That time of the year again - Army seeks improved carbine

[[R_H]]

Army Times

Soldiers, get ready for a better carbine. The Army has launched a dual strategy designed to give you a more accurate, durable and lethal weapon that will be the mainstay for the next 40 years.

The first part of that strategy is to radically overhaul the M4 starting now and give grunts an improved version of the special operations M4A1. Simultaneously, the second part challenges industry to come up with a new carbine that can outperform the M4. The competition opened in early August.

“This is an historic event. We have not done a carbine competition in our lifetimes,” Col. Douglas Tamilio, project manager for soldier weapons, told Army Times. His office is spearheading the M4 Carbine Improvement Program. “We don’t switch rifles and carbines too quickly, and it is not an easy thing.”

The M4 has faced some criticism from soldiers and others who have cited problems with its lethality and reliability, including a 2007 “dust” test in which the M4 performed the worst among four weapons tested, with the greatest number of stoppages.

Tamilio, a career infantry officer, said the weapon has “served the Army extremely well” and touted the 62 improvements made to the M4 in the past 19 years. But, he said, “We can’t sit on our laurels and say M4 is good enough.”
Deadlier weapon

The improvements have begun on thousands of M4s being built now, and thousands more will get conversion kits.

The upgrades will be done in phases. The improvement plan’s first phase essentially distributes an improved M4A1, which is notable for its heavier barrel and automatic fire. The heavier barrel reduces warping and erosion, resulting in better performance and longer life. It also allows for a higher sustained rate of fire.

The Army also is adding ambidextrous controls.

The Army has 12,000 M4s on the production line, and has told manufacturer Colt to turn them into A1s, said Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, Program Executive Office Soldier.

In addition, 25,000 M4A1s would be purchased beyond existing contracts, as well as roughly 65,000 conversion kits, Tamilio said.

“The Army would like to convert about 150,000 in the near term for infantry brigade combat teams,” he said. The optimal plan would be to convert all the M4s, he added, but funding will be a large factor in that decision.

More changes external to the weapon are also improving its reliability and lethality, Fuller said.

Soldiers will experience fewer jams, thanks to a new magazine that doesn’t allow rounds to move, he said.

And the new M855 A1 ammo provides more stopping power at shorter distances. The older round had to get into a yaw dependency for maximum effect. If it hit the enemy straight, it would punch right through them. The new ammo is not yaw dependent. If it hits the enemy, he is going down.

Many combat vets surveyed in 2006 described how enemy soldiers were shot multiple times but were still able to continue fighting. The survey included 2,600 soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One in five U.S. soldiers polled recommended a more lethal round. The new round is designed to address that.

“It’s not enhanced performance, it’s consistent performance,” Fuller said. “It really performs the way you want a round to perform, and it’s optimized to the M4.”

Better accuracy

The second phase of the M4 improvement program begins this fall and will focus on increasing the M4’s effectiveness and accuracy, with emphasis on the bolt, bolt carrier assembly and the forward rail assembly.

Over time, reliability will degrade with the bolt, as that component provides the weapon’s action. Officials will host an open competition for a new bolt assembly to determine whether different materials and coatings can enhance the bolt. The Army also is interested in “unique design changes” that have arisen within the industry, Tamilio said.

The service also looks to strengthen the forward rail assembly on top of the receiver. This lends stability to the weapon and serves as the mount for weapon attachments, but restricts the barrel movement that is required for accuracy when re-engaging the target. The Army wants to determine whether a free-floating rail is the answer.

Officials also will look to provide a more consistent trigger pull for better control, according to a June Congressional Research Service report.
New operating system

The third phase, focusing on the operating system, will begin in about 18 months, Tamilio said. The goal is to improve the gas system by allowing less gas and dirt in, or replacing it with a conversion kit similar to the HNK16 that would put a piston in the M4.

Both have their benefits and detractors, the colonel said. The piston reduces the number of moving parts and provides better stability, but there is “a little more metal on metal,” which can diminish durability and accelerate fatigue.

A gas-impingement system is far smoother in operation, and supporters say its reduced heat and carbon deposits will decrease malfunctions. But the gas system requires a lot more elbow grease to get it clean.

The 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, or “Delta Force,” replaced its M4s with the HK416 in 2004, according to the congressional report. That weapon combines the operating characteristics of the M4 with the piston system.

