They should stay in their offices in DC, watch NBC/CNN and conduct a “study” purely academically. This would save the resources wasted on a demonstration that will only be set-up to bring predetermined results.
Yes, the M4 isn’t the newest and greatest. One can make something “a bit” better, but that’s the problem. ALL THOSE who argue for alternatives (to date) are essentially splitting hairs and looking at microscopic differences in performance to justify spending billions and assuming great risk in other areas typically not considered by these them. Spend the money on hardware where our “net benefit” where the “return on investment” for the soldier and Marine is greater. The reductions in weight, the increased accuracy, the handling of the weapon under rapid fire, the weapons modularity etc..... none of these aspects really give a “significant” advantage in the alternatives out there. As of date, there is simply no real alternative that is a break through making the cost, pain in transitioning (logistics, training....etc), risk (production short falls, possible system failure down the road when they begin fatiguing).......... worthwhile. People dont realize, its not just as easy as buying a bunch of new guns. Yes, they will be new and shiny and look cool. They might even have a rep there that calls them by a cool name. There are many things I can think of, right off the top of my head, where the soldier and Marine would benefit more from on money spent. Resources are limited, spend them where we maximize the return, not chase some marginal gain with a cool new toy.
But the Air Farce and Navyget to buy new stuff all the time! LOL