Looks like we are letting video gamers design our weapons. Why must we try to have rifles like military aircraft. Throw so many different things at it to make it all mission capable. Makes for an end product that can't do anything really well and needs lots of maintainance.
New US service rifle!!??
- Thread starter reagansquad
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
Quote:
----------------------------------------------
Throw so many different things at it to make it all mission capable. Makes for an end product that can't do anything really well and needs lots of maintainance.
-------------------------------------------------
That's called the "Dreadnaught Principle." A Dreadnaught is defined as a weapon so powerful and sophisticated that if you had two you'd be guarenteed to win any war.
And so expensive you can only afford one.
And so complicated that it's always in the shop.
For more information, see "B1b Bomber."
----------------------------------------------
Throw so many different things at it to make it all mission capable. Makes for an end product that can't do anything really well and needs lots of maintainance.
-------------------------------------------------
That's called the "Dreadnaught Principle." A Dreadnaught is defined as a weapon so powerful and sophisticated that if you had two you'd be guarenteed to win any war.
And so expensive you can only afford one.
And so complicated that it's always in the shop.
For more information, see "B1b Bomber."
pittspilot
Member
I want to know more about the $500 M-16. Why do Colt Ar's cost so much even though they blocked DA SWITCH.
natedog
Member
You get the $500 price when you commit to buy thousands of M-16s.
Tony Williams
Member
It's not that good - it is mechanically far more complex than other rifles and not easy to maintain. It also puzzles me that the Russians bothered with it since the AK-74 is already the lightest-recoiling military rifle around and a trained soldier can keep all of a burst on target.
There were various other weapons included in the Abakan trials which led to the selection of the AN-94, some of them with interesting technical approaches. They will be described and illustrated in the new book by Max Popenker and myself - 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition' - due out in a couple of months.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
shoobe01
Member
I thought I had heard that governments ordering any useful quantity pay much more like $180 per M16. And this is quite in line with prices for other small arms. Even police departments committing to like 50 will get a sub-$400 price.
The price we all pay is promoting, merchandizing, shipping, sales, middlemen and profit. Too bad... I'd have a /lot/ of rifles at $250 a pop.
The price we all pay is promoting, merchandizing, shipping, sales, middlemen and profit. Too bad... I'd have a /lot/ of rifles at $250 a pop.
Badger Arms
Member
You're quoting prices for the rifle itself in quantity. You aren't seeing the optics, RIS's, infrared designators, fore-grips, batteries, doohickies, widgets, bottle openers, and other items that the Army Wants. Sure, you can get a basic Used M16 for $200 and a brand spanking new one for under $500. That rifle, however, will NOT be an M4 like the wonderguns that the Army wants.
shoobe01
Member
Not to be an old fogey, but why do I want all this stuff? Does this make a better weapon?
I see how some of it has value, to specific missions, but does every rifle need an aimpoint, PVS-14, pistol grip, white light, PEQ-4, grenade launcher and oh, I must be missing something... at all times! I can't believe how loaded down some things were at the beginning of all this latest unpleasantness.
(They seem to be rather more streamlined these days, I will note. Could just be my impression, but lots more just plain guns it seems).
Should we not pursue a basic gun, that works most of the time for most of the soliders, and can be expanded to accomodate a rail(s) for mounting of specific accessories? BTW, I have been wondering lately why there is a rail at 4 positions? Has anyone seen a serious person mount something sturdy (GL, sight) on the sides? It seems we need something like an integral swansleeve top and bottom, and just handguards on the sides. Maybe a plastic rail for lights on the front of these guards. I can imagine forging the upper recievers on M4s to accomodate this...
Back on topic(ish), I understand the unit cost, vs. lifecycle cost, vs. whatever costs issues. I fear this base rifle really will cost over $500 when in full swing. HKs at base rifle -- I hear -- are around $500, compared to the ARs apparent ability to be sold for half that.
I see how some of it has value, to specific missions, but does every rifle need an aimpoint, PVS-14, pistol grip, white light, PEQ-4, grenade launcher and oh, I must be missing something... at all times! I can't believe how loaded down some things were at the beginning of all this latest unpleasantness.
(They seem to be rather more streamlined these days, I will note. Could just be my impression, but lots more just plain guns it seems).
Should we not pursue a basic gun, that works most of the time for most of the soliders, and can be expanded to accomodate a rail(s) for mounting of specific accessories? BTW, I have been wondering lately why there is a rail at 4 positions? Has anyone seen a serious person mount something sturdy (GL, sight) on the sides? It seems we need something like an integral swansleeve top and bottom, and just handguards on the sides. Maybe a plastic rail for lights on the front of these guards. I can imagine forging the upper recievers on M4s to accomodate this...
Back on topic(ish), I understand the unit cost, vs. lifecycle cost, vs. whatever costs issues. I fear this base rifle really will cost over $500 when in full swing. HKs at base rifle -- I hear -- are around $500, compared to the ARs apparent ability to be sold for half that.
- Status
