Army Community - Army Discussions - Army Times

Straight shot: Next rifle should be tested, selected by soldiers who’ll use it

I read the Feb. 26 article in Army Times about the H&K 416 and the problems we face with our current issue Colt M4/M16. I just left United States Army Special Operations Command after serving as the weapons combat developer for small arms for the last few years.

Here are my two cents.

We have wasted far too much time and effort on a relatively simple problem. We collectively seem to have a problem with the current Colt M16/M4, which mainly revolves around an operating system that is prone to jamming and requires more battlefield maintenance than is practical or safe.

Does the weapon meet the requirement written initially decades ago by my predecessors? Of course it does. So don’t blame Colt, which has never been given any valid incentive to make improvements. It is the Army’s fault in that we never demanded more from the manufacturer.

To its credit, the Colt M4/M16 is the best battle rifle in combat when compared with those of enemy. But that is like saying a one-legged man marooned on a deserted island is the fastest runner on that island. Until we get true leap-ahead technology from Area 51, such as a new stealth rifle or a laser ray gun, we are stuck with a simple kinetic energy rifle.

But that rifle ought to be the best damn kinetic energy rifle on the planet.

I agree with Army Times about the way the H&K 416 program was dissected and the way the Times showed how the system was procured in a limited fashion by some units. What wasn’t addressed was that the H&K 416 procurement was done at no cost to the taxpayer. Not a single dime was spent on designing and testing the system, only on procurement of the weapon. To accomplish that is true acquisition talent. What is even more amazing is there weren’t a million meetings, a million high-ranking guys involved, or a million days wasted. Industry came up with a solution to a problem with which professionals within our ranks were flat-out sick and tired of dealing.

COST VS. QUALITY

Though Army Special Operations troops carry the H&K 416, the Army will stick with the Colt M4 and M16 for regular forces because getting a new and improved rifle is just too darn hard, right? Not really. The costs are minor. We buy new laptop computers every few years across the gamut, so couldn’t we do the same with our single most important piece of military equipment? Are the lives of those in our most elite units of any more value than the lives of those individuals who drive trucks on the battlefield, who purify water, who cook our grits? So why aren’t we carrying the same gun?

An argument can be made that mission profiles are different. But another argument can be made that the battle rifle should share commonality across the ranks, from cook to operator. Maybe the logistical concerns with changing out a rifle make this effort too difficult. But there are some talented logisticians out there who can easily figure out how to make a change happen and would jump at the opportunity. It can be done even during wartime. That’s not an issue, especially if the H&K 416 were selected, since it is so similar to the Colt system on the outside. Retraining is almost not a factor. We have changed weapons before during wartime, so the argument is moot.

One thing I valued about being the weapons developer for Special Operations is that I could go to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere with whatever weapons I wanted to carry. As soon as the H&K 416 was available, it got stuffed into my kit bag and, through test after test, it became my primary carry weapon as a long gun. I had already gotten the data from folks carrying it before me and had determined that it would be foolish to risk my life with a lesser system.

Waiting for a leap-ahead technology based on a kinetic energy weapon platform is a waste of time and money, so we need to look at what is out there now. We need to ask ourselves why we, as an army continue to waste valuable resources on development of a future weapon system such as the XM29, or anything related. That program so far has cost more than $100 million with zero to show for it.

What the Army needs is a weapon that is now ready for prime-time and not a developmental system. The H&K 416 and, to a degree, the Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle are both very simple systems. But we need to make sure that replacing the Colt M16/M4 is a truly valid requirement. It is a validated requirement for Special Operations, and it is valid for the force. The requirement comes from the field, not from an office in some garrison activity, not from some consultant and definitely not from a vendor.

Though my beloved SCAR — my pinnacle program as a developer — has cost the taxpayer money and is still only a developmental system, the program is so successful because it is and was completely operator-envisioned, operator-tested and, most importantly, operator-selected. Though SCAR is designed in both short- and long-barrel versions for 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammo, it isn’t a leap-ahead technology. However, it met requirements to be more reliable and accurate than the M16 family of weapons.

Unfortunately, all this comes at a cost. It will likely cost more than the Colt M16/M4.

We don’t have to replace the M4/M16 immediately. Have a user test with existing, off-the-shelf systems and a range of soldiers who represent our entire Army structure. Once the solutions are “soldier tested,” then make changes to a “soldier selected” weapon. It may be the Colt system at the end of the day.

Let’s do this quickly without all the bureaucracy typically associated with change. Find someone in our ranks who can make a decision — who hasn’t floated a retirement resume with a gun company — and make the decision now. Just look how fast we were all issued the “highly coveted” black beret or the digital uniform. Find that recipe card, change out the word “Velcro” with “battle rifle” and that may be a start to finding a solution.

Our men and women deserve much better than we are giving them, and shame on us.

The writer is a major on active duty who has 22 years of service in the enlisted and officer ranks.