<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Army (might) Abandon “Leap” for M4 Replacement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/</link>
	<description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 23:07:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monster Beats Sale</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-273170</link>
		<dc:creator>Monster Beats Sale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 13:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-273170</guid>
		<description>I absolutely fully grasp this place. I am scouting around with this! Good think I uncovered the item on line. You earn a time! With thanks again?-</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I absolutely fully grasp this place. I am scouting around with this! Good think I uncovered the item on line. You earn a time! With thanks again?-</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dre Beats</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-272122</link>
		<dc:creator>Dre Beats</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 07:13:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-272122</guid>
		<description>Hi there, You have done an astonishing job. I&#039;m able to clearly askjeeve the application and even in my opinion imply doing it to successfully my pals. Most likely they will be took advantage of this incredible website. Thanks a lot!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi there, You have done an astonishing job. I’m able to clearly askjeeve the application and even in my opinion imply doing it to successfully my pals. Most likely they will be took advantage of this incredible website. Thanks a lot!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Second Person</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-205998</link>
		<dc:creator>A Second Person</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-205998</guid>
		<description>Gotta agree with A Person. Personally, the M4/M16 platform is crap compared to the newer systems. Take a look at the HK416; a more reliable M4. The SCAR-H isn&#039;t bad for a battle rifle, but has way too much recoil for long-distance engagements. Not to mention, the 20-round mag is substandard in my opinion. My guess would be the Remington ACR as a replacement, since it handles 6.8, 5.56, and 7.62 equally. I&#039;ve used the M16A4 and the newer M4 designs, but they&#039;re mostly just cosmetic differences. Every 6 mags or so, you&#039;d get a double feed. My first rifle backfired on the range, the sarge jumped ten feet when he heard what he thought was a frag going off. As for the differences in calibur performance, it&#039;s marksmanship mostly, but at close range you always want the fatter round. My grandad nearly got killed in vietnam &#039;cause the 5.56 didn&#039;t stop a charging VC at two meters.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gotta agree with A Person. Personally, the M4/M16 platform is crap compared to the newer systems. Take a look at the HK416; a more reliable M4. The SCAR-H isn’t bad for a battle rifle, but has way too much recoil for long-distance engagements. Not to mention, the 20-round mag is substandard in my opinion. My guess would be the Remington ACR as a replacement, since it handles 6.8, 5.56, and 7.62 equally. I’ve used the M16A4 and the newer M4 designs, but they’re mostly just cosmetic differences. Every 6 mags or so, you’d get a double feed. My first rifle backfired on the range, the sarge jumped ten feet when he heard what he thought was a frag going off. As for the differences in calibur performance, it’s marksmanship mostly, but at close range you always want the fatter round. My grandad nearly got killed in vietnam ’cause the 5.56 didn’t stop a charging VC at two meters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-205441</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-205441</guid>
		<description>and less lethal gas rounds </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and less lethal gas rounds</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A person</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-198719</link>
		<dc:creator>A person</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-198719</guid>
		<description>A bigger round like a 6.8 or 6.5 is definitely needed because in long range combat like in Afghanistan the 5.56 doesn&#039;t kill or have knock down power at longer ranges like anything over 400 yards which are becoming standard engagement ranges in modern combat. This of course must be balanced with the need for close quarters combat. In my opinion the ACR chambered in 6.8 would be a great choice plus its made in America. The SCAR would also be nice but its only available in 5.56 or 7.62 right now. I heard a 6.8 might be in the works though. Personally I think the decision to cancel the XM8 was a terrible one. It was a very viable solution and even if it wasn&#039;t fielded it still would have made headway. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A bigger round like a 6.8 or 6.5 is definitely needed because in long range combat like in Afghanistan the 5.56 doesn’t kill or have knock down power at longer ranges like anything over 400 yards which are becoming standard engagement ranges in modern combat. This of course must be balanced with the need for close quarters combat. In my opinion the ACR chambered in 6.8 would be a great choice plus its made in America. The SCAR would also be nice but its only available in 5.56 or 7.62 right now. I heard a 6.8 might be in the works though. Personally I think the decision to cancel the XM8 was a terrible one. It was a very viable solution and even if it wasn’t fielded it still would have made headway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Realist</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-195828</link>
		<dc:creator>A Realist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-195828</guid>
		<description>I should also point out that Colt has offered on numerous occasions to revamp the M4 design for increased reliability, but the Army repeatedly turned them down. 
 
