ACU Uniforms

[bugkill 7]

i'm going to give some of you civies some knowledge on the ACU because i now wear it everyday. these uniforms will be used primarily in desert/urban operations, where cover and concealment is about getting behind a building or a car. will you use this uniform for recon operations? probaly not. does it matter when you are on patrol in iraq or afghanistan? hell no!

it all boils down to what mission you are conducting. when i was in iraq, we wore our BDU's on some dismounted night missions because at night (depending on the moonlight) your DCU's could stick out like a sore thumb, but BDU's provided the concealment that you needed when laying in a overwatch position looking at a bridge for a number of hours , so we wore them. would you wear ACU's in the jungle doing a recon mission? no, it's just too light to me. it is all about common sense and the ACU has no affect on operations in iraq and afghanistan because of the nature of the mission.

[soul_assassin 1750]

but oh god tell me what is with the velcro? Am i the onlyone who thinks its retarded?

A small recon in the midle of the night crawls up to a a bunch of sleeping enemy, can take them out without waking them up with a well placed satchel charge in the middle of the group. Only problem, the satchel charge is in the pocket closedwith velcro. CRAAAAACK Whoops.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

but oh god tell me what is with the velcro?   Am i the onlyone who thinks its retarded?

A small recon in the midle of the night crawls up to a a bunch of sleeping enemy, can take them out without waking them up with a well placed satchel charge in the middle of the group. Only problem, the satchel charge is in the pocket closedwith velcro. CRAAAAACK Whoops.

yeah, I don't like velcro either. It's indeed irritating to use. On the other hand; during combat it's much quicker an easier.

[soul_assassin 1750]

but oh god tell me what is with the velcro? Am i the onlyone who thinks its retarded?

A small recon in the midle of the night crawls up to a a bunch of sleeping enemy, can take them out without waking them up with a well placed satchel charge in the middle of the group. Only problem, the satchel charge is in the pocket closedwith velcro. CRAAAAACK Whoops.

yeah, I don't like velcro either. It's indeed irritating to use. On the other hand; during combat it's much quicker an easier.

If US want quicker and easier then forget velcro, they should first start with scrapping the M16 and the Abrams

[stgn 39]

but oh god tell me what is with the velcro?   Am i the onlyone who thinks its retarded?

A small recon in the midle of the night crawls up to a a bunch of sleeping enemy, can take them out without waking them up with a well placed satchel charge in the middle of the group. Only problem, the satchel charge is in the pocket closedwith velcro. CRAAAAACK Whoops.

yeah, I don't like velcro either. It's indeed irritating to use. On the other hand; during combat it's much quicker an easier.

If US want quicker and easier then forget velcro, they should first start with scrapping the M16 and the Abrams  

  And issue what? The M16/M4 family IS the best weapon system in the world today its the most reliable(okay okay maby an Ak is more reliable), most accurate, most ergonomic, most lightweight weapon system you can get and its battle proven. Abrams is also one of the best tanks out there and they have 1000+ of em.

STGN

[bugkill 7]

actually, i don't mind the velcro. also, this uniform is easier to maintain than the BDU (no more starch and press), so no complaints from me. people are having issues with the uniform that deals with tactics and i feel that it is just not warranted. the little "nit picks" will not make a difference in combat (except the camo in certain enviroments depending on the mission) and that is what matters.

the problem with the m16 is that it is to long and needs to be modified with a collapseable stock. it was a headache to have to get in and out of vehicles with this big ass weapon. it is not urban ops friendly and needs to be changed. there are still many units that carry it and they need to switch. the marines love the m16a4, but i find it ridiculous to stay with it. it is a good weapon, but the m4 is more suited for today's operations.

[DKM Jaguar 0]

And issue what? The M16/M4 family IS the best weapon system in the world today its the most reliable(okay okay maby an Ak is more reliable), most accurate, most ergonomic, most lightweight weapon system you can get and its battle proven. Abrams is also one of the best tanks out there and they have 1000+ of em.

