View Full Version : Colt M4 Carbine's Future Uncertain: Dark Clouds Forming
Colt M4 Carbine's Future Uncertain: Dark Clouds Forming
Defense Review ^ | 24 June 08 | David Crane
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1144
Perhaps the single most exciting thing that happened at NDIA International Infantry & Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium 2008--away from the firing range, of course--was a confrontation between Jim Battaglini (Retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. James R. Battaglini) of Colt Defense and U.S. Air Force Col. Robert Mattes, the director of the Comparative Test Office for the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts, while Col. Mattes was giving a speech and promoting the idea of an open competition to determine the best infantry/assault carbine that can be supplied to U.S. military infantry warfighters. Specifically, the purpose of the competition would be to determine whether or not the Colt M4 Carbine is still the best carbine solution for our warfighters, and if there might be a better (i.e. more reliable and combat-effective) carbine out there M4.
Col. Mattes wasn't the first to promote the open-competition idea. In a short May 21 speech at the symposium, Bryan O'Leary, National Security Legislative Assistant for U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), also proffered the opinion that the Colt M4 Carbine should have to compete against other carbine candidates and thereby justifiy its continued existence as the standard U.S. Army and Marine Corps infantry/assault carbine. If it wins, it lives. If it doesn't, it dies (i.e. loses the contract). Pretty simple. O'Leary and Mattes might argue: what's Colt Defense afraid of? If the M4 is really the best carbine out there, it should be able to beat all the competing designs, no problem. Let's compete it and see.
Well, o.k., except let's look at it from Colt's perspective. Just like any other company, why would they want to take the risk of competing for a contract when they're the current contract holder, there might be a way to avoid it, and soldier satisfaction with the M4 is reportedly currently at approx. 89% (according to a U.S. Army report)? But this is soldiers' lives, you say. Well, that's true, but you have to prove that there's another weapon out there that's not only better, but appreciably better (i.e. more reliable and combat-effective) in order to justify the rather significant mass weapon-replacement costs, warfighter retraining costs, new-weapon production costs, supply chain issues, etc.
Now, while it's true that the M4 Carbine came in last in recent "extreme dust tests" when it went up against the HK416, FN Mk16 SCAR-Light (SCAR-L), and HK XM8 LAR (Lightweight Assault Rifle), it's questionable as to how combat-relevant those tests were, and how fairly those tests were conducted. I mean, let's face it, the Army has a problematic testing history (and that's putting it diplomaticly) when it comes to small arms and body armor, let alone higher-ticket items. Even so, the M4 represents the status quo and Colt is a favored contractor/DoD darling, so the M4 should hold the advantage in that regard.
By the way, it's DefenseReview's understanding that the original test protocol called for sand and dust, but this was changed to dust-only tests for some reason.
So, where does Defense Review come down on the open carbine competition issue? Well, we're actually for it, provided 1) the testing is conducted honestly, fairly and openly, 2) is videotaped at every step for later review, and 3) has civilian oversight (or some other type of trustworthy, non-Army oversight).
If the M4 is really the best assault/infantry carbine out there, it should be able to beat all comers, and Colt Defense shouldn't have anything to worry about. Our warfighters deserve the best weapon available, so may the best weapon win. That said, we believe that any/all testing/competing should be done in conditions that are as combat-relevant and combat-realistic as possible. Part of the testing should definitely be operational testing (OT) by infantry warfighters, including U.S. Army general infantry, Rangers, and Marines--but not necessarily limited to those three groups. Also, the weapon that should be competed is the true-full-auto-capable M4A1 Carbine with semi-auto and full-auto settings, not the M4 Carbine. The M4 Carbine's 3-round burst was a really stupid idea from the get-go, and needs to go away. The M4's trigger is lousy and not condusive to good marksmanship. The M4A1 is a much smarter idea and its trigger is far superior. If you don't believe me, ask members of the U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG). Don't take my word for it.
By the way, another proponent of open competition is Jim Schatz, former military sales manager for HK Defense (Heckler & Koch Defense) and vocal promoter of the the HK XM8 development program. Mr. Schatz, now working for the Technical Support Working Group, a test and evaluation agency under DoD (Department of Defense), gave a presentation at the symposium titled Time for a Change - U.S. "Incremental" Small Arms Fielding: Failures and Solutions. Needless to say, Mr. Schatz is not an M4 proponent, nor is he very satisfied with the U.S. military small arms development, procurement and adoption system. He believes its broken, and DefenseReview agrees. Schatz isn't stupid. The U.S. military small arms development and procurement system is, excuse our language, a total cluster#### (military term). Every independent analyst we've ever spoken with that's well-versed on the topic (U.S. military small arms development and procurement system), to a man, agrees that the system's broken, corrupt, counterproductive, pick your own negative adjectives. It's bad. Real bad.
