Does that justify the cost? Would you feel undergunned with a gas operated AR? If there was a firearm leaps and bounds ahead of the AR platform while also being comparable in cost everybody here would have one. Military needs to be cost conscious, just like the rest of us.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
U.S Army scraps testing after rifle outperforms M4A1
- Thread starter johnny.cassidy3
- Start date
Does that justify the cost? Would you feel undergunned with a gas operated AR? If there was a firearm leaps and bounds ahead of the AR platform while also being comparable in cost everybody here would have one. Military needs to be cost conscious, just like the rest of us.
I'm not to up on the piston systems what is the advantage anyway.... it makes for more parts and added weight for what gain vs a DI system. My ranger beaters go several thousand rounds before actually needing to be cleaned...yeah it gets nasty but it doesn't take much to clean it. I have had 22lr semi auto that are harder to clean.
It costs, per the pentagon comptroller, $850,000 per year to keep a soldier in Afghanistan. If, for example, a 6.5 Grendel upper and ammo increased the effectiveness of the average soldier by 1% it would be well worth the cost. I'm not saying that necessarily the case. The point is that the cost of a rifle and ammo change isn't all that great comparatively speaking.
I honestly think cost is the least of there worries, since when does the government care about cost, thats just one excuse?? IMHO reputation has something to do with it, the military/government doesn't want to admit that there is a better product out there for the troops, the military is suppose to supply the troops with the best equipment available, kind of what happened with Dragon skin.
War is a political decision. F- politics.
With our troops, give them the best damn gear available. As a taxpayer, I support that message.
I have not served in the military but I do develop military systems. I have also spent many hours talking to my nephew , who did 3 tours in the sandbox as a marine. If those who put boots on the ground want it, give it to them. F- the cost. If we can get better than the M4, buy it. If we can make them in the US, awesome!
With our troops, give them the best damn gear available. As a taxpayer, I support that message.
I have not served in the military but I do develop military systems. I have also spent many hours talking to my nephew , who did 3 tours in the sandbox as a marine. If those who put boots on the ground want it, give it to them. F- the cost. If we can get better than the M4, buy it. If we can make them in the US, awesome!
Varmint
NES Member
In the movie one of the Delta snipers had an M14, but in the book he was talking about a different guy. I'm sure there were more than one Delta operators with 7.62 rifles.
If it sometimes takes 3 bursts to down a guy with 5.56, I don't think it's the M14 shooter who will run out of ammo first.
Nope. There is more to war than the ignoring cost "best" gear. Only so much money to go around. The money you spend on new rifles, with minimal returns I might add, could be spent better elsewhere. There is no rifle at a comparable cost that perform in any significant manner better than the AR. There has not been a revolution in firearms since the STG-44 was made.
When that next revolution happens lets make sure have some money around to upgrade. Until than the costs dont make sense.
My opinion this holds true with the m9 pistol. Its a brick .......we all know it. Problem is 95% of the Soldiers that carry one even in a combat theater are high ranking officers, staff NCOs, and warrants that have like yay close to 0 percent chance of ever needing the pistol.......spend some money on a better side arm.....yes......but only issue it to the probably 1000 troops that may actually ever need the ****ing thing like recon marines......special operations in the army ......crew served gunners in combat arms.......company commanders in combat arms units etc.......
But......splain to that light colonel on staff at a brigade why he is carrying a 20 year old Baretta when the e4 gunner in a heavy weapon platoon has a new .45 ACP pistol........yeah......that'll work.....not
And so you all know I'm speaking from the heart........I'm a staff officer that so LD have the old m9 and be perfectly fine with it
Last edited:
Agreed, the beretta is a turd compared to modern polymer wonder guns but it is a world of diminishing returns. How often is a sidearm even used in combat operations? Same mind set. Doesnt make sense to replace it, its not broken enough.
As far as parts and weight go, it's minimal, your talking ounces, i'll take reliability over weight anyday, it's my life.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "gun C" is the HK416, do u think HK would engineer a rifle to present to the military that is only just as reliable or slightly more reliable than the M4.?? In my eyes 25% more reliable is huge, especially when u talk about my life. If some one gave you the choice between a slightly heavier (ounces) rifle but 25% more reliable, which would you take?.... That's easy for me, reliability.
IMHO I believe if HK thought extra parts was a real issue as far a breakage/stoppage issues, they would have scrapped the whole project, what good would it do them?? And as far as stoppages go, i have yet to see any data during any of the past rifle trials that says the piston rifle stopped due to piston parts problems, even if it did stop due to piston parts issues, it still went longer between stoppages than the m4.
Pistons run cooler and Cleaner, less cleaning for the troops, less worry on the battlefield, seems like a no brainer to me.
I don't buy it, 25% more reliability doesn't offset the cost of the rifle, B.S.??, How much more is it??
