Why does the United States military stage trials if they never

>>34224425
Also why do federal agencies and the military as a whole have such a schizophrenic attitude towards procurement? If small arms have largely stagnated why can't they make up their mind wrt what they need?

The trials are there in case there IS anything the military decides is worth adopting over what we currently have. Thus far the answers have generally all been no because either...

>Cost of replacing current rifles with a new rifle and caliber would be too immense to justify the need
>Very limited gains in terms of performance in adopting an all new rifle in 5.56
>Many past trials guns have antiquated quite quickly, XM8 is a prime example of this
>Logistics of implementing a new rifle to the armed forces of the largest military in the world
>Effort in retraining manual of arms if they went for a bullpup

Honestly, the best thing the military can do is keep the 5.56 and adopt a more modernised AR-pattern rifle, keep improving the 5.56 round, and supplement squads with a new caliber and possibly rifle. Firearms development is at a bit of a standstill and will probably be at a standstill for potentially hundreds of years due to how prolific cased ammo or chemical propellants are.

File: image.jpg (3MB, 4288x3216px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4288x3216px

>>34224454
I'm just glad she finally found a home...

>>34224454
>adopt a more modernised AR-pattern rifle, keep improving the 5.56 round, and supplement squads with a new rifle.
With the m27IAR do you think it will be likley that the US forces will switch to a HK416?

>>34224446
Because there is no end-all-be-all solution to firearms, which is why squads in modern military are issued a variety of weaponry to fill the gaps of the shortcomings of other guns.

Take the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for example, the US military was outfitted for fighting a modern military in close-ranged mobile modern warfare as had been done during Desert Storm and before. US doctrine revolved around fighting formal militaries, and when the US started to realise that terrorists are unconventional enemies that fight at longer ranges, tend to be far more mobile, etc the military has now come to the conclusion they need a 7.62x51 service rifle. If that gets adopted and the military ends up engaging a more traditional opponent they'll probably flop back to intermediate calibre rifles again.

It's entirely dependent upon what the military is primarily engaged against, and currently we're engaging terrorists and insurgents.

>>34224486
Probably not.

Again, why adopt new rifles that are almost exactly the same as the old ones for a monumental cost?

If the US does completely replace the M4, it's going to be with a 6mm Caseless rifle out of the LSAT program

>>34224486
Possibly? LMT is also another big contender especially after multiple militaties have adopted LMT rifles either as main service rifles or for DMR/SPR roles, and the military does prefer to keep a lot of their manufacturing domestic for obvious reasons. I'm sure the Marines will have the 416 but the rest of the military might go with something like an LMT MARS-L or see what FN USA can cook up since the SCAR is far too costly for them to even consider adopting.

>>34224454
if they want to keep using 22 cal. it needs to be modernized. meaning a new rifle and round. probably designing an AR with larger magazine and bullet case to fit 80 grain matchkings pushing around 2800 fps out of a 16-18 inch barrel. this would give you 308 like range with significantly less recoil and weight. the ar15 mag length doesnt take full advantage of the rounds potential.

>>34224506
I will add, the military will probably just update the M4 yet again with different furniture. They recently discovered that Keymod was pretty shitty and M-LOK would be the way to go if they wanted to transition away from 1913 rails.

>>34224517
you can push an 80 grain smk to 2800 out of regular 5.56 brass. the magazine OAL is the issue. all these custom shops are shitting out proprietary AR's in snowflake calibers so its not like its some impossibility to make it work. maybe caseless is the answer but i dont know shit about it.

File: Screenshot_2016-03-27-23-55-43_1.jpg (242KB, 1074x1058px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1074x1058px

>>34224425
Because its ultimate bragging right of any company if they get a large contract with Socom or other SF's. Just look at HK and Seals, literally free advertisement.
Same with Crye, drifire, Sig, glock, mystery ranch, trijicon, etc.

Also its a big thing being able to test your product against other competitors, on an equal field with no bias. I mean the 416 is always talked about how it has never lost in testing or competition. Crye is literally gold standard due to their combat pants and multicam.

