[TomAiello]

I wonder if the long term idea is to move the M4 inventory (and it's ammo, parts etc) to reserve units, or just give it out to the 'colonial' armies and let them do the mass warfare?

 

[Sean K.]

I wonder if the long term idea is to move the M4 inventory (and it's ammo, parts etc) to reserve units, or just give it out to the 'colonial' armies and let them do the mass warfare?

I'm afraid the long term may be to go back to something smaller, lighter with more capacity. I don't really get the 6.8 choice to be frank. The chart in the article really is a head scratcher over .308. The bullets available (from what little I know) don't have nearly the available ballistic coefficient choices of 6mm or 6.5mm projectiles. Seems like a cartridge slightly longer than 45mm with a 6mm or 6.5mm round would make even more sense from a weight and BC perspective and the longer case would help with feeding in a non-constant curve mag (assuming we wanted to stick with drop free rather than rock in).

I wonder how NATO will react as well, since our mags/ammo are now drastically different than their own....and will they be willing to follow suit.

I'm afraid this ends up like the UCP, just like the article says and we end up ditching .277 Fury for a different 'multicam' round. Government waste at its finest.

 

[Whiskey three six]

It's an expensive pet project experiment for showmanship like those that came before.
Remember the OCIW ?
How about the XM-8 ? SCAR trials? 10th Mountain Division testing Hk G11 ?

Noteworthy is the caliber selection. What's old is new. The MOD came to the conclusion that .27 calibre was ideal wounding calibre.
Cue .280 British and the EM-2 Bulpup rifle.
They weren't completely alone on that thought train. The .276 Peterson pre dated the .280 by two decades.