But it’s ultimately going to be wasted money. Either:
A. Nothing comes from the test, in which case $30M was pissed away, or
B. A new rifle gets selected, and hundreds of millions are spent on a rifle that MAY be marginally better than what we have now. Diminishing returns and all.
It shocks me to see a bunch of fiscal conservative being so ambivalent about wasteful spending. This is why they need to get rid of the waste in DOD. I know it’s practically heresy on this board to want to cut military spending, but this is fucking ridiculous.
B: either the M4 wins a fair head to head competition or it doesn’t. If it can’t prove itself in current testing protocols then it should be replaced, period. The caliber is irrelevant
The last thing the army needs to do is keep or adopt a product that is not the best in their own testing
Oh I think its a waste of money, and the DOD should be put on a diet along with some reforms (especially in the procurement side). Just saying making a big stink about 30 mil is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Army Sets Sights on New Rifle
Competition Would Replace M16s and M4s, Workhorses With Reliability Issues
For the first time in almost 50 years, the U.S. Army wants to replace the standard rifle shouldered by hundreds of thousands of frontline troops around the world.
The service this week advertised its interest in a new weapon that would incorporate futuristic sights and other advances in rifle design and be able to handle improved ammunition.
The gun would potentially supplant the M4 carbine, a shorter-barrel version of the M16, the Army’s main infantry weapon for decades.
I’ve not followed all the replacement trials like most of you have but I think it would make sense to upgrade caliber if a carbine upgrade is chosen (6.8?). I also realize that little big bro does makes sense anymore.
Have Colt develop a gas piston that meets updated, rugged requirements (like bolt improvements) and call it a day. I’d be okay picking up that tab just use Geissele SSA triggers and Battle Comp muzzle attachments and Troy sights. I’d take several of those uppers as would all of you.
Actually it wouldn’t make one bit of sense. The idea of replacing all 5.56 in the logistics train with another caliber that may be marginally better at stopping people is mind-boggling.
And then there’s that whole NATO thing.
Frankly, I would have no problem with them spending oodles of money on training, but this whole thing really pisses me off.
I understand the trouble of changing over to a new weapon, my thought was that if a new weapon is chosen then why not upgrade caliber too. Sort of a two for one.
Personally I say screw NATO:cool:
And as some of my elders used to say, either piss or get off the pot. I’m also about fed up with the endless trials. Hell, with the money that has already been spent on trials, tests, and proposals we could have already equiped our combat units.
i was all set to buy a BCM but if the military drops the M4 i can only assume private owners are going to sell them because its no longer “the” rifle. Might drive the price on used ones down. Thoughts?
1)This is years out
2)Again, don’t hold your breath, I can think of five different trials off the top of my head where the Army tried to replace the M16/later M4 and failed to do adopt a new type.
3)The M14 was replaced by the M16 40 years ago and Springfield charges $1500+ for $800 dollars of firearm with their M14 clones.