Let's design the US Army a new battle rifle

[Cyrano]

I've spoken to a number of folks who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan about the M16 and its M4 subvariant. Hasn't anybody had anything nice to say about it yet, They've told me that the #@^*>! thing still gathers dust and grime like a magnet; that you still have to spend every free minute cleaning the thing if you want to have it work when you need it; and that its cartridge, even with the new NATO bullets, still won't do the job reliably. They've also said that it's too long for urban warfare work, in addition to its other failings.

The Army started a battle rifle test back in 2004 but suspended it in 2006, claiming they had not had submitted for test anything that was as good as the M-16. (I can just hear what Richard Venola over at Guns & Ammo would say right about now!) Personally, I think the Army just does not want to admit that for 40 years they have been trying to gild a turd with the "improvements" and add-ons to the basic Stoner design they have invested millions in; that they've been backing the wrong horse all along.

The Zander Theory of Design says that before you go to design anything people actually have to use, you should talk to them what is going to have to use it and see what features they'd like the doohickey to have. Only after that do factors like ergonomics and materials come into play, and only after that does production cost come into the mix. With this theory in mind, I'll start this battle rifle thought experiment.

1. Cartridge.

I don't believe in reinventing the wheel. Although a soldier can't carry as many of them as he can the 5.56 NATO round, I'd go back to the 7.62 NATO cartridge, possibly with a heavier bullet or a cored bullet, something with enough oomph to punch through thin concrete walls, small trees, bricks and possibly body armor. It also has a much deeper effective range than the 5.56 round. The books claim the effective range of the 5.56 NATO round is 500 meters. The troops say it's more like 300 meters, if you're lucky. I'm inclined to believe them and not the books.

I would like them to have something that really IS effective out to 500 meters and in the hands of an expert, out to 800 meters or more. You want a cartridge that will work in any enviroment, from the jungle to the Arctic to the urban environment. The 5.56 NATO round is adequate in the jungle, but lacks the range and power to work effectively much of anywhere else. So 7.62 NATO it is, by default. Or should we try and invent something better?

2. Configuration.

The time has come to change over to the bullpup configuration for a battle rifle. Unlike World War II where we fielded multiple weapons tailored to the environments where they would have to fight, e.g., paratroops with Thompsons and M3 Grease Guns and jungle fighters with M-1 and M-2 carbines, we can only have one rifle service-wide today, using one cartridge, for logistical sanity.

It has to be capable of being used by regular leg infantry, paratroopers, vehicle crewman, armored cavalry scouts - you get the idea. Three of the four MOSes I just mentioned would prefer something short enough that it can be maneuvered easily in tight quarters. When fightin in urban terrain, the regular infantryman woud agree to a short rifle, too.

At the same time, we want rifle performance out of that short weapon. The only way to get that is to go to the bullpup configuration.

An excellent example of what can be done with the bullpup merely by changing the barrel length is the IDI Tavor rifle. The standard barrel is about 18 inches long with a length overall of about 28 inches. A version made for vehicle crewmen, simply by shortening the barrel to 10 inches, is only about 19 inches long. That's shorter than a pistol-gripped Mossberg 500, and it's a rifle (or a carbine, at worst).

As a side note, the bullpup ought to be required to accept M-14 magazines. This would save the government money because they have them already in storage.

3. Sights.

We have to face it. The average person entering service today has little to no shooting experience. And from what I have seen, the only service that actually still teaches people to shoot straight is the Marine Corps; "Every Marine a Rifleman" is part of their ethos. Anyone in the Army who knows how, learned before they entered; and it's not the main job of the Navy or the Air Force to be shooting rifles at people anyhow.

So let's cut to the chase. Do away with the iron sights altogether. Replace them with a holosight or a red dot sight, where all the guy behind the gun has to do is set the range (or preset it for, say 300 meters and remember how much it drops each 100 meters past that), put the dot on the target, and squeeze the trigger. I know all the arguments against sights that need batteries in combat, but what would you rather have: a simple to use sighting system that any boob can learn to use in 5 minutes to put rounds on target; or something that encourages spraying and praying?

4. Action.

The late Jeff Cooper had no use for fully automatic weapons for the individual infantryman. He pointed out on numerous occasions that after the third or fourth round, unless you have arms of steel your rounds won't be anywhere near the target. He didn't even like the 3 shot burst capability built into the M16A2. He felt that full-auto battle rifles/assault rifles simply wasted ammo. (Then again, he was a Marine who believed in hitting what you point at.)

