Wait, you mean I could just buy a different firearm and reduce my aiming errors? Hmm, I thought the usual fix for that was to use better sights, or get better training. ;-) What's the phrase? "It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools." or something like that.
I know, I've tried different firearms and better sights. I've concluded my firearms probably deserve a better marksman than I'll ever be. But hey, I maintain them well as a reward for putting up with my "modest" (ha, on a good day!) skills.
In all seriousness, this seems like a questionable call. Are the improvements in accuracy, effects, maintenance etc. really going to be any different than what could be realized by incremental improvements to existing systems? Are those improvements (via either path) significant in the big picture? Are they worth the "cost" of deviating from the standard, and the supply/logistics headaches that are sure to come? This smells like a solution looking for a problem to fix. As in "Hey, it does X and maybe Y somewhat better." so suddenly X and Y become all important as an excuse to justify something you really want for other reasons.
—>> Wait, you mean I could just buy a different firearm and reduce my aiming errors? Hmm, I thought the usual fix for that was to use better sights, or get better training.
Now, under new standards, soldiers are encouraged to shoot first and draw targets around the holes afterwards.
It is racist to force everyone to be judged by premade, standardized targets.
Scores have gone up dramatically!