ArmyM4s

FN Manufacturing has outbid Remington Arms Company and Colt Defense LLC., to win a contract worth just under $77 million to make M4A1s for the U.S. Army, according to an industry source. The award notice  was posted on Federal Business Opportunities on Feb. 22 with an initial value of $9,370,615.

This is the latest round in what has become a hard-fought battle to equip soldiers with a better carbine.

The drama all began when the Army chose Remington over Colt, the original maker of the M4, last  April to make 120,000 M4s and M4A1 carbines. That award meant that more soldiers would go into combat with the M4A1, a SOF version of the carbine that features a more durable barrel and a full-auto trigger. The Army’s decision to dump the  three-round burst setting will give soldiers a more consistent trigger and better accuracy.

The GAO did rule in favor of Colt’s first protest over the Army’s miscalculation of royalties it would receive for contract awards on its M4 design. The July 24 ruling forced the Army to rework the original solicitation so the vendors that fell into the competitive range could submit new price bids. All gun makers involved were forced to reveal their previous price bids for the original $84 million contract to keep things fair.

Colt officials then filed an Oct. 9 protest with the GAO three weeks after the Connecticut-based gun maker received the Army’s amended Sept. 21 solicitation. The GAO denied Colt’s second protest in a Nov. 16 decision.

This latest decision makes FN the only maker of both M16A4s and M4 carbine variants for the U.S. Military (I think.) The majority of the contract will supply M4A1s to the Army as part of its ongoing effort to upgrade its fleet of M4s.

{ 223 comments… read them below or add one }

Lance February 23, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Good glad to see the Army finally moving to get improved M-4s to solders. Feel bad for Remington. Hope they can win a later upgraded M-4 bid. Remember this is just the first batch of M-4A1 a larger around 250,000 will be bought later.

Reply

Joshua February 23, 2013 at 1:51 pm

Not true, the other 300,000 M4's will be upgraded to M4A1's through MWO's. one of which Colt won for PiP barrels's and front sight assemblies.

Reply

Lance February 23, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Glad to hear Colt is getting some business out of this too.

Reply

Joshua Respecki February 23, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Any new on the carbine competition?

Reply

Lance February 23, 2013 at 1:32 pm

Not much its DOA Friday when sequestration hits there was talk last year of killing over current budget cuts little lone sequestration.

Reply

Joshua February 23, 2013 at 2:17 pm

Its doubtful. Between budget cuts and the lack of upgrade performance dont look forward to it. Even if we had the funds I wouldn't hold my breath.

Now I may end up eating crow if the Army is dead set on changing just to change but of the known guns none are worth it, at most a few offer a 1-5% upgrade but are double the price, especially with this contract beig $600 per M4A1.

Reply

Johnny Quest February 23, 2013 at 1:31 pm

That is what a union state – Connecticut – does for Colt, versus a non-union state – South Carolina – does for FN.

Reply

Joshua February 23, 2013 at 1:59 pm

I doubt Colt is losing much sleep between the royalties from FNH on the M16 and now M4, their M45 contract, M249 contract, as well as their now $13 million barrel award, I think they are doing just fine. Would have been nice to see Colt win this but they have a lot of contracts anyways.

Reply

SFC Earnán September 8, 2013 at 10:34 pm

Colt doesn't get a penny in "royalties" for the M16 nor M4.

Colt continues to bleed money. They have turned their backs on the US civilian market, are not a major player in the international military and police market, and are slowly starting to realize that the US DoD and American cops don't care if their ARs have a pony on the side.

Reply

Joshua September 8, 2013 at 10:43 pm

Actually they do, They own the TDP for both the M16 and M4. The Army has the rights to contract the rifles out to be made by whoever, but by doing so the company must pay Colt a 5% royalty and they can not sell rifles or parts to the civilian market because the TDP belongs to Colt.

Reply

sigmund February 23, 2013 at 3:12 pm

im just glad to see a pro gun ban state getting slapped when contracts go elsewhere. Ive never had a love for cold either. bunch of douchebags as far as im concerned.

Reply

Daily Llama July 22, 2013 at 11:50 am

Amen, brother! Although I think S.C. Is more correctly a "right-to-work" State – meaning one doesn't *have* to join a union to be employed at a facility – if he or she doesn't want to. FN-Herstal (Belgian) is a super-primo manufacturer with quality out the wazoo! Love my Stag Arms AR but can't wait to see FN-Herstal AR (5.56mm NATO) rifle barrels on the commercial market!!!!

Reply

2-BPM February 23, 2013 at 2:02 pm

I'm happy FN got the contract. Colt list their bread and butter M16 contract, and everyone was happy. Keep sending shitty weapons, don't be surprised when it gets cancelled. Now they are forced to tighten the belt and focus on the LE/ civie market, which they neglected. Remington isn't much better. FN runs a company that serves both mil and commercial markets with great satisfaction. The deserve this contract, and will give all the boys down range weapons they can stake their lives on. Because that's exactly what they are doing.

Reply

Joshua February 23, 2013 at 2:14 pm

I and hundreds of thousands of others have taked their lives on Colt as well with no issues. FNH is a great company but they only won because they were the cheapest. Colt has not been neglecting the military in any way other than charging them more than they should to spite the army for releasing the TDP when they had no right. FNH also cannot sell to the civilian market in regards to AR-15 rifles because of their contracts.

Reply

John D February 23, 2013 at 2:26 pm

Wow!! So FN, the foreign company who built factories in the US to sell us M240/249 mgs which we should have bought in the 1950's/70's out bid 2 US companies including Colt!! Remington is now stymied because of NY's new anti AR-15 rule so the factory will move! And once again US dollars will go overseas to another foriegn company. Looks like Newton did more than kill a bunch of innocent people. Colt and Remington are now out of the arms pictures and we have to depend on foriegn companies!! What a world!!

Reply

S. February 23, 2013 at 7:10 pm

That's how Capitalism works.

Reply

DBM February 25, 2014 at 12:47 pm

The M-240,249's and M-4s are built in America by an American subsiderary of FN. FN USA has its production Plant in Columbia SC and I have been through the facility on a tour. When I went through the plant 25 yrs ago a very high proportion of the workers were vets.

Reply

Lima3069 February 23, 2013 at 2:41 pm

Just remember the wisdom of Murphy, you're equipment was made by the lowest bidder…

Reply

Joshua February 23, 2013 at 3:01 pm

That has not been true in numerous examples, the M27 IAR, the M110 SASS, the M4 and M16(pre FNH), ect.

There is also a difference between lowest bidder, and lowest bidder who meets the set of rquirments for the TDP. FNH may be the lowest bidder but they will have to adhear to the TDP owned by Colt or they will have the contrac taken from them. You still get the same quality M4A1 just at a lower price for the tax payer.

Reply

John D February 23, 2013 at 3:27 pm

Also, who is paying for these new weapons> Remember the budget, sequesteration??!!

Reply

Joshua February 23, 2013 at 3:41 pm

We have the money to upgrade and replace M4's, which is what this is. We do not have the money to fleet a new weapon system.

Reply

Lance February 23, 2013 at 8:07 pm

I agree ever since the Budget act of 2011 the funds arnt there for a new rifle system but upgrading current weapons does not cost much.

Reply

Sivispace February 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm

So we're sticking with a marginal caliber and a dated platform. The least they could have done was chamber the rifle in a more-effective caliber. Same old same old.

