MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[120mm]

Lack of evidence for superior marketing skill (as FNH and HK have), superior production efficiency or intellectual property for some superior product - they're large thanks to their huge home market and they're mediocre.

I will definitely grant you HK has a superior marketing system. They surely do not earn their market share through customer service/customer support. In fact, HK pretty much refuses to stand behind their product, which is, admittedly, a very well built product.

FNH is doing "okay". They've fielded a lot of products, lately, though, that have made zero market impact, or were crappy, such as anything that involve 5.7mm ammunition. FS2000 is also a problem child. It works well when it works, but malfunctions are pretty much a "you are done" issue.

They're not innovative either, even the old copycats of ST Kinetics are now more innovative.

Colt Defence's military & laws enforcement product range is basically the AR-15 system, the AR-15 system and three times again the AR-15 system. Several variations of a half century-old product.

There's nothing special about modern Colt at all.

If I had to give a military small arms development contract to a company, I'd easily prefer companies from South Africa, Singapore, Israel and even Russia over Colt.

Too bad the AR-15 system does nearly everything as well or better than nearly anything out there, more simply, cheaper, ergonomic and with excellent parts availability, support and modularity. There is a reason why it's a popular system.

I think you are mistaking innovation with "smoke and mirrors" caused by a technology (shoulder fired magazine fed cased ammunition launching individual arms) that is mature and really doesn't have that much more room for improvement. Nearly all of the "new" technologies are much, much older than the AR-15 system.

[Ken White]

You make yoyur point but I'm not sure how many will agree out there...

Most will agree. Only professional quibblers get their shorts in a wad over things that do not effect them. Really dedicated ones even get wrapped around the axle over things that they cannot effect...

The US Army and Marines and their direct supporters from the other services field about 300K Riflemen to whom that Rifle is indeed the most important thing in the world. When they're in combat -- the rest of the time, it's not terribly important to them. Even when combat is ongoing, that weapon isn't terribly important to the vast majority of the other 306,700,000 Americans. Whether it should be or not isn't an issue, it is not.

You can get exercised over your beliefs even if they are generally inaccurate but the fact remains that less than One Tenth of One Percent of the US population is intimately involved with the perceived problems with our basic issue weapon. Expand that to all like thee and me who are concerned and you still have less than one percent of Americans and others who are or might be perturbed. Thus the amount of energy, funds and concern expended is going to be small. It's not proportional, due to the added emphasis on the combat factor it gets precedence over many things but there are other larger concerns for the nation as a whole. The bottom line is that 120mm has it right, the weapon is adequate; not great but adequate.

Your experience in an existential war colors your thinking and logically so. We've done those and our thinking in them was vastly different than it is in the smaller wars that we engage in from time to time. Sad to say but for the broader US, Afghanistan is not much more than a side show and the resource commitment -- about $ 220B will be spent this fiscal year by all US government agencies in or more or less directly related to Afghanistan -- that's only about 6% of the Federal budget and less than 1.5% of GDP. It involves about 100K people, less than a third of a tenth of a percent of the US population. Resources of all types are based on numbers. Always. That's reality...

[Firn]

Sad to say but for the broader US, Afghanistan is not much more than a side show and the resource commitment -- about $ 220B will be spent this fiscal year by all US government agencies in or more or less directly related to Afghanistan -- that's only about 6% of the Federal budget and less than 1.5% of GDP. It involves about 100K people, less than a third of a tenth of a percent of the US population. Resources of all types are based on numbers. Always. That's reality...

Very wise words which apply to an even greater degree to the European countries involved. This can be very bitter for the soldiers fighting in that far, far away land, but it is equally sad and fortunate (no big wars around) reality that Afghanistan is just a small side show.

[Fuchs]

The Steyr AUG was innovative and a daring design plus it's much younger than AR-15 and had remarkable commercial success without a huge foreign military sales program or huge civilian market in its back.

Some of the - if not THE - best revolvers are not Colts, but good old French Manurhin MR 73.

Some developers went for extreme lightweight design, such as the Carbon AR-15 designs.

Some companies custom-designed rifles for cartridges instead of using oversized standard breeches. The result is often a superior quality rifle. Kimber arms, for example.

HK developed the MP5 and revolutionised the concept of the submachinegun by turning it into an accurate weapon that was globally well-received by police institutions.

ST Kinetics dared to develop (with Sullivan) a light machinegun that uses soft recoil (bolt moving forward in the moment of shot, which helps to mitigate felt recoil) for unparalleled controllability.


