According Marine Corps Times - Upgrading M16A4

[cory]

It would interesting to do a comparison of 16" rifle barrels and see at what point the extra mass becomes a liability. With 14.5 or 16 inch barrels, I bet 8-12 ounces buys a lot more stiffness and heat sink capability. Comps get better an better, but I think the real winner would be a lightweight 4-6" suppressor that would be good for 2-3000 rounds and then disposable. (Think about how that technology would bring the price of suppressors down!)

There is plenty of aftermarket stuff that would make the rifle easier to shoot and would be really cost effective at lengthening he rifle life.

Onces equals pounds, pounds equals pain. IMHO the barrels should all be shortened to 12.5" - 2", then impose higher tolerances on the manufacturing of the barrels. At that length you'd have to add significant mass to increase stiffness enough to gain much, I would think. In the public sector a company isn't going to be a ble to sell a barrel that doesn't get at least sub 2 MOA, unless they're selling it dirt cheap.

I'll add the DMR accuracy issue shouldn't be included here. Get them an 18" SS Nitide and Fluted barrel. The price for such a thing would be a drop in the bucket with how miniscule the number of barrels purchased would be. A DMR shouldn't be issued a standard issued rifle, you want to have something more capable or what's the point of having a DMR.

I couldn't imagine the cons of clearing a room with a compensator would ever not out weigh the "increase in accuracy" a compensator would give. Especially something as low recoil as the 5.56. The low mass suppressor is a great idea IMHO!

The problems with the 3-rd burst abortion have been known from the start. I lost track of how many times I've beat that horse to death.

Free-floating and an ALG-type trigger make the most sense out of the whole program.

The chevron reticle argument is silly for the reasons you state. Somebody wants to spend some money.

They should look at Cerakote for coatings, or some type of surface deposition with integrated corrosion elimination properties.

They should also look at no longer than 16" barrels, increase the BC on the SOST, and most importantly, re-evaluate the marksmanship training programs. With more low-intensity conflicts on the horizon, small arms fire from well-trained Infantrymen is going to continue to play a more important role when semi-permissive environments don't allow collateral damage. North Africa is a prime example of that.

I can't believe doing away with the 3 rd burst isn't a given.

I was thinking the same thing with the ALG triggers. They were already going to free float barrels when I was issued an ACOG. That might have been a battalion thing and now they want to push it service wide.

I was never given the training to take advantage of the current TA31 Reticle, that may have changed in the last decade, but the new one is far more complicated and is an absolutely worthless upgrade without the proper training. Even then for the normal Grunt I couldn't imagine them utilizing it enough to justify the upgrade. I think you hit the nail on the head, someone is trying to make some money.

most importantly, re-evaluate the marksmanship training programs. With more low-intensity conflicts on the horizon, small arms fire from well-trained Infantrymen is going to continue to play a more important role when semi-permissive environments don't allow collateral damage. North Africa is a prime example of that.

Another +1 on this.