Tsk, tsk.
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 ...
I thought FN Herstal was making the M16 for the US Military?
More accurate? Maybe so.
But you gonna reach out and touch some terrorists with .22 caliber? I know it can be done, and is often done, but for long range and sniping, given a choice, you gonna choose a .22?
M-16 @ 5.56 was originally selected for carry-that-much-more-ammo spray-and-pray, with a wounded Sovietski actually costing Ivan more than a dead troop. Center mass, full auto, 3-5 round burst, and then on to the next target. Sequential buckshot. Hayna or no?
more connecticut jobs down the sewer.
The AR/M16/M4 can use a wide variety of calibers. If the .223 is your objection, lobby for them to use a better caliber. Why replace the platform?
How do you figure they are better?
Why not something in 7.62 x 39? Enemy weapons cache = ammo re-supply in the field.
Because the 7.63x39 has an effective range under 350m.
This country has NOT WON a war since we got rid of the M-1 Garand, The Browning Automatic Rifle and the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun. Go back to these and get rid of WOMEN in the “military” and we just MAY start winning wars again.
I'll say this as someone who didn't shoot much prior to joining the Army. Lots of Soldiers aren't really that well rounded as shooters. I was very pleased with my M9 Beretta and M4 until I worked in a SOF unit and got to play with some other toys. My first deployment to Iraq, I had a 1911 that must have been pulled out of mothballs from the Korean War, and it shot like a champion. The M9 felt like a cheap toy after that.
I also spent a few years downrange teaching, after my enlistment was up, fielding new gear around theater(s). Soldiers instinctively get by with whatever tools they have, and have faith in their gear, even when there's a lot better stuff available. Partly because that faith gets them through some tough spots, partly because they just don't know any better.
While I'm always interested in what the troops have to say about their requirements and experiences, a little perspective about their perspective goes a long way.
If you look at the ballistics and trajectory of the 7.62x39, you’ll see that it resembles the Win .30-30. Besides, the Russians and Chinese look like they are going away from 7.62 as well.
The AR is more accurate and more dependable that M1. The BAR is a kickass light machine gun, no debate there. I also love the Thompson.
Shot one the other day. Very inpressive. Change out upper on the AR/M16 and mags fit in lower. Instant solution a perceived problem. Same manual of arms. Same cleaning, same accessories, etc. Also weight is close. One of the big advantages of the current platform.
Tsk, tsk.
Beyond 350m, it would seem prudent to switch to a caliber larger than .223 or 7.62x39 anyway.
“This country has NOT WON a war since”
...since liberals (read: Communsits) unfluenced the DoD through politics. The weapons had nothing to do with it.
Because the platform is high maintenance, and short on weapon life.
It always has been.
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.