Reply

Joshua February 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm

The 5.56 is more than capable out to 400M, beyond that we have other guns that handle it. The cost to get LC to switch calibers would be mindblowingly astronimical and would only offer a marginal upgrade given soldiers lack of shooting abilities. COM with M855A1 at 500M will do plenty of badness to a insurgent, the issue is most soldiers cant hit an insurgent at 500M.

I will also say the platform is only dated in numbers not in actual use. There is a reason it beats rifle after rifle in competitions for adoption by SF groups, 80% of soldiers cannot even properly clean or lubricate their rifle as is, a new rifle would be a waste on them when the current is not being used to its fullest. When it is used to its fullest it still outshines almost every other platform out there, those that can beat the current platform again..only offer a marginal upgrade, so small the cost to change is not worth it.

There is a reason SOCOM is using the M4A1 with the SOPMOD II package instead of the SCAR.

Reply

Lance February 23, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Id say we tried new calibers but 6.8mm and 6.5mm didn't pan out. 5.56mm is good to about 499m and except for Afghanistan in every other combat theater that's a good range.

Reply

shockanawe February 23, 2013 at 11:37 pm

they're guerrilla not insurgents. brainwashing by the media. we are not their government, but are trying to be a one world order.

Reply

BRANDON HOWELL December 12, 2013 at 1:11 pm

THE BIGGER THE ROUND THE MORE WEIGHT THEY HAVE TO CARRIE SO THE 5.56 IS A GOOD ROUND

Reply

Moondawg February 23, 2013 at 5:56 pm

I have no complaint with the M16/M4 platform. I would like to see our service rifle chambered for a more robust caliber compatible with the platform.

Reply

ajspades February 23, 2013 at 8:02 pm

Anyone have access to the actual contract, or more detailed summary of the contract?

Unless my math is wrong, winning bid of $77,000,000 for 120,000 is $641 bucks a piece. That seems VERY low considering civilian AR platforms are consistently running 2-3 times the contract price.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Semi-Auto-Rifles/BI.aspxhttp://www.jgsales.com/rifles-c-209_216.html

Reply

Goran Sablic February 23, 2013 at 9:09 pm

Dears sirs,

Before aproximately two years I saw on ASDA Exbition in Split,Croatia AR 15 and her clones examples ( manufacturer Springfield Armory , USA). Machine -Gun is very light and suitable,but i did not shoot with her ,and i saw all main competitors on military market,according guns ,maschine -guns and heavy mashine -guns.In USA ,and of course in all free World competition beetwen competitors is free , and that is it.

Yours Goran

Reply

shockanawe February 23, 2013 at 11:30 pm

Since Belguim is making M4's, American companies can focus on our states malitia sales to citizens.

Reply

LTC Hunter February 23, 2013 at 11:42 pm

FN will do a better job than would Colt or Remington on this contract. I wish we were transitioning this platform to the 6.8 SPC or even the 6.5 Grendel, but we seem to be in a chambering rut. You can go with heavier bullets and you can go with faster twists, but there's only so much you can do with a .223 Remington or 5.56mm NATO. Pentagon decision makers, it's time to beef up the firepower.

Reply

Mike Perry February 24, 2013 at 2:54 am

Why not give the 300 blackout a look? All that's needed is a barrel change.

Reply

USMC505 February 24, 2013 at 4:50 am

This is bull. While FNH is an EXCELLENT weapons manufacturer, THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN. The damn Army has it's head lodged firmly up its rear end if they think it is OK to take a design from the company that created it, the company that has served this Nation well for many years, and give it to a foreign manufacturer. It's just wrong.

Reply

Joshua February 24, 2013 at 6:34 am

I wouldnt worry to much NFH has a good standing with the US and these are made here in the US factories. Colt took the M240B from FNH so its kind of even now.

The M16 has been made by FNH for a while now.

Reply

E. Ronc February 24, 2013 at 10:49 am

Tell that to the guys building them in Columbia, SC.

Reply

Lance February 24, 2013 at 1:18 pm

I agree it sucks that Euro scumbags will get the money for this but Colt is at its fault for being in a Liberal cesspool and where unions make it impossible to make a lowest bid to win. Americans need to wake up.

Reply

sigmund February 24, 2013 at 10:58 pm

The Army has a history of disobeying the Berry Amendment. Look at the Stryker. The Rheinmetall L44/55. The M777. Need I continue?

Reply

Eddie January 4, 2014 at 12:06 pm

Colts got the M240 disighned by FN and improved to the new FN light ,Guess who got that contract . Colts .I here they have had 10 PDQR and they ere falling aprt in the field. They have never even made a real machinegun. Guess its alright Fn gets the M4 .PS There employees are US citizens and FN takes good care of them.

Reply

USMC505 February 24, 2013 at 6:04 am

There is nothing wrong with the 5.56 caliber, or the M4A1 platform. they both work incredibly well, and as Joshua stated, it's limitations are really in the shooter, not the weapon. Marines can easily kill targets at 500m with iron sights, and it's even easier with an ACOG. We are absolutely meticulous about cleaning and maintaining our weapons, and spend as much time doing that as we do training.

The only shortcoming Marines have ever seen in the 5.56 round after decades of kicking ass with it, was it's inability to penetrate certain types of cover, such as car doors and windows. That was remedied with the creation of the SOST round.

The Army has never spent as much time training as the Corps does, nor does it place the emphasis on maintenance discipline that we do. Malfunctions in the field, or perceived inadequacies in the capabilities of this particular weapons platform are rooted in Soldiers' lack of training, not the the M4's lack of capabilities, or those of it's round.

If you want a more lethal weapon, and a deadlier round, the only solution is to get your butt out to the range and train some more…become as deadly and as accurate as you personally possibly can. Once you do, you will discover just how incredibly devastating this weapon and its current ammunition can be.

Reply

SFC Earnán September 8, 2013 at 10:38 pm

Maybe some day the Marines will be as tough and as good as they spend so much time telling everyone they are.

Reply

Joshua February 24, 2013 at 6:23 am

I'll remember that next time I see a few of them executing women for going to school, they're great upstanding people…/sarcasm.

Reply

Lance February 24, 2013 at 1:22 pm

Don't know seen 5.56mm do ok going threw automobile sheet metal ok. And seen it go threw brush ok.

Reply

Joshua February 24, 2013 at 6:30 am

Because past 200M .300 drops like a rock. Your holdover would be huge at 600M.

Reply

sigmund February 25, 2013 at 9:29 am

i would respectfully say that i dont agree that it "drops like a rock"

I think 300 black drops differently than 5.56, but it certainly has more capability than perceptions give it credit for.

Reply

SF_ret February 24, 2013 at 7:23 am

Glad to see Colt loose. I don't care if they build them in Egypt. Until Colt, Springfield and the rest move out of United Socialist Republic of New England, let them and their unions make pencils.

Jim Laubler, SF retired.

Reply

E. Ronc February 25, 2013 at 8:13 am

Well please don't throw all New England out. My state (Mass), Conn and R.I are crap. Maine not so bad. New Hampshire pretty friendly. Ask H&K in Newington, NH. and Sig in Exeter, NH. While where my nephew is in Vermont is great. Don't even need permit for CCW.

Reply

Jim SF Ret. February 25, 2013 at 8:21 am

I hear you. Since you guys are surrounded, I wish you'd pull a little "art of war" and take out those anti-gun states. When you color the country, you get red in California and virtually all red in New England.

Have fun with your battles up there. Maybe it is time to call in the reserves and march on all the red capitals.

