AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/28/2013 5:26:53 AM EDT
| I see in an email from military.com that FN was awarded, over Remington, the new contract to build M4/M4A1 carbines. In the end, I feel the M4A1 is the way to go, the 3 shot burst gimmick was just that in my opinion, a gimmick. Even though I've always liked Colt products, I've seen the quality of some of FN's work and sometimes it leaves a lot to be desired. I work on the guns on a daily basis as a contract armorer for the military, and I have to say that once in a blue moon we will see something from Colt that we ask how that got from the factory like it did. Maybe things will change. Time will definitely tell....in my opinion they could have swapped the uppers, remove the burst kits and put regular guts in it, and re-stamp it as we have seen from time to time. A big money saver there. We used to see M16A2 receivers come in that had a flattop upper on it and it's restamped either "A3 or A4" over the A2 designation. Our government tax $ is being well spent....just my opinion and thoughts on the subject. |
| Nice... I am not a huge fan of burst or auto. You obviously have the semi option with both of these so yea... I think I would prefer the semi/auto option bc if its going on auto, I would think it would just be to try to make a shit ton of noise so that you have enough time to get out of a situation. I think it would be really nice if they could significantly slow down the cyclic rate of the M4. I swear I have heard that the FN M4s sucked balls tho (but I could be wrong, I have never used one). |
|
In the latest issue of Rifleman there is a nice article on the Canadian C7 and C8.
One sentence stuck out to me (not quoted for accuracy) something along the lines of "The Canadians decided to remove the three shot burst group and go S-S-A due to the conservation of ammo and use of F/A being a training issue, not a mechanical one" Spot on IMO - then again I've never served. |
|
Quoted:
I see in an email from military.com that FN was awarded, over Remington, the new contract to build M4/M4A1 carbines. In the end, I feel the M4A1 is the way to go, the 3 shot burst gimmick was just that in my opinion, a gimmick. Even though I've always liked Colt products, I've seen the quality of some of FN's work and sometimes it leaves a lot to be desired. I work on the guns on a daily basis as a contract armorer for the military, and I have to say that once in a blue moon we will see something from Colt that we ask how that got from the factory like it did. Maybe things will change. Time will definitely tell....in my opinion they could have swapped the uppers, remove the burst kits and put regular guts in it, and re-stamp it as we have seen from time to time. A big money saver there. We used to see M16A2 receivers come in that had a flattop upper on it and it's restamped either "A3 or A4" over the A2 designation. Our government tax $ is being well spent....just my opinion and thoughts on the subject. Unverified information from an unrelaible source: http://kitup.military.com/2013/02/army-awards-m4m4a1-contract-fn.html Matthew Cox comes from Military Times, where he was a "senior staff writer," a publication that operatee on the Hearstian tradition that it's better to break a story that's absolute fabrication and print a retraction that no one will read or remember later than to fucking fact check their stories and wait to print something until it's been verified. The "article" text: FN Manufacturing has outbid Remington Arms Company and Colt Defense LLC., to win a contract worth just under $77 million to make M4A1s for the U.S. Army, according to an industry source. The award notice was posted on Federal Business Opportunities on Feb. 22 with an initial value of $9,370,615.
This is the latest round in what has become a hard-fought battle to equip soldiers with a better carbine. The drama all began when the Army chose Remington over Colt, the original maker of the M4, last April to make 120,000 M4s and M4A1 carbines. That award meant that more soldiers would go into combat with the M4A1, a SOF version of the carbine that features a more durable barrel and a full-auto trigger. The Army’s decision to dump the three-round burst setting will give soldiers a more consistent trigger and better accuracy. The GAO did rule in favor of Colt’s first protest over the Army’s miscalculation of royalties it would receive for contract awards on its M4 design. The July 24 ruling forced the Army to rework the original solicitation so the vendors that fell into the competitive range could submit new price bids. All gun makers involved were forced to reveal their previous price bids for the original $84 million contract to keep things fair. Colt officials then filed an Oct. 9 protest with the GAO three weeks after the Connecticut-based gun maker received the Army’s amended Sept. 21 solicitation. The GAO denied Colt’s second protest in a Nov. 16 decision. This latest decision makes FN the only maker of both M16A4s and M4 carbine variants for the U.S. Military (I think.) The majority of the contract will supply M4A1s to the Army as part of its ongoing effort to upgrade its fleet of M4s. Who exactly is "an industry source"? Someone who works at a gun shop counter could be considered "in the industry." With no additional information, "an industry source" sounds impressive, but is completely meaningless. The actual award notice that they linked to in Mr. Cox's "article": https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a8b1633ff75540f9e3fb13da1720d9ab&tab=core&tabmode=list&= 10--GUNS, THROUGH 30MM
Solicitation Number: Agency: Department of the Army Office: Army Contracting Command Location: ACC - Warren (ACC-WRN)(DTA) Notice Type: Award Notice Contract Award Date: February 21, 2013 Contract Award Number: W56HZV13D00300001 Contract Award Dollar Amount: $9,370,615.00 Contract Line Item Number: 0001AB Contractor Awardee: FN MANUFACTURING, LLC,797 OLD CLEMSON RD,COLUMBIA,SC,29229-4203 Synopsis: Added: Feb 22, 2013 2:20 pm No Description Provided Contracting Office Address: U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND, WARREN, MICHIGAN 48397-5000 Point of Contact(s): [redacted] U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND Where did the $77,000,000 sum come from? Or a description of what was contracted for? All I see is "GUNS, THROUGH 30MM," contract award dollar amount for just under $9.4 million. "Synopsis: No Description Provided." It could be true. It might be. But that "article" tells you nothing and proves nothing except for the speculations of Matthew Cox. XM8 ring a bell? HK416 uppers? Dragon Skin? His track record is unrelaible enough to reserve judgement until more facts are published. It's not that I don't believe it - but nothing is "proven" by the article of any substance, and the source is wrong more often than right. ~Augee |
AR Sponsor