STGN

LOL I suggest you don't read the M16/M4 brochure when getting information.

Yeah it's the wonder weapon! I saw it in BlackHawk Down so it must be true!

I'm not even going to start on the M1...

[akd 0]

  And issue what? The M16/M4 family IS the best weapon system in the world today its the most reliable(okay okay maby an Ak is more reliable), most accurate, most ergonomic, most lightweight weapon system you can get and its battle proven. Abrams is also one of the best tanks out there and they have 1000+ of em.

STGN

LOL I suggest you don't read the M16/M4 brochure when getting information.

Yeah it's the wonder weapon! I saw it in BlackHawk Down so it must be true!

I'm not even going to start on the M1...

M16/M4 is a good weapon. It is light, compact, accurate and reliable in trained hands. It is a horrible weapon in the hands of poorly-educated conscripts, but the average U.S. soldier is well-educated in comparison to the soldiers of other large armies. Certainly we could have something better, but there is nothing out there right now that would provide a significant leap forward in capabilities. The U.S. is not going to replace its entire arsenal for only a modest gain.

[DKM Jaguar 0]

And issue what? The M16/M4 family IS the best weapon system in the world today its the most reliable(okay okay maby an Ak is more reliable), most accurate, most ergonomic, most lightweight weapon system you can get and its battle proven. Abrams is also one of the best tanks out there and they have 1000+ of em.

STGN

LOL I suggest you don't read the M16/M4 brochure when getting information.

Yeah it's the wonder weapon! I saw it in BlackHawk Down so it must be true!

I'm not even going to start on the M1...

M16/M4 is a good weapon. It is light, compact, accurate and reliable in trained hands.

I'm not saying it's not, I'm just questioning if it's "the best" or just surrounded in a lot of hype.

[Wilco 944]

but oh god tell me what is with the velcro?   Am i the onlyone who thinks its retarded?

A small recon in the midle of the night crawls up to a a bunch of sleeping enemy, can take them out without waking them up with a well placed satchel charge in the middle of the group. Only problem, the satchel charge is in the pocket closedwith velcro. CRAAAAACK Whoops.

Who puts a big ass satchel charge in their pocket?

Right now the Army has just about everything in ACU.  Their IBA's are even in ACU now.  All in all it doesn't look to bad in Iraq, the grey takes the color from the surrounding and it gives the uniform a tan like tint.  I like it, seems versatile then from what most people thought.

MARPAT still whoops it's ass.

[Wilco 944]

  And issue what? The M16/M4 family IS the best weapon system in the world today its the most reliable(okay okay maby an Ak is more reliable), most accurate, most ergonomic, most lightweight weapon system you can get and its battle proven. Abrams is also one of the best tanks out there and they have 1000+ of em.

STGN

LOL I suggest you don't read the M16/M4 brochure when getting information.

Yeah it's the wonder weapon! I saw it in BlackHawk Down so it must be true!

I'm not even going to start on the M1...

M16/M4 is a good weapon. It is light, compact, accurate and reliable in trained hands.

I'm not saying it's not, I'm just questioning if it's "the best" or just surrounded in a lot of hype.  

The weapon is only as good as the person behind it.

[blackdog~ 0]

And issue what? The M16/M4 family IS the best weapon system in the world today its the most reliable(okay okay maby an Ak is more reliable), most accurate, most ergonomic, most lightweight weapon system you can get and its battle proven. Abrams is also one of the best tanks out there and they have 1000+ of em.

STGN

LOL I suggest you don't read the M16/M4 brochure when getting information.

Yeah it's the wonder weapon! I saw it in BlackHawk Down so it must be true!

I'm not even going to start on the M1...

M16/M4 is a good weapon. It is light, compact, accurate and reliable in trained hands.

I'm not saying it's not, I'm just questioning if it's "the best" or just surrounded in a lot of hype.

The weapon is only as good as the person behind it.

That was some deep thought, Wilco. I greatly appreciate your insight.