Reply

E. Ronc February 25, 2013 at 8:30 am

Well we do have quite a heritage here. Would love to see my armory running again. Though if you are up this way, do visit our Springfield Armory museum. Oh it's always a laugh a minute here. Where's Shay when you need him.

Reply

Ricky February 24, 2013 at 11:15 am

So do the A1 improvements plus the harder-hitting M588 round mean the M4 is finally a mbr worthy of the finest infantry on the planet?

Reply

Lance February 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm

M-855A1 is what your thinking about.

Reply

Esh325 February 24, 2013 at 1:21 pm

There hasn't really been any data released if the M885A1 solves some of the problems that occured with the M885.

Reply

Joshua February 24, 2013 at 1:25 pm

Not to the public that is..I have seen it though, and it solves the problems of M855. It does well even through auto glass.

Reply

Johnny Quest February 25, 2013 at 3:25 am

M4 is NOT an mbr (main battle rifle)

Reply

Jim SF Ret. February 25, 2013 at 5:42 am

M4 not a main battle rifle? When I entered the military in the 70's, the M16A1 had an effective range of 300M. The M4, if I read properly, has a minimum 300M effective range with the 10" barrel (longer with longer barrels).

The AK-47 is still only effective for about 50' (I exaggerate but not by much).

Reply

Joshua February 25, 2013 at 6:11 am

The M16 and M4 are not battle rifles. Generally a battle rifle is a carbine 7.62 rifle like the SCAR-H.

Also the M4 has a 14.5" barrel.

Reply

Esh325 February 25, 2013 at 7:11 am

Not everybody in the world makes a distinction between "assault rifle" and "battle rifle". It's pretty much only Americans that make that distinction.

Lance February 25, 2013 at 10:10 am

True a select fire M-4 is a assault rifle not battle rifle a M-14 EBR is a battle rifle so is the SCAR H and only the M-110 is different its a sniper rifle. read military designations.

Esh325 February 25, 2013 at 7:06 am

It's not an exaggeration, it's just not correct.

Reply

Lance February 25, 2013 at 10:09 am

The M-16A2 has a range effective 500M and maximum range 800M M-4 shorter barrel makes the performance similar to the A1 but Sailors and marines with A2/A3/A4 rifle shoot to 800M all the time.

Reply

FormerSFMedic February 25, 2013 at 10:52 am

The M16A2 has maximum effective range of 550m. The maximum range for the M16A2 is 3600m.

The maximum effective range of the M4/M4A1 is 500m.

E. Ronc February 25, 2013 at 12:16 pm

FormerSFMedic, 3,600M is just shy of two and a quarter miles. Your saying that a M16A2 is throwing a round out that far.

Esh325 February 24, 2013 at 12:19 pm

If they issue soldiers fully automatic M4's, they'll whine about soldiers wasting ammo like they did with the M16A1. Why don't they just issue them semi automatic only M4's? I wonder what FN's upgrades will be to the M4? I'm guessing it will be a fully ambi controls,monolethic upper with free float barrel, and a more durable heat resistant barrel. I'm also glad to see Colt loose.

Reply

Joshua February 24, 2013 at 12:27 pm

Thats why you train soldiers to rely on semi….its a pretty simple thing to do.

Also FN will be building M4's to the TDP just like they are making M16's tothe TDP. The PiP will bring changes to the M4 not FNH.

Reply

Esh325 February 24, 2013 at 1:12 pm

It's not that simple for the army, otherwise they wouldn't have went to a 3 round burst in the first place. They are always interested in a mechanical solution to a problem than a man solution. Original contract with Remington mentioned rails and things I thought. It would be a shame to spend all that money for new rifles when there are clearly improvements that can be done.

Reply

Lance February 24, 2013 at 1:23 pm

Don't forget they already make M-16A4s for the Marines and M-16A3s for the Navy so they can handle making M-4s.

Reply

Esh325 February 24, 2013 at 1:49 pm

I never doubted they could make M4's. Should be easy for them.

Reply

Esh325 February 24, 2013 at 12:20 pm

Belgium doesn't make M4's.

Reply

shockanawe February 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm

okay where are they built? their website says: Since 1997, Herstal Group has been 100% owned by the Walloon Region of Belgium. With manufacturing locations in Belgium, US, Portugal, Japan and Finland, the global Herstal Group provides employment to a workforce of about 2,400 people.

Reply

Esh325 February 24, 2013 at 3:51 pm

FN USA builds them.

Reply

Lance February 24, 2013 at 5:19 pm

SN controls the company but they have a plant in SC. They make USMC M-16A4s and Navy M-16A3s at the plant already.

Reply

FormerSFMedic February 25, 2013 at 6:11 am

Army weapons contracts REQUIRE all weapons systems to be made in the US. If a company doesn't have the capabilities to build a weapon in the US then that company will never win a weapons contract for the US military. FN had had a plant in SC for years and will build all the M4's at that plant per the contract requirements.

Reply

Guest September 25, 2013 at 11:43 am

Yes, they most certainly DO! FN – Fabrique Nationale – is in Herstal, BELGIUM. FN's current contact with the U.S. Army allows them to make M4s & M16s for NATO countries out of their non-USA based manufacturing centers.

Reply

DB Cooper September 25, 2013 at 4:56 pm

They will be made at the FN Production facility in Columbia SC. FN has been a major supplier of M-16/4 barrels for the US Army for decades.

Reply

Lance February 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm

6.8mm and 6.5 didn't pan out 5.56mm for what areal assault rifle does does a good job.

Reply

Billywhat? February 24, 2013 at 11:52 pm

They adhere to the mil-spec standards. But those are surely not the highest standards they could adhere to.

The fact is, these company's look at their product and think:"what can we save money on and still meet the required specs?"

That is something different than the normal way a company should operate:"How can i make the best product on the market?"

Om not saying they will make a bad product, but its not their best.

But we are sending our best boys out to the sandbox with these guns, thats the problem

Reply

Joshua February 25, 2013 at 7:33 am

They will make the rifle the same way Colt does. They have inspectors on site to heck they are performing up to par and buildin rifles to the TDP(technical data package). They have been the sole source of M16A4's for a long time and those have no issues.

I have used these rifles overseas and would have no problem sending more people out with them. All they rly need is a FF rail, which the PiP is working on getting.

Fact is we are going to be using the M4 for a long long time, at least until somethig revolutionary comes out.

Reply

Lima3069 February 25, 2013 at 8:35 am

Mil-Spec standards need to be re-evaluated based on what the conditions are in the current and projected theaters of operation are, the problem is that the standards on the M16/M4 patterns have not had any significant changes since the A2 platform, even the Russians want to give the AK-74 a facelift. Standards are not meant to be stagnant, they have to evolve based on the changing in condition and advances in technology that can make new tech cheaper to implement. I'm not saying every M4 should get a Short-Stroke Piston upper for the added reliability in dusty dirty conditions, but certainly it's something frontline units can certainly benefit from, especially units who are most often away from a safe base of operations (Mountain, Airborne, Cavalry). The Special Forces Community has the highest standards for all it's equipment, I'm sure it wouldn't be a massive stretch to have the Marine Corps and Frontline Army Units adopt those same standards.