So much about quality and innovation leaders.

Colt is not necessarily a bad company, but it has no claim to being a top notch company, and I honestly do not understand why this remark provoked any reaction at all.
Old company, well-known brand, uses a somewhat proven yet old design, huge military home market, huge subsidized foreign military sales opportunities, huge civilian home market - you would need to be an extremely crappy company to fare worse than Colt did under such conditions.

Colt is mediocre, not top.

---------------------------------------------

Before we continue this discussion, let's recall that there's no burden of proof for the one who claims absence of a thing (such as Colt's excellence).
The burden of proof is always with the one who asserts the existence. It is always impossible to provide evidence for non-existence, yet simple to offer evidence for existence of something that actually exists.
Americans got this already spectacularly wrong with Saddam's WMDs, and I begin to believe that getting this logic thing wrong is somehow a systemic cultural problem.

We can continue discussing Colt's quality as a company, but from now on I will only discuss this in response to an attempt of bringing evidence for it being a top notch arms manufacturer.

[JMA]

Most will agree. Only professional quibblers get their shorts in a wad over things that do not effect them. Really dedicated ones even get wrapped around the axle over things that they cannot effect...

You mean that US soldiers being issued with substandard personal weapons through a bureaucratic (and quite possibly corrupt) process is something that can't be changed or rectified?

This matter does not reflect well upon members of the US military who should be ashamed of their timidity in the face of this challenge.

The US Army and Marines and their direct supporters from the other services field about 300K Riflemen to whom that Rifle is indeed the most important thing in the world. When they're in combat -- the rest of the time, it's not terribly important to them. Even when combat is ongoing, that weapon isn't terribly important to the vast majority of the other 306,700,000 Americans. Whether it should be or not isn't an issue, it is not.

I watched your USMC Gen Amos (on TV) make his case to protect his Corps from openly gay marines while the USMC is so heavily committed in operations in Afghanistan. It seems that having gays in the Marine Corps is a bigger problem than having a crappy personal weapon. Talk about screwed up priorities...

You can get exercised over your beliefs even if they are generally inaccurate but the fact remains that less than One Tenth of One Percent of the US population is intimately involved with the perceived problems with our basic issue weapon. Expand that to all like thee and me who are concerned and you still have less than one percent of Americans and others who are or might be perturbed. Thus the amount of energy, funds and concern expended is going to be small. It's not proportional, due to the added emphasis on the combat factor it gets precedence over many things but there are other larger concerns for the nation as a whole. The bottom line is that 120mm has it right, the weapon is adequate; not great but adequate.

That sounds like a poor excuse for inaction on your behalf.

Is it, or is it not, the responsibility of a country and an army to at the very least provide their soldiers with a decent personal weapon?

It all gets to sound like Little Big Horn again where that cavalry were issued a crappy weapon while the injuns could buy/trade a far better weapon from traders.

Now compare the M4 with your average AK-47. For $1,000 a soldier can give him the edge over the AK. And you are OK with that?

Your experience in an existential war colors your thinking and logically so. We've done those and our thinking in them was vastly different than it is in the smaller wars that we engage in from time to time. Sad to say but for the broader US, Afghanistan is not much more than a side show and the resource commitment -- about $ 220B will be spent this fiscal year by all US government agencies in or more or less directly related to Afghanistan -- that's only about 6% of the Federal budget and less than 1.5% of GDP. It involves about 100K people, less than a third of a tenth of a percent of the US population. Resources of all types are based on numbers. Always. That's reality...

I am less concerned about what the population of civilians think than what the military thinks... and it appears that the military is not thinking.

[SethB]

Colt lobbied the procurement bureaucracy to change a tiny bit in the M4 (I think it was a piece of plastic or metal in the lower) to improve the weapon at no additional cost - they lobbied for years and the procurement bureaucracy insisted on the old spec and design.

That issue could well be the extractor spring buffer. The M4 ought to have a stronger buffer than it originally came with. Colt's wanted to change that part but the metrics (cue Ken) weren't right. One of the selling points of the M4 was its similarity to the M16A2. Changing small parts would decrease the percentage of commonality, thereby changing the metric.

So it wasn't done for a long time.

Current M4s are much improved over those issued even ten years ago, although the government held design is still about 15 years behind the times.

A modern, purpose built fighting rifle might have 10% parts commonality with the rifle that Ken tested in the early 1960s. But even that might be a stretch.

