LRRPF52 Wrote:Duke Cunningham? He went to Federal prison. His own aides tried to warn him to stop his bribery ads, which he even had printed in the back of his Congressional business card. A former SF guy blew the whistle on him. Not sure what that has to do with small arms procurement.
The tests the Army did at Aberdeen were clearly rigged. They used M4s with multiple deployment histories with used and abused mags, against brand new HK416s and SCARs.
When the tests were conducted again, the MTBF numbers were totally different, which should not have happened for a consistent and repeatable test procedure. If you get your info about small arms testing from one of the usual presstitute brothels, you might as well not even read the article, because it is written by someone who knows literally nothing about the subject matter, and is just some knee-jerk reaction from an ignoramus designed to get click counts for a dying disinformation brothel.
When 10th Group did their own internal, unbiased testing between the M4A1, SCAR-L, and HK416, they didn't see any meaningful difference in MTBF between the designs, as they were very skeptical about the results from Aberdeen. The aren't any units in the conventional Army that shoot anywhere near the round counts that SF does, and the organization sees substantial fleet samples of how the design performs at high volume, in addition to the foreign weapons in inventory, which constitute a huge amount of effort for maintenance as well to maintain proficiency in the use and training with those systems.
Keep the political conversations about elections out of this thread. This isn't the place for them.
Duke Cunningham is the poster boy of the defense procurement game, you know, $500 hammers, bribes, hookers, etc. ...perpetual tests / bandaids for the M16/4...
Assuming the army tested knackered out M4s against new FNs, HKs, etc. (and I've never seen that printed anywhere) what the hell would that exercise prove? Water is wet? Whoever came up with that idea certainly hatched a creative boondoggle at tax payer expense. Why not set up a test between the M4 and the Trapdoor Springfield?
Meanwhile, half a century on, our troops are still saddled with this POS M16/4 5.56.
Oh look, seems the US military is tired of their M4s and M249s getting out gunned by ancient .303 Enfields and 7.62x54R (as well as AKs) in Afghanistan, so they want to rush a new 7.62 NATO battle rifle into production for $$$$$$$$$:
http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-...tle-rifle/
Too bad the Clintonistas sent 400,000 good as new M14s off the rack and into the cruncher, otherwise we could have dusted those off and given our troops instant ballistic parity for almost nothing. Are there any old M60s or M240s left in the inventory, collecting dust? What about T48s -- or were they shipped off to ISIS with the rest of the FALs...
Same old same old "military industrial complex" at play. Fund another study and do nothing.
ETA: What am I thinking? 7.62 NATO kicks way too much to be utilized by feminine elements of our combat troops. NEXT!!!