“There’s a lot of dynamics involved,” Fuller said. “When you go to a piston charger, you’re actually driving that bolt down at an angle versus back, so you have to make sure you understand it might not be the same weapon.”

The next carbine

The competition for the Army’s next-generation carbine opened in early August, and the service is looking for the “future Army weapon for any environment,” Fuller said.

The Army’s open, industrywide Individual Carbine Competition was approved Aug. 4 by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

No caliber restriction has been placed on a new design. The requirements, instead, are for the most reliable, accurate, durable, easy-to-use and easy-to-maintain weapon out there, Tamilio said.

It will be at least a 500-meter weapon and have a higher incapacitation percentage, meaning if a shot doesn’t kill the enemy, it will put a serious dent in his medical record.

This weapon will be modular and able to carry all the existing attachments soldiers use.

It can have a gas or piston system.

Interchangeable barrel sizes, such as those seen in the SCAR, are not a “must have,” but “certainly won’t be a negative thing,” Tamilio said.

But above all, Fuller wants a weapon that has the soldiers’ approval.

“We really need to figure out lethality from a ‘soldier in the loop’ perspective,” he said. “If you can’t shoot the weapon accurately, it doesn’t matter how lethal it is.”

To meet that goal, Tamilio will release a draft request for proposal late this year. It is a warning order of sorts that will give industry a preliminary idea of what is expected. An industry day will follow in which officials will answer questions and provide clarity.

The official RfP will go out early next year, in the second quarter of fiscal 2011, which begins in January. Manufacturers will have a set time, typically a few months, to respond with their proposed weapons.

Next comes the “extreme, extensive testing” and selection of the weapons, Tamilio said.

During testing, hundreds of thousand of rounds will be fired over 12 to 18 months as weapons are tested to their destruction point. The primary goal is to determine if they meet Army specifications. But evaluators also will know whether a weapon can live up to its manufacturer’s claims.

“If they say it has a barrel life up to 20,000 rounds, we’ll test to that,” Tamilio said.

Weapons will also be tested to see if they maintain accuracy throughout their life cycle — something the military has not tested before, Tamilio said. A weapon typically loses accuracy as it ages.

“This is a huge importance for us,” he said.

Soldiers will be involved in virtually all aspects of this testing, Tamilio said. From the individual to unit, he said the tests will focus on what soldiers really care about: “When he pulls the trigger, it fires in a reliable fashion, and what he aims at, he hits.”
Mixed reviews

Investing in an improved M4 has met some opposition.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in April 2007 asked Army leadership why the service planned to spend $375 million on the carbine through fiscal 2009 “without considering newer and possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.” The senator’s letter questioned the M4’s reliability and lethality and called for a “free and open competition” to evaluate alternatives.

Nevertheless, improvements have been recommended from within the service. The Army Infantry Center in a Small Arms Capabilities-Based Assessment in 2008 identified 42 separate ideas for material solutions to address capability gaps. Thirteen solutions called for new or improved munitions, and 10 involved aiming devices, optics or laser designators. Only seven suggested modifying or developing new small arms.

After-action reports from soldiers both praise and criticize the M4’s reliability and lethality. The mixed reviews are reflected in the congressional report:

• A February 2001 U.S. Special Operations Command study said the M4A1 was “fundamentally flawed” and suffered “alarming failures … in operations under the harsh conditions and heavy firing schedules common in & training and operations.”

• An Army report from July 2003 on small arms performance during Operation Iraqi Freedom found the M4 was “by far the preferred individual weapon across the theater of operations.”

• A December 2006 survey requested by Army’s Project Manager for Soldier Weapons and conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses polled 2,600 soldiers who had engaged in combat action in Iraq or Afghanistan. More than half said they never experienced a stoppage in the M4 or M16.

The study found that the frequency of disassembled cleaning did not affect the number of stoppages. The type and amount of lubrication used had little effect on stoppages, though dry lubricant decreased reports for M4 stoppages. Nearly nine in 10 soldiers said they were satisfied with the M4.

