Skip to comments.Colt's Grip on Military Rifle Market Called Bad Deal
Posted on 04/20/2008 1:10:11 PM PDT by kellynla
click here to read article
"General Sorenson has not demonstrated any incentive to consider a salary reduction" 2111USMC wrote in a April 20, 2008 post.
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.
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.
Colt is overpriced. You got a problem with oversight?
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.
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.
I gotta Tx made High Standard AR15 here. $750
Jap Hakko scope $125, Bipod? $25
Never jams, never miss.
Colt could do better
“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.
“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.
I understand that Gov oversight adds to the burden of price, hence $900m brass hammers for working on ordnance.
Still, Colt is over priced
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.
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:
Lets face it. Kalashnikov’s win hands down for for functioning in slop
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?
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.
At 1500 somalians per simolian it is a question worth asking.
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.
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
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.
You can buy a US made civilian version of the M4 for about $700. Why is the government paying over TWICE as much?
Thanks for the info.
It's that $800 select fire switch.
The only thing I can think off to improve an M-4 is make it in .308
<tinfoil>Ah, HA! Follow the money! Sept. 11 was a defense industry conspiracy to boost profits!
No need to confirm. I know it’s pretty standard for the military to demand some domestic production for things like this.
Dead enemies are just dead. Wounded enemies are a burden on their comrades and make much better intelligence sources when captured.
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.
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.
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.
Not with little hand-held guns.
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.