[stgn 39]

  And issue what? The M16/M4 family IS the best weapon system in the world today its the most reliable(okay okay maby an Ak is more reliable), most accurate, most ergonomic, most lightweight weapon system you can get and its battle proven. Abrams is also one of the best tanks out there and they have 1000+ of em.

STGN

LOL I suggest you don't read the M16/M4 brochure when getting information.

Yeah it's the wonder weapon! I saw it in BlackHawk Down so it must be true!

I'm not even going to start on the M1...

LOL your self I haven't read no M16 brochure but aparently you been reading some competitative brochure for your info?

Being unimformed dosen't suit you especialy when acting like a smart ass.

I didn't say Abrams was best but I still think it is one of the best.

STGN

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]The M16/M4 family IS the best weapon system in the world today its the most reliable(okay okay maby an Ak is more reliable), most accurate, most ergonomic, most lightweight weapon system you can get and its battle proven.

Indeed, but don't forget that there are still a couple of nice european firearms which could compete with the US weapons, in fact, because of the US military experience, we do know better the US weapons and their capabilities in battles (IraQ, Afghanistan...etc), but I'm quite sure that both of them could compete with each other.

The same goes for tanks, some european tanks might even be the best.

Best Regards

Thunderbird84

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

Ahum, the M16 is a good weapon.

BUT; it's design is old and has a drawback; it's gas-system. The gasses are transfered back to the bolt to operate the rifle. Because is simply lets the gas go all the way back, you get a lot of fouling and heat. Newer weapons like the HK416/417, SCAR and some others, use a pusherrod that means the gas doesn't go all the way back to the bolt. There is no fouling caused by the gas an there is no heat-transfer.

It's a bit hard to explain this in english for a dutchman, but lok it up on the web and you'll understand.

It doesn't mean the M16 is bad, but that it does have a weak spot that is eleminated in other weapons. Those other weapons are more reliable than the M16/M4. (It's the M4 which has the most problems btw).

The M4 used by SOCOM will be replaced by the FN SCAR. The M4's used by the Army were supposed to be replaced by the XM-8, but that program is now dead. The M16A2's of the Army and Marine Corps are being replaced with the M16A3/A4. But in the end the M16 weapon system will be completely removed from service. It's a battle-proven weapon system, but today there are better weapons around. It's as simple as that.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

the problem with the m16 is that it is to long and needs to be modified with a collapseable stock. it was a headache to have to get in and out of vehicles with this big ass weapon. it is not urban ops friendly and needs to be changed. there are still many units that carry it and they need to switch. the marines love the m16a4, but i find it ridiculous to stay with it. it is a good weapon, but the m4 is more suited for today's operations.

Not true. In Iraq yes, but in Afghanistan no. The M4's main drawback is killpower at long ranges. In Afghanistan they have some problems with that (except in the urban mission obviously).

An M16 with a stock like the M4, so it can be shortened, would be better than an M4 in my opinion. The best thing however is if you could madify your weapon depending on the mission. The FN SCAR is able to do this. Within minutes (according to FN) you ca change the barrel from a short to a long one or the other way around. That would be ideal. If you know you go into an urban area, you use the short barrel. If you go into the mountains or open ground you use the longer barrel.

And of course there's the debate about the caliber, but I'm not even going to start that here. The 5.56 is good enough for killing people of you aim at the right spot.

[stgn 39]

M4 used by socom might be replaced, but M4A1 is first scedualed to be out of service in 2012.

Rumor has it that SOCOM wants the army to buy the weapon so SOCOM dosen't have too pay.

The SCAR is still in development and last month at a weapon show the buttstock didn't work.

And while it might take 5 min to change the barrel you have to remove the atachments on the lower rail as its atached to the barrel and then you have too rezero the sights.

It also weights 3.5 kg bare with a pencil barrel.