• A December 2007 test — resulting from Coburn’s letter — evaluated the M4 against the HK416, the HK XM8 and the FNH SCAR. Each system had 10 weapons on the line, and each fired 6,000 rounds under sandstorm conditions. The XM8 had 127 stoppages, the SCAR had 226 stoppages, the HK416 had 233 stoppages and the M4 had 882 stoppages. The Army later modified that number to 296 stoppages, attributing the difference to discrepancies in the test and scoring.
When you’ll get it

A new weapon could be selected by the end of 2011. How long it would take to field a new weapon would depend on funding. Fielding could start fairly quickly, but will take up to 10 years, Tamilio said.

No cost estimate of producing a new weapon is available from the Army, as the dozens of potential manufacturers have yet to receive specifications and generate the subsequent design.

By Aug. 19, the Army had 41 respondents to its market survey, Tamilio said.

“Industry is waiting for this,” he said. “They are excited about this … and that’s exactly what we want.”

How the dual-path strategy unfolds remains to be seen, but it means every soldier should be getting a better carbine.

That’s because there are 1.1 million soldiers, but only 500,000 M4s in the system. If the Army selects a new carbine, it may purchase 1.1 million. But a more likely scenario would see 500,000 purchased for infantry brigade combat teams, and the existing and improved M4s given to support troops to replace their M16s.

If the M4 turns out to be the weapon of choice, then the ICBTs will likely be fitted with the improved M4s, and the existing M4s would again be given to support troops to replace their M16s.

For soldiers “consistently using that M4 and satisfied with that M4, to know the Army is going out there to get you something better … that’s pretty damn exciting,” Tamilio said. “And that’s only going to make you more effective on the battlefield.”;

Interesting. Link to the solicitation

[JointStrikeFighter]

It will be cancelled when it doesn't deliver a 100% increase in lethality.

[Stark]

Can't they just lie to Congress about this the way they do with everything else?

1) Buy actual modern weapon to equip the most expensive military in history
2) Call it M16E177 PIP mk IV bis
3) Profit

[Edward Yee]

It will be cancelled when it doesn't deliver a 100% increase in lethality.

After a while I would have assumed that it was because they couldn't find a big enough bullet to get that lethality yet lightly-recoiling enough that the average (whatever adjectives for unhealthy you want to attach) American could actually hit anything with it.

[PeZook]

The next time somebody asks why American procurement scheme is broken, you can point them to this thread.

"We are currently developing a new rifle for the Army!"

(Five years later) "The project has been cancelled"

"We have launched a radical new strategy to provide the army with a new carbine!"

What will happen in five years?

[[R_H]]

What will happen in five years?

One or more of the 'Times websites will have another half dozen articles on x branch's new carbine.

[Commander 598]

A December 2007 test — resulting from Coburn’s letter — evaluated the M4 against the HK416, the HK XM8 and the FNH SCAR. Each system had 10 weapons on the line, and each fired 6,000 rounds under sandstorm conditions. The XM8 had 127 stoppages, the SCAR had 226 stoppages, the HK416 had 233 stoppages and the M4 had 882 stoppages. The Army later modified that number to 296 stoppages, attributing the difference to discrepancies in the test and scoring.

Well that doesn't sound fishy at all.

[CaptHawkeye]

Hey at least video game developers can include a new experimental super gun that will be forgotten once it gets canceled. Remember how the OICW was in like every shooter 6 years ago?

Oh well, at least the M249 is still a piece of shit. Only America could fuck up the Minimi.

[PeZook]

Well, if they didn't rig tests they'd have to admit dem dirty eurocommies make better infantry weapons than HUR HUR AMERICA FUCK YEAH

Though I guess institutional inertia plays a role in it, too.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Well, if they didn't rig tests they'd have to admit dem dirty eurocommies make better infantry weapons than HUR HUR AMERICA FUCK YEAH

Though I guess institutional inertia plays a role in it, too.
Well, if they didn't rig tests they'd have to admit dem dirty eurocommies make better infantry weapons than HUR HUR AMERICA FUCK YEAH

Though I guess institutional inertia plays a role in it, too.

Actually most M4's and M16's including the M240B SAW and Mk46 and MK48 are all made primarily by FN so...

Really what we need is a new fucking cartridge. Why they killed the 6.8 SPC or the 6.5 grendel is beyond me. Both hit harder than the 5.56 or the 7.62x39 both weight about the same both vastly out perform 5.56, 7.62x39 and ballisticly are identical to the .308 with the 6.5 being superior. You wouldn't even need to modify mags that much for the 6.8 . A new rifle and a new cartridge would be the shit. Why we mess around with a varmint cartridge that can't properly kill people is beyond me.