Reply

Joshua February 25, 2013 at 9:07 am

Have you ever been "front line"? I can tell you now a piston is not needed, what is needed is bettere training on how to properly care for the M4. When I was not having to pass an inspection all I did was a simple wipe down of the rifle and BCG daily as well as cleaning the bore, and barrel extension and kept it well lubricated and I never had any weapon related malfunctions. I had the occasional poorly crimped round or bad magazine but no weapon related failures.

The PiP is all about seeing if there is better than "Mil-Spec" and so far not much has been found, there was one BCG that was around 25% better than the standard Colt BCG but even it cost nearly double the price ofthe standard BCG, that IMO is not worth it. They are also current looking for a better rail sytem.

You are confused about Russia, they have no plans to replace the AK-74. What you saw was propaganda from Izmash trying to push their AK-12 because thy are going bankrupt.

What you are missing is 90% of our SF use the M4A1 and CQBR, even after SOCOM had the SCAR trials they stuck with the M4A1.

Reply

sigmund February 25, 2013 at 9:20 am

"I’m not saying every M4 should get a Short-Stroke Piston upper for the added reliability in dusty dirty conditions, but certainly it’s something frontline units can certainly benefit from"

I strongly disagree.

With proper lubrication (NOT using CLP; use motor oil), the M4 is just as reliable as anything else. Look at this http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-ca

A comparison between brass and steel ammo. Even non-mil spec Ar15s from Bushmaster (considered inferior to other mil spec carbines), were utterly reliable when using steel case ammo. When using military specification federal? that increased the reliability substantially.

I also disagree with applying short-stroke pistons on AR platforms. Short stroke pistons dont lend themselves good to the design because you are increasing momentum due to the violence of action, which leads to increased wear on critical parts. Of course, a good short stroke piston gun is very reliable.

If you want to gas piston a AR, I think the long stroke piston is a vastly superior option.

Reply

Billywhat? February 24, 2013 at 11:56 pm

It's belgium that does not have to be a foreign land. They have virtually no army so the US could take it over in a day ;-)

Lol, on the serious side:

With Obama's one-world-agenda soon there will be no more foreign country's we will all be one through the UN. Doesnt that sound wonderfull?

Reply

Enchilada February 25, 2013 at 10:52 am

Wow, it's comments like the Obama UN one above that put the "Nuts" in "Gun Nuts". I really hope you're joking… otherwise it's just sad.

Reply

Yellow Devil February 25, 2013 at 1:00 pm

At no point did he talk about guns or firearms, so how did you get the "Nuts" in "Gun Nuts"? Or is that a projection of your innate prejudice?

Reply

Billywhat? February 25, 2013 at 12:02 am

Civilians don't buy 120.000 at a time, and do not have the power to stack manufacturers against eachother.

Civilians will pay anything for a rifle, and manufacturers know that.

Also, as a civilian you pay for marketing and distribution and all that good stuff.

So your price is in no way related to the price the army pays.

Reply

Austin February 25, 2013 at 1:28 pm

Don't forget the 11% excise tax that's charged on every rifle (and round of ammunition) sold on the civilian market. DOD/USGC sales are exempt from FAET.

Your rifle now costs about $711 after excise tax, which is pretty well much on par with distributor pricing… In fact, larger distributors are probably getting a better deal than the military.

It's just that by the time it passes through the hands of 3-4 middlemen before you purchase it, you're normally paying ~$1000-$1200.

Of course, with the insane buying frenzy that's been happening this past few months, prices are ANYTHING but normal…

Reply

Nater February 25, 2013 at 2:03 am

Guerrilla and insurgent are two words for the same damn thing.

Reply

Johnny Quest February 25, 2013 at 3:16 am

Uhhh, no, I am relatively sure Colt is not happy to lose the contract. If you think otherwise, you are grossly mistaken.

Reply

jay February 25, 2013 at 3:57 am

Great news. Fn is a very dynamic and innovating company. They deserve the contract.

Reply

John D February 25, 2013 at 5:13 am

Surprise, surprise!! FN who makes the M16s, M240, 249s gets the M4 contract. Since they are in S Carolina and not under the new CT or NY assault rifle bans, they are going to make combat rifles without silly state laws interfearing. Colt, Remington, Ruger etc will be puling up stakes and heading south taking the jobs and tax money sith them! Stag Arms in Ct makes only M16 platform weapons, they are out of business!! You need a reliable source for weapons and FN is really it. NY didn't put in a military clause so when th eWest Point cadets go from WP to Camp Buckner they traavel on state roads and can be arrested for their assault rifles and 30rd mags!! Ft Drum is in trouble!!

Reply

Joshua February 25, 2013 at 6:12 am

Colt makes the current M240's.

Reply

E. Ronc February 25, 2013 at 8:17 am

They also forgot cop exemption, both will be put in before law goes into effect.

Reply

Larry Howard February 25, 2013 at 5:32 am

Another goverment contract going to a foriegn company.

Reply

FormerSFMedic February 25, 2013 at 6:28 am

The .300 BLK might be on the table in the future. It was developed on request by the Military and has proven itself to work extremely well in combat. So, it was designed to exacting standards and is a battle tested cartridge. Anything already in the system/field is going to have a better chance than anything else out there. After spending quality time with the cartridge for the last 6 months I'm a huge believer in the cartridge. It would be a sufficient replacement for 5.56 although I do think a purpose built cartridge would be better. In other words, the .300 BLK is a great way to go as things stand but something that doesn't even exist yet would be better.

@Joshua- It depends on the load and the rifle. Out to 300m I'm getting hits on a torso with no hold over. I would say 400m is about the capability of the average Soldier with the .300BLK.With that said, we took it to 800m before we ran out of range and we were able to do it consistently with a "hangtime" of about 4 seconds. The .300 BLK may be a more difficult cartridge to shoot outside of 400m but it's more terminally effective at that range. I think it would work well as a 5.56 replacement.

Reply

Joshua February 25, 2013 at 6:36 am

Why give up a 400M cartridge for a 400M cartridge? If we are going to switch it needs to be a 7mm Murray, in say a polymer case, and a completely new gun to make good use of the bullet and make polymer casing work.

Reply

captain doc February 25, 2013 at 7:29 am

fn has always built very nice weapons for everyone including hitler. we should not be buying weapons from europe companies. we need the jobs and all the money spent here. you can bet that fn has figured out a way to cheapen the weapons, after all it is in business to make money, and they always have. fn just bought better politicians than remington or colt. the m4 is not a good rifle for todays combat area's. soldiers need a 7.62 cal. rifle to use in the longer ranges of today's combat. upgrading the 240 & 249 to a .300 win. mag will also help. the further we keep the enemy from soldiers the better i like it. reach out and touch someone that cannot reach out and touch us is more to my liking.

Reply

Joshua February 25, 2013 at 7:41 am

I disagree. Most soldier(probably 80%) have no idea how to compensate for bullerc and most cannot effectively hit targets at 500M. Strapping soldiers with old antiquated 7.62 as a main cartridge would be a big mistake. 7.62 is less controlable, it weighs more, and even the lightest rifles are 8+lbs dry, add in mags and all the accessories soldiers carry and your north of 12lbs. Even then your average soldier wouldn't hit anyone at 500M, but now they have less ammo and longer follow up times on their shots.

A COM hit at 500M with a 5.56 does the job well, even then getting hit with a 5.56 at 400M is like being shot point blank with a .22 magnum, that makes for a very bad day.

7.62 has its place in the 240L and things like the M110, but for the main small arms of our soldiers 5.56 does fine until we switch to a completely new caliber.

