Colt, S&W, Stag, Knights, ect... opt out of current military trials

Did you read the bottom line of that article?

The winning carbine will face off against the improved M4A1 in a battle to become your next weapon
Click to expand...

Why would Colt compete against their existing rifle? Colt doesn't have to reviel trade secrets to keep the M4 in the game.

Then again, there is the cost factor. In today's economical times, I really doubt any rifle can compete with the present M4s when you throw in the cost aspect of replacing it. The Colt isn't that bad, can it be improved, sure anything can be improved. Will the cost of the improvements justify the change. Only time will tell, and the way things are going, (Defense budgets being cut) I don't see it happening in my life time.

I've been reading simular stories since the mid 60s, and they've been around long before I started reading.

I wouldn't jump on the ideal of investing any money in any gun company based on this Army times story.

• Development tests. These are anchored by a detailed evaluation of accuracy and dispersion at distances of 100, 300 and 600 meters using 90 rounds at each range
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with current or future rifles, its dependant on the ablility of the soldier to shoot at 100, 300 and 600 meters. The old M16A1 would pass that test if there were shooters shooting it.
 
I agree ^^^. I was just posting it because it's a discussion forum after all! :D

I really don't see the military switching from the M16/M4 platform; it would just cost too much money.
 
Hmm, reading that article I had some thoughts:

1. When was the last time the Army Times had anything bad to say about any H&K product?

2. It looks like the Army is incentivizing people using an M16 family of weapons entry to submit to the Enhanced M4 program rather than enter the Improved Carbine competition.

3. Looks like the entrants basically break down into well-respected military manufacturers who have already produced a weapon for the DoD and relative unknowns who have nothing to lose by taking a shot at the program.
 
kraigwy said:
Then again, there is the cost factor. In today's economical times, I really doubt any rifle can compete with the present M4s when you throw in the cost aspect of replacing it. The Colt isn't that bad, can it be improved, sure anything can be improved. Will the cost of the improvements justify the change. Only time will tell, and the way things are going, (Defense budgets being cut) I don't see it happening in my life time.
Click to expand...

IMO, Kraig summed it up perfectly.

The US Army can have trial after trial, but the end result is usually going to be the same- "Sure, rifle X or Y may have an advantage or two, but due to cost considerations, we're sticking with the M4 platform." There's no such thing as the "perfect" rifle, and we're left with "good enough" facing off against "slightly better." There's just not enough "slightly better" to justify billions of dollars of expenditure.

Small arms are pretty mature technology; incremental modifications have resulted in a pretty darn good rifle in the M4 family. Ideal for all situations? No. But good enough for most tasks, and the moment we'd spend the billions to switch, we'd discover the new one isn't what it's cracked up to be.

It's one thing for an individual to weigh the pros and cons of the various platforms. When you're talking about changing over a large military, it's something completely other. I know we love to say "spend whatever it costs to give our troops the best!" Let's face it, though; we don't have the money to spend.
 
The HK doesn't vent gases in the weapons interior? Really?

Obviously, the Army Time writers don't know squat. ALL self loading actions vent barrel gas back over the bolt into the action every time they unlock the chamber.

Does it eject dirty brass? It's getting into the action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top