Fresh from the news wires is a pic:


An M4 Colt rifle is displayed at the Colt Defense Plant in Hartford, Conn., Thursday, March 27, 2008. 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.
(AP Photo/Richard Lardner)

Payback article for Colt telling the State they would move out if they forced firearm manufacturers to "tag" their weapons serial numbers on ammo or some kind of identifier?

Quoted: Quoted: Fucking HK lobby idiots... Someone wants a factory built in his district... Seriously, Colt shouldn't have a sole-source monopoly on the M4... FN, Bushmaster, et al should be allowed to compete for the contract... A new rifle, however... That is, at the present, unwarranted... Really?  So how about the SCAR?  Shouldn't the plans be released and it go out to bid then?  HK416?

1) The SCAR is a weapon for a specific subset with 'special' requirements.... It was never intended to replace the M16/M4, nor should it...

2) The 416 doesn't provide enough real-world improvement to justify purchase for 'big Army' use - especially in the middle of a war...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That article is clearly a turd laden hit piece, but I do have one question. Does DOD really pay $1,500 / M4? Not even fucking close. Possibly, with mags, spare parts, maintainence. Maintenance? What do you think Colt does, sells them an extended warranty like Circuit City? Maybe maintainence is the wrong word, but I'd bet they are "warrentied" and if there is a problem from the factory [defect] it will be repaired or replaced on Colts dime. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, so I'll save you all the thought and just tell you that the price is wrong.  Period. Actually,I thought they were around $900-$1000, maybe a bit more with the mag package and whatever they figured into the contract.

Mags are a separate contract to separate companies....

The M16A2 is sub $500, the M4 is sub $600...

The $1500 cost is for the most expensive 'common' variant - the M4 SOPMOD, which has lots of 'extra' goodies rolled in...

Quoted: What's wrong with questioning whether our military has the best combat rifle in its arsenal? If we are going to send our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines into combat then we have an obligation to outfit them with the best weapon available. Regardless of whether its made in America or not. I don't care as long as its the best. Our government is currently spending up to $1 Billion dollars to send out $40 Vouchers to people to make sure their TV will work in Feb. 2009 when TV Brodcasts are mandated to be all digital. So if we can spend money on useless bullshit like that then what the hell is the problem with spending a little extra money for the HK416, SCAR, etc. if they truly are a better wepaon. I say they should outfit select Army and Marine, not Special Forces but standard Infantry Units, in Iraq and Afghanistan with the SCAR and HK416 for a trial period and then see how they compare against the M4. If this can be done without risk to the Soldiers and Marines. This would be a far better test than some silly ass test in less than real conditons. If one of them is clearly a better weapon, then tell Colt to go build a better rifle to compete against H&K or FN. If the M4 is better then tell H&K and FN to go back to the drawing board. The bottom line is I don't give a shit who makes it. I want our Military to have the best. I don't drink Colt, H&K, or FN Kool-Aid. We owe it to our military to give them the best and if the M4 is not it than let's move on and put this issue to rest once and for all. ETA: Flame Away.

The problem is that they are not, FUNCTIONALLY, a better enough weapon to justify the cost....

The money should be spent on VEHICLE UPGRADES, ADVANCED CREW SERVED WEAPONS, and other force multipliers...

Not on individual weapons, when the current issue rifle does the job WELL ENOUGH when properly maintained...

Quoted: Quoted: I see no reason why our nation should buy weapons from any other nation.  If the M4 needs to be replaced, then it should be replaced by an American design. That kind of bullshit got us the M60 and the M14.

 What's wrong with those weapons?  Isn't the M14 a reliable, accurate rifle?  

To give you guys an idea of what the money this guy would like wasted on new rifles SHOULD be spent on, here are some suggestions:

1) M1A3 upgrade to the Abrams, consisting of (a) turning the tank all-digital (using a networked bus instead of a HUGE copper-wire harness, for savings of about 1.5 TONS of weight), (b) integration of the 'TUSK' upgrades, (c) an INTEGRATED APU that is capable of powering the vehicle's electronics & turret with the engine off - but is protected by the vehicle's armor/located in a manner that damage to it will not set the entire engine pack on fire (APU fires were a big pre-EFP problem for the M1) and (C) further improvements to top/side/rear armor....

2) Replacement of the M2 50cal machine gun with a more modern and LIGHTER WEIGHT weapon featuring a quick-change barrel with fixed headspace/timing and a gas-operated (not blowback) action....

3) Mass issue of optical sights to all troops, and integration of such into training

4) Replacement of all HMMWVs in combat units with a purpose-built armored patrol/security vehicle designed from the start for forward deployment & use under hostile fire...

And that's just the ARMY/MARINES - then you get the USAF & USN 'major improvements' list...

