Colt CM901
Posted on 05/26/2011 6:45:31 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Colt on the Outs as Defense Department Opens Bids for Combat Rifles
Published May 25, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- For nearly a decade, Colt Defense went without a lobbyist. The legendary gun maker based in West Hartford, Conn., had an exclusive deal to provide combat rifles to the U.S. military and didn't need a hired gun looking out for the company's interests in Washington.
Times have changed. After buying more than 700,000 Colt M4 carbines, the Defense Department has started a search for the rifle's successor, giving Colt's competitors the long-awaited chance to break the company's grip on the market. So Colt turned to Roger Smith, a former deputy assistant Navy secretary-turned-lobbyist, to be the company's voice in D.C. His fee is $120,000 a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Colt CM901
As opposed to an assault rifle?
Or a battle rifle.
They will pick something Soros owns.
I’m recalling that awhile back there was an article here that said that even the Army says the M4 “sucks.”
They will pick something Soros owns.
Microsoft had an issue and they realized that they weren’t in the game enough. They now have one of the largest corporate lobbying presences in DC. Lesson learned, in order to do business, you have to play sewerball in the swamps of Maryland.
More like 5.56NATO (.223) sucks. They need a bigger caliber with more range and knockdown power. Maybe not 7.62, but perhaps 6.5 Grendel.
even the Army says the M4 “sucks.”
Direct-gas action - fouling and heat. Known weakness of the Stoner(?) design since day zero.
Guys I talk to who are downrange say 5.56 brings the pain just fine. The 77gr OTM ammo is apparently well liked and received.
what about the 6.8? I’d like to fire one of those someday soon.
The headline is interesting. It states that Colt is ‘on the outs’, implying they are ‘in trouble’ with the DoD, but the story does not explain what, if anything, they did wrong. Based on what I can find on-line it appears Colt’s current contract for M4s is set to expire some time in 2013 and the DoD wants to have a ‘new’ combat rifle ready for production by the time that happens.
Is it really all that unusual for the military to seek a successor to the M4 after almost 20 years in production? And is it really all the surprising that Colt might want a piece of the action (hence the lobbyist)?
It certainly does not appear that the DoD is terminating Colt’s current contract early or anything like that, so I am not sure what ‘on the outs’ is supposed to mean.
Are your friends in Iraq or Afghanistan? I’ve been reading a bit about how 5.56 doesn’t have the range needed in Afghanistan, and the Army has been re-issuing some M-14s, and that it was also the impetus for SOCOM wanting the 7.62 SCAR-H rifle.
That is why back in the earlyn 80’s (when the unit armory would carry personal weapons around) I had an HK91.
I didn’t figure I neded the full auto of the G3, and it was a damned good weapon.
It’s also why it’s more accurate than any piston design.
I have the 6.8 spc. It mimicks the 30-30(except faster and flatter) with a really pointy bullet.
It's the lefty definition of competition.
If you are "in" there is no competition, just a long string of contracts.
If you are out {heaven forbid} you will have to compete, both via product and price.
The military, should end up with a better weapon at a lower price.
We need to stop killing talibunnies outright. They want that!
On instant they are a noble jihadist, the next they've got 72 virgins in that whorehouse-in-the-sky they call paradise.
What we need to do is inflict horrible disfiguring painful and disabling wounds with a slow lingering burdensome death.
Preferably after a long enough delay so that they can be a gruesome object lesson for everyone in the village...
Name a better weapon than the AR/m-16 plaform.
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.