I'd like to extend a hearty aloha to rangeragainstwar and thank him for this excellent article, I look forward to future articles. Please give him some love in the comments!

Cui Bono?

You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
--Masters of War, Bob Dylan

Who owns Colt Defense of Hartford, Connecticut, which enjoys a no-bid government contract to supply the U.S. military with its M4 rifle, a contract set to expire June 2009? "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-OK). Cui bono?
As Congress prepares to shell out millions more for the M4, not the finest individual rifle in the world, they should consider not only cost effectiveness but the reliability and utility of the weapon.
There are evolutions of the M4 which are vastly superior and currently in production in the U.S. But there are also ways to improve the performance of the M4 without altering training or support systems for the weapon.
The new generation has gas piston operating systems that cool the receiver and keep the chamber cleaner and free of gas residue and buildup. This keeps the bolt free of carbon buildup, therefore the weapon has less stoppages. Less stoppages = good.
But at $1,500 per unit, the Colt M4 is definitely not cost-effective. That figure is probably inflated by 100% since the Department of Defense is procuring the weapon in large lots. If one can plunk down $750 – 850 and get a DPMS M4 equivalent at any gun show, how can $1,500 be justifiable in a DoD contract?
The M4 carbine is used and favored by troops because it has a readily-handled overall length. A comfortable weapon for vehicle-bound troops to utilize, the M4 is handy and easily maneuvered in a vehicle. In a military that is highly vehicle- and road-bound, this is a desirable feature. That the average engagement range is +/- 150 meters in Iraqi cities also makes this weapon a good choice.
However in the Afghan countryside, Ranger would prefer a full-size rifle firing a much heavier bullet. A 7.62 x 51 NATO would do nicely to put down hostile elements. But for some reason the military is enamored of the 5.56 mm, which is just too light and too little for a full-size battle rifle.

The concepts of Infantry doctrine are closely tied to this question of rifle selection. In an ideal world, the 5.56 mm NATO would be acceptable since most of the killing would be done by artillery. Normally Infantry will obliterate enemy formations by indirect fire, and the rifle is therefore not the centerpiece of the battlefield. The rifle is important, but is not the sole determinant of the overall outcome.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army is fighting extra-light and obviously not using Division and Corps artillery to direct support or as reinforcing support of committed units. This support is devolving to the Air Force, which promises battlefield air-delivered support but lacks the capability and sustainability that was the hallmark of artillery-delivered destruction and firepower. Artillery fires in all weather and terrain; this is not true of air support.
The military is buying a bill of high-tech support that does not deliver the goods. As a result, there is more reliance on the individual rifle. Though an Associated Press report last month showed the majority of infantrymen are satisfied with the M4, those troop surveys are largely meaningless as troops use what they are given (“Colt’s Grip on Military Rifle Market Called a Bad Deal for Troops, Taxpayers.”) They are not weapons experts; they are skilled trigger-pullers.
Give the military back its vaunted combined arms team and let them fight the air-land battle formulated in the 1970’s and 80’s. This would imply that the battles are really battles, and not COIN operations suppressing local guerrillas.

Volumes can be written on Infantry doctrine and tactics, but it boils down to this: if our military is going to be required to fight rifle vs. rifle in phony wars, then the country must put the finest rifle available in the hands of the U.S. Infantry. The M4 Carbine is not that rifle.

LINK