[Slater]

This is somewhat related to the XM8 thread, but the development of a new infantry weapon kinda had me wondering:

Whether it's the XM29, the XM8, the OCSW (or whatever they're calling it now), it seems that development takes years and endures all kinds of problems that have to be solved. Then there's the controversy over reliability, cost, etc. I can see where the design of a new fighter plane (F-22), helicopter (Comanche), or a satellite, radar, or similar complex system should go through problems. But (as a non-engineer) it seems to me that an infantry rifle, grenade launcher, or the like shouldn't pose that big of a technological challenge to industry. Would welcome any input or enlightenment on the topic.

[Preacherman]

Given the incredibly convoluted Government specifications, legal challenges to the bidding process, political interference, changing user requirements, etc., I'd say it's a wonder anything survives through the procurement process!

My favorite example: the 10 Commandments contain only a couple of hundred words, and are perfectly clear. The U.S. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage are over 27,000 words. The specifications and contract documents for the F-22 Raptor, I'm told, come to something over 100,000 pages...

:what: :uhoh: :scrutiny:

[Jeff White]

The days of a John Browning, a Eugene Stoner or a "Carbine" Williams developing a new rifle in their workshop or even at a private company and selling it to the US Army are long over. You'd need a staff of lawyers just to deal with the procurement paperwork to get your design looked at. The military industiral complex that President Eisenhower warned us about is so well intrenched that no one from outside the system can really break in.

Companies don't even fund R&D anymore. They bid for government money for R&D. Another thing working against good, clean development is that the military can't ever make p it's mind on what it wants.

There is a pretty clear set of very doable specifications on the SCAR project I posted the link to in the XM8 thread. But we're talking about a relatively small number of rifles there.

There is hope though. The product improved MK46 and MK 48 machine guns (M240, M249) may make it into general use. These were both projects that SOCOM funded.

It's a very sad state of affairs, but there is such obscene amounts of money involved that I doubt we'll ever see significant reform.

Jeff

[4v50 Gary]

Gee, can I sell a new M-16 stock (collaspable or fixed) that has a hole for a dental mirror? What for you ask? Why, to shoot without exposing oneself. The "damned Yankees" did that to the Confederates in that quaint little family feud of the 19th century. I can charge bajillions on that and buy all those surplus dental mirrors from Pakistan for shoot from safety device. :)

(more details in the sharpshooter tales/bedtime stories thread in our blackpowder forum)

[Jeff White]

Gary,
Sure you could, but it has to compete with the sexy new TV camera system an Israeli company is trying to sell to shoot around corners with. :D

Your version would be too cheap and not complicated enough....What Senator is going to say he supported a mirror to prove how much he loved the troops when he could give em a TV camera?....LOL

Jeff

[hillbilly]

The Objective Individual Combat Weapon Systems gee-whiz, whiz-bang, do-it-all weapon combining a rifle and a 20mm grenade launcher has been "just around the corner" since some time in the mid 1970s.


But as I see it, they are going to give average grunts a heavy, bulky, complicated weapon for which they have to supply, load, and keep track of two very different types of ammo, and keep it clean and have it work in the mud, in the rain, and when the batteries run low or after it bounces around on the floor of an APC for two hours, etc. etc.

No wonder it's been "just around the corner" for longer than some of our members have actually been alive.

hillbilly

[TX65]

As Jeff White said, the days of private industry developing a product and presenting it to the military for large scale implementation are long gone. Probably the last time that scenario happened was during the urgency of WWII.

The best example of the military process was brought into humorous focus by Hollywood about the Bradley fighting vehicle in the movie "The Pentagon Wars". What started as an original concept mutated as more and more "people of influence" added their two bits and the vehicle design was changed to gain their support. In small arms, the AR15 presented by Stoner was mutated into the M16A1 and even the M1 Garand was mutated to use the 30-06.

The Super small arm of the future will be an evolving work in progress no different then the M16 has been. There will always be people who think this or that feature would be better as the XM8 discussions clearly show.

All we can hope for is intelligent steps forward that dont compromise the safety of our people on the front lines.