Getting All Modern?

The USMC has declined to participate in the M7 and XM8 programs.  They stuck to their M27 IAR.

I just found out that the 27 comes from the first unit to field them and isn't in sequence with ANY of the nomenclature systems the military has ever used.  The stubby M38 version is, likewise, named after the first unit that used it.

Is this a good plan?

Let's add up the weights!

Loaded M16A4 (30 rounds) 9.1 lb.

With ACOG 10 lb.

Add an AN/PEQ-16 10.6 lb.

Plus basic load 16.6 lb.

Loaded M27 (30 rounds) 9 lb.

With ACOG 9.9 lb.

Add an AN/PEQ-16 10.5 lb.

Add a NT4 QDSS suppressor 11.9 lb.

Plus basic load 18.5 lb.

Loaded M4A1+ (with the heavier SOCCOM style barrel) (30 rounds) 7.8 lb.

With M68 8.6 lb.

Add an AN/PEQ-16 9.2 lb.

Add a NT4 QDSS suppressor 10.6 lb.

Plust basic load 16.6 lb.

Loaded M7 (20 rounds) 9.8 lb.

With M157 optic 11.7 lb.

Add the proprietary suppressor 13.2 lb.

Plus basic load 21.2 lb.

Loaded XM8 (25 rounds) 8.9 lb.

With M157 optic 10.8 lb.

Add the proprietary suppressor 12.1 lb.

Plus basic load 21.1 lb.

I think less mass is better than more if you're lugging it around.

I think that more beans is better than fewer.

I think the Marines got a shorter barreled version of the M16A4 for just 0.1 lb. of weight savings and lose the shorter length by adding a suppressor.

They're still at 210 rounds combat load compared to 140 for the M7 and save 1.3 lb.  They're only ahead of the XM8 by 0.2 lb. but the 175 round basic load still looms large.

There's a distinct lack of reporting on if the problems with the M157 have been fixed.

I still think it's VERY telling that SIG proposed the XM8 so soon after the M7 was accepted and complaints started rolling in about various features.

Compare those "plus basic load" weights.  More weight, fewer beans...  No sir, I don't like it.

I still don't really see what the Marines are getting for the extra mass on their gun compared to the M4A1+.