Dev's adv, what are you talking about? The gun works bro. You can argue the caliber or the action or materials in manufacturer but the gun works. There's thousands upon thousands running around all over the US and abroad taking care of business.

 

And I do believe a certain member here won the MDTS class with mid-level AR running against higher-end ARs and the AKs. So it's the man behind the trigger, not the gun itself.

 

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...

ugh, this thread is epic. The energizer bunny of online forum threads. I came to the conclusion years ago that opinions are like a$$holes, everyones got one. Yours may be based on real life events or an armchair warrior that writes blogs online, or a researcher in the field. I have stated my opinion before and I will state it again. A 16 is a major plastic POS. I know they created magic bullets and new this and new dangly doo dads but I want stopping power. I want MASS not .22 cal bullet slinger. There are known issiues and they should have fixed the weapon not the ammo. A reliable weapon should be proven on all kinds of available ammo. Making magic bullets is like putting bandaids on a a sucking chest wound. When I was active, I went in the field with guys that could carry what they wanted, as long as they qualified on it they could carry it. When the feces hit the oscillator, we carried 14's for the greater reliability and stopping power. When your life is depending on your weapon why settle for something just because it is an "icon" or "America's" weapon, I know for one I am carrying the best I can get my hands on. Like I said this is my opinion based in factual life events, that i formed on my own, although online research or armchair bloggers may tell you otherwise.

ugh, this thread is epic. The energizer bunny of online forum threads. I came to the conclusion years ago that opinions are like a$$holes, everyones got one. Yours may be based on real life events or an armchair warrior that writes blogs online, or a researcher in the field. I have stated my opinion before and I will state it again. A 16 is a major plastic POS. When I was active, I went in the field with guys that could carry what they wanted, as long as they qualified on it they could carry it. When the feces hit the oscillator, we carried 14's for the greater reliability and stopping power. When your life is depending on your weapon why settle for something just because it is an "icon" or "America's" weapon, I know for one I am carrying the best I can get my hands on. Like I said this is my opinion based in factual life events, that i formed on my own, although online research or armchair bloggers may tell you otherwise.

 

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).

What makes you think these kinds of tests arent going on. I think you would probably be suprised at how much testing is always going on. BUT I cannot think of a single time for any of these tests I was priviy to info on that it was not absolutely forbiden for any of it to hit the public eye.

 

"What I don't understand is the resistance to fair competition"

What resistance do you mean?

 

 

"But for the military... why is it such a big deal to question this weapons system and look towards a replacement?"

 

Its a big deal because its not just a weapon system, its parts, training, logistics etc etc etc on a LARGE scale.

 

And here in lies one of the largest problems with selection. One size does not fit all. Big Army wants one thing. The Marines have a different mindset. And SOCOM has an ever evolving set of features. So it makes platform selection......complicated.

 

 

Personally I have NO emotional investment in equipment. I do not care how much I paid for it. I dont care what brand it is. I simply want the best that meets my criteria. What I can say is that all 3 of the rifles I own are all among the most tested rifles ever and all 3 have been combat proven. I would say that I have what is probably the most expensive AR out there. If something tomorrow came out that was better, tested, combat proven, and met my criteria then what I have would likely be replaced. Less expensive would be nice! But if you dont invest equal effort in its use and deployment, then all you have is an incomplete package...

What makes you think these kinds of tests arent going on. I think you would probably be suprised at how much testing is always going on. BUT I cannot think of a single time for any of these tests I was priviy to info on that it was not absolutely forbiden for any of it to hit the public eye.

 

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.

 

"What I don't understand is the resistance to fair competition"

What resistance do you mean?

 

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'.

 

"But for the military... why is it such a big deal to question this weapons system and look towards a replacement?"

 

Its a big deal because its not just a weapon system, its parts, training, logistics etc etc etc on a LARGE scale.

 

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.

 

And here in lies one of the largest problems with selection. One size does not fit all. Big Army wants one thing. The Marines have a different mindset. And SOCOM has an ever evolving set of features. So it makes platform selection......complicated.

 

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.

