Army Times weapon testing question and article about upcoming trials

[Stickman]

.

Should Military Times conduct a basic review and testing of the primary weapons being entered into the upcoming carbine trials? For those of you who are in the service, or were, do you think an article giving a hands on overview from multiple, experienced reviewers would be of interest? What things would you be looking to see?



http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/army-competitors-tested-in-carbine-competition-092510w/



The M4 will not compete in the forthcoming carbine competition, according to the colonel in charge. But, he adds, the winner will have to score “a knockout” if it expects to replace the Army’s primary weapon for the past 20 years.


All of the major players are expected to compete. A few of the notable submissions include:

• The XCR by Robinson Armament Co.

• The M6A4 IAR, or similar variant, from LWRC.

• The Adaptive Combat Rifle by Remington.

• The SR-16 by Knight Armament Co.

• The SCAR by FNH.



I find some of these choices interesting, and while I'm aware of others which will be included, I'm not sure that a level playing field is going to be in play with the testing. The criteria given by the Army is that the M4 won't be tested, and that anything that is going to be considered as a winner will have to "deliver a knockout" blow to the M4.

Without including the M4 in the testing, how are you going to decide what a "knockout blow" is?

How do you establish a baseline without using the one item which is of a known value?


I think most people who are familiar with this board know that aside from being a city cop, that I also test equipment and write for Military Times (Army Times). I'm wondering how much interest there would be for "intro" testing of these weapons to give the Military Times readers an overview of what weapons are being considered.


For those of you who are in the service, or were, do you think an article giving a hands on overview from multiple. experienced reviewers would be of interest?

[Optimus Prime]

As a gear-ophile in general I'd love to see in depth write ups of all the systems involved; and as a part-time soldier, I can only hope that if it did happen, the powers that be would pay attention to the feedback generated from the readers.

As to the non-inclusion of the M4 in the contest, I think it is a big sign that the Big Army is not looking to replace, but simply augment for certain units and missions. The M4 platform isn't a bad weapon really.

[Wondering Beard]

From the article:" Tamilio said the victor will get the bulk of the contract, but get two other manufacturers to join in production. Expanding the new contract to three suppliers expands the industrial base and enables a higher rate of production.

“We’re not getting into the same boat we did before,” Tamilio said."

Same boat?

hmm

Anyway, a long term test as described in the article is sure to bring some interesting facts about the rifles that aren't known to the general public or obvious when a new rifle is released. I certainly am interested in having Army Times do a basic review and testing of the entrants; it would at least give us a baseline from which to judge the test.

It would be nice if they tested new calibers too; after all a new carbine with new and enhanced capabilites also deserves a round that has enhanced capabilities.

[Stickman]

My thought is that even if the round count isn't massive, multiple view points giving what experienced shooters and veterans think are high and low points after first hand use of the weapon should give people a better perspective on whats being considered.


How is that for a run-on sentence ... [BD]

[Optimus Prime]

That's why I tossed a semicolon in the middle of mine.[BD]

[reiswigt]

While I'm not military, I would love to see an in-depth review by independent reviewers. My reasons are two fold. First, this site, while it has cost me a lot of money, has educated me and saved me from buying things I would later regret. Second, I have been involved in several government projects, and have seen too much of our tax dollars at waste. It would educate those of us not involved in the test, and might help others who may have some influence in the decision making process.

[Paulo_Santos]

While I think the M4 is still a great weapon system, it should be updated if it is to remain as the primary weapon system. I personally think the smart thing to do would be to pick a platform that you can easily change barrels and calibers, such as the SCAR, ACR, XCR, or even something like the LMT Monolithic platform. I'm also a big fan of the Monolithic style upper. I can care less if it is Piston or DI.

[dshea19]

With Congress involved, the winner will be the one with the strongest lobby and the most friends. Colt is sitting in the driver's seat considering they already have the current weapon and will be allowed to submit several improved variations.

[Paulo_Santos]

While I think it would be nice to see some independent testing, we all know that the Military will pick what they want, even if it isn't the best one, so why even bother.

[TehLlama]

Pragmatically: A well put-together test and article will garner lots of reads and lots of interest. More than the usual hopeless fluff pieces from before (the IAR ones were notably lacking in real content), but something that is somewhat extensive could be a fantastic multi-part piece.

[Stickman]

Pragmatically: A well put-together test and article will garner lots of reads and lots of interest. More than the usual hopeless fluff pieces from before (the IAR ones were notably lacking in real content), but something that is somewhat extensive could be a fantastic multi-part piece.


A check list for shooters should level the playing field, especially if we are keeping the same evaluators. I do not think its realistic to compare testing that Army Times can do to that of what the US Army will be conducting. The Army needs to do thorough testing and run multiple weapons into the ground with hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition.

What Army Times can do is help educate its readers about the overall platform with legit testing of its own. I have no interest in attempting to sway anyone, but the more that troops take an interest in weapons, the better it is for everyone.

Issues that need to be addressed include ammunition used (and amount), as well as location, shooters, video/ still photography, and a slew of other logistics.