About the M16 the gas system is both its greatest advantage and its acilies heal. The direct drive system made it more accurate than yesterdays gas pistons I don't know about the SCAR but the HK416 and LW5.56 has no accuracy loss compared to the it, it also makes the weapon very light only the LW5.56 has zero weight gain which is done by moving the wight balance alittle. In terms of relaiabilty the Gas system itself is not the problem:

This is a marine weapon and they(this grupe) have not have eny relaiablility problems not related to broken mags. They run the weapons dry, the problem is to load up the rifle with lub and then taking it to the dessert. And actualy the AR15 system has beaten out G36, SIG 55X in various test's in terms of reliability. But if you get the waepon full of water the weapon won't function if you don't clear it first by pulling the cooking handle a couple of times holding the barrel downwards. This is because the buffer tube and gas tube gets filled with water. Before this gets too long, bottom line is today M16/M4 is overall the best weapon you can get the SCAR is not developed finish and is unproven, evil romors says that the FN SCAR was the only weapon that could be selected because it had all the features SOCOM wanted not nesesarly being the best weapon. And some says there will be a next round of SCAR trials. Remember that SOCOM only has to buy 125 FN ARM's(the SCAR) and the M4 is still smaller, lighter and has 30 FPS(M855) more than the SCAR. And the units that can have enything they want dosen't carry the SCAR they carry HK416. Ar15 might be old but its still the best.

STGN

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

  And issue what? The M16/M4 family IS the best weapon system in the world today its the most reliable(okay okay maby an Ak is more reliable), most accurate, most ergonomic, most lightweight weapon system you can get and its battle proven. Abrams is also one of the best tanks out there and they have 1000+ of em.

STGN

LOL I suggest you don't read the M16/M4 brochure when getting information.

Yeah it's the wonder weapon! I saw it in BlackHawk Down so it must be true!

I'm not even going to start on the M1...

LOL your self I haven't read no M16 brochure but aparently you been reading some competitative brochure for your info?

Being unimformed dosen't suit you especialy when acting like a smart ass.

I didn't say Abrams was best but I still think it is one of the best.

STGN

Have a think on this, just because there are lots of them doesn’t make them the best.  Now this goes for tanks, planes, guns, toothpicks etc.  It means they are cheap to produce.  They do the job they were designed to do at a cost effective price.

To my mind the M4 is a good bit of kit for as far as it goes.  So is the G3 family and the AK series. Both of these actually have a longer heritage than the M16/M4.  Both of these have been produced in as large numbers.  More so for the AK series and I’ll guarantee you'll find more AK's around in 50 years times than M4s, because they are built to last with heavy weight materials, where as the M4 is made to be cheap mass produced weapon with a short lifetime. From reading several official DoD reports (US DoD Small Arms Procurement Report Fiscal year 2003-04 )the lifecycle of the US army issue M4 is max 3-5 years now - meaning on average all the original major serviceable components will be replaced with new parts within that times scale.  These means that you effectively completely replace the weapon from stock parts within 3 to 5 years.  Considering the price of the weapon and the price of the spares its actually cheaper to buy new rifles and throw away the old ones.  

To my mind that’s not the best assault weapon...it’s a cheap design intended to fulfil a role, which it does well.  But then again I’m looking at another set of criteria perhaps you aren’t considering.  The cost and effectiveness of using that bit of kit.

So you’ll have to forgive me and others if we don’t all 100% agree with you.  You don’t seem to really appreciate the full story.  I know a couple of former US troops that will tell you stories that make your claims seem ignorant. I know others that will tell you they love their M16s but most will also tell you they never used anything else.  But the simple and honest reason that the M4 is still in service after all this time is there isn’t a cost effective replacement out there that does what the M4 can do as cheaply.  But that still doesn’t make it the “bestâ€.  In your opinion it may be the best but unless you’ve actually used it and all the other weapons in its class you aren’t qualified to make those sorts of claims.  Same with Tanks, aircraft etc – all you are qualified to do is compare statistics and 3rd/4th hand reports posted on internet forums.