I'm inclined to agree with the Colonel, but in tight quarters the ability to rip off a short burst when you don't have time to use the sights is useful. So let's retain the safe-single shot-3 round burst trigger group for our Zen rifle.

On the other hand, we need to change away from the tight tolerances of the Stoner action in favor of the much looser (and much simpler!) actions of Kalashnikov, Simonov and Garand. The AK-47 and the Garand (and the SKS and the M14 too) are famous for being able to be dumped in the mud or dragged down a dirt road for a couple of miles, rinsed out in a stream, loaded up and then fired without malfunction. Try that with an M16 and you'll have to send it to the armorer to be fixed. Battle rifles have to be able to stand up to abuse with minimal maintenance. We might want to consider simply licensing the Tavor's action and scaling it up to 7.62 instead of the 5.56 round it currently shoots; ditto for the AK's action; or we might just want to revert to the M14 action. But I'm sure of one thing: the Stoner action has got to go.

5. Materials

Someone is going to have to tote this thing. We've already scaled up the cartridge, which means fewer rounds can be carried comfortably. Therefore, we need to lighten it up as much as we can consistent with keeping the recoil down. Polymer frame or alloy frame instead of steel? Synthetic stock and forearm, for sure. Plastic mags? A skeleton stock? Let's hear what we can do to keep the weight down.

6. Cleaning kit.

It would be best if the kit didn't need a cleaning rod, and if it is small and light enough to live either in the pistol grip or the buttstock. If anything like a pin punch or a hex wrench is required for takedown and maintenance, that should be included too. I've always liked the kit meant to fit in the buttstock of the SKS. Our Zen rifle should include something like that.

7. Bayonet

Bayonets aren't used much anymore. That does not mean they don't have a place in the inventory. The question is what sort of bayonet to use. Definitely not an integral one. And I hate side-folders. I think we might do well with one on the order of the old Springfield bayonet, but with a notch in it so the scabbard can be made to work like the AK-47 bayonet as a wire cutter.

If things get to the point where you have to fix bayonets against a charging enemy, chances are you are dead anyhow without air or artillery support. But we have to give our soldiers every chance, so the ability to mount a bayonet on the muzzle of the rifle is required.


Well, there you have my concept of what the US miltiary's battle rifle for the first half of the 21st Century ought to be. A 7.62 NATO bullpup, with 3 shot burst capability and some kind of optical sight, that uses 20 round magazines.

I look forward to the debate.

[knightRider]

its been done the MASADA by magpul google it .

[stalebiscuit]

can anyone say ak47?

i think the m16s are still better than the l85 our british counterparts are using, i hear those jam extremely bad

[stitchclimber]

I checked out the MASADA. That's one sweet gun.

[Bravo]

My battle rifle would be a hybrid of the M4 and the AK47. The cartridge would be bigger then the 5.56, but smaller then the 7.62. So:

Cartridge: 6.8mm Remington SPC: 6.8 mm Remington SPC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Configuration: M4/AK hybrid. 16" - 22" barrels, depending on your task.

Action: Do away with Gas-Blowback actions like we see on the M4. Use a Gas-Operated bolt like the AK uses, and like our M1 Garand and Carbine used to use. They were much more reliable. The bolt springs also need to be heavier and more open. Places where dirt and dust can hide are bad.

It should also be Semi-Auto with a 3-shot burst mode. Full auto is not needed, and burst fire should really only be used to lay down suppressive fire.

Materials: This is where the M4 part of the rifle comes in. Use the lightest and strongest materials available. Stainless steel, fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc.

Sights: Iron sights must be on the rifle if technology fails. That being said, a red dot or holo sight should also come equipped.

Cleaning kit: What ever you can fit in the tiny tube of the telescoping butt on the stock. You shouldn't need much to keep this rifle going.

Bayonet: If it's a must (very close quarters), offer an adapter on the end of the rifle for their knife. There is no need for a permanent bayonet though.

That's my rifle. And M4-type rifle that operates on a gas driven piston firing the 6.8mm SPC round. The magazine will be redesigned, and would have both M4 and AK characteristics. Depending on the environment, a 16" - 22" barrel would be offered. It would be light weight, but because of the action and cartridge, it would have a very low recoil with much more power than the 5.56, yet more range then the 7.62x39. Magazine capacity will be around 25 rounds.