[CaptHawkeye]

We've never seen any real evidence to show why the 5.56 round has insufficient killing power. All the stories about guys taking numerous hits to be put down tend to be pretty anecdotal and are difficult to verify.

[PeZook]

Actually most M4's and M16's including the M240B SAW and Mk46 and MK48 are all made primarily by FN so...

But they use the tested and tried American design and are cleverly disguised as all-American guns!

[Marcus Aurelius]

We've never seen any real evidence to show why the 5.56 round has insufficient killing power. All the stories about guys taking numerous hits to be put down tend to be pretty anecdotal and are difficult to verify.

The US army seems to be quite the rumor mill even on the military scale of rumor-mongering. Apart from the 5.56x45 mm there are older stories from Korean War, which claim that .30 Carbine failed to penetrate North Korean or Chinese soldiers' winter clothing. I have heard this stories told like it was a relatively common occurrence. The problem with that is that there are no such reports concerning the 9x19 mm or 7.62x25 mm anywhere from either side of the Eastern front during the whole World War 2, under conditions that were often colder than those during the Korean War. Simple testing also shows that 9x19 fired from an SMG can easily penetrate any realistically wearable winter clothing even at oblique angles (within reason of course) out to 100 meters or more. And the .30 Carbine is a much more powerful cartridge than 9x19 mm...

[[R_H]]

The Future of US Army Small Arms

I had the fortune to recently speak with COL Tamilio, PM Soldier Weapons about improvements to the current M4 carbine as well as a proposed new weapon dubbed the “Improved Carbine”. It seems that there has been some confusion over this, but there are two separate projects going on, almost simultaneously.

The Stoner family of weapons (M16/M4) have undergone numerous upgrades throughout their almost 50 year of service. The Carbine Improvement Program is focused on some of the most radical ever material improvements to the M4/M16. They consist of a piston gas system to replace the current direct-impingement gas system, improved trigger, monolithic rail, and a round counter to assist with maintenance of the weapon. According to COL Tamilio, they have already approved two Engineering Changes for the M4 which include a heavier barrel and ambidextrous controls. Additionally, they recently put out a call to industry asking what they can do to make these other changes to the current rifle. If successful, they will be spirally inserted into the Army’s weapons. Hopefully, such improvements won’t come in Black but rather a shade of Brown or Tan that blends in a little better with the Soldier’s equipment and surrounding terrain.

But making evolutionary enhancements to the current weapon is just the beginning. The Army has also written a requirement for a follow on to the venerable M16. The requirements documentation for the Improved Carbine has completed the Army’s staffing process and is currently with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). Every major procurement program must negotiate this is hurdle where all of the services as well as SOCOM get to take a look at it and validate it. The idea is to make sure that the services aren’t trying to purchase the same or very similar items under different programs. Think of it as sort of a Department to Prevent Redundancy Department. The requirement will be there for several months and I would not expect to see the actual solicitation on the street until fall.

The Improved Carbine is intended as a no holds barred look at individual small arms in the carbine class. Despite rumors that the Improved Carbine and Squad Individual Marksman variant would share the same requirements document, possibly also with the Personal Defense Weapon, this is not the case. They needed to be broken down into separate requirements although it is possible that the Individual Carbine and Squad Individual Marksman weapons may end up relying on a common weapon. The PDW is a bit more problematic due to the Army’s desired characteristics for the weapon. The Army wants to purchase about 500,000 of the new carbines and has stipulated that they will own the Technical Data Package so that they can award production contracts for the type selected to more than one manufacturer.

Interestingly, the requirement does not specify a caliber, an operating system, nor a form factor. They are dedicated to seeing the best industry has to offer. COL Tamilio was very emphatic about this and said, “The Army is seeking an improvement to the M4 carbine and the Army is committed to testing and procuring it.”

Now here is my take on the Improved Carbine requirement.

This has been tried before, and more than once. First, in the 60s with the Special Purpose Individual Weapon (SPIW) and its offspring SALVO, Niblick, and the future Rifle Program and then again in the late 1980s with the Advanced Combat Rifle program. All pitted the industry’s best in a race for that leap ahead technology and none provided it.