Reply

E. Ronc February 25, 2013 at 8:22 am

Don't see it as less controlable unless your talking full auto. Plenty of shooters seem to control it quite well at Camp Perry. The weight of the round might actually make it more controlabe in say windy conditions at distance.

Reply

Lance February 25, 2013 at 10:00 am

Don't forget the M-14 EBR Josh. I agree 5.56mm can do job very well for all riflemen in a platoon. Only specialist need heavier weapons like a DM in a unit and or sniper with a M-21 M-14 or M110. But that's specialist not average solder the M-16 and M-4 do well for the regular grunts.

Reply

Joshua February 25, 2013 at 7:43 am

Oh and to the FN part, they cannot cheapen the products. There are government inspectors on site making sure FNH follows the TDP to the letter.

Reply

Jim SF Ret. February 25, 2013 at 8:00 am

I'm not so sure about the larger round for village patrolling. The enemy isn't (generally) wearing any body armor. Yet, the lighter round allows a soldier to carry more and put down a nice base of firepower.

If American Companies act like Americans (no socialists, communists, progressive liberals, or whatever that is not traditional) then they deserve the contract. In this case, we are looking at a company like Colt which rewards New England with a strong corner stone for their economy and jobs for unions.

FN will hire hundreds of Americans in South Carolina. I'll bet FN will keep those dollars in America for the same reason Pepsi keeps their gains off the shores of the U.S. I'd rather reward southerners who don't press the union over-kill.

Reply

augestwest February 25, 2013 at 7:32 am

I think FNH USA If that's where the firearms are coming from make a great product. as you know they make the P-90 & the civilian PS-90 which are 5.7 x 28 with a top loading magazine and a 50 round capacity. it's a bull pup design and has been in service since 91 for military and law enforcement in full auto. Then the PS-90 was offered to the civilian market in semi auto and smaller ammo amount mags. it's a very proven weapon so if the M4 shows any signs of how the company makes it's carbines they definitely picked a good company. Good luck FNH and all the soldiers who will be carrying one in the future.

Reply

E. Ronc February 25, 2013 at 7:59 am

Lance agree that the neither of the 6.5's or the 6.8 gives you a major jump. Just sad that a majority of your weapons are out of the fight and regulated to the "other guns to handle it". Your enemy combatant would do better setting up with an old K98 at 700M.

Reply

Joshua February 25, 2013 at 8:11 am

Your not out of the fight, but at 700M most won't be able to hit anything. Thats takes being able to calculate bullet drop, wind drift, ect. That is stuff most cannot do on the fly and especially when they have an ACOG. A hit is still a hit and at that distance shot placement is key no matter the caliber.

Reply

E. Ronc February 25, 2013 at 8:37 am

Sorry at 700M a hit may be a hit but how much energy is truely left in an 5.56×45 at that range? Will take that round any day over that old 7.92×57

Reply

swampdog February 25, 2013 at 8:38 am

Great! Another extention of the life of the outdated AR based rifle, a now 50 year old design. Never mind that its direct gas impingement action has proved to be unreliable under sustained automatic fire. (If your rifle quits during the fight, just grab another from a wounded comrade.) The Stoner design was cutting edge in 1962, but its early "teething" problems when introduced to the troops in 1965 was the cause of 100s of needless deaths when rifles jammed in fire fights in Viet Nam. Sure there were subsequent fixes, but the root problem, hot dirty gases being introduced to the bolt mechanism, have endured. Why are piston design rifles the choice of U.S. Special Forces, but are not available to the rest of our war fighters, like the HK 416? Money and politics. We always hear about the next cutting edge infantry weapon coming around the bend, but money to poiticians' campaign chests always manages to outweigh what's good for our people getting shot at. How many stories do we have to hear about outposts nearly being overrun in Afghanistan when our troops' M4 carbines get heated up and dirty and stop working? Our war fighters have endured and excelled in spite of their armament, not because of it.

Reply

Lance February 25, 2013 at 9:57 am

The reason the AR platform is still in use and will be for a long time is that nothing is truly better FNs HKs and Remington's IC competitors offered nothing over the M-4 that why IC is dying fast.

Reply

DB Cooper February 25, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Josh,

I am an ex infantry officer and a logistician. I have seen both sides of the issue with weapons and equipment so you need to be made aware of the fact that when you say there is a reason SOF stayed with the A-4 you may not be seeing the whole picture. As with other equipment SOF has they keep it because there may be better stuff out there but if it gets jacked up how are they going to get it fixed. The A-4 can be fixed anywhere we have soldiers where as the SCAR cannot. The SCAR is an awesome weapon but until Big Army gets it head out of its 5th point of contact and buys a more capable platform and calibar SOF will keep basically the same weapons just so it can be supported wherever. As far as the M855 round goes its far from adequate and always has been. The steel core meant to penetrate soviet body armor that was never fielded turns it in to a long range icepick. Optimal kill range is <100 meters which is why it was adopted. No one saw a need for long range engagement. However in areas where the enemy takes/smokes opiates the round even barrel close is inadequate. Good friend of mine (SOF BTW) is alive right now because his buddy shot the insurgent in the head with his M-4 after my buddy shot the guy at point blank range 6 times in the chest with his M-9! That kind of thing is why we went to the .45 ACP in the first place.

Also when you saw "all that is needed is bettere training on how to properly care for the M4" your saying something that is less than intelligent. They training is there its the leaders forcing the soldiers out from in front of the TVs to actually do the maintenance.

FN is a good company and has been manufacturing barrels for the US Military for years. The facility is loaded up with retired and ex soldiers and its computorized milling machines are top notch. I've toured the facility.

SwampDog The barrels overheat because back in the 80's when the army took over the A2 program from th Marines they changed the Marines design of the barrel to make it slimmer under the hand gaurd so they wouldnt have to redisgn the M-203 mounting brackets. The marines wanted that thicker barrel the entire length of the barrel to reduce the overheating problem. The new and retrofited M-4s will have the thicker barrel.

Reply

Lance February 25, 2013 at 12:11 pm

Not really no IC competitor offered anything over the M-4 and it M-4 NOT A4 the A4 is the USMC M-16 rifle.. None of them did there all 5.56mm carbines with a collapsible stock nothing else. The infantry already has that.

Reply

Joshua February 25, 2013 at 12:21 pm

I'm calling BS. Some of your info is often repeated internet rumor BS that I see quoted often. The whole I shot someone 6 times in the chest with my M9 only to be saved by my buddy is generally a false story taken from a true story experienced by 1 individual. I guarantee you shoot someone 6 times in the chest with a .22 mag and it will kill them. 9mm ball sucks but 6 9mm holes to the chest/heart will kill someone.

Unless your buddy just so happens to be that guy I dont buy it.

SOF does not use the A4 and has not used the M16 since early in Vietnam. Thy do use the M4A1 and have the SOPMOD II kit to augment it. I have worked with plenty of guys who hated the SCAR and was glad when SOCOM went back to the M4A1.

The SCAR has always had issues, but nothing more can be said there.

What I say about cleaning and maintenance is spot on, but let me guess you believe in white glove clean and lubricant is bad because it attracts sand and dust right? Lets face it in general cleaning is used as a way to keep a soldier busy, a white glove clean damages the weapon and does nothing but make them a liability.

The proper way to clean the M4 is to never scrape, wipe it down with a rag clean the chamber and bore and apply a good amount of lubrication like Motor Oil and it will run.

Reply

sigmund February 25, 2013 at 10:01 pm

I havent had much insight into the SCAR, but what issues are there with that?

