Coburn Questions Army’s Search For New Rifle

The Army announced last week it was suspending its search for a new  rifle to outfit all soldiers after program officials concluded none of the  competitors trying to replace the current weapon offered a more reliable rifle  for combat.

[READ:  Special Forces, Army, to Get New ‘Punisher’  Rifle]

Now the $1.8 billion program sits in limbo, with the competitors  weighing protest options and lawmakers steaming over what they see as the Army  dragging its feet over finding a more modern alternative to the Vietnam-era M4  carbine.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sent a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh  earlier this week, criticizing the cancelation of what he says is an essential  upgrade. He also pointed to inconsistencies in an Army that uses a decades-old  rifle design, yet has  changed its battle uniform three times since  2006.

“The Army continues to prioritize modernization of other  non-essential equipment over its small arms,” he wrote on Monday.

“If the rifle squad is the foundational element of the Army, and  small arms are the rifleman’s primary weapon,” he wrote, “[why] would we not  take steps today to ensure that we are equipping our force with the most  effective small arms and ammunition available?”

The standard issue rifle for the Army during the Vietnam era was the  M-16, which gave way through the 1990s to the M-4 carbine that troops now carry,  made by Hartford, Conn.-based Colt Defense LLC. That company offered a design to  compete for the Army’s so-called “improved carbine,” along with other  contractors Adcor Defense Inc., FNH-USA, Heckler & Koch and Remington  Defense.

Testing for a replacement began in 2012, during which the Army began  rating each candidate’s weapon for accuracy, reliability and durability. It did  not move onto the next phase of testing, which would include environmental and  operational tests, instead saying none of the rifles passed muster.

[ALSO:  Navy Secretary Criticizes New ‘Blueberry’  Camouflage]

Baltimore-based Adcor declined to comment on the conclusion of the  Army’s tests. The other contractors did not respond to multiple requests for  comment.

Coburn highlights a key criticism of the Army’s most basic weapons,  echoed by military specialists. The Army still uses 5.56mm ammunition for its M4  Carbine, which reports like this  one published by the Army’s Combined Arms Center claim does  not stand up against the rounds chambered in enemy rifles.

“The [Improved Carbine] Competition was a predictable failure,”  Coburn wrote. “By factoring as it did into the evaluation process the cost  required to change ammunition calibers, the Army either inadvertently or  purposefully discouraged the participants from submitting commercially available  alternatives to the 5.56 caliber round that would have resulted in the greater  range and lethality needed to effectively match the capabilities of our  adversaries’ weapons.”

Ammunition was also the central argument the Army used to dismiss the  improved carbine competition. All of the weapons it tested were designed to use  M855 ammunition, but in the tests itself the Army used M855A1 Enhanced  Performance Rounds designed to be more environmentally friendly.

None of the rifles the Army tested demonstrated an improvement over  the M4, according to a June 13 release  from Program Executive Office Soldier – the Army’s main  office for testing, purchasing and deploying weapons and equipment.

Breaking  Defense reports each of the competing companies were given  10,800 rounds of the new ammunition to address any flaws in their respective  designs. However, part of the Army testing requires firing 3,592 rounds on  average before jamming, giving each company fewer than three full test  rounds.

[STUDY:  U.S. Military Still Budgets for 1993 Wars]

For this reason, the contractors may have legal  recourse.

“If it’s as bad as it was being reported, the companies could file a  complaint with the GAO, and the GAO would likely go to bat for them,” says  Russell Rumbaugh, a defense budget expert at the Stimson Center and former Army  infantry officer.

The Government Accountability Office is Congress’ chief auditing and  investigative service, designed to root out mismanagement or corruption  regarding public funds.

A spokesman for the GAO says none of the contractors has yet filed a  formal complaint.

“There’s always an interesting question,” says Rumbaugh. “Are you  going to burn your bridge [by] protesting?”