When we do all of that, THEN we can start talking about the weapon that Pvt Snuffy carries to and from his track/truck...

Our problems right now are more about force-multipliers designed for a type of war that is now obsolete - NOT about individual weapons...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I see no reason why our nation should buy weapons from any other nation.  If the M4 needs to be replaced, then it should be replaced by an American design. That kind of bullshit got us the M60 and the M14.  What's wrong with those weapons?  Isn't the M14 a reliable, accurate rifle?

No, it wasn't... It was *made* highly accurate by necessity over the years (as the M-21 and later by the civillian DCM shooting community)...

It had DIFFERENT reliability issues, and it was hardly the optimal design...

It was the result of 'make it here, buy it here' bullshit - and 2 superior & more modern designs were passed up just so Ordnance could make the rifle they should have fielded in the 1930s (the M14 is the weapon the M1 Garand SHOULD have been before 'The Folks In Charge' nixed the detachable box mag & required 30-06 over .276 Penderson)...

Quoted: I see no reason why our nation should buy weapons from any other nation.  If the M4 needs to be replaced, then it should be replaced by an American design.

And made in America from American materials.
I would say the same for EVERY item the military needs.

The M14 was inaccurate and gained a reputation for breaking parts in the field.  The tests I saw today (from the 50's and 60's) claimed that it was quite reliable, though.

Quoted: Quoted: I see no reason why our nation should buy weapons from any other nation.  If the M4 needs to be replaced, then it should be replaced by an American design. And made in America from American materials. I would say the same for EVERY item the military needs.

That's great.  Where are you going to get things like aluminum.  The bauxite comes from Australia.

Besides, the oil to run our military doesn't even come from here.

Quoted: To give you guys an idea of what the money this guy would like wasted on new rifles SHOULD be spent on, here are some suggestions: 1) M1A3 upgrade to the Abrams, consisting of (a) turning the tank all-digital (using a networked bus instead of a HUGE copper-wire harness, for savings of about 1.5 TONS of weight), (b) integration of the 'TUSK' upgrades, (c) an INTEGRATED APU that is capable of powering the vehicle's electronics & turret with the engine off - but is protected by the vehicle's armor/located in a manner that damage to it will not set the entire engine pack on fire (APU fires were a big pre-EFP problem for the M1) and (C) further improvements to top/side/rear armor.... 2) Replacement of the M2 50cal machine gun with a more modern and LIGHTER WEIGHT weapon featuring a quick-change barrel with fixed headspace/timing and a gas-operated (not blowback) action.... 3) Mass issue of optical sights to all troops, and integration of such into training 4) Replacement of all HMMWVs in combat units with a purpose-built armored patrol/security vehicle designed from the start for forward deployment & use under hostile fire... And that's just the ARMY/MARINES - then you get the USAF & USN 'major improvements' list... When we do all of that, THEN we can start talking about the weapon that Pvt Snuffy carries to and from his track/truck... Our problems right now are more about force-multipliers designed for a type of war that is now obsolete - NOT about individual weapons...

DAMN!!

1.5 tons of copper wiring in one tank? They could nearly pay for the upgrade off the scrap copper.

ETA: If our military had the most advanced personal armor and vehicles that we could possibly get them, giving them a .22 to shoot with would be enough, if they were otherwise invincible.

Quoted: The M14 was inaccurate and gained a reputation for breaking parts in the field.  The tests I saw today (from the 50's and 60's) claimed that it was quite reliable, though.

What parts were those? I'm still trying to break a part on mine with no luck so far.

That article was totally unbiased.

I believe the springs were the most problematic, but I don't recall.  

Quoted: Quoted: What's wrong with questioning whether our military has the best combat rifle in its arsenal? If we are going to send our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines into combat then we have an obligation to outfit them with the best weapon available. Regardless of whether its made in America or not. I don't care as long as its the best. Our government is currently spending up to $1 Billion dollars to send out $40 Vouchers to people to make sure their TV will work in Feb. 2009 when TV Brodcasts are mandated to be all digital. So if we can spend money on useless bullshit like that then what the hell is the problem with spending a little extra money for the HK416, SCAR, etc. if they truly are a better wepaon. I say they should outfit select Army and Marine, not Special Forces but standard Infantry Units, in Iraq and Afghanistan with the SCAR and HK416 for a trial period and then see how they compare against the M4. If this can be done without risk to the Soldiers and Marines. This would be a far better test than some silly ass test in less than real conditons. If one of them is clearly a better weapon, then tell Colt to go build a better rifle to compete against H&K or FN. If the M4 is better then tell H&K and FN to go back to the drawing board. The bottom line is I don't give a shit who makes it. I want our Military to have the best. I don't drink Colt, H&K, or FN Kool-Aid. We owe it to our military to give them the best and if the M4 is not it than let's move on and put this issue to rest once and for all. ETA: Flame Away.     The problem is that they are not, FUNCTIONALLY, a better enough weapon to justify the cost.... The money should be spent on VEHICLE UPGRADES, ADVANCED CREW SERVED WEAPONS, and other force multipliers... Not on individual weapons, when the current issue rifle does the job WELL ENOUGH when properly maintained...

