check out the robinson arms xcr...short stroke gas piston and is modular in terms of caliber.

http://www.robarm.com/resources/products/xcrlstd/index.aspx

note - it's extremely unlikely that robinson arms could fulfill any sort of large gov't contract, and they don't have much of a track record.

for my my money, it doesn't get better than an M14. in iraq, all of the companies in my bn got 10 M14s in EBR stocks...if you dropped a shorter barrel (a la the socom 16), you'd have something that could reach out and touch the bad guys at long range but could still be used in the mout fight. prohibitively expensive, though...

I think you hit all of the reasons right on the head. The FN-SCAR is a terrific assault rifle and even my old FN-FAL with the 7.62x51 NATO round has zero range issues, I've shot it at 50,100,150,250 and 500yards and it always makes it to or past the target. Hitting the target past 150 has always only been hindered by malfunctions in my hardware rather than the rifle.

Thanks STARBUCK! - Leave it to no-nonsense Schmedlap. : )

Fortunately, we aren't finding Marines and Soldiers in fighting positions slumped dead over a disassembled M-4, that had a major stoppage, as was once the case with the earlier M-16. It is more a factor of range, which can be overcome, and corrected. I am not sure whether this is a continuation of the old argument that persists with this design, and its many modifications, that has reared its head again?

Anecdotal war story: Several centuries ago when our M-16 rifles were upgraded with the necessary modifications, we still experienced another problem . . . the flash suppressor which looked like prongs back then, was found useful for slipping under the steel banding of C-ration cases, which when sharply twisted would snap the band - which created another problem - one can only wonder how Schmedlap would handle that? : )

There are numerous issues to why we use the M4 as the basic weapon. As previosly mentioned on this thread, certain forces (SEAL Teams, etc...) are issued special weapons, and units do have M14s, and other weapons in their arms rooms, but for most Soldiers on the battlefield, it is "good enough." That is upgrading and replacing the entire stock of M4s in the service is not worth the money, better to use that money for other upgrades, be it body armor, or other stuff issued in RFI. Perhaps it is worthwhile to get some better long range weapons to Ranger BNs, Marine Units on the front line, BCT Infantry Platoons, etc...but probably not worth replacing every M4. On this line of thinking, I am certain, that the number of personnel who go through an entire 12 month deployment without firing one round is substantial (BTW, this does not in any way degrade their sacrifice and service).
Don't forget about NATO, and using the same caliber bullets that our allies use, I believe this is another reason why we have not moved to a 7.62 round.
There is always another better weapon, but when it comes to aquasitions in DoD, it is a zero sum game. Each time you have a choice of a better weapon, you have to ask..."is it that much better" or is what we have good enough. Otherwise you are looking at replacing everything we have every year or so.

CNAS is nothing more propaganda front for the killing and mutiliation industry. It is also an employment agency working the revolving door of corruption. If we follow the dollar, we see that CNAS gets its funding from war pigs like Northrop Grumman. CNAS is in business to promote Eternal War, Inc. Nothing more, nothing less. Notice how they even keep military officers on staff to make them look more official and patriotic Mr. Ricks will do nothing of the kind. Since his capture, he will march in line and do the bidding of Eternal War, Inc.

Anyone who wants to be a member of the court must be a full fledged war monger. President Obama is faced daily with a military high command that is completely against him. The record of this fact is well established. They will decide our military strategy with the full support of the war monger courtisans and the captured media. Yes, life is grand in the capitol these days. War is the last and only growth industry left in the United States. Everything else has been looted.

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

The old Gunny says, "This is my rifle, this is my gun! This is for fightin! This is for fun!"

I understand your anti-war sentiment, and agree with it, but the idea that Ricks and the rest of these CNAS people are some sort of totalitarian, militarist front is utterly absurd. If it were, they would be pushing longterm investment in Iraq. That--not Afghanistan--is where the money is to be had. People like Ricks are convinced that Afghanistan presents a legitimate security challenge to our country. Debate them on the merits and I think you''ll get the better of them. Presenting them as greedy pawns is not the way to go.

and by the way, "War Pigs" is no "Masters of War"

These are the good freinds of CNAS. The war pigs on the below list do not give money for nothing in return. I agrre with you on "Masters of War". Though not a Rock and Roller, I always liked War Pigs, especially the first verse.

