Is The M4 A Bad Deal?

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - No weapon is more important to tens of
thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine
rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one
company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Connecticut, to make the M4s
they trust with their lives.
Now, according to interviews and research conducted by The
Associated Press, as Congress considers spending millions more on
the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad
deal for American forces as well as taxpayers.
The M4, which can shoot hundreds of bullets a minute, is a
shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used
40 years ago during the Vietnam War. Republican Senator Tom Coburn
of Oklahoma says that at about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced,
jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, and requires far
more maintenance than more durable carbines.
U-S military officials don't agree. They call the M4 an
excellent carbine. When the time comes to replace the M4, they want
a combat rifle that is leaps and bounds beyond what's currently
available.
Director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in
Fort Benning, Georgia, Colonel Robert Radcliffe says that there's
not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4 and
that to replace it with something that has essentially the same
capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense.
Colt's exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that
point, the Army, in its role as the military's principal buyer of
firearms, may have other gunmakers compete along with Colt for
continued M4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally
new weapon.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)