DefenseReview spoke with Mr. Schatz after the symposium and tried to get a written copy of his presentation for at least private review and analysis. We were unsuccessful, however.
Defense Review did, however, get to speak with Mr. Battaglini at the end of the symposium about his confrontation with Col. Mattes, and got his take on things. Battaglini believes in his product (the M4 Carbine), and feels like Colt Defense is being, essentially, ganged up on, and the M4 is being unfairly challenged, considering what Colt contends to be tremendous success in combat and overwhelming end-user satisfaction. On a personal note, I respect Mr. Battaglini for confronting Col. Mattes during Mattes' speech. Mr. Battaglini believes in his product and was defending it, just like any good corporate officer should. Can't knock him for it. We found Mr. Battaglini to be warm, friendly, and generally likeable when we spoke with him at the symposium.
So, is the M4 Carbine being treated unfairly? Maybe, maybe not. DefRev's going to analyze the situation and get back to you on it. Whatever the case, the next 1-1.5 years is going to be interesting for Colt Defense and the M4. The M4's going to be fighting for its life. In addition to potentially having to compete against gas piston/op-rod-driven carbines like the FN SCAR, HK 416, etc., Colt apparently is going to have to turn over the M4 technical data package (TDP) rights to the Army in 2009, and the Army may let other companies compete for future M4 contracts, not exactly a great confluence of events for Colt. The U.S. Army has budgeted $313M in M4 contracts for fiscal years 2010-2013.
That being the case, it's DefenseReview's opinion that Colt should seriously consider updating/improving the M4 with recent hardware and technologies that can bring the M4 Carbine into the 21st Century, optimize the M4's direct-gas-impingement operating system, and give it the best chance to win any future open carbine competition against the HK416, the FN SCAR-L, and any other gas piston/op-rod-driven carbine out there. We believe we know exactly what modifcations/improvements need to be made. However, even if we're right, it may be difficult for Colt to make any changes to the M4, at least in the near term. Since the M4 is made to a U.S. military specification and according to an exacting TDP (technical data package), even if Colt were willing to make changes to the weapon, they woud have to navigate through the military bureaucracy to do so. Specifically, they would have to make an engineering change proposal (ECP) for each and every change, and the government would have to agree to it. This is easier said than done, but we believe it needs to be done. Defense Review may discuss our recommended M4 mods/improvements in a subsequent article. We're not sure whether or not we should make these recommendations public, yet, based on some things that are currently going on behind the scenes.
If worse comes to worse for Colt Defense, they've got their own gas piston/op-rod select-fire AR carbine/SBR/subcarbine solution that's supposedly superior to the HK416, according to rumor (i.e. unconfirmed/unverified reports). It's Defense Review's understanding that Colt's gas-piston-driven system was competed in the 2004 SCAR competition and did quite well (unconfirmed/unverified). Colt's gas-piston/op-rod-driven SCAR candidate, which we believe was the Colt M5 Gas Piston Carbine (unconfirmed/unverified) was reportedly very reliable (unconfirmed/unverified). DefRev's seen and handled the Colt LE1020 a.k.a. Colt LE 1020 (at SHOT Show and other shows), which is the semi-automatic (semi-auto) version of the Colt SCAR candidate, and the system looks solid. We've seen the weapon broken down and the individual piston/op-rod components. The late Mike LaPlante (Michael LaPlante) showed us the gun. Mike was a nice man.
Jay Cunningham
06-26-08, 21:23
Defense Review is typically NOT a reliable source.
What are they going to do when they wind up with a piston-driven 6.8 and the average soldier still can't hit the broad side of a barn and doesn't perform the basic maintenance to keep the gun running?
I thought they were going to do a new round of testing with all aforementioned models?
Jay Cunningham
06-26-08, 21:33
What are they going to do when they wind up with a piston-driven 6.8 and the average soldier still can't hit the broad side of a barn and doesn't perform the basic maintenance to keep the gun running?
+1
They keep looking for technological solutions to what amount to largely training problems.
I am all for superior gear, but they would be wise to match the Gucci gear funds with additional training funds.
