Military Operational Test and Evaluation Office Report

[eamyrick]

“ Most M250s equipped with M157s did not retain zero during the OA or the airborne test.”

DOT&E Report on Next Generation Squad Weapons, Ammunition and Fire Control | Soldier Systems Daily

On 13 March, 2026, the Department Of War’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Office (DOT&E) released their 2025 annual report to Congress. DOT&a ...

soldiersystems.net

I thought this take away was interesting because often “what the military uses” is lauded as an example of utmost reliability. Hopefully this issue is resolved prior to deployment of this system. Surprise, the optic is built by Vortex.

I have been involved with some fairly large contract purchases of small arms and what is tested and requested is often bastardized in the procurement process.

 

[BigRed99]

Sig rifles with Vortex optics, what a joke. Never seen an AR pattern rifle malfunction out the box like the MCX-Spear

 

[BLJ]

“what the military uses” is lauded as an example of utmost reliability.

I always thought it was an indication of the lowest bidder.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I always thought it was an indication of the lowest bidder.

Not all military contracts are awarded to the lowest-price, technically-acceptable bid. But most are because it requires a lot less justification.

 

[Kyguy]

It's specifically states it didn't retain zero on the M250 automatic squad weapon, the replacement for the M249. It also didn't state how many rounds were fired before loss of zero.

Does anything retain zero for an extended period on a high volume automatic rifle?

It would appear it was fine on the other two rifles, as it doesn't mention issues.

That report doesn't have enough data in it to draw any conclusions, regardless of the manufacturer.

 

[Kyguy]

I always thought it was an indication of the lowest bidder.

Everyone does realize the the much lauded on here SWFA scopes were probably (and still are) the indication of a lowest bidder? Lowest bidder still has to meet the specifications of the contract. Doesn't mean the quality suffers.

 

[eamyrick]

Summary stated the optic didn’t retain zero during the airborne test.

 

[eamyrick]

Everyone does realize the the much lauded on here SWFA scopes were probably (and still are) the indication of a lowest bidder? Lowest bidder still has to meet the specifications of the contract. Doesn't mean the quality suffers.

This sounds great in theory. I’m currently working on two procurement justifications for public safety robotics. In absence of a robust response to procurement, “meet the specifications” is a complete shot in the dark. The employees who cut the checks and approve the bids, have zero connection to the items. Contracts are frequently filled by vendors with zero business in the space. Procurement can go either way over $100 on a $400,000 item if the field supervisor doesn’t turn on his computer on vacation.

 

[Macintosh]

This sounds great in theory. I’m currently working on two procurement justifications for public safety robotics. In absence of a robust response to procurement, “meet the specifications” is a complete shot in the dark. The employees who cut the checks and approve the bids, have zero connection to the items. Contracts are frequently filled by vendors with zero business in the space. Procurement can go either way over $100 on a $400,000 item if the field supervisor …

@Kyguy this^^ is spot on. Its entirely dependent on how the request is written and what specifications there are, as pretty much every request has a “…or equivalent” at the end of any description. I have it on good authority that writing a request for bids in a way that actually results in getting what you want, is something of a rare art form.