Reply

Paralus February 25, 2013 at 9:07 pm

bullsh** supposition

Reply

retired 462 February 26, 2013 at 4:26 am

At least they use American labor (maybe not union, but, American).

Reply

JEFF February 26, 2013 at 6:11 am

Great job FN! I'm guessing they won because their overhead rates are way lower down in SC. Not sure but I'm assuming Colt, Springfield and other Northern Companies deal with unions etc while SC doesn't. Again, I don't know this for sure but I'm guessing it's a safe bet.

I own an FNP-45 and I have an FN barrel on my AR, very happy with both.

Reply

DB Cooper February 26, 2013 at 6:29 am

Lance, Thank you for the nomenclature correction.

Josh, Think what you want about my story. Although I'm sure there is a lot of variations of an internet story this guy is a personal friend of mine. And you are right about shooting someone 6 times in the chest will kill anyone but you have obviously never dealt with someone high on one of several opiates and how they can be dead men walking. Lots of factors go into how fast you die that range from point of impact to the caliber and type of bullet and how much nervous system depressants you have consumed.

Try actually reading some history as to why the army adopted the .45 ACP. You might actually learn something. BTW I saw an autopsy photo of a woman who shot herself 9 times in the chest with a .22 pistol.

The only complaint I have ever heard about a SCAR is that it has a reciprocating charging handle. Thats it. Personally I love my SCAR-17s. Looks bulky, but its not. Felt recoil for the 7.62 is only slightly more than an M-4. I have a female friend that has had to have both shoulders rebuilt and she loves the weapon so much she wants to buy one for herself. Price of FN mags are horrindous but aftermarket polymor mags have brought the price way down. Since you cant name a problem with the SCAR I take it you've never shot one.

Your statement about white glove clean is bullshit and indicative of the fact that you’re probably no higher rank than an E-4. In the old days weapon maintenance, like vehicle maintenance, was overdone and used to keep soldiers busy. Idle soldiers tend to get into trouble and training is too expensive to do continuously so make soldiers do make work. Basic weapons maintenance is essential to keeping your weapon functional. That means after a patrol is over at a minimum take your bolt carrier group apart and get out any dirt/dust as well as the receiver. Just as in the arctic, wipe all oil off as it’s a sand magnet. You remember that bullshit hero Jessica Lynch? None of her platoons weapons would function properly because no one cleaned theirs in the 90 days they were in country. The iraqi army in remote outposts would cover their large guns (AA and FA) as well as some automotive parts with used motor oil to attract sand and it formed a thick protective coating over the components to keep sand out. Don't be that stupid with your rifle.

BTW anyone who uses motor oil on a weapon is a dumbass. Motor oil is to viscus and will gum things up. Why do you think in really cold weather area's they use 10 wt oil. In a pinch your better off using some breakfree until you get a chance to clean your riflr properly.

Reply

Joshua February 26, 2013 at 8:33 am

Clearly your new here otherwise you would know my information is good. Lets get a few things straight.

1. There is a reason you can find information on all our small arms in use except the SCAR. The people there that tested it are held to NDA's to this day, All that can be said is what is open source and i have repeated that a lot, but the issues with the SCAR go much deeper.

2. You proved my point. "In the old days weapon maintenance, like vehicle maintenance, was overdone and used to keep soldiers busy" so thanks for makig my point. They use obsessive weapons maintenance to keep soldiers busy.

3. I never once claimed to never clean your rifle. What I said was that there is jo reason to sit there and scrape the carbon that builds up on the bolt tail, inside the carrier, and on the crown, nor does the barrel extension have to be spotless.

Every day, before every patrol, after every patrol, and at night you should take out the BCG give it a wipe down and relube it if you have not had to fire your rifle. If you have fored your rifle take out the BCG wipe it down, wipe down the inside the upper receiver as well as the lower with a rag, punch the bore with a wet patch followed by a dry patch, and use a chamber mop to lean out the chamber/locking lug recess. Follow that up with a healthy dose of either SLIP2000 EWL(my favorite) or motor oil, CLP is a lubricant that does nothing well, but does everything poorly.

4. Motor oil is not viscous, maple syrup is viscous.

5. Sand sticks to your gun no matter what, having sand suspended in a good high temp oil is better than having rough gritty sand dragging between two metal surfaces.

6. I have put well over 10,000 rounds through the M4 MWS and I cancount on one hand the amount of stoppages I have had using y recommended maintenance procedures.

Reply

Jim SF Ret. February 26, 2013 at 8:41 am

Sometimes you just have to disagree.

Reply

DB Cooper February 26, 2013 at 11:25 am

Heads up lance Your below statement isnt being performed by many soldiers and if you are doing it then my hat is truely off to you for doing your job as a soldier.

Every day, before every patrol, after every patrol, and at night you should take out the BCG give it a wipe down.

You dont know shit about oil. The higher the wieght of oil the more viscous it is so it stands up to high temps better.

As far as your statement – The people there that tested it are held to NDA’s to this day – kind of reminds me of the Stryker procurement. These test are written up tp say whatever the test agency wants them to say despite what actually happened. an example of test results not reflecting reality a Stryker vehicle was taken to FT Wainwright Alaska for cold weather testing. It sat out over night in -40 temp and they had to sit it in a heat garage for 3 days before it would start. The test was deemed and written up as a success.

In the SCAR testing Id guess people are having to keep their mouths shut to keep their jobs as to how well the SCARs did.

Reply

Lance February 26, 2013 at 9:50 am

I do agree but on different platforms some 7.62 rifles kick but mine the M-14EBR for me recoil is mild and it has serious knock down power. For the standard infantrymen who carries the 5.56mm weapon the M-4 is King, reason who SOCOM ditched the SCAR still uses M-4A1s.

Reply

DB Cooper February 26, 2013 at 11:12 am

Lance,

I have shot both the M-1 and the M-14 and found both weapons to have a very mild recoil, Both the 30-06 rds for the M-1 and the 7.62 for the are lighter loaded than the civilian rounds. M-16/4 with no recoil – who wouldnt prefer that. The Military needs to get better ammo if they are going to keep the M-4. But as I said previously logistical support is more important than capability. SOF would love to get a new weapon that uses something at least 6.5 mm but big army is so vested in the 5.56 it refuses to change so the only option is to get more leathal ammo.

Reply

Lance February 26, 2013 at 11:50 am

I know your another SCAR lover but the fact is the light 5.56mm version offered nothing over the M-4 SOCOM largely ditched it. And fact is 90% of SOCOM operatives use M-4 SOPMODs.

Reply

sigmund February 26, 2013 at 5:06 pm

I own a SCAR and love it, but ill have to agree with you lance. The SOPMOD II and future M4 PiP will most likely make a already excellent weapon even better and equally comparable to other wunder carbines recently released.

sigmund February 26, 2013 at 4:59 pm

I own a SCAR 16S.

The only problems I have heard from a military perspective (take that for what it is since you seem to know a lot more than I do) is that

1.) they're not measurably better than the M4 to warrant a widespread replacement of the AR platform

2.) the stock is delicate (which is why i replaced it with a Vltor adapter for a Magpul stock)

3.) Barrel retention could be improved with two large cross bolts that pass under the trunnion rather than four smaller ones that retain directly horizontal to the trunnion.

4.) rumor is that they destroy optics and lasers (like the ACOG, Eotech, and PEQ15) faster than M4s. Im not sure how true this is, but it would make sense since those accessories are designed for the M4 and not the SCAR's different recoil impulses.