What are they going to do when they wind up with a piston-driven 6.8
Don't know about them, but I'm going to buy a pistol-driven 6.8, that's for sure. ;)
I plan to keep my Colt M4, but I do plan to buy me an H&K 416 (or whatever they will call it) when they become available!
:cool:
I agree that training and maintenance are lacking. I see it all the time here in country from they way they carry their weapons around and bang them against shit to the lack of basic maintenance. However, we should always be evaluating and exploring small arms technology and give the troops the best that we can field.
What are they going to do when they wind up with a piston-driven 6.8 and the average soldier still can't hit the broad side of a barn and doesn't perform the basic maintenance to keep the gun running?
variablebinary
06-27-08, 03:10
I see no danger in an open competition.
If the M4 is the best, it will be the best in an open competition.
If it isn’t the best, than the right amount of innovation and technology has finally arrived and a new frontline weapon should be issued.
This fear and stonewalling of competition needs to end.
I'm starting to wonder if any of the main solutions being proposed are a valid solution.
The XM8 is dead, never to return I hope.
The 416 is way too much of a stopgap solution.
The SCAR...well...I was reading on http://www.professionalsoldiers.com that it isnt exactly loved, and is proving to be problematic and unreliable to such a degree that some would rather have their M4's back.
Who knows what the future holds? Regardless, not having an open competition is a travesty...
O.R.M. = Operational Risk Management
This is what some dumbass in the Military dreamed up to "red tape" all the real training.
"Train like you fight" is a myth for the general military, but the words are still vomited out by pussified commanders everywhere.
i'd say the money spent trying to issue a new rifle would be better spent on upgrading body/vehicle armor.
the M4/16 isn't perfect, but it's a known entity, and it really does have a lot going for it.
Thekatar, three questions:
1) What's the basis for your statement (above) about DefenseReview?
2) Do you have a specific problem with my article that JSandi reprinted (above)? Do you differ with anything I wrote in it, specifically?
3) Are you one of the owners of M4Carbine.net, or just a moderator?
Assuming full and open competition eventually results, am I to understand that Colt can enter two weapons: both the M4 and any other variant they'd like, or are they limited to just entering the M4? Or does the govt enter the M4 and then vendors enter whatever they want?
If everyone's hellbent on selecting something new just because they believe the M4 is outdated/flawed, then Colt ought to have a shot at that competiton.
Having to turn the TDP over could be a big deal. Even if the govt decides in th end to keep the M4, there's no guarantee Colt will get any follow-on work.
I wonder how much money would be saved if the FOBbits only had pistols to use on a daily basis? Then we could possible afford the "Ueber Weapons". I see soldiers at some of the FOB's who have a weapon simply because the policy says so, and not out of necessity.
It would also be interesting to know how many troops in theater actually use their weapons on a daily basis.
Spurholder
07-15-08, 08:29
"Train like you fight" is a myth for the general military, but the words are still vomited out by pussified commanders everywhere.
Sig line material right here, folks.
Jay Cunningham
07-15-08, 08:43
Thekatar, three questions:
1) What's the basis for your statement (above) about DefenseReview?
2) Do you have a specific problem with my article that JSandi reprinted (above)? Do you differ with anything I wrote in it, specifically?
3) Are you one of the owners of M4Carbine.net, or just a moderator?
Marine Corps adopting 45 GAP
LeMas blended metal technology bullets
Openly second-guessing DocGKR's knowledge of ballistics
Dragon Skin
My opinion is that your DEFREV site is more of a tactical tabloid than hard news. Some facts in there but a lot of rumor and conjecture.
I have nothing to do with M4C other than I volunteer my time to moderate. My opinions are my own.
Iraq Ninja
07-15-08, 09:22
What are they going to do when they wind up with a piston-driven 6.8 and the average soldier still can't hit the broad side of a barn and doesn't perform the basic maintenance to keep the gun running?
Rob, not sure what your experience is with the average soldier, but I think they are a bit better than you give em credit. Hell, they are way better now than what I saw back in the late 70's.
Jay Cunningham
07-15-08, 09:26
Rob, not sure what your experience is with the average soldier, but I think they are a bit better than you give em credit. Hell, they are way better now than what I saw back in the late 70's.
Not to speak for Rob, but I think he is simply employing a bit of hyperbole to suggest that better training will probably yield more positive results than a simple change in caliber/platform.
I would tend to agree, though better hardware is always, well... better.
Rob, not sure what your experience is with the average soldier, but I think they are a bit better than you give em credit. Hell, they are way better now than what I saw back in the late 70's.
I guess I only come in contact with the ones that can't shoot.
