U.S. weapons must be best

Pentagon planners seem all too happy to spend billions of dollars on new aircraft, tanks and ships. Only cutting-edge technology is good enough for them.

Yet millions of U.S. troops carry rifles of a type invented during the Vietnam War. And when the military wants a better gun, it seems eager to look to overseas suppliers. In terms of both supporting U.S. industries and national security, that is unwise.

According to an Associated Press report, a debate involving the military, some members of Congress and the Colt Defense company of Hartford, Conn., involves the M16 rifle — actually a submachine gun — and its derivative, the M4 carbine. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., believes the $1,500 M4 is overpriced and not reliable enough. Colt and the Pentagon disagree.

Nearly 90 percent of the 2,600 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans surveyed by a nonprofit group in 2006 said they were satisfied with the M4. But 19 percent of them noted their weapons had jammed in combat.

And some of the military’s elite troops, such as the Army’s Delta Force, prefer a gun made by a Belgian company. Other critics of the M4 say a German firm produces a better military firearm.

Obviously, Colt — the exclusive contractor for the military carbine — would prefer to continue selling M4s. If a profit can be made with an existing model, why spend money doing the research for a new one?

But Colt’s exclusive contract ends in 2009 — and at that time, the military will be free to check into alternatives, including overseas suppliers.

The primary firearm used by U.S. troops should be the best in the world — and should be manufactured by an American company. That seems obvious.

Whatever it takes to fulfill those two requirements should be done. If research into a better U.S. military firearm has not begun already, it should immediately. The Pentagon should make that clear.