[Stupendous Man]

I must say I am very much surprised by the accuracy requirements for the M4; in fact this represents a regression behind WW2 standards of accuracy for issue rifles. On top of my head, a Wehrmacht K98 had to group 5 rounds into 7 cms at 100 meters from the machine to be deemed acceptable for service.
I find it all the moreso flabbergasting given the AR15 platforms' potential for precision. Even a lower quality commercial AR (DPMS, Sabre Defence etc.) will usually shoot 2 MOA or better without match-grade ammo. In fact, in all my years of shooting, I don't recall ever coming across one that did not, at least after some tweaking.

Your experience in an existential war colors your thinking and logically so.

Mhhh. It appears to me there are dimensions to this. While what you seem to be getting at is that public interest in the matter would rise during an existential conflagration and thus lead to a tightening of production standards, such a conflict might actually quickly produce the opposite effect as it eventually did ie. in Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union.

[SethB]

M4s are usually quite accurate.

Usually.

If the weapon meets the criteria laid out in contract documents and the -10 and -20 manuals, then there is no reason to "fix" it. It isn't broken.

The acceptance criteria for the M14 was even worse. 5.6 MOA.

[Ken White]

You mean that US soldiers being issued with substandard personal weapons through a bureaucratic (and quite possibly corrupt) process is something that can't be changed or rectified?

It's not substandard, just not as good as it could be -- few things are.

This matter does not reflect well upon members of the US military who should be ashamed of their timidity in the face of this challenge.

Bravely spoken. Your courage in taking on the bureaucracy over the internet is noted.

I watched your USMC Gen Amos... It seems that having gays in the Marine Corps is a bigger problem than having a crappy personal weapon. Talk about screwed up priorities...

The weapon is not crappy, it's good enough. As for screwed up priorities, that's democracy and politicians at work. Your distaste is noted, you inability to understand the fact that several people have told you the weapons is not the significant problem you'd like it to be is also noted, as is your penchant for diverting, devious and essentially pointless innuendo.

That sounds like a poor excuse for inaction on your behalf.

Inaction implies that there is a windmill worth tilting at out there -- in this case there is none. Anyway, I'm retired - I'm supposed to be inactive. Get paid for it, in fact...

Is it, or is it not, the responsibility of a country and an army to at the very least provide their soldiers with a decent personal weapon?

It is and US Forces have a better than decent weapon -- it just isn't a great weapon, any more the SLR / FAL was great. All weapons have good and bad points. The M4's failings are minor.

It all gets to sound like Little Big Horn again where that cavalry were issued a crappy weapon while the injuns could buy/trade a far better weapon from traders.

Don't know, wasn't there. Hope you enjoyed your trip to Montana, they say it's nice in the summer.

Now compare the M4 with your average AK-47. For $1,000 a soldier can give him the edge over the AK. And you are OK with that?

He's already got that edge most places, most of the time -- the AK is a better brush buster and requires less maintenance but those are the only real advantages. So yeah, I'm okay with it.

I am less concerned about what the population of civilians think than what the military thinks... and it appears that the military is not thinking.

Well, you know what they say about you Ossifers...

You may not be concerned about what civilians think but then in this matter you don't have any responsibility for anything except poorly informed or purposely obtuse and generally idle carping and you are not a Politician -- they care very much about what the civilians think. Surprisingly, US Politicians are more concerned with the mass of US voters than they are about the million or so Troops. Weird but there it is...

[Ken White]

Plus the cartridge has an effect on accuracy. The 5.56 has some problems in that regard due to a light, fast bullet.

Mhhh. It appears to me there are dimensions to this. While what you seem to be getting at is that public interest in the matter would rise during an existential conflagration and thus lead to a tightening of production standards, such a conflict might actually quickly produce the opposite effect as it eventually did ie. in Germany, Japan or the Soviet Union.

True and possible, however, our WW II experience was the reverse of that. Though what I was getting at is not the public but the politicians, they get more serious and thoughtful. I also meant not the production aspect but the specification issue. In such cases, we tend to stop fooling around and get at least semi-serious and want results.

We'd rather not toughen up and get real -- but we can if we must. Only if we must will we do that...

[JMA]

M4s are usually quite accurate.

Usually.

If the weapon meets the criteria laid out in contract documents and the -10 and -20 manuals, then there is no reason to "fix" it. It isn't broken.

The acceptance criteria for the M14 was even worse. 5.6 MOA.

The question is whether the accuracy criteria are acceptable or not and if not why has so little been said and done about it?