Given that you have three people, a cop, a soldier, and a regular joe, that all come out to a match or training class, and given that their attendance at same indicates at least a passing interest in firearms, the marksmanship skills I have witnessed would be ranked (and clearly there are always exceptions) as:
1) Regular Joe
2) Soldier
3) Cop
The knowledge base, in terms of what makes the gun work, what keeps it working, what leads to good accuracy, etc. would be ranked as:
1) Regular Joe
2) Cop
3) Soldier
This is not a knock on cops or soldiers. However, from what I have seen, the training necessitated by the bureaucracy of such entities leads to a "do what I say" methodology to training that is not always based in reality or fact but often based on the needs of the bureaucracy, the shear numbers of trainees, and the "teach to the dumbest guy" mentality, more than anything else.
At every single carbine or handgun course I have attended there has been a former (or current) Marine, Soldier, Cop, etc. that is taking commercial training for the first time. And at every single one they have all come to the same conclusion when they're done; "I didn't know what I didn't know".
The truth of the matter is, or at least appears to me to be, that the training available in the commercial market (given that one knows where to look) is vastly superior to that given your average troop. Some, like a former USMC LT Col. and Gunsite instructor, have posted very interesting information that seems to support this on other sites.
and now that this has been totally hijacked...
This isn't to say that I don't want our troops to have the very best option that's available and feasible. It's just to say that, from where I'm sitting (which is comfortably in an office in SE Florida, not in some desert hell-hole), it appears that much of the complaining about lethality of projectiles and reliability of weapons comes from people that simply can't shoot and don't properly maintain their firearms.
Marine Corps adopting 45 GAP
I would have been happy to see their office burned to the ground that day. The CEO at SIG got a call from Sauer gleefully blaming him for losing this huge contract that he'd never heard of. He in turn ripped my boss, the VP for Gov/Mil sales, a new hole. My boss in turn called me and read me the riot act for being ignorant of this huge sale. I was at the Crimson Trace Master Trainer Summit at the time, and had to bow out of some of the activities while I gathered "proof" that no such sale occurred.
How anyone even casually familiar with military procurement could believe that a sale like that would be possible without long (and publicly announced) procedures is absolutely beyond me. Even when the big "secret" units buy new pistols, everyone in the industry knows who & what. And hopefully the folks at Defense Review know that the United States Marine Corps is not a small classified unit. :rolleyes:
I tend to agree with rob_s on both rankings.
At almost every class I attend, the instructors will point out that Cops in general, can't shoot worth a shit. These comments come form the L.E. instructors themselves.
I've been in classes where the instructors are almost gleeful at the effort put forth by students who actually want to be there!
I'm not crapping on Cops or Soldiers at all. I worship them both! But it is what it is!
variablebinary
07-15-08, 10:53
I would have been happy to see their office burned to the ground that day. The CEO at SIG got a call from Sauer gleefully blaming him for losing this huge contract that he'd never heard of. He in turn ripped my boss, the VP for Gov/Mil sales, a new hole. My boss in turn called me and read me the riot act for being ignorant of this huge sale. I was at the Crimson Trace Master Trainer Summit at the time, and had to bow out of some of the activities while I gathered "proof" that no such sale occurred.
Dont you just love days like that :D
I guess I only come in contact with the ones that can't shoot.
Maybe that is why they are at the class?
Very few soldiers are actual trigger pullers, and few cops are. Sure it is an important skill, but if it is not the skill you use most of the time at your job, you will most likely not be very good at it.
Maybe that is why they are at the class?
Very few soldiers are actual trigger pullers, and few cops are. Sure it is an important skill, but if it is not the skill you use most of the time at your job, you will most likely not be very good at it.
Oh, I agree completely.
"The M4's trigger is lousy and not condusive to good marksmanship. The M4A1 is a much smarter idea and its trigger is far superior. If you don't believe me, ask members of the U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG). Don't take my word for it."
Any chance we could get a comment on this? Ive never fired an m4 with three round burst so i wouldnt have any idea what the trigger pull or firing experience is like.
Very few soldiers are actual trigger pullers, and few cops are. Sure it is an important skill, but if it is not the skill you use most of the time at your job, you will most likely not be very good at it.
Reminds me of my original CCW qual many years ago. There was a lady next to my for the shoot portion. In AZ there's no time limit and the qual is very forgiving and short range. And quite frankly, many people there don't do much shooting so they're pretty iffy in the marksmanship department.
