You're not bulletproof...

Contractor issues…

lord-of-cannons Lowest bidder, yes, but the original problem with the M9 was fault magazines (And slides) made by independent contractors.

It’s been rectified. Similar to how the M16 started as a shit weapon kept down by politics (Who wanted to swap back to the bulkier M14) and low quality materials.

I remember reading about the M9’s flaws here…

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm

I mentioned in a post regarding the FAL vs the M14. Springfield Armory or Army representatives were the ones who rigged the tests in favor of the M14 so the FAL would not be adopted. They were also the ones who advocated the need to keep the M14 instead of replacing it with the M16.

As good as the AR series rifle is now in terms of reliability, adaptability and accuracy; some issues still remain like the current trend for piston-driven assault rifles. If I remember correctly, all the rifles that competed for a contract to replace the M4 are all piston style firearms. Also the caliber has always been a major subject of debate. I’m not denying the lethality of 5.56x45mm/.223 but the development of bigger more effective calibers (6.8 SPC, .300 Blackout, 6.5 Grendel, .50 Beowulf etc) for the AR rifles is pointing something out.