http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...47-503544.html

In a written statement, the Army said it hopes to come up with a weapon with "greater degrees of accuracy, reliability, durability and maintainability."


Manufacturers will submit designs and go through competitive testing before the final selection is made. New rifles won't go out to soldiers on the front lines for at least three years.
WSJ article yeserday said they were having an "Industry Day" for small arms manufacturers, I believe in April, where they will go over the requirements with a plan for a 2 year period of evaluation before deciding on the new standard rifle for the Army.

That article also implied that a fire fight in Afghanistan where multiple US soldiers were killed demonstrated numerous reliability problems with the M4 in the dry/dusty conditions leading to their deaths.

Seems to me, there's already a proven replacement out there, the AK platform. Cheaper and more reliable. Why not? Just because it's the weapon of "the enemy"?