But that little tidbit of info seems to get lost, apparently because Colt is so evil and likes the casualty to dollar ratio... *rolls eyes* </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should also point out that Colt has offered on numerous occasions to revamp the M4 design for increased reliability, but the Army repeatedly turned them down. </p>
<p>But that little tidbit of info seems to get lost, apparently because Colt is so evil and likes the casualty to dollar ratio… *rolls eyes*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Realist</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-195827</link>
		<dc:creator>A Realist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:49:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-195827</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s examine the &quot;leap&quot; programs so far: 
 
SPIW ~ failed 
Advanced Combat Rifle ~ Failed 
XM29 OICW ~ Failed 
XM8 ~ Failed 
Metal Storm ~ Hasn&#039;t exactly failed yet, but, IMO, the tech has proven to be ill-suited to small arms when you have to send your rifle back to the armoror to be reloaded. 
 
That&#039;s not a good record. The M16 platform (love it or hate it) outlived them all because it was either equal to or superior to them all in some way. 
 
The Crye MR-C, AFAIK, is nothing more than a concept weapon that gained fame in a video game and, as such it goes, has kids clamoring that it&#039;s gonna replace the M16. Not likely. Sorry to make the kids cry (no pun intended). 
 
The LSAT rifle/MG will more than likely fail, too. Yes, it&#039;s an interesting concept, but so was the XM29, which failed hard. 
 
Look, I&#039;m all for researching new small arms technology, but if the Army really wants to replace the M4, then they&#039;ll have to settle for an &quot;M5&quot; (or whatever it ends up being called) that&#039;s only marginally better. As cool as all these futuristic concepts are, they just aren&#039;t possible with current technology. 
 
There was a time when I was of the opinion that the Army &quot;isn&#039;t going to replace millions of mil-spec M16s and M4s just because the alternative runs a little bit cleaner&quot;, but I see now that the only feasible option to provide our troops with a reliable long gun in the foreseeable future is to do just that. And personally I don&#039;t give a damn who manufactures it (though I&#039;d naturally prefer an American company like LWRC, Magpul, or  whatever get the contract instead of a foreign one like HK or FNH, but that&#039;s secondary and just my personal preference). If Colt again has the best option, so be it. Throw the manufacturer bias out the F&#039;ing window and choose according to the merits of the weapon itself, not who you think has had a &quot;monopoly&quot; for long enough. 
 
