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

On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Kenneth Winland wrote:
 
> 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.

Probably, but didn't the original (M16a1) version of the M16 have severe
teething problems as well? Jamming, breaking, etc? ISTR reading that in
Vietnam troops would sometimes throw away their M16s if they could get
some other weapon to replace it, or at least relegate the M16 to
secondary
weapon...

Or the M1 - lots of people in the mid-80s were supposed to be slagging
the
thing every chance they got - now it's probably the best MBT going...and
it's expensive as hell, compared to, say, russian MBTs.

People /always/ seem to moan about new weapons systems - especially in
the
States. Then the systems prove themselves, and the moaners shut up in a
hurry. (Heard anyone slagging the M1A2? Post Desert Storm?)

Brian (yh728@victoria.tc.ca)			      
-DS2/SG2/FR!/HOTT-
		   - http://warbard.iwarp.com/games.html -
-SciFi & Fantasy Wargaming House Rules, Photos, GWAutobasher, & more-