Shear_stress
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,728
Colt never stopped civilian sales of their rifles and, unless China has annexed Connecticut, the guns are still made in the U.S. Chinese-made rifles couldn't be imported anyway.
AP story this morning...
- Thread starter SaxonPig
- Start date
- Status
Colt never stopped civilian sales of their rifles and, unless China has annexed Connecticut, the guns are still made in the U.S. Chinese-made rifles couldn't be imported anyway.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Perfectly Happy
I've got a Colt CAR-15, and a Rock River Operator Elite LAR-15
I've got a Colt CAR-15, and a Rock River Operator Elite LAR-15
Sam Cade
Member
Remington is part of The Freedom Group which also includes DPMS and Bushmaster.
Bushmaster moved production to the Remington facility in Ilion, NY.
mortablunt
Member
I hope we make a modified AK-101/AK-102. It uses our round, but has all the advantages of Kalashnikovs, and it is about as accurate as the current weapons we use.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
After shooting the 6.8 round out of the standard AR platform for a couple of years now I am convinced that the 5.56 should be retired.
JohnBiltz
Member
It still comes down to weight. 6.5 weighs about 40 pounds for a thousand rounds and 6.8 probably about the same. 7.62 around 60 pounds per thousand and 5.56 around 26 pounds. I don't see 5.56 going anywhere. What we might see if anything, is 6.5 replacing 7.62 in medium machine guns. Not my idea, but it makes a lot of sense. Quite frankly the fact that M4s instead of M16s being used in Afghanistan makes me think the Army is not that upset about the range limitations of the current M4s.
jiminhobesound
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 261
Maybe one should buy all of the Colts, non military, they can.
Single Action Six
Member
Colt Python..
Bought my Colt Python with a 2 1/2" barrel in the pre-67 GCA. Same with my Beretta 70S in 22 LR.
Single Action Six
Bought my Colt Python with a 2 1/2" barrel in the pre-67 GCA. Same with my Beretta 70S in 22 LR.
Single Action Six
SSN Vet
Member
No expert here,but...
I believe Colt changed just enough of the details with the M4 (double heat shield hand gaurd, etc...) that they were able to re-up the patents.
The M4 patents expired a year or so ago and now Colt has to compete with all the others.... of whom, FN is the most serious contender.
And don't think it won't come down to who's greasing the right palms.... as in slimy politicos who put their own fortunes above our troops.
I believe Colt changed just enough of the details with the M4 (double heat shield hand gaurd, etc...) that they were able to re-up the patents.
The M4 patents expired a year or so ago and now Colt has to compete with all the others.... of whom, FN is the most serious contender.
And don't think it won't come down to who's greasing the right palms.... as in slimy politicos who put their own fortunes above our troops.
Ruger44mag
Member
Can someone point me to the article about this?
These things often have to do with money.
Some senator wants the gun made from a certain location that will bring in all the money from the contract to that location in order for them to vote certain ways in various votes.
The patents on the m16/m4 are largely expired. So there is a big opening for a lot of monopolized profit if someone can get their patented design used by the military.
Of course once the military starts playing with various designs, realizes the minimal improvements, using the same caliber, at much greater expense, they scrap the idea and stick with the AR.
At least that has been the result the last few times they looked.
The AR is acceptably accurate, uses a round light enough to allow soldiers to carry a lot and fire more, and is inexpensive. They know it holds up well enough and performs, and know what the problems on it are so they have no fears of unexpected issues on the battlefield.
Owen Sparks said: A
Heretic said:
Larger cartridges from more accurate rifles might make sense if battles were being fought and won primarily with rifles, but more rounds fired down range keeps the enemy down while support weapons chop them up, artillery and air power is called in, and other resources are brought to bear.
The rifleman's job is not to kill the enemy in larger engagements as much as it is to keep them occupied while something else kills them.
The individual grunts sent in to attract them and engage might not feel that way, but that is how they are typically used.
The sooner they run low on ammo the sooner they cease to pin down the enemy with an overwhelming number of rounds in the air. They might not kill the enemy effectively with individual rounds at moderate ranges, but they keep them in a fixed position.
The longer they can keep shooting the longer the enemy has to stay put, in a game where staying still too long means certain death.
While at close ranges like when clearing an enclosed area the round hits hard enough, fragments and still has enough power for the fragments to individually penetrate enough, and is more effective.
(Of course it is also not the only rifle on the field, there is rifles that deliver more devastating individual shots fielded, the AR is just the most numerous.)
Some senator wants the gun made from a certain location that will bring in all the money from the contract to that location in order for them to vote certain ways in various votes.
The patents on the m16/m4 are largely expired. So there is a big opening for a lot of monopolized profit if someone can get their patented design used by the military.
Of course once the military starts playing with various designs, realizes the minimal improvements, using the same caliber, at much greater expense, they scrap the idea and stick with the AR.
At least that has been the result the last few times they looked.
The AR is acceptably accurate, uses a round light enough to allow soldiers to carry a lot and fire more, and is inexpensive. They know it holds up well enough and performs, and know what the problems on it are so they have no fears of unexpected issues on the battlefield.
Owen Sparks said: A
Heretic said:
Larger cartridges from more accurate rifles might make sense if battles were being fought and won primarily with rifles, but more rounds fired down range keeps the enemy down while support weapons chop them up, artillery and air power is called in, and other resources are brought to bear.
The rifleman's job is not to kill the enemy in larger engagements as much as it is to keep them occupied while something else kills them.
The individual grunts sent in to attract them and engage might not feel that way, but that is how they are typically used.
The sooner they run low on ammo the sooner they cease to pin down the enemy with an overwhelming number of rounds in the air. They might not kill the enemy effectively with individual rounds at moderate ranges, but they keep them in a fixed position.
The longer they can keep shooting the longer the enemy has to stay put, in a game where staying still too long means certain death.
While at close ranges like when clearing an enclosed area the round hits hard enough, fragments and still has enough power for the fragments to individually penetrate enough, and is more effective.
(Of course it is also not the only rifle on the field, there is rifles that deliver more devastating individual shots fielded, the AR is just the most numerous.)
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
