PDA

View Full Version : Colt getting heat for military contract.


bg
04-20-2008, 5:25 PM
Looks like some want Colt not to be the only one suppling weapons
for the Military. >
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_re_us/the_gun_wars
excerpt
HARTFORD, Conn. - No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M4s they trust with their lives.

Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press.

"What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

The M4, which can fire at a rate of 700 to 950 bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. It normally carries a 30-round magazine. At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines.

"And if you tend to have the problem at the wrong time, you're putting your life on the line," says Coburn, who began examining the M4's performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers. "The fact is, the American GI today doesn't have the best weapon. And they ought to."

U.S. military officials don't agree. They call the M4 an excellent carbine. When the time comes to replace the M4, they want a combat rifle that is leaps and bounds beyond what's currently available.

"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."
I don't know about that..Some might suggest the AK or it's
deviates might give the M4 a run. What do you think ?

DedEye
04-20-2008, 5:40 PM
:dupe: Almost identically titled post in the General Gun Discussion forum...

Colt's grip on military rifle criticized (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=97363).

ptoguy2002
04-20-2008, 5:46 PM
$1500 is way over priced.
Don't remember what FN gets for the M16, but its a lot less than that.

M. Sage
04-20-2008, 6:04 PM
$1500 is way over priced.
Don't remember what FN gets for the M16, but its a lot less than that.

The military isn't paying $1500/M4. That's even more than the civilian price (for a semi-auto, of course), and I'm pretty sure that we pay more than the .gov does...

bwiese
04-20-2008, 6:15 PM
Sounds like Coburn is haranguing to perhaps get an HK plant in Oklahoma.

And maybe some campaign contributions.

FortCourageArmory
04-20-2008, 6:24 PM
The military would never pays $1,500 for an infantry rifle. If they were including lights, lasers, and ACOGs as part of that $1,500.....maybe. But the government pays significantly BELOW wholesale costs because they buy in such huge quantities. Thousands and thousands of units. Not just a few hundred. So, if the $1,500-per-unit is what is being reported to Congress, I smell something "fishy".

Piper
04-20-2008, 6:30 PM
When I was in the military, I was issued M16's made by GM Hydralics, Colt, Remington and Ithaca.

artherd
04-20-2008, 7:27 PM
This is political grandstanding, probably to put a gas-piston replacement into procurement.

bg
04-20-2008, 7:55 PM
:dupe: Almost identically titled post in the General Gun Discussion forum...

Colt's grip on military rifle criticized (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=97363).
Ah cr*p. Late to the party again..Maybe a MOD will delete this.
Thanks,
bg

stag1500
04-20-2008, 8:42 PM
I'd pay $1500 for an M4 if I could. :D Back before the 1986 machine-gun ban, Colt M16s were about $600 (plus $200 tax). So when you take inflation into account, $1500 is pretty darn cheap.

Anyway, if I had a choice, I'd carry the H&K G3 into battle. It is both accurate and reliable. Not to mention that the 7.62 can go through buildings.

fireblast713
04-20-2008, 9:04 PM
I'd pay $1500 for an M4 if I could. :D Back before the 1986 machine-gun ban, Colt M16s were about $600 (plus $200 tax). So when you take inflation into account, $1500 is pretty darn cheap.

Anyway, if I had a choice, I'd carry the H&K G3 into battle. It is both accurate and reliable. Not to mention that the 7.62 can go through buildings.

it's also heavy (both the gun and the ammo) and unwieldy in CBC situations, but a very nice gun in any case heh :)

chris
04-20-2008, 10:18 PM
this is such crap the M4 has been in production for a long time now and we are still carrying that M16A2 musket. the M4 is not being fielded to all troops and onyly infantry and even some brigades are stil carrying the A2. the M16A4is not really being fielded in sufficient numbers either. someone is screwing the pooch on something here.

since the Army killed the XM8 last year who knows when a new rilfe will be given to the troops. i used an M4 in Iraq and it was quite reliable. i did also take care of it as all troops should heck man it's your life with that weapon. i do believe it's time for another weapons platform there just too much politics in procuring a new one.

gunsmithcats
04-21-2008, 3:47 AM
My units been using m16a2s for a while and we deploy every year.
We finally got in a crapload of m16a4's and m4's, but theyre stuck in the rear.

On that note, the m16a4 isn't bad at all, if you're not running around in rooms and towns (for example, afghan). But with the effort to get all Marines ACOG's, the advantage provided by a longer sight radius on the m16a4 becomes moot. Thus, if i knew i was getting optics, id definitely want an m4.

But man, U just can't buttstroke anyone with a carbine stock. You'd be surprised how useful that buttstock on an A2 is. Break locks, doors, stubborn cases, stupid people :)

MrLogan
04-21-2008, 1:57 PM
There's nothing out there right now that is so significantly better than the M4 to warrant spending money on a replacement. The M4 is a fine weapon. Yes, it requires maintenance, but that's okay: It's a weapon for a disciplined Soldier, not some third world insurgent.

The M4 is a fine weapon, and plenty reliable. Stop :beatdeadhorse5: