Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1730333" data-attributes="member: 1132">It sounds like you may be too far downstream to consider other outside opinions, but if not...Are you a member of the M4Carbine forums? If not, you should be. Getting a huge DoD contract such as the M4 or M9 requires a solid design with a metric buttload of R&D behind it, a thorough TDP (technical data package), plus a substantial manufacturing capacity with strict QC tolerances. Getting the HSLD independent market to buy in will require some heavy duty endorsements from serious trainers and operators. In order to get that, you need to know what they really need. Not just now, but in the future as well. Pretty much the who's who in the business are present over on M4C. They're all business for the most part and don't accept outsiders well. You have to have some serious chops to get their attention. They're very jaundiced, don't readily accept new products for field use until they've been tested to the failure point multiple times, and will rapidly dismiss a new product if they don't see a substantial benefit over already proven products. If you do go over there, I SERIOUSLY recommend keeping your head down, using the search engine heavily and learn the players before posting anything. Skyline yourself as a newb and they'll never take you serious. I follow that board pretty well. The current trends are fewer picatinny rails, less weight, less bulk, barrier blind ammunition, the 300BLK cartridge, ambidextrous and ergonomic improvements, compact suppression with minimal impact shift, improved surface coatings and advanced lubrication. Always at the top of their list is MRBF (mean rounds between failure) in the real world, not a sterile test environment. If you're developing a brand new platform, it will need to be all those things, plus backwards compatible with the most desirable accessories. They skew heavily towards the M4 platform over there, simply because it's the most proven, common and useable platform currently available. They also tend to prefer direct impingement over gas piston, unless the GP design will buy them something they can't get with DI. For my part, I'm currently researching for my next platform for dual use in home defense and vehicle deployment. For me the ultimate setup would be a folding stock SD type build, with an overall length of about 18-20" folded and 25-27" open in 300BLK. That might effectively yield carbine performance in an ear safe PDW sized package.Why 300BLK? For every inch you reduce the 5.56 tube under 10.5", you loose a substantial amount of performance. An 8" 300BLK barrel will produce the same or better terminal effect as a 14.5" 5.56 barrel. You can do a lot with 6.5" less barrel. It outperforms 5.56 in flash and blast by a wide margin as well. It uses the same magazines and bolt face as the 5.56, so parts are less of an issue. Just some food for thought here.</blockquote>

Verification