Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Colt's Grip on Military Rifle Market Called Bad Deal
yahoo.com ^ | 4/20/2008 | RICHARD LARDNER

Posted on 04/20/2008 1:10:11 PM PDT by kellynla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last
To: kellynla
Colt "had not demonstrated any incentive to consider a price reduction," then-Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, an Army acquisition official, wrote in a November 2006 report.

"General Sorenson has not demonstrated any incentive to consider a salary reduction" 2111USMC wrote in a April 20, 2008 post.

51 posted on 04/20/2008 4:27:44 PM PDT by 2111USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
I have alway wanted to opt for a heavier caliber. The 7.62x39 always appealed to me, I have a Ruger in this caliber, but I am an old fogy. We must move on and not be the last to cast the old aside
I am also worried that the Gumment might outlaw military calibers in lieu of another “assault weapons ban”
barbra ann
52 posted on 04/20/2008 4:38:40 PM PDT by barb-tex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

The economic system is designed to support a military/industrial complex. There is money in supplying armed forces. Always has been and always will be, so quit bitching and support the war.


53 posted on 04/20/2008 4:39:40 PM PDT by B4Ranch ( Rope, Tree & Traitor; Some Assembly Required || Gun Control Means Never Having To Say I Missed You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

30 plus caliber is designed to kill with one shot, below 30 caliber requires two or more rounds. If you want to kill your attackers, use something like a .308, if you only want to discourage them, use a .223.


54 posted on 04/20/2008 4:43:39 PM PDT by B4Ranch ( Rope, Tree & Traitor; Some Assembly Required || Gun Control Means Never Having To Say I Missed You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Colt is overpriced. You got a problem with oversight?


55 posted on 04/20/2008 4:46:47 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

A great man, you probably never heard of told me not to do that, some say he was a five star general. But like I said you probably never heard of him since you know nothing of free speech as well.


56 posted on 04/20/2008 4:48:28 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

The .223 made some sense where guys are truckin it thru the bush, I guess. That way they could carry a lot more ammo to piss people off.

I like the idea of putting someone down and out with one shot.


57 posted on 04/20/2008 4:50:06 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

I gotta Tx made High Standard AR15 here. $750

Jap Hakko scope $125, Bipod? $25

Never jams, never miss.

Colt could do better


58 posted on 04/20/2008 4:51:24 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: mylife

“Colt is overpriced. You got a problem with oversight?”

At first glance a lot of government contracts appear over priced. They rarely are unless a Senator or ex General is involved in the procurement.

Many times the govt gives you only brief requirements which are changed a million times. And/Or they require extensive oversight which has to be included in the product or service price.

I was at one event a few weeks ago. The govt was requiring a full time person to be assigned prior to award and with no guarantee of award. Their opinion was this was a cost of doing business. So that persons cost gets built in to everyone elses price. If the contract isn’t won then its added to the next contract.

The amount of bureaucracy and numbers of people whose sole purpose was ‘manage’ procurement was astounding. They thrown a ton of this at procurement and expect it to be more efficient.


59 posted on 04/20/2008 4:59:09 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: mylife

“I gotta Tx made High Standard AR15 here”

I have a bushmaster and have had good luck with it. But then I’m not running around in the sand, mud, or salt water.


60 posted on 04/20/2008 5:01:33 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I understand that Gov oversight adds to the burden of price, hence $900m brass hammers for working on ordnance.
Still, Colt is over priced


61 posted on 04/20/2008 5:03:11 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Bushmaster seems to make a very good weapon for the price.
They seem to be the popular favorite for the money.

Stoners design is not good for sand and silt period.But this carbon build up argument is a joke.


62 posted on 04/20/2008 5:06:50 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
I’ve always wondered if a heavier caliber, perhaps in the .30 range, might not be a better investment.

