Interesting.
Thoughts?
https://twitter.com/sigsauerinc/status/1654211998765252609?t=qdoeLxFcq9rL_amglLsplw&s=19
Thoughts?
https://twitter.com/sigsauerinc/status/1654211998765252609?t=qdoeLxFcq9rL_amglLsplw&s=19
Doing a massive switch in weapons design and ammunition is a huge undertaking financially and logistically in an organization the size of the US mil. It is never seamless and numerous problems occur in the supply chain.
While I was never a big fan of the M249 SAW, it has its place and fits the needs while still using the same ammo as the squad rifles and can use STANAG mags in a pinch. Now if the XM250 is quite a bit lighter than the M60 or M240, then it will be a viable replacement for both. I mostly carried the M60 as a junior enlisted and did not get rid of it until being promoted to E-5.
View attachment 1149754 "Poodle Shooter" M-16A1 never let me down. I want a Colt AR 15 to hand if things get interesting..
Just switching everyone from the M16A1 to the M16A2 took some time to complete. The Army first adopted the A2 in 1986 and even Divisions that were considered forward deployed and had first priority on weapons and repair parts still had some units using the A1 until the end of 1991. I didn't get issues my first A2 until I got to Germany and was assigned to the 1st Armor Division in Jan 1992.
It was the same way with the Beretta M9 that was officially adopted in 1985. Again while assigned to the 1st AD, we still had the M1911A1 until late 92/early 93. We also still had the M3A1 SMG until that time too.
From what I remember, it was the fact that the 1st AD was designated as the Quick Reaction Force for Europe and Africa plus being put on alert for the Bosnia peace keeping mission all in 1993 was the reason to finally get everyone updated to the M16A2 and M9.
While I was never a big fan of the M249 SAW, it has its place and fits the needs while still using the same ammo as the squad rifles and can use STANAG mags in a pinch. Now if the XM250 is quite a bit lighter than the M60 or M240, then it will be a viable replacement for both. I mostly carried the M60 as a junior enlisted and did not get rid of it until being promoted to E-5.
That's what's suggesting to many of us that this is to wind up being an SF-only arm.I think a joint between the case head and the case body is a bad idea. Joints in the sidewalls will create new and novel failure mechanisms. Be interesting to find out if industry can produce reliable cartridge cases with that joint.
They could just go to something like Ruger's SFAR . Use a 20 or 22 inch barrel with a good muzzle break/flash hider , optional silenced shorter barrel , and save a lot of $$$ and weight . Chamber it in the new round at standard pressure with a good 140 grain boattail with a penetrator tip and call it good . As long as that and the new MG use the same mag's , problem solved .
Yeah, but that’s illegal. The DoD has some of the most expensive requirements for contracting equipment, and the only people who have authority to make changes are too invested in the process to want changes.
There are loopholes- SF has historically been able to use - that allow some “commercial off the shelf” (cots) solutions, but equipping the Army doesn’t fit into a loophole. I’m sure these will cost taxpayers $3 to $5 thousand each. These loopholes allowed the SF guys to switch to Glock 19s with extended magazines while us less special guys had the M9
We are retiring 4 YEAR OLD Littoral Combat ships because the steel-hulled ships had bad transfer cases, which cost more to fix than a whole new ship, and the aluminum ones had uncontrollable corrosion issues (go figure).Small Arms wastage is small peanuts compared to other Government projects. The NRO Future Imagery Satellite development budget was only supposed to be $5 Billion, with a total lifetime cost of $10 billion. Sometime after $10 billion dollars were spent, the contractor estimated that project finish would cost $25 Billion. At that point an adult stepped in and canceled the program. Only a fool would believe the contractor's estimates of $25 Billion were realistic, given the cost growth. Anyway, $10 Billion down the toilet and no one knows about this.
We are retiring 4 YEAR OLD Littoral Combat ships because the steel-hulled ships had bad transfer cases, which cost more to fix than a whole new ship, and the aluminum ones had uncontrollable corrosion issues (go figure).
Meanwhile, our geriatric cruisers are literally falling apart, with no real replacement on the horizon, and some of our subs have been waiting years to be drydocked for maintenance.
New infantry rifles are the least of our problems.