Anyway... I shot a nice little group... being a shooting fanatic an all.... and the old lady next to me told me says... "YOU SHOULD BE A COP!" As though that was all I'd need to be a Cop... good shooting skills! :D
"Defense Review" aka David Crane is an ill informed self important tool with delusions about his relevance. Anything spewing from that gutter is of no import.
Burst trigger groups suck.. different pull each time.
I was under the impression that was by design so that you could pop off two rounds instead of three if you have a steady finger.
Again, bare in mind that i have NO experience with burst triggers or automatic weapons so i probably shouldnt even be opening my mouth here. :D
Thekatar, three questions:
3) Are you one of the owners of M4Carbine.net, or just a moderator?
Yes he is. :D
C4
Thekatar, thank you for responding so quickly to my post. I appreciate it.
However, again, do you have any specific beef with my article that was reprinted at the beginning of this thread? Did you find something erroneous in it?
Regarding your "tabloid" assessment, our reporting accuracy and content/information are as solid as anyone's, and better than most. We're also often the first to a story. Just one example (and a relatively recent example at that) is our piece on 5.56 Optimized/Brown-Tip ammo here:
Another article that, according to one of our sources, caused a minor shock wave in Army circles (again, due to its detail and accuracy) is this piece:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1111 -- HK416 Carbine/SBR Confiscation Program Unleashed on U.S. Army AWG
Those are just two examples.
Just FYI, we "typically" sit on/withhold sensitive information all the time for OPSEC. Believe me when I tell you that many of our articles would be even more interesting if we included all the info to which we're privy, but that would violate OPSEC.
Since I have some free time this morning (I'm on a short vacation), I'll try to address your specific examples/concerns:
1) The .45 GAP/Marine Corps thing is ancient history and really tired. That happened over four years ago, now, and is the only mistake we've (and specifically, I've) ever made of that type. When we realized we'd been duped (which is what happened), we immediately retracted the story, immediately publicly apologized to our readers, and instituted new protocols to prevent a recurrence of that type of error. And we haven't made the same or a similar mistake since that incident. To date, that's the only retraction DefenseReview has ever had to print in 7 years of publishing, and we plan to keep it that way. Very simply, we made a mistake, and adapted accordingly so as not to repeat that mistake--and we haven't repeated it since. What more would you have us do on that? Seriously, what would you do?
Let me ask you, have you ever screwed up in your life, Thekatar? Did you take the appropriate action to immediately correct it and prevent it from recurring? Has the injured party forgiven you for it? I certainly hope so. None of us are perfect, man. I'm certainly not. I'm always learning, and have tried to learn from my mistakes so as not to repeat them.
2) EVERY professional assaulter/operator who's tested Le Mas ammo, or seen it tested in person, to a man, attests to its performance on target (live targets and steel plates) and their belief in its terminal ballistic capabilities--and I'm talking about some pretty heavy duty people with SF and/or Special Operations backgrounds, people who are very highly respected in the community and personal contacts of mine, with no financial ties to LeMas. They swear by the ammo's performance, and I believe them when they say it works as advertised.
3) I don't remember second-guessing Gary Roberts' (DocGKR) knowledge of terminal ballistics, particularly as it relates to ballistic gelatin testing. On the contrary, I find him to be quite knowledgeable, intelligent, and good at what he does. He seems like a very capable professional to me. In fact, I don't have any issue with the substance of his arguments regarding bullet composition, metallurgy, etc. For all I know, his research and test methods are all rock-solid and beyond reproach. However, most if not all of his terminal ballistic performance testing on Le Mas ammo, to my knowledge, has been conducted using ballistic gelatin.
LeMas, on the other hand, has on multiple occasions performed live animal testing in front of professional observers, including SF, Special Operations, and medical/surgical personnel. Everyone I've ever spoken with who has attended these tests has told me that the ammo does exactly what Le Mas claims it does, and that they've witnessed it with their own eyes. Again, these are professional trigger pullers.
So, I guess what I question is the viability of ballistic gelatin as a test medium for Le Mas ammo, and its relevance considering Le Mas ammo's established terminal ballistic performance on live animals. It seems to me that the two sides (anti-Le Mas and pro-Le Mas crowds) are talking past each other.
As it happens, Dr. Roberts and I have had an amicable professional relationship for the last few years, and have spoken by phone and written via email to each other on numerous occasions in that time. Sometimes he's called or written me about something, and sometimes I've called or written him him about something. By the way, I just saw Gary at NDIA Small Arms Systems Symposium in Dallas where he gave a presentation. He did a nice job.