>>34224568
>equal field with no bias

File: 17800091_10210651389274288_9057946813916804606_n.jpg (77KB, 708x960px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 708x960px

>>34224425
I read some thing on the internet, therefore it must be true, that the military is developing a new cartridge, a .264 caliber proprietary round. Not sure what the purpose for it is, however.

Am I an idiot, or is that actually the case?

>>34224506
>SCAR is far too costly for them to even consider adopting.
Its like $700 for a SCAR.

>>34224454
All of those are basically excuses to not adopt whatever was tested to actually be a substantial improvement over whatever current model of AR-15 that is in service. There are far greater chunks of money being used for far off useless projects or for vehicles that despite being technically impressive almost never see real combat for their entire life cycle. A small fraction of those other money sinks could pay for a new rifle, new caliber, retraining the entire army to use a bullpup and still have enough left over for kickbacks and retirement funds.

File: pistol.png (722KB, 1203x888px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1203x888px

>>34224446

because those in charge of procurement have their own agendas, gotta get that retirement job lined up, thus arguing ensues


>based general says it all

>>34224477
Right till it melts in their hands

>>34224487
>the military has now come to the conclusion they need a 7.62x51 service rifle
>one artillery officer who's firebase in Vietnam was attacked one time is "the military"
>>34224713
Is right. As much as I hate the MIC meme there's a lot of truth to it.

>>34224506
>see what FN USA can cook up since the SCAR is far too costly for them to even consider adopting.
Wanna know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?

>>34224662
>All of those are basically excuses to not adopt whatever was tested to actually be a substantial improvement over whatever current model of AR-15 that is in service.
>They still shoot 5.56 NATO
>They all have a similar MRBS (in some cases the M4/M16 is actually a lower MRBS)
As cool as guns like the SCAR and 416 are the M4 does the same job.

>>34224760
>Is right. As much as I hate the MIC meme there's a lot of truth to it.

Why do you hate it? There's obviously a lot of truth to it

Tbh the military really should've adopted a decent DMR 10+ years ago

Also mlock rails would be nice but I think the military will see that as more shit that can get lost easier. Additionally the military is already so geared up for 1913 which functions just fine in the grand scheme of things.

The AR isn't going anywhere.

>>34224798
The tests way back during the XM8 era said otherwise. "Unfair testing" my ass, "not enough of a difference" those fucking shits.

>>34224846
Because of retards who take it to mean that literally everything that the gov buys is just because of kick backs. A good example are the autists who still think DragonSkin was just the tits and there's no way modern, or even contemporary armors could even compete.
>>34224851
>The tests way back during the XM8 era said otherwise.
Oh, you mean the tests that counted the burst cam on the M4 not resetting because of user error as a stoppage?

>>34224425
>Have any manufacturers ever complained about essentially being blue balled while fronting R&D costs?

Why would they do that? Do you know how lucrative .gov contracts are?

Further these companies ought to be innovating anyway, if they learned anything from Colt, that is.

>>34224901
Being vulnerable to user error is an issue with the design.

Burst mode is only useful in very specific cases and when it is implemented properly. Otherwise a rifle is much better off including an auto mode instead. Counting that as a black mark against the design is valid.

>>34224941
The fire rate needs to be lower thats all. Then you can fire a burst of 3-5 without a problem.

About 450 cyclic is the sweet spot, same fire rate as the StG-44, MP-40, or M2 Browning.

Highly controllable, still fully automatic, and with a single trigger pull you can get 2-3.

And it magdumps half as fast, which means you can fire suppressive for twice as long.

>>34224851
Friend I'm glad you have your dream raifu but the XM8 was typical overpriced HK trash.
HK was using it to force a proprietary rail type, the barrel was shorter with the same OAL, and it was at best a G36 in a new plastic case.

>>34224941
Counting user error as a mechanical malfunction and rightly criticizing a bad design choice are two different things anon, you know this. You are now grasping at straws to justify your statements.

The nice thing about that specific flaw is that it's still cheaper and easier to fix with a F/A FCG than buying an entirely new weapon. Since the burst cam was the lions share of stoppages wouldn't it make more sense to just replace it with full auto like they have with the M4A1? Especially since the M4 otherwise had the same or lower MRBS as the other trial rifles?

