über retarded Army regulations. I was not allowed to have any parts on hand for the FCG, BCG, gas system or lower parts replacement.
I could however have stocks, sight replacement parts and grips with screws.
I was not allowed to have gauges, headspace tools, barrel drop gauges...nothing that would allow me to do my job. Everything was contracted out to 3rd shop civilians.
I don't completely disagree with you on having shitbags in the armorer position. I've seen my fair share of them. But there are a lot of troops out there who want to do the proper job but cannot because of regulations.
Given my current M4 barely passed the gauging for throat erosion before deployment, I'd gladly take a new barrel. A consistent semi-auto pull thanks to the lack of a burst cam in the FCG would be nice, too. And an ambi safety selector...you get the point. These are all good upgrades if it means we can basically "reset to zero". Next step is getting competent armorers at the Company level who give a shit and not just sticking some shitbag E4/E5 in the spot because he's worthless in the field...
My rifle has been through 4 deployments that I know of with the same barrel with training cycles between each one. It's beat to shit and, save the extractor and extractor spring I replaced myself, has all the original parts it came with. That $155 could save the next Soldier who uses my rifle's life.
The problem with unit level armorers is; the ****ing über retarded Army regulations. I was not allowed to have any parts on hand for the FCG, BCG, gas system or lower parts replacement.
I could however have stocks, sight replacement parts and grips with screws.
I was not allowed to have gauges, headspace tools, barrel drop gauges...nothing that would allow me to do my job. Everything was contracted out to 3rd shop civilians.
I've spent a fair amount of time on this issue before. couple of points:
1. The main reason the unit armorers do not have the parts on hand which you referance is the very issue you pointed out. Unit armorers are not trained and do not have the tools on hand (authorized tools) to replace the FCG, BCG, gas system or lower parts replacement. So given that and your comment (and others) about having poor individuals assigned to the position, do we realy want to have those parts at the company level? Do you realy want Joe shit the rag bag staking your castle nut or gas key?
2. On the gauges. Again the armorers (which at least in the Infantry is a supply PFC position by MTOE) are not trained on how to use them and do not have to tools to address the issue if they did. When you get to the Small arms shops in the BSB's you have school trained small arms repairmen, supervised by trained NCO's and an Armament Warrent officer. They have all of the tools required to work on your weapons AND all of the bench stock parts to replace whats broken. It's actualy preety damn easy to get weapons fixed if you use the system. You also have other assests available to help you out like TACOM LARs and the Brigade BLAST Teams to help out with systemic issues.
Definitely a step in the right direction. I don't know about the higher pressure 855 though. Hopefully they'll go ahead with a good free float too.
I wouldn't mind swapping in a BCM grip and charging handle, and Magpul trigger guard as well, but that can all be done by the end user.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can anyone explain why the .mil would go from Safe/Semi/Auto to Safe/Semi/Burst and now apparently going back towards Safe/Semi/Auto?
Basically it is a
shiny thing, something bad happen so, we will implement a shiny thing that would not have solved the problem
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good idea. There are lots of low cost things that could be done. Unfortunately small arms seem to be way at the bottom of the importance list. What's crazy is I think the Army spent almost as much money on the ACU debacle as they are now on the weapons.
Want to PIP am M4... easy
-semi only decent trigger
-16" ish barrel with mid-gas
-FF rail
-shitcan all old magazines
Here's what needs to happen. The Army and the Marine Corps need to have one or two personnel at the company level who are in the HQ platoon or support platoon and they need to be sent to all of the factory schools or the Small Arms Repairman School.
Once they complete their training they will continue to perform continuing education and they shall work with the higher support units in scheduling annual gaging/inspections and performing maintenance at the front line.
They will be present at all range and live fire evolutions with a small arms repair kit and log book. Any issues will either be fixed and logged in immediately or they will be logged and parts ordered for repair.
They will be responsible for maintaining parts inventory and will have access to high wear items such as extractors, springs, butt-stocks, etc....
I would also consider implementing a policy that has them replace things like gas tubes, gas rings, extractor springs and buffer springs every 6 months (or sooner if necessary). All maintenance will be logged into a book.