Accuron Technologies Limited
Advanced Rotorcraft Training Services
Aegis Defense Services LLC
The Albright Group
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Allen and Co. LLC
The Alliance for Climate Protection
American Insurance Group (AIG)
American President Lines
Aspen Strategy Group
Avenue Capital Management II, LP
BAE Systems - North America
BAE Systems Plc - United Kingdom
Bavarian Nordic Inc.
BGR Foundation
BioLogue
The Blackstone Group
BLS Investments
The Boeing Company
Bovin Family Foundation
Brenner West Capital Advisors
Carson Family Charitable Trust
Caterpillar Inc.
Charles River Ventures
Chertoff Group, LLC
Chevron Products Company
The Connect U.S. Fund
Cross-Strait Interflow Prospect Foundation
David Berger Foundation
Deloitte Consulting LLP
Emergent BioSolutions Inc.
Energy Foundation
FHC Health Systems
Finmeccanica, North America Inc.
Foley Hoag LLP
Four Seasons Ventures, LLC
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Foundation
GE Foundation
General Dynamics Corporation
General Electric Aviation
Google Inc.
Heinrich Boell Foundation, North America
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Hills Family Fund
Hines Investments
HL Capital Inc.
Honeywell
Hunt Consolidated Inc.
IF Hummingbird FD, Inc.
International Business Machines (IBM)
Import of Santa Monica
Itochu International, Inc.
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
KBR, Inc.
Keppel Corporation Limited
Lee Foundation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Lotus Asset Management
Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc.
Mannheim LLC
ManTech International
Markle Foundation
McKinsey & Co.
Mitsubishi International Company
National Intelligence Council
New Century Consulting
New York Community Trust
New York Life
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Nuclear Threat Initiative
Ocean Policy Research Foundation
Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense
Palantir Technologies Inc.
Perry Living Trust
Pershing Square Foundation
Peter and Devon Briger Foundation
Pew Charitable Trusts
PharmAthene, Inc
Ploughshares Fund
The Potomac Foundation
Quang X. Pham Foundation
Raytheon Company
Red Lion Foundation
Renaissance Strategic Advisors
Roberti and Associates
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The Rockefeller Foundation
The Russell Foundation
Sandler Family Foundation
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Sembcorp-Sabine Shipyards, Inc.
Smith Richardson Foundation, Inc.
Starr Foundation
Stone Point Capital
Stoney Key Partners
STT Communications
The Tauri Group
Temasek Corporation
Textron Charitable Trust
Tiber Creek Partners LLC
Tides Foundation
United Overseas Bank Limited
United Parcel Service
United States Air Force
United States Army
United States Marine Corps
United States Navy
United States Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
VT Systems
Zak Family Charitable Trust

http://www.cnas.org/support

"On February 25 journalist Thomas Ricks published an important scoop on his blog at ForeignPolicy.com: Army Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top US commander in Iraq, had requested keeping a brigade in northern Iraq beyond President Obama's deadline for the withdrawal of combat forces. The timing of the story was intriguing. Just two days earlier, Ricks had published an op-ed in the New York Times calling for US troops to remain in Iraq long term. "I think leaders in both countries may come to recognize that the best way to deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come," he wrote. The op-ed coincided with a policy brief by Ricks issued by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the Washington think tank where he is a senior fellow."

"Indeed, the presence of journalists on the payrolls of think tanks is crucial to their clout, lending them the imprimatur of neutral, nonpartisan news organizations. Since its founding in 2007, CNAS has played host to a string of reporters from major US newspapers: Ricks worked on his most recent book, The Gamble, at CNAS; Post reporter Greg Jaffe and former New York Times reporter David Cloud worked on The Fourth Star, a book profiling four Army leaders, while in residence; Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, veteran military and intelligence reporters for the Times, are researching a book on counterterrorism there. And CNAS isn't the only place where national security reporters have set up shop. Times military correspondent Michael Gordon is a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a new think tank founded by Kimberly Kagan, the wife of Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and a cheerleader for the "surge" strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"The perception of neutrality serves think tanks like CNAS well in other respects. In a December 21 opinion piece for CBS News, CNAS president and counterinsurgency advocate John Nagl and senior fellow Richard Fontaine wrote about the unprecedented role contractors play on the battlefield. While the authors pointed to some of the obvious problems of outsourcing defense, they reached a stunning conclusion. "When our nation goes to war, contractors go with it," they wrote. "We must get on with the task of adapting to this reality.""

"That opinion piece--which followed the release of a CNAS report on wartime contracting--put the think tank's stamp of approval on government outsourcing. CNAS says that corporate and individual donors don't fund individual projects, but CBS failed to mention that companies like KBR were contributing to CNAS's general fund. In an e-mail, CNAS CEO Nathaniel Fick confirmed that KBR had donated $200,000 (as of press time, KBR was not mentioned on its list of donors), and that the center is currently soliciting support from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, DynCorp and Fluor, all companies that are in the business of "expeditionary support" contracting."

http://www.thenation.com/article/coalition-shilling

why would the obama administration pick some of the CNAS members up as part of the administration if they were a militaristic front? that would imply that the obama administration is either completely out of it or that they are too part of that front

Walking Wounded - generally speaking, a unit should be able to tell if their enemy has shooters with optically equipped rifles by the amount and frequency of head and mid torso shots taken by friendly forces, but that's a differant issue we can deal with, with our own sniper teams.

If the debate is about range, unless something has changed with the AKM design, and it's tangent rear sight I'm unaware of, the Taliban ain't hitting anything from beyond 300 meters with frequency either. In addition, most individuals shooting down slope (or up) from great distance with open sights will generally shot high - it's an anomaly. The shooter must hold low or know how to "dope the slope" with his/her sights.

As I said previously: I think we could field a better rifle, but this issue may be much to do about very little.

Your are correct Hairy, the military has tried to get better, and in some ways it has, but what you described is called "military specs", that is why at one point in time the military paid $400 for a toilet seat, and $600 for a screwdriver. The specs were so detailed, and the contracts specified penalties for not meeting them, that the only way for companies who produced these items to mitigage risk and make a profit was to have those crazy prices.