Another example here specifically for the Abrams, in a recent interview with Jeremy Clarkson (Timesonline.co.uk) a US cavalry officer described the Abrams as a "Jaguar sports car, you can drive it around for an hour but you spend the rest of the day doing maintenance on it after" (not quite a direct quote but close).

I’m sure most armed forces will tell you that the best system (plane, tank, gun etc) is the one that spends the most time available for use, costs the least and does not spend most of its service life in a maintenance shed behind the lines.

Now go back and do some research on costing, logistics and support infrastructure then perhaps you might change your mind as to what being the best is all about.

[stgn 39]

Try too read around the Ar15 is the best fighting rifle currently which is my main criteria is it the cheapest no I don't think so. The M16 needs to cleaned yes alot and it does wear out faster but it is more relaiable than most other rifles. The Ak is problery the most relaiable rifle but its from all I have read it is simply not as effective an weapon as the AR15. The fact that M4 wears out in five years proves nothing other than they are shot alot. And there currently is no weapon out there which is as good and cheap as the M4. The XM8 was cheaper than the M4 in the long rung its was not a good weapon at all which is why it was cancled, its was also an anser looking for a question. And even the AK breaks and jams.

Which calims by the way was ignorant?

I don't realy see what you are getting at and what gives you eny athority too talk about logistics and cost? Do you work with it or have you as I just read alot? And I have not tried all weapom systems only the C7A1, G3 and MG3. The best thing you can do for the M16 is add a piston which dosen't change too much. On paper that is the LW piston it keeps it low weight makes it more relaiable and increases the life of the weapon considrably + other benefits.

STGN

edit too add:

It seems too me that its you who should do some reshearch on diferent weapon types.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

How did we get from ACU uniforms to another AK Vs Ar-15 pissing contest?

[Messiah 2]

Ignorance

[Desert-Rat 0]

hmm ACU was the discusion and now it is M1 and M16 etc

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Try too read around the Ar15 is the best fighting rifle currently which is my main criteria is it the cheapest no I don't think so.

Think bigger picture not just individual costing.  It would cost the US too much to replace the M4 with something else right now because they has Billions of US$ invested in supporting the M16 & M4 and legacy products.

The M16 needs to cleaned yes alot and it does wear out faster but it is more relaiable than most other rifles. The Ak is problery the most relaiable rifle but its from all I have read it is simply not as effective an weapon as the AR15. The fact that M4 wears out in five years proves nothing other than they are shot alot.

It proves that it cost a lot to shoot it. It costs to maintain them, not only in money but time and transportation. It costs to stock replacements for weapons that wear out quickly, holding spare parts and spare rifles to re-supply the frontline troops.  This makes the logistics of support a deployment very complex.  Which is not good for an army, especially one that uses up parts as fast as the US.

Compare the life time of most other weapons and you see a big difference, 3-4 longer for major components (not barrels I admit).  This means a greater long term reliability, not that it just doesn’t jam as often, but that the weapon will not wear out of get broken as often.

And there currently is no weapon out there which is as good and cheap as the M4. The XM8 was cheaper than the M4 in the long rung its was not a good weapon at all which is why it was cancled, its was also an anser looking for a question. And even the AK breaks and jams.

There are a few out there that are cheaper on unit costs (per rifle) than the M4 the XM8 was one you are right but it’s the cost of rebuilding all your support and infrastructure of an entire country’s armed forces that makes changing impractical.  The UK, France and other are now in the same problem.  They committed to a design which they wanted to replace only to find that it was the cost of changing the support infrastructure that prevented them doing it.

Which calims by the way was ignorant?

The M16/M4 being the “bestâ€.  Its your opinion but you shouldn’t criticise anyone that disagrees with you unless you can speak with certainty.

I don't realy see what you are getting at and what gives you eny athority too talk about logistics and cost? Do you work with it or have you as I just read alot?