This gets us into the area of tradeoffs again. Since WW1, it's been accepted that the full-power rifle round was more than the individual soldier needed, or could use. Aimed rifle fire beyond 300m was rare, but still the price was paid in terms of a more powerful, more expensive round, and a longer, heavier weapon. The Germans pretty much proved that in WW2 with the MP44, firing the 8mm kurz round. It was the world's first assault rifle (sturmgewehr was Hitler's own term, adopted after he finally approved the concept), and it was so good at killing Russians that the USSR started a crash course to develop their own equivalent.

In both cases, they stayed with a lighter bullet, but still the same diameter as their full-size round, 7.62mm for the soviets, 7.92mm for the Germans. It was a good, safe move, and served them well.

Gene Stoner, in a blank-sheet-of-paper design, looked at smaller, high-velocity .22 varmint and target rounds. At the range of 300m, the .222 Remington could still penetrate a GI steel helmet, which was one of the criteria. He redesigned the round a bit, and the .223 Remington was born.

The smaller, lighter bullet meant a flatter trajectory, lower recoil, and less cost. It also meant that the total system weight of rifle, magazines, and ammo could be made lighter.

Some of the current "faults" of the 5.56mm round result from the rifle-and-ammo combination being an over-achiever, and doing more than it was intended. With a good scope, a good infantryman can hit targets out to 600m. Accurized M16s/AR15s with match ammo are used at 1000 yard matches, and are beating the M14-type rifles.

The "problem" is the M16/5.556 combo is inherently accurate, allowing targets to be engaged far beyond the original intent of the specs. But the lightweight (even the current M885 ammo) bullet lacks quite a bit of lethality at that range. You can reliably hit, but the target does not reliably die at those longer ranges.

There are classified programs to develop a round midway between the 5.66 and the 7.62 in size and weight to address this specialized need. Not-for-attribution comments say the results are fantastic.

Even without a different weapon (some of the prototypes are based on M16 components), it would introduce another caliber of ammo into the supply system. The 5.56mm round cut back on the demand for 7.62mm NATO, but did not eliminate it, since it's still in demand in the machine gun role.

The US now has a 40+ year history for the M16 and its ammo. The M16 series has become the longest-serving rifle in our history. Other western nations have 20 or more years invested in their 5.56mm systems. Not one country has said, "the 5.56mm is crap, we're going back to 7.62".

Oh, and with all those M1913 rails demanded on all current weapons, here's something you could do to your M16 (I think), but not recommended:


63 posted on 04/20/2008 5:07:56 PM PDT by 300winmag (Life is hard! It is even harder when you are stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Lets face it. Kalashnikov’s win hands down for for functioning in slop


64 posted on 04/20/2008 5:08:34 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 300winmag

Well said. I use .223 at 400 yds on steel gongs, but I use .308 and 7.62x54 as well and you know witch on I would ditch in real life at that range?


65 posted on 04/20/2008 5:13:41 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"There's not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4," says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. "To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense."

At the risk of being indelicate what a load of crappola. Not only are there significantly better weapons out there but there are better calibers available as well. To start with the H&K 416 is significantly better to the extent that SOCOM used their discretionary funds and bought a bunch for their "operators." But before the superiority could be firmly established in the records, the army brass caught a foul wind of the issue and forced SOCOM to hand them all in based on the necessities of good logistics or something like that. In reality it was to save their political a$$e$. No doubt the decision will cost some lives among the contingents of operators forced to use inferior weapons, but that has never deterred the Pentagon brass in the past, even when the first generations of the M16 were first fielded in Vietnam and their shortcomings caused many deaths.

66 posted on 04/20/2008 5:21:42 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
At 1500 somalians, is the M4 the “best bang for the buck?”

At 1500 somalians per simolian it is a question worth asking.

67 posted on 04/20/2008 5:38:25 PM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mylife

The AK47 works well in slop and is very easy to maintain. It requires little training to use or clean. Works well for the Russian and Chinese armies who are generally less well educated and trained than western armies.


68 posted on 04/20/2008 5:38:39 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Built for joe everyday?

Now here is a concept..