Bottom line, I've got no problem whatsoever with Gary professionally or personally and I respect him and his work.
4) With regard to Dragon Skin, let's just say that if I were you, I'd be a little more circumspect about the so-called "evidence" the Army presented in its case against Dragon Skin. I would direct you to this article:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1140 -- Army Acquisition Capos Fraudulently Alter Body Armor Test Results
The fact is, the Army issued an SOUM on Level IV Dragon Skin before they even conducted the FAT (First Article Testing), and, from numerous accounts they didn't conduct the FAT fairly. The Army (PEO Soldier/U.S. Army Natick) controlled that test, it was a closed test, and there were some shenanigans that went on. It would appear that there were also some aspects of the Army's post-test presentation to the public and Congress that may have been less than truthful.
DefenseReview and MANY others want fair, independent and open testing with government and/or civilian oversight (non-Army oversight).
And, by the way, Level III Dragon Skin passed all NIJ testing and achieved NIJ Level III certification before the Army pressured DOJ/NIJ to subsequently pull the certification in unprecedented fashion for a bullshit warranty issue that they invented specifically for Pinnacle Armor. As far as I'm aware, to date, DOJ/NIJ still refuses to re-issue the Level III certification with no explanation, even though Pinnacle Armor subsequently--and pretty quickly--proved that their Level III Dragon Skin vests indeed meet the 6-year warranty requirement. Basically, it appears that they're following the Army's marching orders.
One more thing: it appears that the Army is also behind the Air Force's debarment of Pinnacle Armor. Basically, the Army's punishing Murray Neal for his insolence (causing the Army unwanted scrutiny and public embarrassment). Basically, they want to crush Pinnacle, i.e. put them out of business and thus make an example out of them. In my opinion, Pinnacle Armor has a classic restraint of trade case against the Army, provided they can hold out long enough and retain and mount a proper civil lawsuit.
Now, having written the above, IMO, Mr. Neal didn't handle that whole thing perfectly, to say the least. In hindsight, there was probably a smarter and more diplomatic way for him to deal with Big Green--but that doesn't make the Army right in what they did (SOUM, testing, and subsequent punishment--debarment, decertification, etc.).
Bottom line, there's a whole back story to the Pinnacle Armor vs. U.S. Army situatation about which you may not be quite as well informed as you perhaps think.
Thekatar, I hope the above addresses your concerns to some degree, and, in the future, Defense Review will do its best to live up to your obviously very high publishing and quality standards. We certainly appreciate your feedback, and welcome any assistance you can provide in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
David Crane
Owner/Editor-in-Chief
DefenseReview.com
defrev@gmail.com
http://www.defensereview.com
Jay Cunningham
07-15-08, 14:17
Thekatar, I hope the above addresses your concerns to some degree, and, in the future, Defense Review will do its best to live up to your obviously very high publishing and quality standards. We certainly appreciate your feedback, and welcome any assistance you can provide in this endeavor.
You can do whatever you like David - I don't really care. I quit looking at your website a few years back when I got my first inkling of a clue.
Good luck in your future endeavours.
This paragraph (broken out by sentence) is a good example of the problem - 6 sentences, 4 items of rumor (2 in one sentence), 2 of opinion, 1 of fact.
1) If worse comes to worse for Colt Defense, they've got their own gas piston/op-rod select-fire AR carbine/SBR/subcarbine solution that's supposedly superior to the HK416, according to rumor (i.e. unconfirmed/unverified reports).
2) It's Defense Review's understanding that Colt's gas-piston-driven system was competed in the 2004 SCAR competition and did quite well (unconfirmed/unverified).
3) Colt's gas-piston/op-rod-driven SCAR candidate, which we believe was the Colt M5 Gas Piston Carbine (unconfirmed/unverified) was reportedly very reliable (unconfirmed/unverified).
4) DefRev's seen and handled the Colt LE1020 a.k.a. Colt LE 1020 (at SHOT Show and other shows), which is the semi-automatic (semi-auto) version of the Colt SCAR candidate, and the system looks solid. We've seen the weapon broken down and the individual piston/op-rod components.
5) The late Mike LaPlante (Michael LaPlante) showed us the gun.
6) Mike was a nice man.
Heavy Metal
07-15-08, 14:47
I was under the impression that was by design so that you could pop off two rounds instead of three if you have a steady finger.
Again, bare in mind that i have NO experience with burst triggers or automatic weapons so i probably shouldnt even be opening my mouth here. :D
Nothing so subtle. You have to hold the trigger thru entrie burst or you get the remainder the next burst. So two will get you one next time.
The Colt three round burst is a kludgy, half-assed hardware solution to a software problem that should correctly be addressed thru training.
"Defense Review" aka David Crane is an ill informed self important tool with delusions about his relevance. Anything spewing from that gutter is of no import.
Burst trigger groups suck.. different pull each time.
As if your opinion is relevant, Dano5326. What's your full name? Or are you going to hide behind your screen name?
Please stay on topic. If you have a personal issue with someone, take it off line.
Renegade, it was an opinion/commentary piece. That was the whole point.
And, until we confirm something as a fact, we don't report it as fact--but there's nothing wrong with mentioning or discussing a rumor or unverified/unconfirmed report(s), as long as you let the reader know that it's just that (a rumor or unverified/unconfirmed report).
Fine Thekatar, but if you're going to take swipes at people or their work, you can at least have the courage to let people know your real name. At least don't be a coward about it.
I figured I was wasting my time in replying to you. You weren't worth it. You've got an agenda, and that's that.
Renegade, it was an opinion/commentary piece. That was the whole point.
And, until we confirm something as a fact, we don't report it as fact--but there's nothing wrong with mentioning or discussing a rumor or unverified/unconfirmed report(s), as long as you let the reader know that it's just that (a rumor or unverified/unconfirmed report).
And that is tabloid journalism, just like Thekatar wrote ("My opinion is that your DEFREV site is more of a tactical tabloid than hard news. Some facts in there but a lot of rumor and conjecture."). So we are all in agreement.
Renegade,
We publish plenty of articles about the facts, but there's also room for opinion/commentary. Call it whatever you want, but both have their place and value.
Understand that even the rumors and unverified/unconfirmed reports that we receive come from knowledgeable and accomplished people in the community/industry, unconfirmed/unverified reports like the Colt LE1020/M5 gas piston system being supposedly superior in design/execution to the HK416 system, for instance. So even if we're reporting something as an unconfirmed report or rumor, it's coming from a knowledgeable professional industry source (or sources).
What with the current state of things I can't see a change in the near future. we are som broke a$$ motherF*ckers,we can't keep spending like we have and not expect a large increse in the tax rate. the time is not right to scrap the M16 and adopt a new weapon ,anyone can see that with the doller in the toilet and inflation running rampent this is not a good time to make a change . JMHO ,and time will tell .
Mr. Crane --
First, please read the rules. While you may not know who Dano5326 is, he's still an Industry Professional on this board. That means that the folks who run this site know who he is and consider his background and opinion important enough to be covered by Rule 3:
3) Industry Professional – This forum designates a very choice few members with the title of Industry Professional. These are individuals who have extensive first hand experience with the deployment of small arms, execution of proper tactics, or development of the past or current military weapons platforms. Generally speaking, they are well compensated for the information that they provide; and providing information on a free internet forum is a service to us all. Often in an internet forum other posters may not recognize the individual behind certain screen names or have checked their screen name bio. This title is a helpful tool for a viewer to identify such individuals. You are welcome to disagree with their opinion (debate is one of the best ways to fully understand and exchange information), but please take a moment to recognize where their experience and information comes from.
As for thekatar, he's a big boy and can respond for himself. Just be smart enough to realize that while you may not know who some of these people are, there are hundreds or even thousands of M4Carbine.net members who do know who they are; have worked, shot, trained, and/or gone nude snowmobiling with them; and, they (we) are given Mod or Staff status for something other than our charming personalities.
Finally, regarding this:
I figured I was wasting my time in replying to you. You weren't worth it. You've got an agenda, and that's that.
People who publish in glass cubicles should not throw stones. I suggest that in the future, you limit your retorts to the valid factual response you gave point for point, rather than taking unnecessary swipes at folks. You were sounding quite professional right up until that point ...
Fine Thekatar, but if you're going to take swipes at people or their work, you can at least have the courage to let people know your real name. At least don't be a coward about it.
I figured I was wasting my time in replying to you. You weren't worth it. You've got an agenda, and that's that.
TheKatar is entitled to his OPINION of what you write, just like you publish your OPINION on subjects.
