No one's doubting the credibility of your service.  

There are also plenty of legitimate vets that will claim that Mattel made M16s, too, and insist that they were issued them.  

Just because your M16A4 wasn't a Colt doesn't automatically mean it was a Bushmaster.  By all means, please post your photographs.  I'd love to see 'em.  And, if someone can provide evidence of Bushmasters in service, I'll happily eat crow.  

Things you are wrong about - however, in order for an item to be "MIL-SPEC" it does have to be purchased under a public records contract.  It doesn't have to be large - but the contract has to be public.  There certainly could be one buried somewhere that neither I nor other researchers have been able to find.  I'd gladly eat crow if you can find it.

In the context of the discussion where your credibility is being called into question about manufacturers and the meaning of "MIL SPEC," there's a pretty clear understanding of what that means - and some odd things that are purchased at unit level or "unofficially" without public contracts, whether through RFI or UNS is not the same thing as MIL SPEC either.  Military purchased doesn't mean MIL SPEC or MIL SPEC compliant.  If something finds its way into the system through back-door channels and deals, it's not the same thing as being an approved item.  

Whether or not that interests you is irrelevant.  If you're going to present yourself as an authority on what is and is not MIL SPEC, irrespective of whether or not MIL SPEC is better or worthwhile, you should have your facts straight.  Just because you've been in the military doesn't mean you understand the military supply and procurement system on the level of MIL SPECs.  You might understand how to get your supply SGT to order something by NSN for you, but it's not the same thing.  

Also, regarding your service record - good on you, I'm glad you are a servicemember, and I'm glad you've got recent operational experience.  I'm sure you know your MOS very well and are very proficient at your core competencies.  An 0341 is neither supply, nor ordnance, nor even an armorer.  You don't have to throw your service record around to prove that you know things, nor are you the only one who can furnish a DD-214 around here.  

~Augee

Lots of posers in this thread that dont know anything past what they heard on the internet.  In regards to whats above...It's false and the SCAR has been fielded with an AAC can.  Saw it with my own two eyes in Afghanistan in 09.  Does that mean they're the best....maybe but maybe not ...but it also means they are durable enough to be chosen for this duty.  The only can I've seen so far that should not have a contract is the Smith/Fisher suppressor.  It weighs more than a brick, it's not quiet, and alignment issues (some operator error...some not) make baffle strikes more common.  Got to play with an Ops Inc on a M24...it shot pretty damn well an held up considering what it's end user put it through.

CMS

There is no hearing safe 5.56 can if you are using standard supersonic ammo.

Honestly, my military record doesn't mean shit.  It is something that I don't just throw around; although, I do have pride in it.  I am one amongst millions.  I wasn't special.  The only reason I brought it up like I did was because I felt you were calling me out and saying that I was full of shit on my service.  That, to me, is worse than spitting in my face.



Do I know about federal contracts? Yes, I work for the feds today and deal with these types of things daily.  Do I know about the ins and outs of military procurement?  Only what I have read.  Nothing more.  I completely understand "MIL SPEC" and the purpose of having a standard within the military for interchangibility of parts.  The term "MIL SPEC" gets thrown around and mis-used all of the time (and it is a pet peeve).  I get asked about my gear all of the time..."is that a sniper rifle?  Well, is the scope Mil-Spec?"  What about some "Mil-Spec" bi-pods or fill in the blank.  Often times, industry standards exceed military standards.  Often times, materials and tolerances from XYZ company exceed the military standard



If I cared to spend the time doing a FOIA, I am sure I could dig up the contract.  Would a group of serial numbers suffice for that tasty meal of crow?  I still have some old EDLs in storage.  On a lighter note, we didn't have a "supply Sgt" we had the company Gunny and the Gunny's bitch (aka Police Sgt) and I was never in the position to be able to procure anything other than B,B, & B.  I am not an expert on procurement.

SOCOM purchased about 900 Mk 16's and they were fielded.  The SCAR program did get approval for full rate production.  However, SOCOM decided to convert their orders of Mk 16's to Mk 17's (7.62mm version).  Further, they asked FNH to develop a caliber conversion kit so that the Mk17's could shoot 5.56mm ammo.  AFAIK, SOCOM doesn't plan to buy any more of the plain ole Mk16.  Mk17's are curerntly in service, and SOCOM recently approved the sniper varient, the Mk 20, as well.

Again, I'm not doubting or calling into question or diminishing your service in any way.  Sorry if my short response made you think that that's what I meant, what I said about credibility has to do with despite the fact that I have had this exact same argument / discussion with many different people at many times, no one has ever been able to substantiate the existence of Bushmaster rifles being accepted as weapons for military service with U.S. ground forces - a distinction that means, by default that they have met the MIL SPECs and MIL STDs for weapons procurement.  