5.) the reciprocating charging handle, which is apparently supposed to be phased out for a non reciprocating one in the FN Advanced Carbine.

Ill admit that i have fired a lot (in excess of 9,000) rounds through my SCAR 16s, although from a martial standpoint, their results may be drastically different. Im just a dumb civie nerd with too many guns ;)

Reply

Ullr February 26, 2013 at 6:39 am

South Carolinians may talk funny, but I don't think they're foreign.

Reply

sr5150 February 26, 2013 at 10:24 am

The profits still go to that foreign company, where they are spent in the European economy. Colt and Remington spend their profits here, in the U.S.. Which do you think is better for Americans?

Reply

Jim SF Ret. February 26, 2013 at 10:45 am

Here's your foreign company who STANDS with us Constitution Protection Veterans.
http://tinyurl.com/b6qfux3

Reply

sr5150 February 26, 2013 at 10:15 am

The profits still go to a foreign land. Colt and Remington employ more people in the U.S. than FN, so it would be better to give profits to U.S.-based companies who employ more workers than a foreign-based operation.

Reply

sr5150 February 26, 2013 at 10:30 am

Your post is a good example of your ideology speaking for you, rather than logic. Because Colt has Union workers, less of their money has an impact on the U.S. economy?!? The majority of the profits for this contract will go to Belgium, where they will be spent in the European economy.

Reply

Jim SF Ret. February 26, 2013 at 10:48 am

Two issue's: Look what gun manufacturer is standing up for the 2nd Amendment. You might be surprised: http://tinyurl.com/b6qfux3

All of you should be joining this group of over 10,000 vets. http://www.oathkeepers.com Read the 10 orders they will not follow. They know our numbers in Washington D.C. The more liberal are actually afraid of us peaceful people.

Reply

Rick February 26, 2013 at 2:25 pm

I am a full member of Oathkeepers, and ex-infantryman from 3/75th Rangers, and I will honor my oath until they kill me, or I am physically unable to do so. Sad that many currently serving members have to be reminded that their oath is to the people of this country, and not the bureaucrats on the hill.

Reply

SF_ret February 26, 2013 at 2:37 pm

Who-ah!!!

Reply

sigmund February 26, 2013 at 5:04 pm

oathkeepers is a awesome organization!

when those SF operators wrote that letter about their position on the 2nd amendment, it gave me a good feeling as a gun owner. I know they're not alone. I have friends from many branches of the armed forces and different MOS's that own guns (especially scary military-looking repeaters) and will fight to retain their right to own them.

when the rubber meets the road, it will be nice to have people in the military opposing the small, vocal minority that seems more focused on tearing the country apart to pursue their little pet projects (gun control) rather than focusing on the issues facing our country (terrorism, the budget, etc).

Reply

Rock n Roll February 26, 2013 at 2:04 pm

Trying to shoot beyond 500m with a rifle is kind of pointless. I'm fairly sure snipers prefer to engage within 500m, but that's just me pulling a thought out of the blue.

It's always been the role of the infantry to engage and eliminate the enemy. Preferably from a distance with the use of a radio. The infantry, this coming from my armchair General mindset, is there to deny the enemy and to move the enemy and to pin the enemy. Force the enemy to go where you want them to go and keep them there long enough for your support elements to come in and wipe them out. Then the infantry mops up and advances. Rinse and repeat.

Sorry for the lecture, but I guess I'm just trying to provide a perspective on the lack of a need for rifles to extend reach beyond 500m. Even with the best scopes, you're going to be at the mercy of the elements— Etc. Blah blah blah, shutting up now.

Reply

E. Ronc February 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm

Longest confirmed kill with a 7.62x51mm NATO chambered rifle. Staff Sergeant Jim Gilliland September 27, 2005 was1,250 m (1,367 yd) with a M24 rifle. 2nd Battalion, 69th Armored Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division Sniper Shadow Team.

Reply

Rick February 26, 2013 at 4:00 pm

A bit of a correction here. That record has been broken. Using an Accuracy International L115A3, British Corporal Craig Harrison killed two Taliban with consecutive shots at a distance of 2.47 kilometres (8120 ft) in Helmand Province, Afghanistan November 2009.

Reply

E. Ronc February 27, 2013 at 2:20 am

Not quite my statement "Longest confirmed kill with a 7.62x51mm NATO chambered rifle".

There are many more past this distance, just not with this round. The Accuracy International L115A3, British Corporal Craig Harrison was using was chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. He has been passed.

The current record is held by an unknown Australian soldier from Delta Company, 2nd Commando Regiment with a GPS confirmed shot at 2,815 m (3,079 yd). The name of the shooter is unknown since it was a multiple shooter operation, utilizing two shooters firing simultaneously upon a Taliban commander, with one shooter being successful the identity of whom could not be determined.

Using Barrett M82A1 with .50 BMG (12.7×99mm NATO).

Reply

Rick February 27, 2013 at 2:48 am

My bad E. Ronc. It's been a while since I read that article. I was thinking it was a .308 Cpl Harrison used. We do have a guy from the 7th SF that trains with our civilian group, that consistently hits steel at 2500M with his 7.62×51. You'd think he was shooting a M203 with the elevation he puts on that thing. Ugliest damn rifle I ever seen too. He loves to prove us wrong about that round, and is always making our guy with the Barrett look bad. LOL

Reply

E. Ronc February 27, 2013 at 3:15 am

What rifle he using?

Reply

Rick February 27, 2013 at 3:32 am

Rem 700 with a Mike Rock heavy barrel and Mc Millan stock if I remember right. Optics I'm not sure of the name he gave. He says it adjusts over 100 MOA at .250 click values. This rig has scratches, gouges and more coats of paint than you can count. You'd laugh at him until you see him shoot it.

Reply

C February 28, 2013 at 3:54 pm

Sometimes higher ups decline request, for indirect fire, UAV attacks ect. due to politics. AKA 3 dead at consolet. Lie, said Mob, & about movie BS.

Reply

Rock n Roll February 26, 2013 at 2:09 pm

M16/M4 platforms in 7.62? Stop it, you're making me blush…

Reply

Rick February 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm

Personally i think it's sad as hell that in this current economy that yet ANOTHER government contract is awarded to a foreign entity. IMO they shouldn't even be able to bid. Regardless of FN's great reputation, I am sure Colt or Remington would be well able to conquer any issues regarding reliability or accuracy. We need to fix our own problems before we go helping out everyone else in the world.

Reply

sigmund February 26, 2013 at 4:25 pm

ronc, yes

bullets will typically travel 2-3 miles.

SF medic is right per TM.

Reply

Rick February 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm

Difference between max range and max effective range. A 5.56 after 2 miles of travel will bounce right off your chest. That is not very effective.

Reply

FormerSFMedic February 26, 2013 at 7:58 pm

I was wondering if anyone would notice that 3600m is from the TM. Nice catch sigmund! My comment wasn't necessarily aimed at educating as much as it was holding everyone to a standard. I have been absent from the comments at kitup for two months devoting all my time to fighting for our Second Amendment rights. With that said, I have the extra time now to participate in these discussions. Imagine my surprise to see dozens of comments containing misinformation, myths, inaccuracies, and opinion stated as fact. Some may think that I'm the information nazi but I don't see anything wrong with correcting or challenging misinformation.

On that note. The maximum effective range and the maximum range of the M16A2 are both wrong.