[Powderman]

Rifle, 7.62x51 NATO, M14.

With the following improvements/variants:

1. The basic infantry rifle.
As issued, with compensator, wooden stock replaced with Sage EBR stock. Mount 2x optics, probably an ACOG.
2. DM rifle.
Sage EBR stock, compensator, and fixed 6x glass with ranging reticle.'
3. Precision rifle/scout/sniper.
As issued with regular wooden stock, bedded and trued action, Kreiger 1-10 barrel and 6-20 variable optics, with ranging reticle.

[jaeger]

Having carried and used the m-4 in combat I can say that I actually liked it. I never had any problems that would be a life/death situation. What we used to do was beat it up a little (ak it) so it was a little loose and she would shoot all day. Actual knock down power sucks at 500yds. Even though we qualified at 500yds in boot, shooting arab turnips at 500 was just suppressive fire. At 250 yds it will punch a hole in el-cheapo russian body armor. So I would say keep the M-16 design choke up to 7.62 with 16" barrel and have fun watching the little pink puffs come out of the bad guys.

[Bravo]

You guys really think it's wise to arm all soldiers (most of which having never seriously handled a firearm before) with a .308win rifle? I know we used to give big guns to kids back in WWII, but we know better now...or am I wrong? Maybe the bigger bullet with less capacity and slower firing rate is the way to go?

I still like the idea of a 6.8mm SPC rifle in semi/burst mode.

[meatloaf]

The masada is a sweet looking gun is it available for civilian purchase?

[SilverRun]

I like the AR-15/M-16 platform. I do think the 5.56 is a little on the lite side. I would look into something like this DPMS: AR-15 Rifles, Parts and Accessories. DMPS .243. I see no need to re-invent the wheel here.

[FutureMarine9]

Originally Posted by stalebiscuit

can anyone say ak47?

i think the m16s are still better than the l85 our british counterparts are using, i hear those jam extremely bad

there is no way the U.S. Army is going to issue a Soviet firearm to its soldiers

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by FutureMarine9

there is no way the U.S. Army is going to issue a Soviet firearm to its soldiers

That's true. And there is also no way that we are going to issue a 60 year old weapon, but, we can re-invent the wheel so to speak.

Mikhail Kalashnikov didn't just create a random weapon. He looked at all of the best technology from WWII and made the best weapon that he could. He took ideas from the Russian SKS, US M1 Garand, and German MP-43/44, creating the AK-47.

Designing a new gun based on an AK wouldn't be a bad idea, but we should really stop, look at this on an international scale, and try to produce a weapon that will be loved for the next 100 years. Take parts from the AK, M4, M14, G3, etc, and make an amazing weapon.

The problem is that we're sort of coming to the peak at how far current firearms technology can really advance. How the gun works hasn't changed in a very very long time. We've slapped on better technology to make it shoot farther and shoot in harsh conditions, but how the gun functions hasn't changed. Until we change something, we're going to be making little progress.

[dogman2]

As much as I hate the AR platform try the 300 whisper for it. Don't change any thing but the barrel. Hows that for saving money.

[bored2bhere]

i dont believe the ar is going away anytime soon me i would personally have a piston upper in 6.8 which should be a quick cheap fix and solve most of the problems

[mym1a]

Originally Posted by Cyrano

I've spoken to a number of folks who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan about the M16 and its M4 subvariant. Hasn't anybody had anything nice to say about it yet, They've told me that the #@^*>! thing still gathers dust and grime like a magnet; that you still have to spend every free minute cleaning the thing if you want to have it work when you need it; and that its cartridge, even with the new NATO bullets, still won't do the job reliably. They've also said that it's too long for urban warfare work, in addition to its other failings.

The Army started a battle rifle test back in 2004 but suspended it in 2006, claiming they had not had submitted for test anything that was as good as the M-16. (I can just hear what Richard Venola over at Guns & Ammo would say right about now!) Personally, I think the Army just does not want to admit that for 40 years they have been trying to gild a turd with the "improvements" and add-ons to the basic Stoner design they have invested millions in; that they've been backing the wrong horse all along.