These unit level personnel will also be involved in working to ensure that personnel understand the importance of lubrication and magazine serviceability and will work closely with line personnel to ensure that magazines are being inspected and replaced as necessary. Defective magazines will be discarded and destroyed immediately.
Being proactive and doing stuff like this will help greatly in making sure that weapons are serviceable and fit for combat deployment.
I've spent a fair amount of time on this issue before. couple of points:
1. The main reason the unit armorers do not have the parts on hand which you referance is the very issue you pointed out. Unit armorers are not trained and do not have the tools on hand (authorized tools) to replace the FCG, BCG, gas system or lower parts replacement. So given that and your comment (and others) about having poor individuals assigned to the position, do we realy want to have those parts at the company level? Do you realy want Joe shit the rag bag staking your castle nut or gas key?
2. On the gauges. Again the armorers (which at least in the Infantry is a supply PFC position by MTOE) are not trained on how to use them and do not have to tools to address the issue if they did. When you get to the Small arms shops in the BSB's you have school trained small arms repairmen, supervised by trained NCO's and an Armament Warrent officer. They have all of the tools required to work on your weapons AND all of the bench stock parts to replace whats broken. It's actualy preety damn easy to get weapons fixed if you use the system. You also have other assests available to help you out like TACOM LARs and the Brigade BLAST Teams to help out with systemic issues.
Here's what needs to happen. The Army and the Marine Corps need to have one or two personnel at the company level who are in the HQ platoon or support platoon and they need to be sent to all of the factory schools or the Small Arms Repairman School.
Once they complete their training they will continue to perform continuing education and they shall work with the higher support units in scheduling annual gaging/inspections and performing maintenance at the front line.
They will be present at all range and live fire evolutions with a small arms repair kit and log book. Any issues will either be fixed and logged in immediately or they will be logged and parts ordered for repair.
They will be responsible for maintaining parts inventory and will have access to high wear items such as extractors, springs, butt-stocks, etc....
I would also consider implementing a policy that has them replace things like gas tubes, gas rings, extractor springs and buffer springs every 6 months (or sooner if necessary). All maintenance will be logged into a book.
These unit level personnel will also be involved in working to ensure that personnel understand the importance of lubrication and magazine serviceability and will work closely with line personnel to ensure that magazines are being inspected and replaced as necessary. Defective magazines will be discarded and destroyed immediately.
Being proactive and doing stuff like this will help greatly in making sure that weapons are serviceable and fit for combat deployment.
I don't really now if that would work, the problem in the Marines is not so much the training, because our 2111s are more than capable as armorers. But instead unless they are gun guys they may not be all that effective.
The problem will become one of recruiting the right people in the numbers required.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BufordTJustice
03-31-14, 08:14
Considering that these new carbines will be using the M855A1 abortion of a round, they need to be focusing on ANYTHING that increases bolt life, to include reductions in cyclic rate through the use of stronger action springs and heavier buffers.
The heavier barrel isn't a horrible idea, but a midlength gas system seems to be mandatory at this point...possibly with a 15" or 15.5" barrel. Getting gas port pressure down is now a serious concern. Managing extraction and unlocking through an H3 buffer and possibly a stouter action spring is also a must.
Even using the A1 abortion round in a newer carbine with an H2 buffer is still grossly under buffered.
It goes without saying that the ideal buffer system is the A5 system with an -H3 or -H4 buffer.
Also, revisiting the LMT enhanced carrier would serve to delay unlocking and extraction and help compensate for the greatly increased chamber and operating system pressure.
I don't know if the lmt carrier was a candidate in the pip program.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Here's what needs to happen. The Army and the Marine Corps need to have one or two personnel at the company level who are in the HQ platoon or support platoon and they need to be sent to all of the factory schools or the Small Arms Repairman School.
The Army authorizes a supply MOS for the arms room in the HQ's platoon, but he is seldom the guy in the arms room. He is required to attend the installations armor course, and many units also have at least one armorer trained soldier per platoon. They are typicaly not going to be sent to a factory school, because they went to the Armorers course. Very few units send off PFC/SPC's for civilian schools TDY to learn skills the Army was supposed to teach them. As for the Small Arms Repairman School that is an MOS producing school, so you are not going to be able to just send off your armorer to attend it.
