They should have stuck with FN.
As it stands we will still be building M16’s till 2010. 
Now we’ll see if Colt is able to keep the M4 contract… :eek:
.
I’ve never been in combat with an “M16”, only M4’s; I feel sorry for anyone who has to take that length stock anywhere with armor on.
I have no clue why they keep spending money on them.
$.02
I have been in combat with a SAM-R. It was great for mid-range, but it was sub-optimal for CQB, to say the least. I much prefer an M4A1 for anything other than long-range target shooting.
I +1 the confusion on continuing to spend money on the traditional platform.
However- good luck to Sabre, the A3 is a fun gun. Hopefully the TDP will cross-over into their production guns. I would not mind at all to have another superior source of guns and parts.
i didn’t like the length of pull on the A2 buttstock at all. it’s too long for me even without bodyarmor on. I stand 5’6" and workout quite a bit so I can’t get NTCH ever with the A2 LOP.
Why they keep buying those damn “muskets” is beyond me!! :rolleyes: And they opted for carryinghandles at that.
- The award is processed against Ordering Period 1 (Award through 31 December 2008) and the following CLINS are awarded:
CLIN 0005AA - First Article Test for the M16A4 at a cost of $29,500.00.
CLIN 0005AB - 352 each, M16A4 Rifles, 5.56mm, with BUIS removed and carrying handle assembly attached, USMC sling in lieu of standard Army sling per weapon top drawing at a unit cost of $884.00 for a cost of $311,168.00.
CLIN 0005AC - 350 each, M16A4 Rifles, 5.56mm, with BUIS removed and carrying handle assembly attached, USMC sling in lieu of standard Army sling per weapon top drawing at a unit cost of $884.00 for a cost of $309,400.00.
CLIN 0008AA - First Article Test for the M16A3 at a cost of $29,500.00.
Clin 0008AB - 4,538 M16A3 Rifle, 5.56mm, NSN 1005-01-357-5112 at unit price of $885.00 each for a cost of $4,016,130.00.
Clin 0008AC - 414 M16A3 Rifle, 5.56mm, NSN 1005-01-357-5112 at unit price of $885.00 each for a cost of $366,390.00.
This doesn’t effect FN Manufacturing’s contract from the same solicitation. Sabre Defence’s contract is clearly the small business set-aside portion outlined in later modifications of original solicitation.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA168577&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
According to the above study, the lengthened buttstock complies with “Conformity to human factors standards by lengthening stock (alleviating bruised eyebrows, noses, and lips”.
Of course, the Army saw things differently than the Marines.