http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...,00.html?wh=wh
See the above article. While we're on the subject - let's talk about real life forces. I for one think the whole argument of the 416 being twice as much pretty lame.
If we say that the M4A1 costs about $800 based on someone else's numbers (on this thread) that the Canadian version costs about that much. Say the 416 costs double.
How can we look in the face of the people who sacrifice their lives for their countries that their lives aren't worth $800. Heck let's double that figure if we factor in maintenance and training.
How many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on safety like ejection seats in jets or anti-mine protection devices for vehicles?
And we're saying that the primary object of a soldier's effectiveness must be compromised for $1600? I don't buy that.
I've read many arguments on the net from soldiers and military procurers who quote those soldiers, that if they're maintained right, M4s run great.
However in prolonged firefights, or long missions through dusty conditions - that defense is a moot point. That's why the frontline special forces switch to 416s, because they are exposed to these bad conditions far more frequently.
So is the argument that because regular infantry AREN'T exposed to prolonged dusty conditions as frequently as frontline special forces a good one? Again I go back to the value of a soldier's life.
I respect soldiers, so obviously I think it's worth $1600 to protect that - especially if you factor in the hidden costs of a failed gun. Millions spent on insurance? Side effects from missing a target who goes on to kill someone else or becomes a suicide bomber?
Anyway - obviously this thread is not directed to anyone here, I just feel it's sad that the bureaucrats who make these decisions don't value those who sacrifice their lives. I think more people would joined the armed forces if they knew they would get the best equipment.
By the way - how many infantry ground battles have the US won since WW2?