Saru Chill.
first what you call “Barbie Dolling” is intended for a set of reasons. Primarily to engage 24/7 operations, but if you are not aware of this fact half the day cycle is night and it’s kinda dark outside.
Despite the whole “Nyet Rifle is fine” meme. The QBZ191 shows the PLA are adding as many accessories as the PLA logistics can cope with. Red dots, low powered Prism optics, LPVOs, suppressors, laser pointers, bipods, vertical fore grips.
Second The US Army will be returning the M4A1 rifle to its original intended purpose a Personal Defense weapon. The aim of the XM7 and XM250 is due to the fact that as the U.S. Army retired the M16A4 they pushed a weapon with a shorter range and less penetration into the mission. It’s an argument of intended doctrine. Armies live and die by doctrine and the Question of how Infantry is to deal with Infantry now in armor. The U.S. Army and apparently the Russians are interested in extending the range of the infantry and penetration of the infantry. The logic is that realistically speaking 5.8x42mm, 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm are tied in range and general performance of penetration. Combine that with roughly equal armor and technology of artillery and fire support it’s a case created for stagnation.
Every new system has teething issues. Just look up the QBZ95’s issues. Look at the AK took three generations to fix issues of production and still took longer for improvements. The M16’s decades of internal conflict in the U.S. Army the M4 today still has issues due to its current configuration being dated and the M855A1 ammunition eating up parts. No system is perfect and there are always issues that need to be fixed.
But in the process you give up economy of scale and you have a fundamental problem with your argument as you are comparing the U.S. economics vs the Chinese economics. The thing although the U.S. has a higher PPP the U.S. also has a civilian population who will happily gobble up military style rifles and equipment. This allows rifle manufacturers like FN and Sig to pass segments of the Overhead manufacturing costs to the civilian market reducing the military per unit cost.
So well a civilian Sig Spear or a FN scar L may cost $4-5K a government agency can buy 2-4 military models for the same price. Because lots of the bits and bobs are taken from the same commercial lines. Hell the whole cycle started with a commercial product that was improved then standardized. The weaver rail which then became the Arms rail that then became standard on the M4/M4A1 and G36. From there it gained universal adoption because SOCOM might buy something. Then commercial shooters bought clones and the same parts creating a cycle where commercial products fold into military equipment.
The Chinese system is a bit of a mix on this but cost per unit manufactured is skewed by the fact that it’s a state owned company. So polymer vs Alloy isn’t that big a price difference especially with modern tooling.
The reason they are modular is so that to save money you can replace the outdated parts. That was likely the reason we see the QBZ191 as opposed to an improved QBZ95. Because rather than trying to finagle modernization into the Bullpup rifle the AR template allows obsolete parts swap. Just look at the Israeli “M4” rifles. They are often a mix of 50 years of AR15 parts kitbashed into a modern combat rifle.
Now you're just making excuses in no way is the MCX Spear Gen 1 any more superior to the M4A1 the definition of barbie dolling is excessive ergonomics that isn't necessary especially if it's more expensive sacrificing a lot of lightweight just for a few more gimmicks while the M4A1 is specifically modified for a certain operation.
In what ranges can the M4A1 and M16A4 not cover that the MCX Spear for less the price? What world do you live in? There's no point in investing in Firearms that excessively if every war will be fought in the future with drones, missiles and air vehicles.
The MCX Spear has to still be modified regardlessly it's just a new fresh cover of paint with pre built ambidextrous features given soldiers that won't fight a war that require such investment
It's a waste of time and money, look at the annex of Ukraine, The Army uses drones against the second most powerful army proved to be extremely effective.
In the end Wars will be fought with technological prowess not expired meat.
And the fact that the MCX Spear is only suited for a few specific purposes while boasting it's Caliber capability such instance is rare when encountering Terrorists, if we are talking about War with Foreign infantry sorry to break it for you but they already use Ceramic (Level III/III+) resistant to 7'62mm to some extent.
Sounds more like a contingency weapon, America is thinking the possibility of war with a foreign country is likely yet here we are still without rising tensions going on across the world.
And even if there was a World War 3 it wouldn't be fought with Firearms it would be fought with advanced technology that go boom, Israel and Ukraine is good examples of this.
Israel took down about every single building in Gaza not giving a shit about the hostages after all their whole intention isn't a CTU operation it's a Genocide, while Ukraine is defending themselves with drones that took out a whole ammunition storage resulted an explosion 200-240 tons of high explosives detonating, and it covered an area of approximately 6 kilometers (3.7 miles).
Maybe US should have invested that money in drones instead of new fresh cover of paint.
