It’s almost 40 years old and is antiquated compared to its contemporaries. They had the M8 lined up as it’s replacement and was more than capable, but it was never adopted. I’d like the US to adopt either the FN SCAR or develop a bullpup design as a replacement.

USMC is already in the process of replacing their M4s/M16s

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/newsletters/daily-news-roundup/2017/08/15/marines-want-50000-more-infantry-automatic-rifles-to-replace-m4/

A bolt action rifle causes soldiers to economize on ammo, which is good.

bring back the Enfield Mk 1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A bolt action rifle causes soldiers to economize
> on ammo, which is good.


In a combat situation, great for Snipers though. The German Mauser could not compete with the Garand M1 rifle in combat application.

The M4 is not 40 years old. Just like the B 52, much of the design is original, but still works very well. It is not "out dated". What the military does need is a bigger round out of the M4 platform. That hasn't happened for two reasons, logistics and anything bigger will reduce the number of rounds per magazine. Logistically, it is a MAJOR deal to change the M4 caliber. Capacity wise, it is a mental issue. Having 4 fewer rounds per mag will not effect anything, which is about what you get when you go from 5.56 to 6.8. 7.62 NATO will not replace the 5.56 because the ammunition itself is too heavy. In fact, ammunition weight is why the 5.56 was chosen.

bring back the Enfield Mk 1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A bolt action rifle causes soldiers to economize
> on ammo, which is good.


that kind of antiquated thinking is why the union didn't buy Spencer's and stuck with muzzle loaders. It is ironic though, if the union had equipped it's army with the Spencer, the war definitely would have been shorter and costs would likely have been about the same