Why spend billions if dollars to replace an 80% solution with an 85% solution?
The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States
- Thread starter Spetsznaz
- Start date
I had the pleasure of following a line of discussion about a replacement for the M4 a little while back on another forum, and it was most illuminating in that one of the participants had seen the XM8 on trials and was happy to describe it as no great improvement over the M4 once the external factors in terms of maintenance had been eliminated. In other words, treat both weapons with similar care or lack of, and the differences soon narrowed to very slender ones. Given you'd have to issue a whole new line of weapons, accessories, run training for all troops, certify armourers, lay in a line of replacement spares etc, the incoming weapon is going to either have to be a remarkable leap forward, or the outgoing weapons will have to be quite badly worn.Many countries have moved on from the M16 because they have found it inadequate. Just because the DoD doesn't have plans to replace the rifle doesn't mean that it shouldn't be replaced. Many countries have produced a new assault rifle for its armed forces, for the US to fall behind in its R&D would mean a loss technical edge. There are many flaws in the weapon but buying, replacing and giving units training is more expensive than simply continuing to hold onto an imperfect yet usable weapon.
Your post comes across as very simplistic in its presentation, especially the comment regarding "assault rifles are always automatic rifles."
The XM8 was a great program and should have continued but alas...
Either the FN SCAR or the HK416/417 lines are viable replacements though I doubt there'll even be a program to replace the M16 with these. I'll be surprised if the US sets aside funds to replace its inventory of M16s within the next decade. It looks like they prefer to sink more money into the F35 program.
The biggest grips I've heard about the M-4/M-16 family atm from guys who have been in theater is that the rounds tend to go right through guys. While the M-16 has the range the M-4 does for the mountains and valleys there.
The preferred idea right now really is the 6.5mm grendel round for replacement.
One of the problems is that the DoD wants completely revolutionary system instead of a evolutionary one. This leads to great expensive and complications.
As much as caseless rounds and the OICW were awesome they had their problems.
The preferred idea right now really is the 6.5mm grendel round for replacement.
One of the problems is that the DoD wants completely revolutionary system instead of a evolutionary one. This leads to great expensive and complications.
As much as caseless rounds and the OICW were awesome they had their problems.
I had the pleasure of following a line of discussion about a replacement for the M4 a little while back on another forum, and it was most illuminating in that one of the participants had seen the XM8 on trials and was happy to describe it as no great improvement over the M4 once the external factors in terms of maintenance had been eliminated. In other words, treat both weapons with similar care or lack of, and the differences soon narrowed to very slender ones. Given you'd have to issue a whole new line of weapons, accessories, run training for all troops, certify armourers, lay in a line of replacement spares etc, the incoming weapon is going to either have to be a remarkable leap forward, or the outgoing weapons will have to be quite badly worn.