Mark Westrom, President of ArmaLite, Inc. took over ArmaLite back in the early 1990s, taking the company into the 21st Century with a gusto, and he’s never shied away from speaking his mind on carbine development and innovation (or lack thereof). Westrom was an Army Ordnance Officer in the ’70s and a competitive rifle and pistol shooter for the Army and Reserve. He also published impressive research and shooting courses on Rapid Semiautomatic fire and its effects.
Here are his thoughts on the move to replace the AR-15/M16.
The political snarl has become so deep that the Army is soliciting a new carbine to take a look at everything available. The solicitation is being stimulated by commercial and political pressures, and I doubt if we’ll see anything new. It’ll be too expensive. I’m going to make a prediction. The prediction is that while one rifle or another may have a feature that is liked, in the end a few minor changes will be made to the M16 and M4 system, and that’ll be as far as it goes.
None of the new firearms being proposed does what the M16 did in its day. The M16 led to a new marksmanship doctrine and provided a substantially new combat capability. The M16 provided an intense, close-in fighting capability. Merely changing from one compact system to another compact system doesn’t give you any fundamental change. The weapons systems being considered only offer a suspect or theoretical difference in performance. The reliability of the M16 when in good condition—cleaned and lubed—is so high, I don’t believe that it’s worth the money to change to a new weapons system. You would have to see a substantial improvement in performance, and the performance with the M16 and M4 is very good.
Firearm User Network 
Jan 04, 2012 @ 08:01:32
You can’t replace training with technology. I spoke with a recent graduate of Army BCT over the holidays and he confirmed my suspicions. Over 50% of his Company failed BRM the first time around. Why? Lack of trainers that knew anything but what they read out of the Manual. Many key but basic points were left out of the training because they were always pressed for time. The youngster, who was well trained in marksmanship before entering the Army tried to help some of his colleagues but was admonished by his Instructors as interfering in their business. Bottom line, the weapon system is irrelevant if the training doesn’t support it. I agree with Mark.
George Harris
President and CEO
International Firearms Consultants
LikeLike
Jan 04, 2012 @ 18:36:20
I agree with George and Mark, Training is low volume, never enough quality trigger time and enough quality trainers to correct the issues, never mind the “box checking” that goes on. The weapon platform is not the issue. I will forever endure to teach what I have been taught and learned from the best in the business. When you stop teaching, you have stopped learning.
Tim Trickett
Instructor various…..
LikeLike