Grand Strategy: The View From Oregon has this from an article entitled – Precisification of Small Arms Fire –

Too many weapons systems are enormous projects that are driven by the employment that they create in a congressman’s district. When a prototype is received as enthusiastically as the XM25 by the soldiers who would actually use the weapons system in theater, this is a powerful vote of confidence. One wonders why this weapons system is not being moved into production when the initial reports on the prototype are so favorable. I’m sure there’s story behind it. There always is.

Many precision weapons systems have not only been expensive boondoggles, but have also had long and troubled histories of development. The reception of the XM25 prototype, however, shows how powerful precision technologies can be when designers and producers get it right. There will always be a question of killing badly designed weapons systems before good money is thrown after bad, and this is sometimes a difficult call to make. The M247 Sergeant York was eventually axed after a long and troubled history, but US and allied troops put up with the sub-par performance of the M-16 for decades before the design was refined to a robust and reliable iteration.

One of the more troubling areas in business law are the persistant cost overruns, improper influence and illegality in defense procurement.

J.N. Nielson has found a weapon system that works and is a credit to its manufacturer. May we see many more.

James Pilant

P.S. I am still unimpresed by the M-16 (or M-4).