The Zander Theory of Design says that before you go to design anything people actually have to use, you should talk to them what is going to have to use it and see what features they'd like the doohickey to have. Only after that do factors like ergonomics and materials come into play, and only after that does production cost come into the mix. With this theory in mind, I'll start this battle rifle thought experiment.

1. Cartridge.

I don't believe in reinventing the wheel. Although a soldier can't carry as many of them as he can the 5.56 NATO round, I'd go back to the 7.62 NATO cartridge, possibly with a heavier bullet or a cored bullet, something with enough oomph to punch through thin concrete walls, small trees, bricks and possibly body armor. It also has a much deeper effective range than the 5.56 round. The books claim the effective range of the 5.56 NATO round is 500 meters. The troops say it's more like 300 meters, if you're lucky. I'm inclined to believe them and not the books.

I would like them to have something that really IS effective out to 500 meters and in the hands of an expert, out to 800 meters or more. You want a cartridge that will work in any enviroment, from the jungle to the Arctic to the urban environment. The 5.56 NATO round is adequate in the jungle, but lacks the range and power to work effectively much of anywhere else. So 7.62 NATO it is, by default. Or should we try and invent something better?

2. Configuration.

The time has come to change over to the bullpup configuration for a battle rifle. Unlike World War II where we fielded multiple weapons tailored to the environments where they would have to fight, e.g., paratroops with Thompsons and M3 Grease Guns and jungle fighters with M-1 and M-2 carbines, we can only have one rifle service-wide today, using one cartridge, for logistical sanity.

It has to be capable of being used by regular leg infantry, paratroopers, vehicle crewman, armored cavalry scouts - you get the idea. Three of the four MOSes I just mentioned would prefer something short enough that it can be maneuvered easily in tight quarters. When fightin in urban terrain, the regular infantryman woud agree to a short rifle, too.

At the same time, we want rifle performance out of that short weapon. The only way to get that is to go to the bullpup configuration.

An excellent example of what can be done with the bullpup merely by changing the barrel length is the IDI Tavor rifle. The standard barrel is about 18 inches long with a length overall of about 28 inches. A version made for vehicle crewmen, simply by shortening the barrel to 10 inches, is only about 19 inches long. That's shorter than a pistol-gripped Mossberg 500, and it's a rifle (or a carbine, at worst).

As a side note, the bullpup ought to be required to accept M-14 magazines. This would save the government money because they have them already in storage.

3. Sights.

We have to face it. The average person entering service today has little to no shooting experience. And from what I have seen, the only service that actually still teaches people to shoot straight is the Marine Corps; "Every Marine a Rifleman" is part of their ethos. Anyone in the Army who knows how, learned before they entered; and it's not the main job of the Navy or the Air Force to be shooting rifles at people anyhow.

So let's cut to the chase. Do away with the iron sights altogether. Replace them with a holosight or a red dot sight, where all the guy behind the gun has to do is set the range (or preset it for, say 300 meters and remember how much it drops each 100 meters past that), put the dot on the target, and squeeze the trigger. I know all the arguments against sights that need batteries in combat, but what would you rather have: a simple to use sighting system that any boob can learn to use in 5 minutes to put rounds on target; or something that encourages spraying and praying?

4. Action.

The late Jeff Cooper had no use for fully automatic weapons for the individual infantryman. He pointed out on numerous occasions that after the third or fourth round, unless you have arms of steel your rounds won't be anywhere near the target. He didn't even like the 3 shot burst capability built into the M16A2. He felt that full-auto battle rifles/assault rifles simply wasted ammo. (Then again, he was a Marine who believed in hitting what you point at.)

I'm inclined to agree with the Colonel, but in tight quarters the ability to rip off a short burst when you don't have time to use the sights is useful. So let's retain the safe-single shot-3 round burst trigger group for our Zen rifle.

On the other hand, we need to change away from the tight tolerances of the Stoner action in favor of the much looser (and much simpler!) actions of Kalashnikov, Simonov and Garand. The AK-47 and the Garand (and the SKS and the M14 too) are famous for being able to be dumped in the mud or dragged down a dirt road for a couple of miles, rinsed out in a stream, loaded up and then fired without malfunction. Try that with an M16 and you'll have to send it to the armorer to be fixed. Battle rifles have to be able to stand up to abuse with minimal maintenance. We might want to consider simply licensing the Tavor's action and scaling it up to 7.62 instead of the 5.56 round it currently shoots; ditto for the AK's action; or we might just want to revert to the M14 action. But I'm sure of one thing: the Stoner action has got to go.

