Posted on 06/15/2011 11:19:17 AM PDT by re_tail20
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.
The move highlights the importance of a contest that is the Super Bowl and World Series rolled into one for the small arms industry. The Pentagon may buy hundreds of thousands of the new carbine, which should be more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4 used by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. At stake is millions of dollars in business for the winner at a time when budgets are tightening and opportunities for long-term weapons contracts are dwindling.
There are major side benefits to being the primary rifle supplier. The American military's seal of approval paves the way for gun sales to U.S. allies. Colt has sold 100,000 M4s overseas, and millions of its M16s — a rifle first fielded during the Vietnam War — are used by armies and law enforcement agencies around the world.
Remington Arms and other gun makers already had lobbyists in place long before the Army announced it wanted a better combat rifle. Remington has spent nearly $500,000 on lobbyists over the last two years alone in a push to get more of its weapons into the hands of U.S. troops, according to lobbying records filed with Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted2.ap.org ...
The 30-06 makes a lot of sense for a long bolt action but for a semi auto/auto rifle?
Army Clings to Troubled Weapons System
The U.S. Army is NOT Replacing the M-4 Carbine!
by Dr. Leonard M. Breure, PhD
If you listen to the feedback from Soldiers and Marines
in Iraq or Afghanistan concerning their government issued
weapons (both rifles and handguns), be prepared for
some “interesting” discussions. A large number of service
members are disgruntled over having to fight a fanatical
enemy with personal weapons that are simply not up to the
task. In addition to the direct problems with the weapons
and ammunition, a large part of their concern is that reports of these problems seem to fall on deaf ears. The powers that be in both Washington and the Military just don’t seem to care as is once again evident by the Army’s recent decision to keep the ailing M-4 Carbine when a sound replacement is readily available.
http://www.newamericantruth.com/archives/mags/2011/natjun11.pdf
>>Sam Colt is spinning in his grave.<<
He probably feels as if he’s got a direct connect to John Force’s supercharger.
I had understood that manufacturing 6.5G ammo required a license from Bill Alexander. If true, that would seem to be a stumbling block unless he agrees to a dollar a year sort of thing.
It’s a single lincense that covers use of the name and it’s not a lot of money at all.
holy cow...I want one or two!
On the other hand they could go with the .264-LBC-AR which is virtually identical to the 6.5Grendel and doesn’t require any licensing.
Excellent comment and very true. Political entrepreneurs are breaking the country.
My brother has a stainless steel Python and he asked a dealer how much he could get for it. The dealer told him to hold onto it because they are so expensive that nobody can afford them.
How much ARE they going for...
Depending upon condition and options, generally between $1000 and $2000.
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.