It is my job, I am a Systems and Process Consultant.  I have worked with these sorts of infrastructure issues for several companies and agencies including Glock, H&K, Accuracy International, BAE Systems, Eurofighter Gmbh, Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Royal Ordinance, EADS, Kongsberg Protech, Saab Defence Systems, The British Army & Royal Air Force.  I’ve done studies on the problem im trying to explain to you for the MoD, Glock, H&K including field studies with end users.  I have shot a lot of different weapons in the past, but iv had more information from 1st hand sources about performance and reliability than most have.  

I had a very small part in the project to assess a replacement for the Uk’s SA80/L85A1 some years ago, the conclusion was that it would be more cost effective to upgrade the exiting weapons rather than buy a new cheaper type of weapon.  It’s the same problem the US faces now – they have so many M4’s in use that to replace every M16/M4 and the support infrastructure it would cost 3-4 times the price of the new guns making it more cost effective to keep the old ones and repair and upgrade them as they fail.

On paper the M4 is great but in reality it’s just as flawed as any other weapon.  What I am getting at is the point you seem to be glossing over or just ignoring.  Just because a rifle can shoot the furthest, or can fire the fastest or is used by the worlds largest military doesn’t make it the best.  It only makes it the best on paper and that really all you are talking about here.  How it performs on an individual basis.  What makes any weapon system the “best†isn’t whether its got nice shiny toys stuck on it or how fast it shoots.  Its about its effectiveness in the field.  That isn’t about how one weapon performs its about how they all perform. How much it costs to keep them working how often you need the spares etc.

The M4 may be reliable on an individual short term basis but it costs a small fortune in time and money to ship the spares and replacements to support 15000 men around the world.  Other weapons out there are actually cheaper to use and support but the only reason that the US hasn’t replaced the M4 is because it costs too much to.

In essence what I am saying is that while you may think the M16/M4 is the best weapon out there most Armed forces would probably disagree.  While it may shoot straight, weigh nothing and be able to be serviced by anyone, its cost a lot of money to support.  It all boils down to “bangs for you buckâ€.

And I have not tried all weapom systems only the C7A1, G3 and MG3. The best thing you can do for the M16 is add a piston which dosen't change too much. On paper that is the LW piston it keeps it low weight makes it more relaiable and increases the life of the weapon considrably + other benefits.

STGN

There is a lot of cost saving feature proposed as part of the modernisation plans for weapons but they all cost to implement.

It seems too me that its you who should do some reshearch on diferent weapon types.

I spend most of my days doing research on defence related stuff.  I don’t think I need to do anymore.

hmm ACU was the discusion and now it is M1 and M16 etc

Its all good for a laugh

[stgn 39]

I had a very small part in the project to assess a replacement for the Uk’s SA80/L85A1 some years ago, the conclusion was that it would be more cost effective to upgrade the exiting weapons rather than buy a new cheaper type of weapon.  It’s the same problem the US faces now – they have so many M4’s in use that to replace every M16/M4 and the support infrastructure it would cost 3-4 times the price of the new guns making it more cost effective to keep the old ones and repair and upgrade them as they fail.

On paper the M4 is great but in reality it’s just as flawed as any other weapon.  What I am getting at is the point you seem to be glossing over or just ignoring.  Just because a rifle can shoot the furthest, or can fire the fastest or is used by the worlds largest military doesn’t make it the best.  It only makes it the best on paper and that really all you are talking about here.  How it performs on an individual basis.  What makes any weapon system the “best†isn’t whether its got nice shiny toys stuck on it or how fast it shoots.  Its about its effectiveness in the field.  That isn’t about how one weapon performs its about how they all perform. How much it costs to keep them working how often you need the spares etc.

The M4 may be reliable on an individual short term basis but it costs a small fortune in time and money to ship the spares and replacements to support 15000 men around the world.  Other weapons out there are actually cheaper to use and support but the only reason that the US hasn’t replaced the M4 is because it costs too much to.

In essence what I am saying is that while you may think the M16/M4 is the best weapon out there most Armed forces would probably disagree.  While it may shoot straight, weigh nothing and be able to be serviced by anyone, its cost a lot of money to support.  It all boils down to “bangs for you buckâ€.

