American Rifle - Alexander Rose [283]
Return to text.
20. News release dated November 30, 2004, online at www.fnherstal.com/html/NEWS.htm.
Return to text.
21. See F. Colucci, “Custom-Designed Rifle Aims to Fit Commandos’ Special Needs,” National Defense, July 2005.
Return to text.
22. Ibid.
Return to text.
23. See news release “Colt Challenges Rivals’ Illegal Marketing Practices,” April 21, 2004, online at www.colt.com/mil/news.asp; “Colt Sues to Block ‘Copycat’ M4 Rifles,” Hartford Courant, April 22, 2004. In late 2006 Bushmaster, another company sued by Colt, won its case. The judge also ruled that “M4” was not a federal trademark. R. Huntingdon, “Bushmaster Beats Colt,” American Handgunner, November–December 2006.
Return to text.
24. Quoted in Cox, “Better than M4.” Vickers’s own account, dating from June 2006, of the development of the HK416 may be found online at www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm. For more, see K. Hackathorn, “HK416 5.56mm,” Special Weapons for Military and Police (2006), pp. 36–41.
Return to text.
25. Cox, “Better than M4.”
Return to text.
26. The memorandum is printed as appendix C in Inspector General, Acquisition of Objective Combat Weapon, pp. 36–38; Cox, “Too Late, XM8.”
Return to text.
27. See www.defenseindustrydaily.com/oicw-individual-weapon-rfp-temporarily-suspended-0898/, dated July 22, 2005, though the suspension went into effect on July 19.
Return to text.
28. IPR Strategic Business Information Database, August 8, 2005.
Return to text.
29. Inspector General, Acquisition of Objective Combat Weapon.
Return to text.
30. Inspector General, Department of Defense, Program Management of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon Increment I, Report D-2006-123, September 29, 2006, pp. 7, 52.
Return to text.
31. Kemp, “Assault Rifles in a 5.56mm Evolution.” Another end-of-year bonus was the declaration, at a major military conference by the commanding general of the U.S. Army Infantry Center and School at Fort Benning, that the M4 was “one of the highlighted success stories in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Cited in letter by retired Marine Corps major general James Battaglini, chief operating officer of Colt, March 26, 2007, online at www.colt.com/mil/news.asp.
Return to text.
32. Center for Naval Analyses, Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat, Report CRM D0015259.A2, December 2006, pp. 14, 1–2, 17–18.
Return to text.
33. Cox, “Better than M4.”
Return to text.
34. M. Cox, “Newer Carbines Outperform M4 in Dust Test,” Army Times, posted online on December 19, 2007. Regarding the Okinawa acquisition, see C. Lowe, “Army Won’t Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4,” Military.com, posted April 6, 2007.
Return to text.
35. James Battaglini, Colt Defense chief operating officer, letter to the editor, March 26, 2007, online at www.colt.com/mil/news.asp; “Army Position: M4 Carbine Is Soldier’s Battlefield Weapon of Choice,” news release, March 29, 2007, online at www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2007/03/29/2471-army-position—m4-carbine-is-soldiers-battlefield-weapon-of-choice/; IPR Strategic Business Information Database, April 22, 2007.
Return to text.
36. Quoted in C. Lowe, “Senator Tells Army to Reconsider M4,” Military.com, April 30, 2007.
Return to text.
37. CNA, Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms, pp. 29–30.
Return to text.
38. Project manager, Soldier Weapons Assessment Team Report 6-03, p. 7.
Return to text.
39. P. J. Doughterty and B. K. Matthews, “Comparison of M-16A2 and M-4 Wounding Potential,” Military Medicine 172, no. 8 (2007), pp. 871–74.
Return to text.
40. M. L. Fackler, “Ballistic Injury,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 15 (December 1986), pp. 1451–55; and Fackler, “Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets,” International Defense Review 1 (1989), pp. 59–64.
Return to text.
41. A. H. Cordesman, Iraq’s Evolving Insurgency: The Nature of Attacks and Patterns and Cycles in the Conflict (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies,