DevsAdvocate

Yes, she was.

I'm not privy to that information directly... so I can't say. But usually they don't do intensive testing unless there is some major proposed change to the platform, some major issue in the field, or if Congress wants it. Usually with the M4 Platform, you'll just see First Article Tests (at the beginning of production) or Lot Acceptance Tests... LATs are what are going on now seeing as Colt's been in continuous production since 2003, and that testing is rarely intensive. It's usually simple function checks, go/no-go gauges, couple hundred rounds downrange. At least that's how things work in PM Combat Ammunition Systems and PM Crew served. Things like Individual Carbine Competition are rare. It costs a lot to do it and comes under a lot of scrutiny from Congress and the folks at PEO. Seems like if anyone calls for a new rifle to replace the M4/M16, folks get very defensive and emotionally vested. Getting someone to admit that the platform has it's flaws is like pulling teeth. Essentially, it feels like folks are defending the Army's decision 40 odd years ago as some matter of pride by saying things like "it works!" or "its good enough". It's weird, because that is the same thinking that accompanied the change from the M1903 to the M1, or the M14 to the M16... Just because it 'works', doesn't mean it works 'best'. Logistics, spares, etc. is not a huge deal... we already source our stuff from one place (Colt), so what's so different if we get it from some other company? Just plan your acquisition properly and phase it in slowly. As for training... that's also not insurmountable. Usually once your rifle is ready for service, you issue it to units entering the training cycle (fresh recruits), then slowly phase it in from there. Most of the replacements (XM8, 416, SCAR, ACR) are simple enough to strip down. Simple enough to use as well. As for the remaining M4s and M16s? Replace your core units first and move out to the reserves and the national guard. At the end of the day, simply sell everything through the CMP (fat chance! lol), or FMS it to Israel, Iraq, or elsewhere. It's only difficult according to the bureaucrats and Congress critters who stand to lose out if the M4/M16 is replaced. Not really... with all due respect to former USMC here, just make them use what the Army does. Their requirements aren't that much different from them... just add seawater and sand. This is pretty much how things work anyways with every other major acquisition. Also, lest we forget: the USAF brought the M16 into service first, so it's not always what Big Army wants either. Though usually, it IS their ballgame. SOCOM is a whole different story, and will always be treated as such. Agreed. I use the AR as well... not really sure if I would consider mine battle tested or not, but it works for what I use it for. I also own a few AKs as well. They're fun too. Ergos suck on them though.

Agreed. In this thread alone we have a wide variety if opinions re: this platform. Some like it, some hate it, and some are indifferent. What I don't understand is the resistance to fair competition. I like the AR-15 personally... given the price point and it's accessories, it is a good rifle. I own three of them, and possibly a fourth. But for the military... why is it such a big deal to question this weapons system and look towards a replacement? Why can't we enjoy a spirited competition between weapons systems competing to meet the same requirements? If something is better, then let's go with it. Complacency kills (literally).

Nice rifle! Had one myself many moons ago. Kinda wished I never parted with it... But then again, I still have a few ARs...

Questionable. Having a service rifle 'just work' is not really a useful metric. Nor is some minor usage in the US. At the most recent MDTS, Chris mentioned (anecdotally) that AR-15s in a recent class in Long Island where sand was present, began to malfunction due to their environment. Who knows why? Maybe they were crap rifles? Maybe too much lube was used? Maybe the sand was wet? The best way to figure these things out is to have empirical testing and competition. If Individual Carbine competition concludes that say, the SCAR, is the best rifle by a wide margin than the M4 and that it doesn't suffer anywhere near as many failures, then why don't we just go to that weapons platform? If something better exists, then lets use that instead. What do we owe Colt? Or Eugene Stoner? Or the M4/M16 rifle? If they're no longer the best, then it's time to move on. Nothing personal. Though I bet AR15.com would probably explode if that were to happen...

When given a choice between the early SA80 and the M16A2, the M16 was far superior. The SA80 was a trash rifle until HK fixed it in 2000 (at least from what I read). Weapons like the FAL/M14/G3 were probably excluded due to their weight (both rifle and ammo)... a weapon like the Aug might've been chosen. As for AKs... thats a good question... maybe familiarity was an issue? Weight? Or even being mistaken for the enemy by friendly forces? Definitely have that book on my 'must read' list on my kindle.

Yes. Especially when a condition of the foreign aid you receive is that you need to spend it on their (the USA) stuff. We don't give Israel billions and then let them buy French, German, Russian weapons... we give it to them with the strings attached that they spend it here. Think of it as some perverse corporate welfare that benefits politicians and contractors here in the states. All that needs to be said about the IDF and their relationship with the M4 Carbine/M16 is summed up with their move to the TAR-21. The only reason they keep the legacy systems around is because their plentiful and cheap.

Definitely not. I heard stories of older commanders who stressed the cleanliness of the exterior, even though the rifle would be back to being dirty within a few hours. That pisses me off, especially given the money the military and gov't as a whole waste on useless BS year in and year out. Seems to me it's more about what's best for the contractors and Federal employees than the warfighter...

