CoalTrain49 wrote:
The Army has been buying M4/M16's from Colt for about 20% more than they should have paid for about 30 years.
Yes. This was done to preserve critical defense infrastructure and has been included as such in the defense budget for decades. It was effectively a welfare payment and as such has nothing to do with cost as a consideration in the adoption of a new weapons system.
Adopting a new weapon system, however, does take into account cost and as I said, it is not a consideration that should be lightly dismissed.
That was evident when FN won the contract even tho [sic] the gov't has to pay Colt a 5% royalty for each rifle. Remington also built a bunch of rifles that were way less expensive than Colts. The Army should have gone to another design spec years ago instead of being jacked by Colt all those years.
Your opinion as to what the Army should have done essentially confirms what i said about the contract being kept with colt to preserve critical defense infastructure and was a decision made independent of cost.
Suppressors are new technology just like reflex sights. It took awhile for the military to put those on every rifle.
New technology? They've been on the market for more than a hundred years.
And the fundamental idea of releasing expanding gasses into an isolated space to achieve sound attenuation is even older.
What "logistics burden" are you referring to?
What "effect on weapon operation" are you referring to?
Read the rest of the post that you quoted only in part as at least some of the budens and effects are explained there.
But I can add an additional burden; until silencers cease to be NFA items, the military will have to subject each one to the same level of recordkeeping and accountability as the weapons to which they are to be attached, thus doubling that particular burden.