Originally posted by MeatAxe
View Post
I read the Washington Times article. Most likely some or all of the competition surpassed the M-4 in one or more tests. However, that doesn't mean they surpassed the M-4 in the majority of tests or that they surpassed the M-4 in any of the critical tests. The article does not say any of the competition was better in the majority of the tests or better in any critical test or requirement. Guess why? Because, most likely, none were!
Folks would be amazed at the temper tantrums thrown by respectable companies when their pet rock fails a test. The first thing they normally complain about is the ammo. Then something about how the test was written or how it was conducted or what someone said during the test or any one of a hundred excuses for their failure. The thing they don't say is that they agreed to the test in the first place and their stuff failed. What happens more often than not is that a company submits their item for testing knowing it does not meet a requirement but hoping that somehow the requirement will be overlooked. Another thing that losers do is start arguing about how to define things, particularly things like failures but only after they lose.
There is more to this than meets the eye. I bet the M-4 bested the others in tests deemed critical and or that it was a draw where one had to look at life cycle costs and found it cheaper to keep the M-4.
Just my belief having witnessed this type of thing a couple of times.
LR55
Comment