Overall, it sounds good but to me has an air of a science project. “Give us the best you’ve got.” But how do you measure that? With an open call for ammunition as well as base weapon how do you objectively evaluate them against one another? There are too may variables to attribute performance. Below you see a photo featuring several of the current operational and developmental military calibers and this is by no means all inclusive. Imagine a test involving an even larger pantheon of rounds. Then imagine it further diversified by different platforms and operating systems. How much of a weapon’s success do you attribute to the ammo and how much to the weapon itself?As we saw in the ACR competition, ammunition doesn’t just mean caliber, but rather of types of rounds. For example, the 5.56mm Colt entry featured a duplex projectile by Olin. Another round introduced by H&K as part of their G11 rifle was a caseless design in 4.7mm.

All this talk of ammunition leads me to also comment that I do not believe the Army will adopt a new caliber. My belief is based mainly on economics and one fact given to me by COL Tamilio seems to support my assertion. He related that it cost $300 million to prepare for the transition to the new “Green” 5.56 mm ammunition adopted by the Army. He said it would cost this much to transition to a new caliber OR even to alter production to make 7.62 NATO the primary ammunition.

Ultimately, this is a cautionary tale. As we have heard time and time again, “Those who fail to study history, are doomed to repeat it.” I don’t doubt COL Tamilio’s dedication to the idea, nor the Army’s for that matter, but I think they will once again validate the status quo. It is precisely what happened at the conclusion of the ACR project. The Army could identify no appreciable improvement in lethality, hit probability or reliability over the M-16 family of weapons and so they retained the M16 for further use. That was over 20 years ago and in that time, small arms technology has not progressed radically. However, time will tell.

We've never seen any real evidence to show why the 5.56 round has insufficient killing power. All the stories about guys taking numerous hits to be put down tend to be pretty anecdotal and are difficult to verify.

That or they weren't hit at all.

Besides, aren't most of the lethality problems with M855 being shot out of 14.5" or shorter barrels, which is being remedied with ammuntion like Mk318 SOST etc?

[Zixinus]

Why? Why bother with a competition, when we all know that like with other US projects, they will just stick to the existing or another in-house design?

It would actually take a lot of money to change the M4 with it's 5.56NATO to another. What for, some incremental improvements? A waste of money,the M4 isn't that bad. As for right now, there are some further refinements out there in small arms, but nothing really earth-shaking new or really significant, unless I missed something.

So why bother hosting this competition at all? Why waste everyone's time? Is there an internal rule or procedure to this? Some rationale?

[PeZook]

I would think showing reliability four to eight times lower than its main competitors would definitely qualify a weapon as "bad". It would probably help a bit if you didn't have to clean it twice a day if it's ever been near sand in the last 12 hours

[Aaron]

*shrug* I never had a jam but we were ridiculously anal about cleaning, so...

Anyways this is just a ridiculous waste of money when the US should really be cutting back. We all know what the result will be anyways.

[Mr Bean]

*shrug* I never had a jam but we were ridiculously anal about cleaning, so...

Anyways this is just a ridiculous waste of money when the US should really be cutting back. We all know what the result will be anyways.

This I disagree on. This is the standard infantry combat weapon. Above all else, it's not a stealth bomber or one of the mostly useless incredibly expensive Littoral Combat Ships. This is the standard arm of the US military. It's been needing updating since the day it was introduced. This is not like the old Springfield .303 or the Garand where we produced something. It was fucking awesome from day one and it got better from day one. Your talking about a weapon system that was shit. Got improved and improved again until it was decent and now after millions on millions of dollars of purchases it's good. It's not great, there are better, tougher, more accurate assault rifles out there. As there are better, tougher and cheaper carbines out there.

We've needed a new GPLMG and a new standard weapon for the longest time now.

[[R_H]]

*shrug* I never had a jam but we were ridiculously anal about cleaning, so...

Anyways this is just a ridiculous waste of money when the US should really be cutting back. We all know what the result will be anyways.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why armies are so fucking anal about cleaning weapons, if you ask me, to a point that it does actual damage to the damn things.

