There are several advantages worth noting, particularly the lower weight (lighter than the M4) and lesser cost. Their arguments seem kinda weak though:
Quote:
|
A half dozen incarnations of the M-16/M-4 are currently in service, and none of them have parts that are 100% interchangeable with a different series weapon.
|
This is to be expected; if parts were 100% interchangable they would be the same weapon. Assuming the Army did purchase the XM-8, I doubt the weapon would not change over the 40 year lifetime that the M-16 has had.
Quote:
|
For the M-16, mounting optics requires the use of weapon specific (read: non-interchangeable) adapters.
|
Non-interchangeable between between what? This is the same argument as the previous one, only rehashed to focus on optics.
Quote:
|
The M-16A1 (still in widespread service with the National Guard and Reserves) was designed to fire the M198 5.56mm Ball cartridge, while the M16A2 and later rifles (used by Active Duty formations) was designed to fire the heavier M855 cartridge. While both rifles can chamber and fire both types of bullet, the M885 bullet weighs more, and is less accurate when fired from the M16A1.
|
So because reserve and national guard units are less accurate, we should replace every weapon in the arsenal? The cost of replacement does not outweigh the marginal benefits in this situation.
It's an interesting sales pitch, but I don't see the system replacing the M16.