People are worried about weight and extra parts of piston AR's and calling it an Achilles heal, but no one cares that a Beretta weighs a shit ton more than a Glock and has many more parts to break than a Glock??? The weight savings of having a Glock instead of a Beretta is alot more than a piston AR compared to an M4.... The argument is ridiculous...People are just biased to DI and ignore the truth.
Knowing the rifle is the primary weapon, I say spend more money on a better slightly heavier rifle and save the money on a cheaper, lighter more reliable Glock, **** the M9 its a boat anchor.
25% more reliability? by what metric? I thought the ARs are not reliable claim was dead and buried?
How much more is not the question to be asking, they could be cheaper than the AR platform and it would still result in the expenditure of more money. We have an existing inventory of AR's. Replacing that inventory with a cheaper rifle would cost a pretty penny.
- - - Updated - - -
WHen you have an existing inventory of perfectly serviceable side arms buying new ones is not saving money. Its like a woman buying a new pair of shoes because they were on sale even though she has 20. She thinks she saved money, she didnt.
Last edited:
The article said, as i recall 25% more reliable than the M4.
Well i blame the military for making a dumb decision in the beginning for choosing the M9. Penny wise dollar stupid. Reliability will save them in the long run on the piston rifle and the cost of the glock is cheaper. They can do a slow "Phase out of the equipment" when an M4 or a Beretta breaks replace it with An HK 416 and a Glock
I am curious what the numbers were. When you go from 1 failure per 1k rounds to 1.25 failures per 1k rounds no its not worth it.
Unfortunately swapping inventory is not as easy as swapping broken rifles for new models.
This is very significant, your math is very wrong. From the Article:
The CNA report contains three significant graphics. In one, reliability was measured against the M4 as the baseline. Gun “C” scored 25 percent more reliable than the M4A1 and better than all others.
A second graphic shows test results for “mean rounds between failures.” This is perhaps the most important test because it shows how many shots the rifle can fire before stoppage.
Again gun “C” was by far the best, achieving more than 2,500 rounds. The M4A1 failed after 500 — a gap that can make a significant difference in battle.
This test was a measurement of Class 1 and Class 2 magazine stoppages, in which one soldier can clear the gun himself within 10 seconds or more than 10 seconds, respectively. The U.S. official said classes 1 and 2 are the most common stoppages in battle.
Lip
Army Veteran
Worst pistol ever made. My unit surrendered our 1911s for them. First time shooting the m9 the rear sight fell off and it jammed. A splendid debut vs my 30 yr old 1911.
So ur discrediting the article...Haha???, The math is correct. 25% of 1000 is 250.
1 failure per thousand rounds is only 1% percent. 250 failures out of 1000 is 25%.
Of course you think it's shenanigans, god forbid the beloved DI gets beat at its own game. Denial is not just a river in egypt. i know.... it's tough to except.
Shenanigans is the colt m4 loosing a trial a few years back and making the excuse that the rifles used were not new rifles, who the hell u enter a trial with old rifles?? Shenanigans is colt hiring a private company to do another trial under their own roof and amazingly the m4 had less stoppages than the HK at the first trial.... what a coincidence.
Numbers don't lie, but i guess the article is BS.
Get back in class.
1 failure per 500 = 2 per thousand.
1 failure per 2500 ~.4 per thousand
When calculating the percent change (the INCREASE) one subtracts the old number by the new number and divide by the old Number. In this case. 2-.4=1.6
1.6/.4= 400% change.
And yes, a failure rate of 500 rounds on an AR is shennigans. Its about as preposterous as their use of math.
Last edited:
500 is actually 20% of 2500, that's hideous results, so thats 20% less reliable. This should help. http://www.percentagecalculator.net/
You must be the worst tipper when eating out.
That is naht how you calculate percent change. Using your numbers reiterates the point anyway. 20% failure change is not a valid number to requip the entire US military. If you would like a lesson in calculating % change see above.
Last edited:
No doubt there are more reliable platforms out there hence their shift to the Tavor, for reasons including reliability. Problem is many other platforms do not share the modularity of the AR. Not to mention the cost of re equipping such a massive military we have.
There has always been more reliable platforms. As with everything there are compromises that are made due to cost, modularity etc.
Is the Tavor enough less modular to matter? It could be converted, fairly easily, to any caliber an AR15 pattern rifle could shoot.
The cost? Yes, certainly replacing every single rifle in the US military would be a huge expense. Why do that though? Why not convert on a unit by unit basis? That's what the Israelis are doing.
I'm not sure changing caliber is a necessity to the average infantrymen, and from what ive seen its not exactly easy to change caliber on a Tavor like a Steyr AUG. I do think the Tavor could be a candidate i suppose, but i don't think the military wants to change the Platform.
