Magazines, Accuracy, Reliability and More with the USMC M27 IAR

@Colonel K I agree completely, I just don't get it...I guess I don't see "The Big Picture"!

@RTW365 I used to work "The Big Picture" at the Puzzle Palace (aka, Pentagon). Here's how the process goes. The various services, after much flailing and gnashing of teeth, agree to set some commonalty standards where deemed feasible. This requires the pooling of certain resources (sharing rice bowls), but only one service can take the lead for acquisition. Everything goes swimmingly for a year or two, but then senior leadership changes. The new team wants to bring in new ideas, so they decide to tweak the system, based on inputs from the field. The lead service complains that the changes are too costly, unfunded, or not necessary. A disagreement ensues and eventually a rift develops. By this point the next leadership team is just beginning to settle in and they start lobbying Congress for more funds to modify or replace the "old standard". If Congress refuses, they reallocate funds internally to get what they want. Their troops are now happy with the new equipment/supplies. The other services see this and start to complain. This is where the "I want a dead dog, too" theory kicks into high gear. Eventually, each service, through lobbying or chicanery, acquires its own unique widgets, and everyone is happy except the acquisition folks and cost accountants. About this time another new team of leaders comes on-board and are presented with the realization that standardization has gone to hell. So, naturally, they get together with the other services and work out a new standardization program, whereupon the whole damned process has now come full circle. This typically takes about ten years, but I've seen it happen faster (and slower). So, the lesson we have learned is that the more things change, the more they stay the same (or there's nothing new under the sun).

@Colonel K I would also imagine there's a good bit of "hubris" in the mix!