Re: M-16 Replacement (yet another Popular Mechanics article)

	Howdy!

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:

> That's 45,000 units by 2006. And comparing the cost to a stripped down
M-16 
> isn't realistic. Compare it to the cost of an M-16 optimized with low
light 
> vision scopes and grenade launcher where cost of the M-16 immediately
becomes 
> pretty comparable to the projected new weapon. I am a fan of
simplicity in 
> weapons. The less there is to go wrong means a simple weapon works
more 
> dep[endably. BUT some of the features of this new weapon are pretty 
> interesting.

	Jesus, last year they were going to commit to 20,000 units (as
reported by Jane's and Popular Mechanics).  They must be in love with
this
thing.... :)

	Comparing it to a basic M-16A2 is fallacy, but you could sort-of
compare it to an M-16A2 with all of the bells and whistles, and the new
battle-rifle is STILL expensive.  I have seen footage of the tests, and
while it works well in "demos", I have no doubt that this puppy is going
to have severe teething problems.

	Ken