I just want to put out good information based on fact and experience. If I don't know the answer or don't have experience on the subject then I'll stay out of it. I'm back and I'm making sure we put out the best information possible!

Reply

E. Ronc February 27, 2013 at 3:08 am

If I remember right CCI stingers use to say they would go 2 1/2 or 2 1/4. should of thought about it harder. It was focusing more on Effective range an in my head, that just shot way out there.

Reply

SF_ret February 27, 2013 at 3:40 am

One thing hasn't been brought up. Muscle memory. Due to the situation, I went out and bought a Berretta 92F. Why? Well, after being retired almost 10 years, I went shooting with a friend. He had a 92F. When I shot it, I made a nice silver dollar size hole out of a magazine. It was muscle memory. It was as if I had just trained with it yesterday.

Keep in mind I had put more rounds through my service 92 than most people (we ran into a pile of 9mm at the end of a fiscal year). Between those times I tried a glock (yuk) and a S&W (not bad but not the same).

Pretty much the same thing with a competition colt AR15. Was hitting the iron maden at 500 yards with iron sights and walmart ammo. Just feels natural.

One mans opinion. But, human factors engineering brought a good weapon to the front. Same thing with the 1911 .45cal. The best pistols (IMHO) have that same ergonomic curve between the wedge of your thumb and the trigger (thus 92F and others).

Reply

Tomatoes February 27, 2013 at 5:09 am

Swampdog, you nailed it 100%. Hard to believe that after 50 years our military has not dumped the gas impingement for the tried and true gas piston.

I was "there" for the switch from the M-14 to the M-16 ….. USMC 1964 to 1968, and saw first hand the deadly failures of that rifle.

Reply

Rick February 27, 2013 at 10:31 am

The problems experienced with the early 16s in Nam were the oil being used was the sane oil they used with the 14s and it would thicken up with the moisture of the jungle, and the manuals having you clean and treat them like they were 14s. I know plenty of people who acquired 3:1 oil and quit using the GI oil, and the problems went away.

As for the gas inpingment being somehow inferior to gas piston…I say MYTH. My 18" HBAR with the exception of running a bore snake through the bore is going on 4000 rnds without a failure or a good cleaning. Run the thing WET and you won't see any of the issues you see now. I staryed this little experiment 3 years ago, and still going.

Reply

desk_pilot February 27, 2013 at 7:44 am

Somethig something something… Merica… 7.62… bigger bullet… We should use my favorite…

In this thead is nothing but folks whining about a those dang commie Europeans are building our guns, and how 5.56 is for wusses.

Personally I do not care at all where a design comes from, or who owns the company that builds it. I want the best value for my tax dollar. If a domestic company cannot deliver that then some other company will. Its called capitalism and it rocks! America does not have a monopoly on good ideas, designs, proccesses, or quality manufacturing.

I pay taxes to fund the military to defend the country, not to be a jobs program.

Reply

E. Ronc February 27, 2013 at 10:01 am

This is not the same rifle as you carried then. While I'm not a major fan of direct impingement, I actually do like the H&K 416 and Sig 556 better, doesn't negate its positives. Many of your early problems were also related to ammo powder changes if I remember right (and God knows someone on this board will correct me if I'm wrong).

So I guess were looking for the game changer before we upgrade. Problem is there is nothing Sufficiently better. Unless your a race car driver does 2HP improvement warrant a change in your engine? No your not feeling it in your chevy malibu. Same goes for Spec ops does the slight bump in improvement warrant whole army change? No it's just not cost effective.

Reply

DB Cooper February 27, 2013 at 10:35 am

Ronc,

You are correct that the initial problem with the M-16 (then AR-15) was powder related. There was also some issue with the gas rings which excalibrated the overpressure problem from the powder dupont switched to. It allowed huge amounts of gas to byepass the rings and fouling out the rifle. The army billed the rifle as self cleaning which made the problem worse. Army retrofitted the rifle with better gas rings and a forward assist and renamed it M-16. The first rifle I was issued still had AR-15 on the lower. The army is always doing stupid stuff with equipment. The M-113 APC was originally gasoline powered. A bunch of soldiers died before they remembered we lost a lot of tanks in WW2 because they were gas powered. The original barrels for the M-2 were to short so unburn powder would pile up in front of the gun position and flash blinding the gunner. An old guy I work with years ago told me they would occassionally throw lit matches over the sandbags during firefights to ingite the powder. It worked but gave away their position. Better than blind I guess. The problem ended when they were finally issued longer barrels.

Reply

FormerSFMedic February 27, 2013 at 11:24 am

First off, there is always going to be growing pains for a new weapon system. To cite the early problems of the M16 as being proof that the system in general is flawed is naive at best.

Second, what were those early problems? The original rifles were tested with a specific powder formulation that proved reliable in the system. However, when the guns got to Vietnam the powder was switched to save money on mass quantities of ammunition. The new powder was extremely dirty. Now, combine that with the other issues. The new rifles did NOT have a chrome lined bore and chamber which allowed the fouling from the dirty powder to accumulate in places (the chamber) where it had no room to accumulate. To make matters worse, Colt advertised those, then new, rifles as "self cleaning". In response, the DOD issued the guns to troops with NO cleaning kits and NO training on how to clean the guns. Anyone can put 2 and 2 together and see why this played out badly for troops. Today, the guns are issued with chrome lined bore/chamber, ammo uses modern powder formulation (which is still dirty), all troops get cleaning kits, and all guns are held to a standard. Problem solved!

The notion that piston AR's are superior is myth. In numerous head to head testing events the DGI system has been proven to be more reliable and more durable than piston system counterparts. The myths about piston AR's being more reliable comes primarily from marketing from those companies building piston products. Think about it. Where did you hear that piston AR's were morereliable?

Reply

E. Ronc February 27, 2013 at 1:33 pm

@FormerSFMedic

Agree in growing pains. But that pistons are superior is a myth, not as convinced. I will concede you have seen more test but the original we all saw showed edge to piston. Now I know there were all kinds of fouls called on the play. Handpicked, set up for test… Whatever. But have also seen excuse well if you pour oil on it, it keeps going. So let's stop test and wipe down and lubricate at X number of rounds… sorry mind holding off on firefight, I seem to be down a quart?

There is only two things I want to know. One if I pick up one of each and start firing which one stops first. Two I consider the gas tube to be very vulnerable in automatic fire. I have gotten an ARs to glow. If in a confrontation where full auto is need (yes I know there are other weapons suppose to be for that, but as the say crap happens, they run out of ammo, or things get taken out). Which gun will go till the barrel melts? I think the gas tube goes first.

Sending hot gas back into a system is counter intuitive. Now is it enough for catastrophic break down of a well maintained gun, no. But proponents say if we change out the little dime parts that wear out a little faster at the proper intervolve alls good. Not sure how different Army is but when they handed me a M14 in the Navy, I had no idea when last serviced or how many rounds had been put through it. Your relying on guys half of you say can't even clean a rifle, to tell you these things?

As to manufacture claims, because Chevy says the corvette is faster than the mustang doesn't make it any less true.

Reply

Howie February 27, 2013 at 9:33 pm

Let's look at this whole foreign company thing from a logical perspective.

FN has, and has for a while, a manufacturing plant in SC. These weapons are manufactured in a US facility with US materials and labor. The govt pays the money to FN USA. This is a subsidiary of FNH. FN USA pays taxes back to the govt since they are a US company. