Colt on the Outs as Defense Department Opens Bids for Combat Rifles

Fox News ^ | May 25, 2011

[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.

[Durus]

One of the requirements of the rifle is an effective range of 400meters. That would require something better than a .223 and a 6.5 Grendel would be my choice. It requires a barrel/bolt change, but otherise uses all the same parts. Mags can be adapted.

It's the cheapest choice by far. Unless a gun company unveils some new technology, which is possible, there really isn't a better choice than modernizing the m4. (how about starting with 18" barrel along with the caliber upgrade.)

[PapaBear3625]

How do you figure they are better?

I don't. I merely say that the two rifles I noted will likely be in the competition. The Army (hopefully with input from the troops) will decide the definition of "better".

[Lurker]

What we need to do is inflict horrible disfiguring painful and disabling wounds with a slow lingering burdensome death.

I like the way you think. I can't recall which ancient war it happened during, but there was a King who once he defeated his enemies blinded 9 out of ten of the prisoners and took one eye out of the remaining so he could lead the rest home. This put such a burden on the defeated society that they couldn't raise another army.

[Fletcher J]

Have we even officially declared a war since those days?

Regardless of what they are called, though, it seems like the troops have done plenty well with the equipment provided to them in the first Gulf War, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, etc...

Americans are WINNERS, and I’d put all of those in the WIN column. :)

[Durus]

It's neither. What causes most of the problems in America? It's the same thing that caused the initial problems with the M16 that gave it a bad rep. Yes, ignorant government bureaucrats making stupid decision. First they decided to change the ammo to a powder type which the M16 team strongly objected too. Second they shipped the rifles without cleaning kits. It was a bit of a one-two punch and the M16 has never lived down the reputation caused by moronic hacks.

If you attach a reciprocating mass to a barrel you create inaccuracy. If that reciprocating mass has lots of moving parts you introduce complexity. With an AR you have a tube. There isn't much to go wrong with a tube. Chrome&Coat the bolt and that rifle will be as reliable as any named as competition.

[PapaBear3625]

Yeah, I have heard that as well. Apparently, from what I read, the Army is implementing two squad riflemen now with M-14s.

The solution, rather than trying for "one-size-fits-all" might be to have a 5.56 and 7.62 that are ergonomically similar (to simplify training), and issue the better marksmen in the squad the 7.62 (having a rifle that can hit at 800 yards is no good unless you have a rifleman that can use that potential).

[MrEdd]

You just conceded my point.

It needs.constant.cleaning, even with the proper amunition. Cleaning you may not have time for or.which may be unadvantagouse in the typhoon or sandstorm you are in.

I prefer a weapon that is reliable when I am in a khamsin or slogging through a Phillipino swamp in monsoon season. Both of which are places I wound up.

Gas operated aint it.

[saleman]

“Because the platform is high maintenance, and short on weapon life”

What???

The platform is probably the easiest to maintain weapon ever. And that includes over/under shotguns or pumps.

If anything does go wrong you just replace the part. In about 30 seconds. You may shoot out a barrel in about 35,000 rounds or so. Replace the barrel. Or, just replace the whole upper. Takes about 30 seconds. Damn...

[WayneS]

I like the HK 416.

I’d like to have one chambered in .243

[Durus]

No I didn't concede your point. An AR doesn't need "constant" cleaning. Does it need to be cleaned more than a piston? Yes. Even a piston platform needs to be cleaned. There is no such thing as a perfect rifle and all platforms have strengths and weakness. A rifle has to do more than go BANG every time you pull the trigger. It has to be capable of the accuracy required to hit what you are aiming at. The biggest weakness of a piston platform is accuracy. The biggest weakness to the m4 is the caliber. The second biggest weakness is also one of it greatest strengths. Because it's a gas impingement system, powder residue is deposited in the chamber, but because it is a GI system it is also more accurate than a piston. Chrome plating the bolt mitigates the weakness while preserving the strength. Putting something other than 5.56 in the stoner platform removes its biggest weakness.

[donozark]

Doubt if we can ever come up with a one size fits all weapon. Russia faced similar problem with the AK-47 vs. the AK-74. Dr. Kalashnikov did not want the caliber of "his AK" changed in any way. But of course he takes orders like all do. The AK-74 was designed to increase the range of lethality for the Russian soldier. It did so in 'Stan and became known as "the poison bullet" by the Muj.

However, in the Battle of Grozny 1 and later 2, the Russians noted penetration problems with the smaller round in a urban setting. Ultimately Grozny became known as the "most destroyed city in the world." This as a result of fuel-air bombs and arty. Most Russian units went back to the Ak-47.

I agree transitioning from one platform to another (especially in the middle of a war) is probably not the best thing to do.

[flowerplough]

Why replace the platform?

Same question for the M-14, way back when. I’m sure the Garand boys wondered why the M14 wasn’t just sleeved down to a smaller caliber.

[Gaffer]

In my mind, the only battle rifle is the Garand.

[Gaffer]

Even a piston platform needs to be cleaned.

True, but the piston's location isn't usually in the chamber area as is the gas port on the AR platform. In the Garand it is far forward near the muzzle and in the M-1 Carbine it is below and forward of the chamber, isolated. Allowing gas exhaust and particles in the chamber area (behind the throat) to me is a bad idea.....

[Durus]

No the piston is bolted to the barrel which is what makes a piston rifle innacurate. Do you have a piston rifle? Have you ever broken an oprod?

[Durus]

Because they wanted a lighter, more dependable, more accurate rifle?

[SIDENET]

There is only one serious choice for a new battle rifle:

Mosin Nagant.

;-)

[Durus]

"Dr. Kalashnikov did not want the caliber of "his AK" changed in any way".

Only a commie could steal the Sturmgewehr 44 design, make it even uglier, and still get famous as a gun inventor.

[donozark]

But it sure became popular, and still killing...after all these years.

[flowerplough]

“Because they wanted a lighter, more dependable, more accurate rifle?”

And would somewhat similar desires come into play now? Perhaps a low-maintenance, dependable, more-versatile rifle is where the DoD’s trying to go, this time?