Even with a gas piston gun, I bet they'd have the soldiers cleaning the bejesus out of the damn things. We'd put about 2 dozen rounds through our 550s and then we'd have to go clean the bloody things.

The end result will probably be a lot of hemming and hawing. Why don't they just adopt the SCAR, SOCOM already tested them (FNH says it's the rifle which has undergone more testing than any other during development). Even they thought the M4 wasn't worth bothering to replace with a SCAR-L.

[Aaron]

This I disagree on. This is the standard infantry combat weapon. Above all else, it's not a stealth bomber or one of the mostly useless incredibly expensive Littoral Combat Ships. This is the standard arm of the US military. It's been needing updating since the day it was introduced. This is not like the old Springfield .303 or the Garand where we produced something. It was fucking awesome from day one and it got better from day one. Your talking about a weapon system that was shit. Got improved and improved again until it was decent and now after millions on millions of dollars of purchases it's good. It's not great, there are better, tougher, more accurate assault rifles out there. As there are better, tougher and cheaper carbines out there.

We've needed a new GPLMG and a new standard weapon for the longest time now.

And I would agree with you if this had a hope in hell of producing a result, but we all know it won't. Hell I fucking hate the M16 family with a passion.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why armies are so fucking anal about cleaning weapons, if you ask me, to a point that it does actual damage to the damn things.

Even with a gas piston gun, I bet they'd have the soldiers cleaning the bejesus out of the damn things. We'd put about 2 dozen rounds through our 550s and then we'd have to go clean the bloody things.

The end result will probably be a lot of hemming and hawing. Why don't they just adopt the SCAR, SOCOM already tested them (FNH says it's the rifle which has undergone more testing than any other during development). Even they thought the M4 wasn't worth bothering to replace with a SCAR-L.

Gunpowder absorbs moisture, leading to corrosion and some of the stuff in the powder itself can be pretty corrosive.

[Stark]

This I disagree on. This is the standard infantry combat weapon. Above all else, it's not a stealth bomber or one of the mostly useless incredibly expensive Littoral Combat Ships. This is the standard arm of the US military. It's been needing updating since the day it was introduced. This is not like the old Springfield .303 or the Garand where we produced something. It was fucking awesome from day one and it got better from day one. Your talking about a weapon system that was shit. Got improved and improved again until it was decent and now after millions on millions of dollars of purchases it's good. It's not great, there are better, tougher, more accurate assault rifles out there. As there are better, tougher and cheaper carbines out there.

We've needed a new GPLMG and a new standard weapon for the longest time now.

Like Aaron says, this was interesting and exciting the first time I heard about it in the 90s. America needs better rifles and machineguns (and grenade launchers), but for whatever reason is incapable of just choosing WHICH better-than-the-M16-and-M60 weapon they want.

Who benefits from sticking to the AR15 anyway? The Army ITSELF doesn't seem to buy into the Culture of the M16 that America has (ie 'we had a shit rifle for a lifetime and had to come up with a way to explain how it's actually BETTER than other weapons') so why is this always such a fuckup? Is the system really predicated so much on everyone involved agreeing at the same time on the same option? Changing weapons sucks for every army (I can still remember the hilarious misinformation about the Steyr when the ADF changed) but eventually you just have to do it.

And not '100% increased lethality' shit either.

[Lizzie]

Wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy some Euro gun like my favored G36? Not that I actually think the US military is at all willing to buy from the "eurocommies" as someone in here put it...

[Stark]

They constantly test against foreign weapons, the foreign weapons always win, and then the program gets cancelled. Even rebranding the G36 the XM8 didn't help; even HK basically making a fixed M16 didn't help either.

[Mr. Coffee]

The thing that makes me laugh the most is pretty much all of the improvments they want the new carbine to have over the existing M4 is shit that a half decent gun smith could install on an M4 using after-market parts. Fuck, I'm sure someone with a bit of electronics know-how could even kludge together this silly ass round counter they want as well. But no... instead of being sane and just installing after-market parts to add the features to current in-service weapons for maybe $200 a weapon they're going to piss away a few hundred million looking at brand new designs before they eventually cancel the whole program and we'll still have the same carbines we got now.

[Stark]

It's not 'sane' to spend $1000 modifying a $200 rifle when you can just buy a decent $500 rifle. They've been kludging the M16 for decades, and a replacement upper was also rejected.