Colt M4 vs. Fabrique Nationale’s SCAR
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is questioning the government’s contracts with Colt over the military’s reliance on the M4.
“What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who’s gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.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. At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines.
“And if you tend to have the problem at the wrong time, you’re putting your life on the line,” says Coburn, who began examining the M4’s performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers. “The fact is, the American GI today doesn’t have the best weapon. And they ought to.”
Colt M4
As an American taxpayer I really don’t care if the gun is overpriced, as long as our soldiers are getting the best tool they need for the job. So what do they think?
In 2006, a non-profit research group surveyed 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found 89 percent were satisfied with the M4. While Colt and the Army have trumpeted that finding, detractors say the survey also revealed that 19 percent of these soldiers had their weapon jam during a firefight.
But surveys always have biases, and I would like to see more feedback from SCAR users in the field before I committed either way. Design-wise the SCAR seems better, using a gas-piston cartridge feed in contrast to the M4’s gas impingement, which allows the gases to foul the gun’s mechanism over time. Then again, the SCAR is new – and sometimes new isn’t always the best.
From a commenter at Futureweapons: “I would contend that because the M4 has its roots in the 60’s it’s had over 4 decades of evolution and “working out the kinks”. This thread at The Guns Network, which has several active duty personnel on it, seems favorable to the SCAR, although the M4 supporters are pretty hardcore.
FN SCAR
Given the situation, why not have them all? Just standardize on the caliber so that ammo can be used by all the guns and let “the market” (soldiers in the field) decide which they want. I’d rather see them decide than an Oklahoma senator anyway.
J. Dippold:
Just thought I’d let you know that I like this post. I quoted you and linked to you on a blog I write for: politicalreps.com BTW, I am also looking to promote this blog as it is somewhat new and would appreciate any consideration you would give to linking to politicalreps.com
Thanks,
21 April 2008, 9:30 amScott Kirwin:
I’ll add you to the blogroll. Anybody who does a post on Michael Yon shows he deserves it.
21 April 2008, 6:45 pmxiong vue:
I had number of disscussions with my father and his friends that the original M-16 A1 peroformed extremely well back in Veitnam. All you have to do is clean it and it will perform fine. What my father like the most about the M-16 A1 is that the ballistic wound is alot more deadly than the Ak-47 when hit cleanly on human flesh. Everyone that I knew, who served in the Vietnam War in Laos, love their M-16 very deeply. ” When I have to go take a shit in the wood, my M-16 is like my best friend.” Said Lue.
After all I think the M-16 is not a bad rifle. I own an AR-15 lower and fitted with the original Colt M-16 A1 upper and its original butt-stock, I haven’t yet had any jamming problem with it. It was exceptionaly accurate, I can hit a pop can or soda can with an iron sight at 125 yards.
25 December 2009, 12:28 pmScott Kirwin:
Xiong
25 December 2009, 9:11 pmI personally am a big fan of the M-16 and all its variants. But I would like to see more variety available to our armed forces personnel. Those who like the M-4 should be allowed to have it; SCAR fans should be able to carry that weapon. Standardize the ammo and let the soldiers decide which is better for them.