I am not sure what the facination is with peoples names and why you think it is important. All of the mods and IP's on this forum are vetted, honest and trustworthy individuals. Calling these people cowards is not really a good idea. ;)
C4
I've spoken with some VERY knowledgeable and respected people on this. Most of them see no reason to replace the M4 with a gas piston/op-rod gun, provided you do a few things to enhance the weapon's reliability, like retrofitting the gun with the following, for example:
http://www.bhigear.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=3250 -- BHI Enhanced M4 SOPMOD Bolt Upgrade Kit
Mike Pannone, who probably knows more than anyone on this entire board (M4Carbine.net), let alone this thread, about the M4, developed that kit. Mike's retired SF, and is currently an instructor. He is HIGHLY respected in the community.
According to Mike, that kit (BHI upgrade kit), by itself, will solve most of an M4's reliability problems as soon as it's installed. So, there's a quick, easy, and relatively inexpensive practical solution for ya'. And that's just one thing you can do. That's not all you can do, of course. There are a few more things that can be done to bring the direct-gas-impingement (DGI) M4 into the 21st century, and to its ultimate conclusion. That hasn't been done yet, and that's a fact.
Heavy Metal
07-15-08, 16:09
Mike Pannone, who probably knows more than anyone on this entire board (M4Carbine.net), let alone this thread, about the M4, developed that kit. Mike's retired SF, and is currently an instructor. He is HIGHLY respected in the community.
No disrespect to Mr. Pannone intended but you don't have a clue as to who some of those involved with this board are? Do you really think he knows more than say......Larry Vickers? I recommend you check out the training forum.
Grant, I don't care who they are, other than wanting to know exactly who is writing those kinds of things on a public board. Listen, you're not really going to defend people who do what Dano5326 and Thekatar have done in this thread--all while hiding anonymouly behind their screen names--are you?
I mean, do you really think the downright nasty and classless thing Dano5326 wrote, for instance, constitutes acceptable behavior?
Why are you defending them? Are they friends of yours? If they're not, I don't understand why you'd do that.
By the way, if they really are "industry professionals", they shouldn't be behaving like that. That's not how honorable and/or courageous people behave, is it?
At least I come on here as myself. I don't hide. And, I'm just responding to their posts. Let's not forget that I'm simply defending myself and my work and responding to something they started. You can understand that, can't you?
These two guys have a personal beef, are acting on it, and the M4Carbine.net owners are letting them do it. I don't think it's right, and I think it's (Dano5326 and Thekatar's actions) cowardly and wrong by definition.
Grant, I don't care who they are, other than wanting to know exactly who is writing those kinds of things on a public board. Listen, you're not really going to defend people who do what Dano5326 and Thekatar have done in this thread--all while hiding anonymouly behind their screen names--are you?
I think everyone is entitled to their opinion (as are you). They do not care for and or believe what you have to say.
I mean, do you really think the downright nasty and classless thing Dano5326 wrote, for instance, constitutes acceptable behavior?
Why are you defending them? Are they friends of yours? If they're not, I don't understand why you'd do that.
IP's (like Dano) tend to be rough around then the edges. Then again, killing for Uncle Sam will do that to you. I do not apologize for their behavior. If you really have an issue with something they have said, e-mail them your home address and maybe they will show up and you can work it out face to face.
By the way, if they really are "industry professionals", they shouldn't be behaving like that. That's not how honorable and/or courageous people behave, is it?
IP doesn't mean that they have to be nice to people the do not like. It just means that they are some of the more informed individuals out there. Very few to ANY of the IP's on this forum are what one would call "user friendly." They have either killed, are killing or intend to kill bad people in the name of God and Country. So cut them a little slack. ;)
At least I come on here as myself. I don't hide. And, I'm just responding to their posts. Let's not forget that I'm simply defending myself and responding to something they started.
These two guys have a personal beef, are acting on it, and the M4Carbine.net owners are letting them do it. I don't think it's right, and I think it's cowardly and wrong by definition.
One of the reasons why we get so many real deal shooters on this forum is because they are protected. There is zero need for them to go by their real name. So do not think that they are not using their real name because they are cowards or something.
I would suggest that you take your personal issues up with them offline and handle it like men.
C4
HolyRoller
07-15-08, 16:33
Defrev, you're making no converts. We do things differently here than at some other boards you may be used to.
Wouldn't mind seeing this thread locked, seeing as how it's gone well beyond facts and logic.
Wouldn't mind seeing this thread locked, seeing as how it's gone well beyond facts and logic.
and +1
Heavy Metal, pullin' out the ace, huh? C'mon man. Look, I know Larry (Vickers), and like him. He's as good as they come, and a true professional. I've particularly enjoyed talking with him at industry events like SHOT. When he speaks, I listen, as should everyone else.
BTW, even if someone out there were better than Larry (and I doubt it), I would never say it. ;-)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.