5. Materials

Someone is going to have to tote this thing. We've already scaled up the cartridge, which means fewer rounds can be carried comfortably. Therefore, we need to lighten it up as much as we can consistent with keeping the recoil down. Polymer frame or alloy frame instead of steel? Synthetic stock and forearm, for sure. Plastic mags? A skeleton stock? Let's hear what we can do to keep the weight down.

6. Cleaning kit.

It would be best if the kit didn't need a cleaning rod, and if it is small and light enough to live either in the pistol grip or the buttstock. If anything like a pin punch or a hex wrench is required for takedown and maintenance, that should be included too. I've always liked the kit meant to fit in the buttstock of the SKS. Our Zen rifle should include something like that.

7. Bayonet

Bayonets aren't used much anymore. That does not mean they don't have a place in the inventory. The question is what sort of bayonet to use. Definitely not an integral one. And I hate side-folders. I think we might do well with one on the order of the old Springfield bayonet, but with a notch in it so the scabbard can be made to work like the AK-47 bayonet as a wire cutter.

If things get to the point where you have to fix bayonets against a charging enemy, chances are you are dead anyhow without air or artillery support. But we have to give our soldiers every chance, so the ability to mount a bayonet on the muzzle of the rifle is required.


Well, there you have my concept of what the US miltiary's battle rifle for the first half of the 21st Century ought to be. A 7.62 NATO bullpup, with 3 shot burst capability and some kind of optical sight, that uses 20 round magazines.

I look forward to the debate.

I think some units issued the m14 style rifle to their designated markman may have to ask others who are more knowledgable and had seen action over there?It would seem to me that a heavier caliber is needed based on what i've heard???? It seems to me that by the 1950,s and before they have already developed some mighty fine weapons! the 1911 is almost a hundred years old mauser even older garand, m14 all realy good weapons and calibers other then some futuristic ray gun that can fire several hundred rounds and weigh less then 5 pounds!!! maybe we should improve on what we have and knows what works

[varmit_slayer]

give them an M1 with a synthetic stock and a fully auto option. M1's had probably the best action of any semi auto rifle. I think the 30-06 has proven itself over the years. I also like the 308. They are interchangle to me. It is true that AK's could probably take more abuse, but they aren't accurate past 200 yards or so.

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by varmit_slayer

give them an M1 with a synthetic stock and a fully auto option. M1's had probably the best action of any semi auto rifle. I think the 30-06 has proven itself over the years. I also like the 308. They are interchangle to me. It is true that AK's could probably take more abuse, but they aren't accurate past 200 yards or so.

Ehhh..a 9 pound automatic 30-06 rifle with an 8 round capacity might not do so well

[varmit_slayer]

It did well in WWII from what I've heard. a synthetic stock would drop a pound or two. It doesn't have to be exactly an M1. Just mainly the action. Make it a little shorter and give it a 15 or 20 round mag but keep the action.

[FutureMarine9]

the Marines issue M14 rifles to their designated marksmen so they are in between a "real" sniper and the average marine with a M16, so they are using M14's again somewhat, i also saw a prototype M16 type rifle that shoots .308 i dont know if they are going anywhere with that though ...and Bravo is right we need to see what really works with other guns and use it to make a new and better one....of course the Masada may have done that but i dont know all ive seen about it was an article on military.com a while ago and magpuls website

[BattleRifleG3]

My opinion of the Stoner system is that it maximizes two factors against everything else.
1. Inherent accuracy
2. Full auto controllability
This is done by using an action spring that is directly behind the center of mass of the bolt and carrier. Everything else has a spring above or below the center of mass. In order to achieve this, the Stoner design uses a bolt carrier that has a slot for the hammer to reach through while reaching around behind it to contact the spring. The downside of this is that you sacrifice buttstock versatility. You can have only a fixed or telescoping stock, not a true folder or a classic style like the M1.
Also, the bolt carrier group is kept concentric to the bore by being circular and cycling through a circular tube. The downside is that grit doesn't have anywhere to go and the surface to surface contact is high, making it sensitive to the type of lubricant or absence thereof. What you want is the minimum contact area that will still have enough strength to resist breakage and wear. Using certain kinds of steel or treatments to aluminum can have an effect.