I realize that MIL SPEC and MIL STD neither mean the best, nor are they even necessarily desirable in some circumstances, so I'm not even arguing with you on that point.  

However, in making an unsubstantiated claim about Bushmaster rifles in service without offering any evidence other than "I saw them, I know" you did blow your credibility with regards to providers of MIL SPEC weapons.  Understand, I am not calling you a liar, at worst, I'm suggesting your memory of the manufacturer and rollmarks may be imperfect.  You are a former Infantry Marine, no one faults you for not taking notes on the manufacture of your weapons.  You are an eyewitness, however eyewitness accounts alone do not trump evidence in academics or in court - and this is an academic discussion, the kind engaged in by historians.  

In that vein, as you are the one making a claim that goes against conventional wisdom - the onus is on you to prove your position, not for me to disprove.  And I know what you're probably going to say in response to that - that you don't care to do the research because you don't feel the need to prove yourself to me.  That's fine, and your claim shall remain an unsubstantiated eyewitness report - like all the claims of having seen and been issued Mattel M16s in Vietnam.  

The fact is - whether or not you care to or care about it, a lot of people have spent a good amount of time studying the topic of military small arms, and many resources are now available that make it possible to research and to share with others with similar interests.  One such resource is FBO.gov - Fed Biz Ops, which is an online, public, researchable website that tracks government solicitations and procurements.  I have perused FBO many times, and found some interesting and sometimes unexpected contracts - no need to do a FOIA request.  Nevertheless, I don't claim to be the sole authority, nor to have waded through every single contract on FBO to determine this.

Luckily, I'm not the only one who keeps track of this stuff or is interested in it.  Another great resource is D. E. Watter's 5.56 Timeline - Daniel Watters has done a great deal more research than I, and has compiled a pretty extensive list of all contracts, solicitations, and developments having to do with the M16FOW.  Though he himself would admit that it's not 100% complete - it is a pretty comprehensive record.  A search of his research tracking contracts from 1980 to 2009 does not show any evidence of Bushmaster supplying M16A4s or any rifles for use of U.S. military ground forces - particularly not in the timeframe you mentioned.  Neither I, nor Mr. Watters has any reason to deliberately obscure or omit this kind of information - we are seeking to learn as much as we can, not forward some kind of agenda.  The more information the better - and when new information that is unknown is revealed it is exciting, not something to get butt hurt over.  Furthermore, given that the 5.56 Timeline has been able to track down contracts from NSWC-Crane on behalf NSWDG and CAG among others - I find it difficult to believe that a purchase of M16s for conventional Marine forces would be so "on the DL" that it wouldn't be included.  

References to Bushmaster do note some items of interest including:

A 1990 purchase of 65 Bushmaster carbines - unknown exactly where these went

Several purchases of Bushmaster firearms, including Carbon-15s, for FMS (Foreign Military Sales) by TACOM.  

The solicitation of 5 Bushmaster PDWs as test items by TACOM

A contract awarded to Bushmaster in 2007 for just over 5,500 M16A3 rifles to the U.S. Navy.  This contract is subsequently cancelled in 2008 over the terms of the contract (Bushmaster's small business qualification) - there is no evidence any of these rifles are ever delivered.  

Another development is that photographs have been posted of a single select-fire Bushmaster HBAR carbine "on the books" of 2ID.  Not much is known about the history of this weapon, however some things are relatively certain about it - it is not one of the 65 carbines purchased in 1990, it does not meet M4 Carbine specifications - not MIL SPECs, but even in simple configuration, and it is, for all intents and purposes, "one of a kind." Several theories exist to how it came to be in a U.S. Army arms room, none of which can be satisfactorily proven - however, there are enough plausible options to say that it does not mean that Bushmaster rifles have been purchased by the U.S. military for issue to U.S. service members.  

I say all these things not to impress you with my knowledge and research skills - but to show that I'm not simply making wild claims and telling you you are wrong without any basis for my assertions.  I have reasons and evidence to back up my claim that you are mistaken in one way or another, because we can examine several possibilities with regards to your experience:

1.  You are simply mistaken - perhaps, even most likely, your M16A4 was not manufactured by Colt.  When you were issued it - because you're an Infantryman, not a researcher or academic, you didn't pay close attention to what the rollmark was, you simply noted that it was not Colt.  Somewhere, either before or after the fact, you heard people talk about Bushmaster M16s - it could have been about FMS sales, it could have been about the 65 carbines in 1990, it could have been about the fact that Bushmaster was among the companies selected to build M16A3s and A4s.  You needn't have done this consciously, but the association, coupled with your memory that your M16A4 was not a Colt may be leading you to believe or "remember" that it was a Bushmaster.  