Should the US get into a war that requires a near full mobilisation the stock answer to pumping out low grade M4s from the factories will be "give a break, mate, don't you know we are at war?" Its a question of standards. Once you let the fundamentals slip it spreads like a cancer to all aspects.

[Pete]

You can get exercised over your beliefs even if they are generally inaccurate but the fact remains that less than One Tenth of One Percent of the US population is intimately involved with the perceived problems with our basic issue weapon.

On U.S. gun forums there is a lot of disatisfaction with the 5.56mm round, as well as 9mm for pistols. Although a bit of it is sentimentality about World War II, a lot of shooters genuinely believe that a cartridge that can't legally be used for deer hunting in the vast majority of states of the U.S. should not be the caliber of our main service weapon. I don't have any idea what percentage of public opinion those shooters in the U.S. would be of overall public opinion at large.

[120mm]

The Steyr AUG was innovative and a daring design plus it's much younger than AR-15 and had remarkable commercial success without a huge foreign military sales program or huge civilian market in its back.

Innovative - yes. Daring - yes. But in the end, it only worked out as a military weapon for Australia. The AUG did not age well, and has insurmountable ergo problems. The AR, on the other hand, continues to advance. Bullpups, in general have ergo issues. The AUG is still the pick of the litter, but still doesn't offer any real advantage over the M4.

I really liked my experience shooting the Steyr in the late '80s. It was cool and different, but I didn't know jack about how to fight with a carbine then, either.

Some of the - if not THE - best revolvers are not Colts, but good old French Manurhin MR 73.

Some developers went for extreme lightweight design, such as the Carbon AR-15 designs.

ALL of which were abject failures. ALL OF THEM....

Some companies custom-designed rifles for cartridges instead of using oversized standard breeches. The result is often a superior quality rifle. Kimber arms, for example.

I'm curious as to what your point is, here.

HK developed the MP5 and revolutionised the concept of the submachinegun by turning it into an accurate weapon that was globally well-received by police institutions.

This is severe irony. A cheap, pressed together submachinegun, that has been nearly universally replaced by police and LEO agencies worldwide, by the 11.5" COLT M4 carbine. Thank you for bringing up a point which helps defeat your own argument.

ST Kinetics dared to develop (with Sullivan) a light machinegun that uses soft recoil (bolt moving forward in the moment of shot, which helps to mitigate felt recoil) for unparalleled controllability.

Great. Other than for playing Call Of Duty, let me know how that "concept" works out.

So much about quality and innovation leaders.

Colt is not necessarily a bad company, but it has no claim to being a top notch company, and I honestly do not understand why this remark provoked any reaction at all.
Old company, well-known brand, uses a somewhat proven yet old design, huge military home market, huge subsidized foreign military sales opportunities, huge civilian home market - you would need to be an extremely crappy company to fare worse than Colt did under such conditions.

Colt is mediocre, not top.

---------------------------------------------

Before we continue this discussion, let's recall that there's no burden of proof for the one who claims absence of a thing (such as Colt's excellence).
The burden of proof is always with the one who asserts the existence. It is always impossible to provide evidence for non-existence, yet simple to offer evidence for existence of something that actually exists.
Americans got this already spectacularly wrong with Saddam's WMDs, and I begin to believe that getting this logic thing wrong is somehow a systemic cultural problem.

We can continue discussing Colt's quality as a company, but from now on I will only discuss this in response to an attempt of bringing evidence for it being a top notch arms manufacturer.

Frankly, you bring nothing specific to the argument. You say that you don't need to bring burden of proof , but that is crap. You attack without having anything behind your attack. This is typical of the great majority of anti-M4 propaganda out there, btw.

I am going to venture out and suggest that you lack a basic foundation from which to discuss firearms. It sounds like you've read a bunch on the internet but have very little practical experience.

Anyone can attack a concept or ediface. Your "attacks" are rather insubstantial. At least Ken brings some practical experience to the game. I know there is better data out there that could be critical to Colt.

[Fuchs]

I don't discuss the M4. Your objection was about the Colt remark. You assert that Colt is top notch, above ordinary. Your burden of proof.


Besides; the MP5 was partially replaced in the U.S. which has a unique police weapon culture (a huge emphasis on shotguns and AR-15, while most European countries rather emphasize SMGs), but it was certainly not replaced worldwide by the M4. You've put up plainly wrong information there.
I met Bobbie with G36s in Farnborough, Gendarmerie with FAMAS in Paris, Carabinieri with an Italian SMGs in Italy - haven't seen a M4 in European police service yet, but it's a fact that the MP5 had huge commercial success with LE in non-German-speaking European countries.