Of course they make everything concentric in the receiver and then take a lug off of the bolt to serve as the extractor. Brilliant. Leave it loaded eccentrically like the AK bolt. (The M1 bolt has eccentric lugs, but its head centers in the area behind the chamber.) And the only way to have perfect rearward force is to use a blowback operated action, like the G3. So using any gas system counteracts this advantage.

The M16 was also designed for light weight, but the current barrels are heavier, so with all the disadvantages of a lightweight receiver, including the large area of carrier group contact and significant machining, they lost most of the advantages.

The AR design still has accuracy to offer due to the concentric locking of the bolt in the barrel extension and the integral optics mounting platform in the upper receiver, which is rigid and connected directly to the barrel. But for combat accuracy (vs sniper accuracy) the balance needs to be tilted more towards reliability.

Ah, this balance between reliability and accuracy. When will people ever learn. You actually can have both, and it's not that complicated. Tightness vs looseness. Here's an idea - be tight where it needs to be and loose where it needs to be. The bolt lockup needs to be tight, or more specifically tightly on center and headspaced carefully. The action needs to be loose so that everything can cycle through whatever might get in its way, and feed the next rounds forward with a vengeance that will overcome a sticky round in the magazine. But how do you make sure your bolt doesn't get stuck in the tight tolerances of locking up? Give the bolt carrier enough oomph (also known as momentum) going forward. To do this without too stiff an action spring, you need to put as much weight as possible on your bolt carrier (not your bolt). While a FAL type short stroke piston is attractive, a long stroke AK or M1 Garand type piston adds more mass to this system. If you do use a short stroke piston, make the piston as light as possible, say out of titanium. The main disadvantage to high reciprocating mass is a lower cyclic rate. This becomes a moot point if you use it primarily in semi-automatic mode.

So the bolt carrier needs to have freedom inside the receiver and the bolt needs to have freedom inside the carrier. In order for the bolt then to lock up tightly, it needs to be guided in. The AR design actually doesn't do this very badly with the beveled edges of the lugs on the barrel extension. The AK and M1 Garand do this extremely well with such edges on the bolt lugs and their counterparts on the receiver or trunion.

In my opinion, the AK design is pretty good for what we would need except for a couple points.
1.) The stamped receiver doesn't really give us what we need in terms of an optical mounting platform.
2.) The milled receiver version was designed when machining labor was cheaper and equipment was more expensive, also before certain advances in machining technology and materials. Same with the M1 Garand.
3.) The eccentric lugs have to be superceded by something that will hold better on center and deflect straight back. The Saiga-308 bolt is a good advance here with the typical eccentric lugs and a 3rd lug that both sustains the balance of the forces and helps to center the bolt as it locks.

So what I think we need is a rotating bolt rifle with a machined receiver designed with optics mounting in mind. It will probably need a three or more lug bolt and a carrier group that offers maximum receprocating mass.

As far as a cartridge goes, I think 6.5mm to 277 is the way to go, but I don't think the 6.8 Rem SPC is it. The 6.8 Rem SPC was selected over the 6.5 Grendel only because it had a slight edge on short range ballistics, but I think it was really because the 6.8 was designed to meet the military's request and is the first major military 270 caliber round (the 270 Win being a distinctly American round too), while the 6.5 bullets have been long known to be some of the most optimal bullets out there, and have already been used in military cartridges by Italy, Japan, and Sweden.

If there was a way to maximize commonality of parts without reducing the usefulness of either, I'd say make one version sized for the 6.5mm round and another sized for 308. Or make a more powerful round that would be on a par with the 300 Win Mag with the same rim and overall length but instead of a belt give it a little bit of a taper.

What I think our military needs for this kind of a project is actual engineering capabilities within the military. Not just throwing criteria on paper and selecting the rifle that is the most impressive that meets the technicalities. Actually put some input into the design, not just numerical specs. And give some leeway in some areas if the rifle does very well overall, ie if they wanted a folding stock but the AR system worked for eveything except allowing a folder.

I'm just wondering if the people making these decisions have any clue how the concepts of lockup concentricity, reciprocating mass, dynamic bearing surfaces, and the like all make a difference. Much more than the type of buttstock, the rate of fire, a quick barrel change, and other things that seem to make all the difference.