Once they complete their training they will continue to perform continuing education and they shall work with the higher support units in scheduling annual gaging/inspections and performing maintenance at the front line.
This is basicly what they currently do, minus continuing to perform continuing education.
They will be present at all range and live fire evolutions with a small arms repair kit and log book. Any issues will either be fixed and logged in immediately or they will be logged and parts ordered for repair.
Thats a leadership issue. We used to often have our amorer on the range, but it was never a 100% thing depending on what else was going on. At one time we would also request LARs and or a small arms contact team be on the range if we were running say a BN consolidated MG range density. As for the log book I'm not sure how useflu he would be at that. Other than getting an average fleet life, its impracticle for him to keep a log on every rifle. That should be more of a leader issue, the leaders might turn it into the armorer, but he isn't going to fill it out. The rest is individual/leader PMCS work.
They will be responsible for maintaining parts inventory and will have access to high wear items such as extractors, springs, butt-stocks, etc....
I would also consider implementing a policy that has them replace things like gas tubes, gas rings, extractor springs and buffer springs every 6 months (or sooner if necessary). All maintenance will be logged into a book.
Maybe, I'd need to see some more fleet life data. Big green is going to ask for supporting data for that, and even then when they do the man hour calculations and cost estimate I think you would get shot down. Take the man houurs to do the above then multiply by +/-3,600 for a Infantry BDE. Then multiply by two to represent doing it twice a year. then divide my what ever the standard is for work days in a year. The number you come up with will tell you how many soldiers x the number of Brigades in the Army would need to be added to the current force to do the work. Thats a short example of how they would run the MARC Study. Each soldier represents X $ in cost to the Army, plus the cost of their equipment.
These unit level personnel will also be involved in working to ensure that personnel understand the importance of lubrication and magazine serviceability and will work closely with line personnel to ensure that magazines are being inspected and replaced as necessary. Defective magazines will be discarded and destroyed immediately.
This is leader work. Train the leaders right and the problem takes care of it self.
Being proactive and doing stuff like this will help greatly in making sure that weapons are serviceable and fit for combat deployment.
The system has alot of levers in place to solve these problems, real and percieved, but all to often the lowest priority item on any units scheaduale is maintance. It's an after thought and seldom done right. That is not an issue with the armorers in the Army, its an issue with our NCO Corps and the development of our Company Grade Officer Corps. At various times I have used multiple methods to fix maintance problems, but for the most part they revolved around leaders enforcing standards.
Now that I've sounded like a real A-Hole, I'd be all abourd with send a bus load of SSG's and SFC's off to attend your course in Syracuse next month. Developing the leaders who will train and enforce the proper standards should be the point of main effort.
I was thinking more along the lines of finding non- 2111's or 45B's (I worked with both in Iraq) at the company level and training these guys. Instead of using unit level armorers as just guys who hand shit out and count, put someone in there that cares about firearms or is interested and provide them cross training.
Sometimes we need to think out of the box to solve problems.
I don't really now if that would work, the problem in the Marines is not so much the training, because our 2111s are more than capable as armorers. But instead unless they are gun guys they may not be all that effective.
The problem will become one of recruiting the right people in the numbers required.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grand58742
04-01-14, 00:58
I was thinking more along the lines of finding non- 2111's or 45B's (I worked with both in Iraq) at the company level and training these guys. Instead of using unit level armorers as just guys who hand shit out and count, put someone in there that cares about firearms or is interested and provide them cross training.
Sometimes we need to think out of the box to solve problems.
It's the way the USAF does it. And while there is an ingrained retardedness concerning small arms in the Air Force, the CATM program is actually a pretty smart deal. The armories for daily issue have a CATM guy in charge that can diagnose and repair as needed. It would have to be a much larger deal in the Army or USMC, but the program already exists in one service and has worked pretty well.
Yeah that's kind of the model I was thinking of. Many of the CATM guys I met were pretty good. If you attack the problem at the lowest level I think it would have a greater impact.
It's the way the USAF does it. And while there is an ingrained retardedness concerning small arms in the Air Force, the CATM program is actually a pretty smart deal. The armories for daily issue have a CATM guy in charge that can diagnose and repair as needed. It would have to be a much larger deal in the Army or USMC, but the program already exists in one service and has worked pretty well.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.