Is really that hard to replace an almost 50 year old rifle?

One of things I keep up with is firearms, both out of interest and the use they see in my games. A lot of research goes into weapons for my games so that people selecting them have reasons behind their choice related to real world.

Sometimes the news is (while not unexpected) silly. In that line, it seems that yet another attempt to replace the M16 is on the edge of failure. I've nearly lost count of how many time they've attempted to find a replacement, just off the top of my head there was the ACR, the OCIW, and XM8 and now this one and it was only targeting a small percentage of the total weapons. Currently just about every firearm maker offers a improved M16 in one form or another.

So what's going on here? Has firearm tech really stalled to the point that there's nothing better? Is it actually politics and penny-pinching being hidden by spin? Are people stupid?

Well, that last always applies of course. After all, people still stick with D&D and that's a worse performing platform than the M16 ever was. This is true even if the goal is playing rpgs instead of killing people.

But here I think it's mostly a case that the technology just hasn't moved very far in the last hundred years. I'll still take a M1911 over any 'modern' pistol and for many cases I'd take weapons from WWII over those deployed today. About the only real improvement has been in weight, and that seems to have hit its limit.

In any case, I think any replacement project is doomed as long as they insist on the replacement being chambered in .223. You can add bells and whistles all you want, but no amount of improvement around the edges is going to impress anyone if you're still using a poor ammo choice. After all, rifles are built around the bullet. And it's far pass time for them to revisit that first choice if they want an improvement for the future.

Note: Currently (and somewhat in line with my thoughts), SOCOM is still going to buy the 7.62mm version of the rifle.