Not to be an old fogey, but why do I want all this stuff? Does this make a better weapon?
I see how some of it has value, to specific missions, but does every rifle need an aimpoint, PVS-14, pistol grip, white light, PEQ-4, grenade launcher and oh, I must be missing something... at all times! I can't believe how loaded down some things were at the beginning of all this latest unpleasantness.
(They seem to be rather more streamlined these days, I will note. Could just be my impression, but lots more just plain guns it seems).
Should we not pursue a basic gun, that works most of the time for most of the soliders, and can be expanded to accomodate a rail(s) for mounting of specific accessories? BTW, I have been wondering lately why there is a rail at 4 positions? Has anyone seen a serious person mount something sturdy (GL, sight) on the sides? It seems we need something like an integral swansleeve top and bottom, and just handguards on the sides. Maybe a plastic rail for lights on the front of these guards. I can imagine forging the upper recievers on M4s to accomodate this...
Back on topic(ish), I understand the unit cost, vs. lifecycle cost, vs. whatever costs issues. I fear this base rifle really will cost over $500 when in full swing. HKs at base rifle -- I hear -- are around $500, compared to the ARs apparent ability to be sold for half that.