Well which weapon is it you pose should be better than the AR15 system?? Eny weapon system is flawed yes I know all about the problems with the AR15 system reason i didn't mentionen them was that it would be a waste of space. Cause even with all  its flaws it dosen't change the fact that it beats out other weapons in test. Those units in the US forces that can carry enything they want carry the HK416. UK special forces carry the C8SFW which beat out G36 and SIG 55X rifle. Fact is that right now the AR15 is the least flawed design adding a piston decreases those problem and makes sure that the good function of the rifles is longer than 1000 rounds at a time. I understand that having worked for H&K you will likely to chose another weapon even a former Ranger which worked on the XM8 praised it at first but later confessed that the weapon was very flawed and not better than a M4 and even H&K went to the AR15 base design for the HK416 now dosen't that tell you somthing?

STGN

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Well which weapon is it you pose should be better than the AR15 system?? Eny weapon system is flawed yes I know all about the problems with the AR15 system reason i didn't mentionen them was that it would be a waste of space. Cause even with all its flaws it dosen't change the fact that it beats out other weapons in test.

You have missed the point. Go back ad read my first post again. You are only interested in how an individual weapon performs. That dosent makes it the “best†weapon.

Those units in the US forces that can carry enything they want carry the HK416. UK special forces carry the C8SFW which beat out G36 and SIG 55X rifle. Fact is that right now the AR15 is the least flawed design adding a piston decreases those problem and makes sure that the good function of the rifles is longer than 1000 rounds at a time.

You really have a woody for the M16 family don’t you?

Ok one last try to explain. I’m not saying that the M16 family is a bad weapon. I’m saying that it costs a lot for an Army/Country to operate in large numbers. Which knocks it off the top slot as far as being the ‘Best’ goes from a military’s point of view.

If you want a weapon family that costs very little to operate and does pretty much everything you can dream of then it’s the AK series. Although the later models have gone the way of the west in making cheaper less robust weapons now. Look at the AKM/74 series for a cost effective weapon system for large scale use.

I understand that having worked for H&K you would will likely to chose another weapon even a former Ranger which worked on the XM8 praised it at first but later confessed that the weapon was very flawed and not better than a M4 and

I’ve only ever used L85A1, MP5, G3SG1, PSG1, L42Enforcer, Glock MSP22-RRSP & SLR in military service. But I’ve shot most of the AK range, M16, M4, FAMAS and a few others. My own personal preference was the G36. I found it the easiest to shoot and was comfortable for me to carry etc. (I’m a fairly large build) while I found the M4 to be too small although I could shoot almost as well with it.

But if I had to say what I thought was the best all around assault weapon was I’d say the AK-74. Its heavy I know but it’s cheap to maintain, unbelievably reliable, robust and packs a good punch and in the hands of a properly trained soldier it’s pretty accurate.

… even H&K went to the AR15 base design for the HK416 now dosen't that tell you somthing?

STGN

Yes it tells me they did what they did with several other projects in the past. Take someone else’s design, listen to all its flaws then offer the customers an improved and more reliable product. These means less development costs for H&K, shorter lead & delivery times for the customer and higher profit margin.

H&K did a study to offer replacement options when the XM8 was having problems prior to being dropped – they correctly predicted that the US couldn’t afford to replace it’s entire arsenal of M4/M16 weapons in a short time scale. This meant that the M4 ‘fleet’ would have to be in service along side the XM8 which would push up deployment costs of any non-M4/M16 replacement. Add to that the risk of the inevitable production delays of a new weapon, possibly adding to the cost of deployment they correctly guessed that the chances of the XM8 being adopted was pretty low.

Based on these reports and rumours etc they took the commercial decision to offer an improved M4 design over trying to sell G36 or a new design to the US. It worked out much cheaper for both them and the end customer than an new project. It was more about commercial needs than the performance of the AR/M16/M4 family.

So what that tells me is the H&K are smart enough to know when to sell their own designs or offer an improvement service.

edits for typos