>>34224425
once you've jumped through all the hoops it takes to do business with the federal government, suddenly an $800 toilet seat no longer seems so out-of-line.

and its only pork when its not your district.

>>34224974
>HK was using it to force a proprietary rail type
They ASKED for that to be included and later on when Pikachu rails became the standard it would have been a simple alteration they could do within a few weeks. Hell before the entire project was shelved there were rail adapters made to fit into the quick mount holes.

HMM, I SURE WONDER WHAT IS THE NEW FANCY HOTNESS IN ACCESSORY MOUNTING THESE DAYS.

>>34224972
I disagree on the optimal fire rate because I disagree on the point of auto. Rather than being used to supplant semi-auto it should remain at a rather high cyclic rate for close quarters. 600 at minimum, 650~700 optimal. If sustained suppression is desired then just turn it over to semi and pull that trigger quick.

I do wonder sometimes if the Echo triggers would be a great option to replace auto though. Spam the trigger to get basically 600~700 RPM depending on your personal speed, then seamlessly transition to controlled aimed fire without having to move the selector switch. Anywhere in between is also achievable through finger control alone. Similar in concept to those dual-stage semi/auto triggers like the AUG has but much more controllable with definite start and stop points.

>>34225134
>600 at minimum, 650~700 optimal. If sustained suppression is desired then just turn it over to semi and pull that trigger quick.
You just agreed with him.

>I do wonder sometimes if the Echo triggers would be a great option to replace auto though.
Stop. Please.

>>34224591
I mean, in theory, at least

>>34225146
Did you even read his post? He said 450 like the old WW2 guns was the ideal. Might have just finished watching IW8888's Grease Gun video.

File: 1482463809430.png (81KB, 624x628px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 624x628px

>>34224607

>>34225181
Ah shit, no I saw the fire rate the same as an StG-44, MP-40, or M2. Since those all have a fire rate of 550-600 I guess I just switched it around in my head. So yeah, 450 is too slow, 600 is a good rpm for auto fire.

>>34224477
Looks like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum got into the face-paint again.

File: m60.jpg (5KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 480x360px

>>34225236

>adjust m240 gas plug setting to 3, receive 950rpm, problem?

>>34224425
Because US small arms procurement is a broken process and has been since forever.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Schatz.pdf

File: soon my child.jpg (66KB, 316x407px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 316x407px

>>34224477
I waited 2 years to post this meme

>>34224972
>>34225134
thats a doctrine issue not r&d

>>34225779
Your time has arrived

>>34224425
Show Colt how much they suck
and the bribes will go up.

>>34224425
>set phasers to stun

>>34224477
I read once that the main reason Malaysia bought the XM8 was because it was an H&K, their military apparenty has an hard-on for everything H&K.

>>34224425
>Why does the United States military stage trials if they never adopt anything?

It's backdoor gun control. Look at the time lines and you'll see that of these programs really started coming on hard during the heyday of gun control legislation. Pressure was put on the US military to start up these programs, luring in american firearm makers to submit prototypes for these trials. Many smaller firms (and some larger) would devote insane amounts of money trying to fulfill the requirements. By the time the companies realized there was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow it was too late to pull out. Civilian GC made the private market bleak and arms export laws made international sales difficult against foreign companies. Arms makers would forget about the military screwing them over when the boards of the companies changed and be roped into another set of trials.

Companies like Colt survived only through the efforts of pork barrel legislatures, while some went the route S&W and Ruger of sucking GC lobbies dicks for their own little carve outs.

Eventually the economic weapon that is Military small arms trials was turned against foreign companies in a left wing attempt to weaken the European Union in preparation of the coming multicultural SJW muslim cock sucking utopia they hoped for. The likes of HK, Glock, Sig, and FN would be drawn into trials that other American companies had learned to avoid (or relied upon for life support) even as the host countries of these companies enacted their own hippy arms control legislation.

>>34228111
Yes. The politicians had to step in and basically tell the brass they have to at least look at the catalogs of other gun makers.

File: 1360814735927.png (216KB, 393x391px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 393x391px

>>34225312