2.  Perhaps you were, in fact, issued a Bushmaster M16A4 in spite of all evidence to the contrary - maybe it's true.  This could have happened in several different ways - backdoor deals with private contractors, re-diverted FMS purchase rifles, Urgent Needs Statements, weapons intended to equip the IA, who knows.  However, if these, or many other ways a Bushmaster M16A4 could have found its way into your hands were true - what you were issued *is not a MIL SPEC weapon.*  However the rifle found its way to you, it did not go through the solicitation, competition, selection, or verification and vetting process to qualify as meeting MIL SPECs and MIL STDs for issue.  It is an off the shelf item, just the same as TAPCO light mounts purchased by a unit and issued to soldiers are off the shelf items.  It does not make them MIL SPEC.  Who knows, they may, in all functional respects meet MIL SPECs in terms of features and materials and parts interchangeability, however MIL SPEC not only mandates those things, but it also mandates the verification procedures that they meet these standards - meaning that if they are not subject to them, they are not "to spec."  

Here's the thing, as I said, you are not the only one who can furnish a DD-214.  Nor do I doubt any of the claims you make about your service or anything related to the core competencies of your MOS, however, having plenty of experience with military folks I can say for 100% certain, that they are nowhere near the best authority for information on the manufacture and minutae of their issued equipment.  What I know about the topic is not related to my MOS or military experience, but because of my interest in the topic as an amateur historian.  Otherwise, I would have no way or reason to know these things - and as it stands - ask me about military vehicles that I've operated with and on, and I'll be the first to tell you - I can tell you what I know and remember, but I won't be the most reliable source, because it's not my area of interest or research - small arms are.  Coming from that same point of view that you are, I realize that while a military vehicle historian might find my recollections interesting and useful, and be very trustful of my knowledge of their operational use and employment - I would understand too that they might put little faith in my recollections of minutia about who made what, and where it came from.  I just didn't pay enough attention while I was there - and they probably have more information than I do, having done the research.  

~Augee

I was not SF  (to avoid being accused of suggesting).  

My comment had a lot more to do with being in Iraq in 2009 and the guns existing for range use. They were not authorized to be used on missions.  There may have been groups that had different rules.  There may also have been individual teams that disobeyed rules.  I was merely pointing out that the weapon didn't get a contract and in my experience wasn't authorized for actual field use.  That doesn't make me a poser or a source of dissinformation.

My poser comment isn't directed towards anyone in particular...and if you're specifically talking about the MK16 and not the SCAR in general you are correct.  The MK17 is in use in an operational capacity though...so maybe me just saying "the SCAR" was a little vague.

CMS

Umm, SOCOM bought abput 900 Mk16's and there's pics of Mk16's being used in the field.  SOCOM cancelled furhter orders of the Mk16 in favor of the Mk17.  SOCOM continues to use the Mk17, and is also buying the Mk 20.  

Here's a couple pics:

SF operational structure is such that a few guys on a team might think it would be cool to take the gun out, so they do.  Also rules might have been different from one group to another.  A picture doesn't tell a completely descriptive story.

The team is pretty much able to do whatever the Team SGT allows.   They aren't near the flag pole so one Team SGT might be rule of law, and another, have at it.  

The guys were at least until recently issued MK18s with KAC NT4's and M4's with DD RISII - these are good weapons too, and preference AR or SCAR will differ from one guy to the next.  Now I guess they will start to get Surefire FA 556 212's (that's at least what the $24,000,000 Surefire contract would imply.

The entire 75th Ranger battalion did a deplyment with Mk16's.

They were used in the field.  Not sure why you're trying to make this argument.

Yes, Mk18's and M4A1's are still the standard issue 5.56mm carbines, even in SOCOM, since SOCOM decided to convert Mk16 orders to Mk17 orders.

I wasn't trying to argue anything other than my experience with the guns.  Where I was at, they were were not allowed on real world missions.  I'm not trying to pretend I know more about it than my own experiences.

Look at Ops Inc.  Surefire came out of this company, if I remember things correctly.  Quality product, excellent suppression, much more affordable than Surefire.

OK, fair enough.

IBTL

In regards to your query, OP, OPS INC has been doing it longer than most and also for the military. Every Mk 12 you see is rocking a 12th model. If you read Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell you can see how tough they are. They have excellent CS too; Ron will bend over backward to accommodate customers. He posts on here occasionally too.They're very affordable for what you're getting, and I personally think they're the best overall value.

However, you still can't go wrong with Surefire, AAC, or KAC for your needs.