Disagree... you mention anecdotal evidence; yet even in this thread, we have two guys (GRIZ and usnmars) who both used the same weapons platform at different times, with different conclusions. So who is right? Do we simply toss stories where some poor soldier was killed because his AR-15 didn't work right? Do we just blame the soldiers (like we always do) when equipment fails? Or do we do things empirically vs. anecdotally. Even in the most recent dust tests, it was found that the M4/M16 still did worst than its competitors (HK416, FN SCAR, XM8) by a WIDE margin. 6,000 rounds through 10 test rifles yielded something like 880 failures, approximately 1.5%. That's more 1 malfunction in 100 rounds... or 1 failure in 4 mag changes. Meanwhile, the other rifles suffered anywhere between 180-300 failures... Anywhere between 0.3% and 0.5%... That's quite a bit of difference from an engineering perspective. Especially when at ARDEC, they are constantly pushing us to meet Six Sigma levels of failure mitigation (Failure rate of 0.0034%). While getting to that level may seem impossible, that's what we should strive for. Frankly, I have to ask: why bother keeping the M4/M16 platform if we know better things exist? Why are we so attached to a 50 year old weapon system? Why can other nations replace their service rifles, but we're stuck with Colt's offerings? At best it's corporate welfare tied to some pathetic form of nationalistic superiority. God forbid we replace it with something better. Even Stoner himself didn't think the DI AR-15 was some marvelous rifle that was perfect. I think competition is great, and the money is there to toss this platform for something better. The tech is there, the money is there, let's just get it done. SOCOM is a different breed unto it's own. They don't have a 'standard' rifle and run anything they want. While the SCAR-L may have been passed over, they do use the HK416 in lieu of the M4... especially when running short barrels and suppressors. But that's up to them. We're talking about service rifles here... a standard weapon to be used by regular troops in all capacities. Again, what the operators use is a different ball game when compared to their 'normal' units. At the end of the day, it's some variant of the AK74 that is in the hands of a Russian soldier. Even the Poles and other former WP nations still use a form of the AK as their standard issue.

I highlighted a few select portions of this quote from both usnmars and GRIZ... while I agree that the M16/M4/AR15 platform can be reliable in the right hands and supported with proper cleaning kits, proper education on what parts to clean, and proper intervals of maintenance on both the rifle and magazines themselves, it appears to me that the DoD does not do the greatest job in supporting this weapons system in providing any of those things. Frankly, the Russians may have realized that about their own military bureaucracy, and that's why they focused on creating their system to be as robust as possible. To survive the hardships of both battle and of their own gov't. Does the M-16 platform need to be replaced? I'd say yes. Not through any singly fault of it's own... but simply because better designs and technology exist in other systems... like the SCAR, like the ACR, like LWRC, etc. Even Eugene Stoner himself believed the system could be better and moved on to develop things like the AR-16 (then AR-18), and the Stoner 63. Hopefully Individual Carbine finds some promising designs and maybe, for the first time in 50 years, we can issue our troops something that is more robust, but still as modular/accurate/ergonomic as our existing system.

If only they built a rifle with the accuracy and ergonomics of an AR-15... that wouldn't cough up and die when a little dirt gets into the works. Not a huge concern for us in NJ, but overseas in other terrain outside of the NE...

Background checks... though I would eliminate any reference to the firearm being transfered. I don't understand why an FFL needs to keep track of which gun was sold to whom. Any records should be kept on the FFL side of things in the form of logging out the gun and having the NICS reference number next to it. The gun was sold, the person it was sold to passed the check. End of story.

SAF uses the courts (faster, but if something goes wrong, it can do more damage) to address change... NRA tries to use politics (slower, but safer). Both together work to secure our gun rights.

Went there tonight from 7-8... had the range all to myself. Woo!

The video was Rodney Kinged anyways... they only showed the OC spray and none of the lead-up to it. The police issued their warning, the protesters defied it. They got sprayed, separated, and arrested. No one got hurt, a few may have been arrested and released, and that was that.

Because the police can get hurt that way. It's easier to deal with these tools when they're incapacitated.

It's not really lying if they have no means of proving it.

That's what I would do.

Why is employment even an issue here? Firstoff, all the PD needs is your DL# and SSN to run a background check. This BS about references and contacting the employer is just beyond the pale.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/11/daniel-zimmerman/saf-sues-california-over-assault-weapons-ban/ Nice!!

Done.

Yepp! Def. gonna play wait and see in regards to that! Recent pics at TFB: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/11/01/photos-of-the-new-remington-acr/

Negative... did some looking and found some confirmation. Looks like Bushmaster shuttered it's Windham, ME in March 2011 and moved operations to Remington's facility in Ilion, NY where Remington Arms is located... http://www.wktv.com/news/local/More-than-40-jobs-moving-to-Ilion-as-Bushmaster-Firearms-relocates-to-Remington-118463694.html Looks like both the Remington ACR and Bushmaster ACR are being made from the same manufacturer. Seems they consolidated to save and tooling and workforce costs. As for the metal lower... that may be a great possibility. But I think they will continue to offer the plastic one as a low-cost alternative from here on out. At least according to the pdf on the Remington ACR.

Don't they come from the same manufacturer now? Just with different labels? When BM was bought my Cerberus, they shut down their facility and moved in with Remmy. Same with Marlin firearms.

It really looks like they're going back to the drawing board on this and are getting ready to release a new, revamped version. The .mil one looks pretty sweet: http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/Firearms/Carbines/ACR.aspx