We probably underestimated Colt's marketing.

[SethB]

Colt's doesn't really advertise. They don't have to. The products speak for themselves.

Their quality remains superior to most of their competitors, and they have never slipped into the fads that periodically seize the industry.

Other manufacturers can't boast 50 years of success with one rifle line.

Consider Lewis Machine and Tool. They make the 7.62 DMR that Britain is buying.

Several years ago they ran short of screws that connect the gas key to the bolt carrier. Rather than wait for a new shipment or make them in house, they bought substandandard screws that sheared, leaving some operators with single shot rifles.

Of course, several of these operators were in combat at the time. It took them awhile to recover from that.

Colt's has been held to the TDP since the 1960s. They can't really cut corners. While they are hardly innovative, there is something to be said for making something to a standard.

As for the MP5, it was a good weapon for what it was, and when it was. It requires more maintenance than just about everything. People like to say that HK builds weapons like a Swiss watch, but the fact of the matter is that my watch requires almost no maintenance, while the roller delayed system requires near constant armorer support.

Combine that with an inferior cartridge and there is no reason to use an MP5 now that we have access to better.

Even the Europeans who would normally use the MP5 are switching. G36Ks, MP7s, P90s, SIG 553s, and the like abound.

For an American customer, there is no need to get something other than an M4 pattern rifle.

[120mm]

I don't discuss the M4. Your objection was about the Colt remark. You assert that Colt is top notch, above ordinary. Your burden of proof.

Where did I specifically make this assertion?

Besides; the MP5 was partially replaced in the U.S. which has a unique police weapon culture (a huge emphasis on shotguns and AR-15, while most European countries rather emphasize SMGs), but it was certainly not replaced worldwide by the M4. You've put up plainly wrong information there.
I met Bobbie with G36s in Farnborough, Gendarmerie with FAMAS in Paris, Carabinieri with an Italian SMGs in Italy - haven't seen a M4 in European police service yet, but it's a fact that the MP5 had huge commercial success with LE in non-German-speaking European countries.

We probably underestimated Colt's marketing.

Since HK no longer supports the MP5, the MP5 is a dead chestnut. G36 is an awful gun. FAMAS is an antique, with very little modern options for improvement, and the Carabinieri spend 10x as much time working on their hairstyle than weapons selection. If you look at various special units that actually shoot a lot, you'll see ARs in use, or the excellent AR copy made by HK.

BTW, you'll note that HK's most successful long-guns are merely copies of other guns.

Because there IS an American shooting culture, there is a certain "trial by fire" that LE/mil weapons go through. Thus, large scale stupidity like the PDW and submachinegun do not persist.

There is a reason that conservatism in weapons development is so persistent. Most so-called "innovations" fail miserably.

[SethB]

I will offer one qualification to what 120MM said.

American shooting culture, being based largely on hunting anyway, would never inspire the Accuracy International design.

The AI represents one of the plainest rifles extant. It shares more in common with a tractor than a hunting rifle.

Which is of course one of it's greatest strengths.

[82redleg]

Okay... I'll bite. How does Colt fail, as a top-notch arms company? I'm not a Colt defender by any means, but am interested in what objective data is out there to support this.

Where did I specifically make this assertion?

120mm,

I'm pretty sure he's talking about post 379, quoted above.

[Fuchs]

That one in combination with argueing against my responses.

[JMA]

Bravely spoken. Your courage in taking on the bureaucracy over the internet is noted.

That's about the limit of my options at the moment. Make a suggestion. I'll probably be game.

You may not be concerned about what civilians think but then in this matter you don't have any responsibility for anything except poorly informed or purposely obtuse and generally idle carping and you are not a Politician -- they care very much about what the civilians think. Surprisingly, US Politicians are more concerned with the mass of US voters than they are about the million or so Troops. Weird but there it is...

You have a point but that's not the point.

Do you really think any US politician will campaign openly and publicly on the basis of wanting to send US soldiers off to war a substandard personal weapon and other kit to save money or to give a sweetheart deal to a local manufacturer?

Do you really think that the vast majority of US citizens would want US soldiers to be sent into battle with substandard weapons and kit?

This issue is not on the radar because the senior officers seem to care more about their pensions than this particular issue. Now that tells you something.