Posted on 08/29/2014 3:08:23 AM PDT by Timber Rattler
A competing rifle outperformed the Army’s favored M4A1 carbine in key firings during a competition last year before the service abruptly called off the tests and stuck with its gun, according to a new confidential report.
The report also says the Army changed the ammunition midstream to a round “tailored” for the M4A1 rifle. It quoted competing companies as saying the switch was unfair because they did not have enough time to fire the new ammo and redesign their rifles before the tests began.
Exactly how the eight challengers — and the M4 — performed in a shootout to replace the M4, a soldier’s most important personal defense, has been shrouded in secrecy.
But an “official use only report” by the Center for Naval Analyses shows that one of the eight unidentified weapons outperformed the M4 on reliability and on the number of rounds fired before the most common type of failures, or stoppages, occurred, according to data obtained by The Washington Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The Army’s statement in June 2013 justifying the cancellation said: “No competitor demonstrated a significant improvement in weapon reliability — measured by mean rounds fired between weapon stoppage.
But, but, But... direct gas impingement is perfectly reliable.
I wonder which rifle performed better? Any clues?
- During the tests for the new pistol in 1978, the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP) drove the requirements to fit the Beretta M92 and constantly moved the goalposts to ensure that it "won" against the competitors from Colt, H&K and Sig.
- That same JSSAP pushed for the FN Minimi as the new Squad Automatic Weapon, even though the H&K 93 was a far better candidate in the tests.
- The army establishment has rigidly resisted any replacements to the M-16/M-4 family even though battlefield experience and the expressed desires of the troops in combat have made it clear that they need something better.
-Look at the goofy combat uniform choices made by the army teams; need any more proof that they aren't attached to the real world?
The main problem is that the army R&D and acquisition world is made up of civilians most of whom never actually served in uniform, much less combat. They have no attachment to the lives of the troops.
‘the army research, development, and engineering establishment always lets its preferences and prejudices drive acquisition.’
You could have stopped right there. They have a long and silly history of this.
look into kryon armor plates. competitor to kevlar... but can stop a .50 cal at 20 yards where the kevlar doesn’t slow it down
EXACTLY what our boys need. cheaper. lighter. a process that allows other materials the same capabilities (think tanks and humvees with similar stopping power)
kevlar has the political connections and kept kryon (from bork industries) from getting a finalized contract.
many products shipped... but kevlar is protected.
I was listening to the latest podcast of ThisWeekInGuns, and they said it was the SCAR. I don’t remember what their source was, though.
What worries me is that our enemies have no such obligation and will make the better decision.
Everyone is an expert when it comes to small arms.
Mr. niteowl77
So true. There is a corner of the Infantry Museum at Fort Benning devoted to failed army weapon projects from JSSAP. You should visit and see all of those losers.
I think that the upper echelons have figured out that it's a real problem but why risk your career and the potential 7-figure retirement income over something as inconsequential as success in combat?
I was thinking of the M14.
I’ll listen to that podcast again today while I’m at work to make sure.
Never heard of Kryon armor.
Anything that would stop a .50 cal would have to take all that energy and the impact alone would probably destroy all bones and organs within a 12” or greater radius - I’d think.........
Betcha it was the new Beretta rifle.
Why would anyone think the obama administration would want US troops to have the best weapon available? It hates the US military.
especially the ones who’ve never been in combat and make video’s of themselves with their equipment.
the ARX?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.