Take a Russian RPK, and chamber that in .308 and marry it to an accurised barrel

I bought one for $355


69 posted on 04/20/2008 5:45:49 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Gimme a yugo M76
70 posted on 04/20/2008 5:54:55 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: All
passive light gathering system

No signiture

71 posted on 04/20/2008 6:11:26 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: 300winmag

Is the M4 what was called an CAR-15 “Shorty” back decades ago?


72 posted on 04/20/2008 6:47:08 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (Been here before)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
Is the M4 what was called an CAR-15 “Shorty” back decades ago?

It's the "grandson" of the CAR-15. Lots of major and minor changes since then. But still the same concept of making it shorter and lighter than the standard rifle. In urban fighting in Iraq, a shorter weapon is appreciated. Afghanistan has much more open range, there the demand is for supplemental weapons with more reach, like .308 and above.

73 posted on 04/20/2008 7:12:02 PM PDT by 300winmag (Life is hard! It is even harder when you are stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: BallyBill

You can buy a US made civilian version of the M4 for about $700. Why is the government paying over TWICE as much?


74 posted on 04/20/2008 7:22:28 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 300winmag

Thanks for the info.


75 posted on 04/20/2008 7:30:23 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (Been here before)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
You can buy a US made civilian version of the M4 for about $700. Why is the government paying over TWICE as much?

It's that $800 select fire switch.

76 posted on 04/20/2008 8:19:00 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution ? 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

The only thing I can think off to improve an M-4 is make it in .308


77 posted on 04/20/2008 10:02:21 PM PDT by oyez (Justa' another high minded lowlife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
Panther™ LR-308AP4. Oyeah!
78 posted on 04/20/2008 10:05:22 PM PDT by oyez (Justa' another high minded lowlife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider

Must be.


79 posted on 04/21/2008 5:56:01 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
And since the Sept. 11 attacks, sales have skyrocketed.

<tinfoil>Ah, HA! Follow the money! Sept. 11 was a defense industry conspiracy to boost profits!</tinfoil>

80 posted on 04/21/2008 6:02:04 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Global Warming Heretic -- http://agw-heretic.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

No need to confirm. I know it’s pretty standard for the military to demand some domestic production for things like this.


81 posted on 04/21/2008 7:58:45 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: theKid51

ping


82 posted on 04/21/2008 8:01:19 AM PDT by bmwcyle (I always rely on God and Guns in that order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
If you want to kill your attackers, use something like a .308, if you only want to discourage them, use a .223.

Dead enemies are just dead. Wounded enemies are a burden on their comrades and make much better intelligence sources when captured.

83 posted on 04/21/2008 9:57:12 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I take it that you have never had someone shoot at you with the sincere intent of killing you. I have and when I fired back I was damn glad that I had an M-14 because I had zero intention of providing Intel with a better intelligence source if and when the sob was ever captured. I did feel good about supplying Intel with an almost complete corpse to photograph, measure, weigh, strip naked or do whatever else they do with enemy corpses.

Dead enemies are not just dead. They can be permanently scratched off the list of deadly threats. That’s a good feeling.


84 posted on 04/21/2008 10:55:59 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( Rope, Tree & Traitor; Some Assembly Required || Gun Control Means Never Having To Say I Missed You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
You assume your enemy cares about its wounded, or that the wounded enemy will not be in a position to kill you.

Shooting to wound is one of those stupid things that have us using a squirrel round in a military rifle. You shoot to kill the guy who is trying like heck to kill you.

85 posted on 04/21/2008 3:48:49 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Shooting to wound is one of those stupid things that have us using a squirrel round in a military rifle.

Shoot to incapacitate. Whether he's dead or just out, he's still no more danger. I understand the reasons for both sides, and both types of rounds have their purpose. It's just kind of hard to be clearing a building with a rifle holding a small number of 30.06 rounds instead of a lot of lighter, smaller rounds. Out in the wide open like Afghanistan, definitely larger rounds. You still want it to have the energy to kill/incapacitate at 300+ meters.

86 posted on 04/21/2008 5:13:39 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
I take it that you have never had someone shoot at you with the sincere intent of killing you.

Not with little hand-held guns.

87 posted on 04/21/2008 5:17:17 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson