It was pretty obvious from the get-go what the result would be, in my opinion. The Army is making a big deal about their "Product Improved" M4, which has a couple steps forward (Auto rather than Burst selector, for one), and at least two big steps backward (heavy-profile barrel and electronic "round counter" gadget).
This whole competition was just so they can point it out to critics later: "See! We did a competition, and our design came out on top of all these other ideas!"
More wasted taxpayer $$, IMO. Better off putting FA back into the lower, and going to a lighter-weight, hammer-forged barrel. Use the money saved (i.e. not spent on useless gadgetry and hardware solutions to software problems) on ensuring all the troops, combat-arms in particular, get high-quality training with their weapons and equipment on a regular basis. An officer I met once (INF Capt.) told me "the biggest difference between my troops and, say, Delta, is the amount and quality of training. I used to tell my Soldiers that they could all shoot as well as Special Forces if we had as much ammo and range time available as they do."
IMO, that's a bigger problem than a carbine. The M240L program and Mk.48 LMG will make a bigger difference to the Infantry than a change to the individual Soldier's weapon. And higher-quality training for all the troops will get more results than either.
Can't solve software problems by throwing money at the hardware. Training, training, training.
Same for us regular ol' shooters.
By the way, can't wait for the dedicated Praxis site to come up! Those are great posts! You're doing good work, Mr. V. Please keep it up as best you can.
Even if you have the best 3-axis ambidextrous fire-blind upside down underwater zero-gravity explosive atmosphere no-tools design in the world, lightest, cheapest, magazines that cost nothing and never fail, you may not win. If you are not already a big gun manufacturer (over 4000 shipping rifles a month), you almost can't win.
Expect slight improvements to the M-4 Carbine from the COTS (civilian off the shelf) world. No major changes, full backward-forwards compatibility. With 500K M-4's in inventory, there is still money to be made with parts sales. The big upgrade for soldiers is more training time (classroom and practical) and more ammo for live-fire training at 300-500M ranges to improve single-shot accurate-fire at the maximum range of the .223 cartridge. Instead of accurate fire, soldiers could be issued firecrackers designed to sound like m-4 firing to be launched from 40mm grenade launcher. That'll scare Hadji!
As an Infantry NCO I have deployed four times (3 OIF, 1 OEF) and mostly having fired about 90 - 100 rounds of live ammunition before deploying.
STRAC (DA PAM 350-38 Ch 5, Infantry) states that an Active Component Infantryman will at a minimum group and zero with 18 rounds of ammunition and qualify with 40 rounds for his primary sight, twice a year. Additional training will be accomplished at EST 2000 (computerized weapons training).
Of course that same Infantryman will also go through a Squad and Platoon live fire exercise but in reality very few of the soldiers get to actually shoot their rounds during such training.
I did get the chance to shoot about 200 rounds of BLANK ammo before deploying.
So yeah... Imagine going to war having only shot 100 rounds of ammunition in the preceding year and you get the sense of what we are facing here.
At least I got my 3 hours mandatory training on Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal...........
5 comments:
It was pretty obvious from the get-go what the result would be, in my opinion.
The Army is making a big deal about their "Product Improved" M4, which has a couple steps forward (Auto rather than Burst selector, for one), and at least two big steps backward (heavy-profile barrel and electronic "round counter" gadget).
This whole competition was just so they can point it out to critics later: "See! We did a competition, and our design came out on top of all these other ideas!"
More wasted taxpayer $$, IMO. Better off putting FA back into the lower, and going to a lighter-weight, hammer-forged barrel. Use the money saved (i.e. not spent on useless gadgetry and hardware solutions to software problems) on ensuring all the troops, combat-arms in particular, get high-quality training with their weapons and equipment on a regular basis.
An officer I met once (INF Capt.) told me "the biggest difference between my troops and, say, Delta, is the amount and quality of training. I used to tell my Soldiers that they could all shoot as well as Special Forces if we had as much ammo and range time available as they do."
IMO, that's a bigger problem than a carbine.
The M240L program and Mk.48 LMG will make a bigger difference to the Infantry than a change to the individual Soldier's weapon.
And higher-quality training for all the troops will get more results than either.
Can't solve software problems by throwing money at the hardware. Training, training, training.
Same for us regular ol' shooters.
By the way, can't wait for the dedicated Praxis site to come up! Those are great posts!
You're doing good work, Mr. V. Please keep it up as best you can.
Even if you have the best 3-axis ambidextrous fire-blind upside down underwater zero-gravity explosive atmosphere no-tools design in the world, lightest, cheapest, magazines that cost nothing and never fail, you may not win. If you are not already a big gun manufacturer (over 4000 shipping rifles a month), you almost can't win.
Expect slight improvements to the M-4 Carbine from the COTS (civilian off the shelf) world. No major changes, full backward-forwards compatibility. With 500K M-4's in inventory, there is still money to be made with parts sales. The big upgrade for soldiers is more training time (classroom and practical) and more ammo for live-fire training at 300-500M ranges to improve single-shot accurate-fire at the maximum range of the .223 cartridge. Instead of accurate fire, soldiers could be issued firecrackers designed to sound like m-4 firing to be launched from 40mm grenade launcher. That'll scare Hadji!
Am I the only one shocked that we only have 500,000 M4's currently ? I would have guessed minimum 5 million.
As an Infantry NCO I have deployed four times (3 OIF, 1 OEF) and mostly having fired about 90 - 100 rounds of live ammunition before deploying.
STRAC (DA PAM 350-38 Ch 5, Infantry) states that an Active Component Infantryman will at a minimum group and zero with 18 rounds of ammunition and qualify with 40 rounds for his primary sight, twice a year. Additional training will be accomplished at EST 2000 (computerized weapons training).
Of course that same Infantryman will also go through a Squad and Platoon live fire exercise but in reality very few of the soldiers get to actually shoot their rounds during such training.
I did get the chance to shoot about 200 rounds of BLANK ammo before deploying.
So yeah... Imagine going to war having only shot 100 rounds of ammunition in the preceding year and you get the sense of what we are facing here.
At least I got my 3 hours mandatory training on Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal...........
This sort of razzle-dazzle is how Colt got in posession of the M-16 contract in the first place.
Post a Comment