 

Personally I have NO emotional investment in equipment. I do not care how much I paid for it. I dont care what brand it is. I simply want the best that meets my criteria. What I can say is that all 3 of the rifles I own are all among the most tested rifles ever and all 3 have been combat proven. I would say that I have what is probably the most expensive AR out there. If something tomorrow came out that was better, tested, combat proven, and met my criteria then what I have would likely be replaced. Less expensive would be nice! But if you dont invest equal effort in its use and deployment, then all you have is an incomplete package...

 

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.

"Logistics, spares, etc. is not a huge deal... we already source our stuff from one place (Colt),"

 

I think we are just going to heavily disagree here. And by the way Colt is by no means the only contractor. In fact I believe current contract is held by Saber Defence.

 

"Not really... with all due respect to former USMC here, just make them use what the Army does"

This is not a realistic solution. Different roles and missions dictate different tools for the job.

 

 

I think 10k rounds is more than a few hundred

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2011/11/army-carbine-bidding-colt-smith-wesson-out-112511w/

"Logistics, spares, etc. is not a huge deal... we already source our stuff from one place (Colt),"

 

I think we are just going to heavily disagree here. And by the way Colt is by no means the only contractor. In fact I believe current contract is held by Saber Defence.

 

I don't know about that... PEO Soldier buys M4s and M4A1s directly from Colt Defense. Colt purchases steel for barrels and aluminum for lowers and machines them directly. Railed handguards come from a subcontractor (Knights Armament I think). Heck... Colt is the only owner of the M4 TDP. That alone has causes ARDEC a lot of headaches when trying to make changes to the platform.

 

The only other contractor that has ever produced for the M16 platform is FN in Columbia, SC... and that is only for M16A2/A4s. This was a result of the UAW strikes in the 1990s that impacted the quality of M16 production, and forced the Army to go to a second source.

 

Interesting note: the M16A4 is unofficially done. They are never buying anymore of them. Even the USMC is going to the carbine...

 

"Not really... with all due respect to former USMC here, just make them use what the Army does"

This is not a realistic solution. Different roles and missions dictate different tools for the job.

 

bs. The USMC uses the same M4 Carbines the Army uses. Anything else is more bellyaching from the Corps. The only thing they need to worry about it getting the rifle wet and sandy, and that's usually accounted for in testing (salt-spray tests, etc)

 

I think 10k rounds is more than a few hundred

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2011/11/army-carbine-bidding-colt-smith-wesson-out-112511w/

 

FYI, this is what I was referring to in regards to the Individual Carbine Competition. This kind of stuff doesn't happen every day. The last time something like this happened was the XM8 procurement (2002-2005)... The "Dust Test" was in response to criticism of the existing platform.

On the large scale but tons of testing goes on in Group...

 

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/news/sabre-defence-awarded-m16-contract-to-support-troops/

 

 

Also, IIRC Colt dont machine their lowers, they come from CMT.

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?

 

I would guess most SAS troopers are more familiar with AKs than most Russian soldiers. The SAS, SEALs, and other Spec Ops troops train with everybody's weapon systems. Doubt it was being mistaken for enemy as they were so far into Iraq there were no friendly troops there.

 

They most likely picked the M16 as the best in all those conditions I stated.

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?

 

I would guess most SAS troopers are more familiar with AKs than most Russian soldiers. The SAS, SEALs, and other Spec Ops troops train with everybody's weapon systems. Doubt it was being mistaken for enemy as they were so far into Iraq there were no friendly troops there.

 

They most likely picked the M16 as the best in all those conditions I stated.

 

Yep, perhaps. Accuracy for them may have been a major factor, but also weight as well. Sometimes, even if one weapon is more rugged/durable/etc, you tend to gravitate to a system you do know.

 

I think I've gotten enough of my say in here... I will create a post re: the Individual Carbine Competition to discuss this new acquisition effort further.

If I were a SAS op going deep in indian country I would not want to dic k around with anything but the system I use the most. Again, keep in mind its not just a rifle. its a system so when I need IR NV Optics etc etc to function too, that makes the decision more than just the rifle its self.