But what do I know? I&#039;m just a proud American who wants his troops to have the best weapon available. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let’s examine the “leap” programs so far: </p>
<p>SPIW ~ failed<br />
Advanced Combat Rifle ~ Failed<br />
XM29 OICW ~ Failed<br />
XM8 ~ Failed<br />
Metal Storm ~ Hasn’t exactly failed yet, but, IMO, the tech has proven to be ill-suited to small arms when you have to send your rifle back to the armoror to be reloaded. </p>
<p>That’s not a good record. The M16 platform (love it or hate it) outlived them all because it was either equal to or superior to them all in some way. </p>
<p>The Crye MR-C, AFAIK, is nothing more than a concept weapon that gained fame in a video game and, as such it goes, has kids clamoring that it’s gonna replace the M16. Not likely. Sorry to make the kids cry (no pun intended). </p>
<p>The LSAT rifle/MG will more than likely fail, too. Yes, it’s an interesting concept, but so was the XM29, which failed hard. </p>
<p>Look, I’m all for researching new small arms technology, but if the Army really wants to replace the M4, then they’ll have to settle for an “M5” (or whatever it ends up being called) that’s only marginally better. As cool as all these futuristic concepts are, they just aren’t possible with current technology. </p>
<p>There was a time when I was of the opinion that the Army “isn’t going to replace millions of mil-spec M16s and M4s just because the alternative runs a little bit cleaner”, but I see now that the only feasible option to provide our troops with a reliable long gun in the foreseeable future is to do just that. And personally I don’t give a damn who manufactures it (though I’d naturally prefer an American company like LWRC, Magpul, or  whatever get the contract instead of a foreign one like HK or FNH, but that’s secondary and just my personal preference). If Colt again has the best option, so be it. Throw the manufacturer bias out the F’ing window and choose according to the merits of the weapon itself, not who you think has had a “monopoly” for long enough. </p>
<p>But what do I know? I’m just a proud American who wants his troops to have the best weapon available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric VonTeufel</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-76491</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric VonTeufel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:17:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-76491</guid>
		<description>The Bushmaster/Magpul ACR is just a copy of the SCAR and the SCAR is a copy of the G36 and XM8.  The really interesting rifle is the Robinson Armament XCR. It is proved it self to be a true multi-caliber platform.  It&#039;s got a better quick change barrel mechanism and has better ergonomics that either the SCAR or the ACR.  The XCR uses a AK-47 type bolt system rather than the flawed Stoner multi-lug system.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Bushmaster/Magpul ACR is just a copy of the SCAR and the SCAR is a copy of the G36 and XM8.  The really interesting rifle is the Robinson Armament XCR. It is proved it self to be a true multi-caliber platform.  It’s got a better quick change barrel mechanism and has better ergonomics that either the SCAR or the ACR.  The XCR uses a AK-47 type bolt system rather than the flawed Stoner multi-lug system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rhyno327/lrs</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-185104</link>
		<dc:creator>Rhyno327/lrs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-185104</guid>
		<description>Both Magpul/Bushmaster and LWRC produce weapons that can replace the M-4. I would take the Masada-but not the 5.56 version. 6.8 would be just fine. LWRC makes a short barreled 6.8 too, just get rid of that gas system it sux, wat happens when you get into a 48 hr running gunfight [Mogadishu] and ur weapon jams after firing hundreds of rounds in the dust and sand? Colt has had a monopoly on this for too long. Change is good.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Both Magpul/Bushmaster and LWRC produce weapons that can replace the M-4. I would take the Masada-but not the 5.56 version. 6.8 would be just fine. LWRC makes a short barreled 6.8 too, just get rid of that gas system it sux, wat happens when you get into a 48 hr running gunfight [Mogadishu] and ur weapon jams after firing hundreds of rounds in the dust and sand? Colt has had a monopoly on this for too long. Change is good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: angel</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/09/17/army-might-abandon-leap-for-m4-replacement/#comment-185103</link>
		<dc:creator>angel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4078#comment-185103</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s OK!But take a closer look following link,It&#039;s great to DVD and PSP converter for mac!
DVD Ripper for Mac,
Mac DVD Ripper Suite,
Mac DVD Converter Ultimate Suite,
Mac DVD Copy,
Mac DVD Creator,
Mac DVD to iPod Converter,
Mac DVD to iPhone Converter,
Mac DVD to MP4 Converter,
Mac DVD to Apple TV Converter,
Mac DVD to PSP Converter,
Mac DVD to BlackBerry Converter,
Mac DVD Audio Ripper,
Edit DVD,
Vob Converter for Mac,
VOB to iPod Converter for Mac,
VOB to Apple TV Converter for Mac,
VOB to PSP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPEG4 Converter for Mac,
VOB to M4V Converter for Mac,
VOB to 3GP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPG Converter for Mac,
VOB to AVI Converter for Mac
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That’s OK!But take a closer look following link,It’s great to DVD and PSP converter for mac!<br />
DVD Ripper for Mac,<br />
Mac DVD Ripper Suite,<br />
Mac DVD Converter Ultimate Suite,<br />
Mac DVD Copy,<br />
Mac DVD Creator,<br />
Mac DVD to iPod Converter,<br />
Mac DVD to iPhone Converter,<br />
Mac DVD to MP4 Converter,<br />
Mac DVD to Apple TV Converter,<br />
Mac DVD to PSP Converter,<br />
Mac DVD to BlackBerry Converter,<br />
Mac DVD Audio Ripper,<br />
Edit DVD,<br />
Vob Converter for Mac,<br />
VOB to iPod Converter for Mac,<br />
VOB to Apple TV Converter for Mac,<br />
VOB to PSP Converter for Mac,<br />
VOB to MPEG4 Converter for Mac,<br />
VOB to M4V Converter for Mac,<br />
VOB to 3GP Converter for Mac,<br />
VOB to MPG Converter for Mac,<br />
VOB to AVI Converter for Mac</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

