Keeping it specific to our own gun club: it was never a question as to whether the fixed-stock variants work or not. The Corps was still predominantly carrying the A2 during the Iraq invasion, so the point that they fulfill their basic function can be amply proven by anecdotal evidence alone.
I see it as a question not of how well they work, but of who they work for. They don’t work so well for that Pvt/PFC/LCpl I always see, the one that’s just barely over the minimum height requirement and weighs 125 with 400 nickels in his pockets, who could really get some mileage out of an adjustable throw length on his weapon. If for no other reason than to get his proper eye relief IOT get a real BZO on his gun instead of the 4" he has to make do with because the RCO is as far back as it goes, and his neck is as far forward as he can crane it.
Offset mounts that provide +/- 1.25" of additional backset are now approved (the LaRue, for instance) for purchase and use for those issued an A4, but that just happened this year, so we’ve had about 4+ years of a certain segment of the GCE who have basically been unable to get their best possible score on a KD course, much less shoot Mr. I Hate America and His Brother Achnad in the lamps, and for what? So the competition guys have a solid stock in service so they can use it for their service rifle competitions? They could do that, anyway. They have their mandate, and it’s not like they’ll ever completely disappear from the inventory.
That poor little dude is the one who invariably gets an A4 or a SAW as his TO weapon to carry all over Hell’s half-acre so that some SNCO or staff officer that never leaves the wire can carry an M4 because it’s easier for them to cart around Al Asad between slideshows, Green Bean and mid-rats. That (and a laundry list of other trends we’re seeing these days) is why the ideal of “Every Marine a rifleman!” is a nice goal to aspire to, but stops being anything like reality once they set foot from The Island or MCRD San Diego.
Many here, I’m sure, have seen some sort of test numbers involved regarding MTBF rates (or whatever the squint term is) between solid vs. adjustable stock of a full-size rifle. Instead of a (WARNING: totally made-up numbers follow!) .00000174 chance of a stoppage with a solid stock, there’s a .0000382 chance with a collapsible. Basically, 4 zeros behind the decimal point instead of 5. O noes!! :eek: Balderdash!
And that’s forgetting the fact that gov’t T&E entities (like MCOTEA) that conduct such tests often resemble about 600 rhesus monkeys, all of whom are trying to vigorously butt-hump the same doorknob.
Sorry for the rant. I’m involved with a similar yet unrelated procurement event that is making me want to kick a kitten through a fan from the institutional inertia alone. Only thing that irritates me more than redundant capabilities are the ones that are ignored because they don’t grok with somebody’s “I heart War” Utopian Ideal, in spite of making complete real-world sense.