American soldiers are going into combat with 50 year old technology. Sure, the M16 has been updated since Vietnam, but it’s basically the same weapon today and shortened into the M4. And for 50 years the debate over M16/M4 reliability has raged as well.
The 2006 Army solicitation for a new 5.56mm carbine was withdrawn when Colt lowered their prices. But should low price be the only consideration? I’m a big fan of the M16/M4 platform. Don’t get me wrong. I have a few of them and I think they are great rifles. But times have changed and technology marches on. Isn’t it time for something better? I mean fighter pilots are not flying F4 Phantoms into combat so why are the grunts packing 50 year old technology?
“In recent years, the M4 finished dead last in a sandstorm reliability test, against 3 competitors that include a convertible M4 variant. Worse, the 4th place M4 had over 3.5x more jams than the 3rd place finisher. Was that a blip in M4 buys, or a breaking point? DID explains the effort, the issues, and the options, as the Army moves forward with an “Individual Carbine” competition. “ http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
Like I said, I’m a big fan of the AR platform rifles, I just wonder if it isn’t time to give our soldiers the best rifle using the best technology we have today.