I can't disagree with you at all. My point is that we waste billions of dollars on bullshit every year. If we told people to just nut up and get off their lazy asses, cut their welfare, and other handouts we would have enough to pay for all of the things you listed in your other post and new combat rifles for our troops.

We have a constitutional obligation to protect our nation. Therefore we owe our troops the best we can give them. We do not have a Constitutional obligation to give away handouts to every lazy ass that's born in America and some that are not.

Rant Over..  

Quoted: Fucking HK lobby idiots... Someone wants a factory built in his district... Seriously, Colt shouldn't have a sole-source monopoly on the M4... FN, Bushmaster, et al should be allowed to compete for the contract... A new rifle, however... That is, at the present, unwarranted...

+1 holy shit i agree with dave_a

Quoted: Quoted: Fucking HK lobby idiots... Someone wants a factory built in his district... Seriously, Colt shouldn't have a sole-source monopoly on the M4... FN, Bushmaster, et al should be allowed to compete for the contract... A new rifle, however... That is, at the present, unwarranted... +1 holy shit i agree with dave_a

I don't know the whole story but the article said that the Navy accidentally released the blueprints for Colt's design and to avoid a huge lawsuit gave them the monopoly.

The Air Force pays $1474 for an M4, this includes the Knights RAS and the Aimpoint.

Quoted: A REAL fucking hatchet job !! Coburn is the M4's harshest and most vocal critic. But his concern is shared by others, who point to the "SCAR," made by Belgian armorer FN Herstal, and the HK416, produced by Germany's Heckler & Koch, as possible contenders. Both weapons cost about the same as the M4, their manufacturers say Senator Coburn is a first term Senator from Oklahoma who sold out early to H&K. So? HK weapons are far superior than any colt POS that they made for the army. Hell my LMT/Denny Guns AR is built better than brand new M4s that I have seen and I paid $1200 for mine. Colt is a fucking rip off. 5sub

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fucking HK lobby idiots... Someone wants a factory built in his district... Seriously, Colt shouldn't have a sole-source monopoly on the M4... FN, Bushmaster, et al should be allowed to compete for the contract... A new rifle, however... That is, at the present, unwarranted... +1 holy shit i agree with dave_a I don't know the whole story but the article said that the Navy accidentally released the blueprints for Colt's design and to avoid a huge lawsuit gave them the monopoly.

That doesn't have much to do with why they have the sole source contract.

They have the sole source contract because they designed the weapon.

If private companies spend their R&D dollars to design a weapons system, is it ok for the Government to take their TDP, give it to another company, and purchase the weapon system from that company instead?

Most of our current rifles are made by FN.  If anybody's "gotten rich" off of the war, it's FN, not Colt.  

Quoted: Most of our current rifles are made by FN.  Does Colt even have a current .mil contract for rifles ?  If anybody's "gotten rich" off of the war, it's FN, not Colt.

I'm glad you joined us.

I'll take 1LB of teriyaki, and 1LB of the spicy stuff.

Thank you.

We should be evaluating other options, period

Quoted: Fucking HK lobby idiots... Someone wants a factory built in his district... Seriously, Colt shouldn't have a sole-source monopoly on the M4... FN, Bushmaster, et al should be allowed to compete for the contract... A new rifle, however... That is, at the present, unwarranted...

1. Agree
2. Why? Colt designed and holds the Patent on the M4. I don't see Bushmaster designing jack, about all they do is BUY designs. [I am well aware that Colt bought the original design from Armalite then did additional work and the contracts] Bushmaster has no TDP to speak of, and I'm unimpressed with them as far as QC anyways on the civi side.

3.If Bushmaster/FN actually designs something advanced enough that warrents a contract then great, if they are just copycatting then I don't see why they deserve anything.

4. It would have to be a milestone design right now to switch the entire weapon system.

FN has the facilities and wherewithall to do it, Bushmaster...........I honestly doubt it at this time and as I said, QC would have to be drastically increased along with following actual specs and testing.

I'm actually awaiting to see how Bushmaster does with the Masada, will it be "good to go" from new, or will it be a flop reliability and accuracy wise with QC issues. I hope they do it right.

Part of me does not want to see our main weapon get outsourced to another country (even if it is made in the U.S.) Yet I want our men and women to have the best weapon possible. [://


And the rest of me feels this could be sweet revenge for all the Colt snobs.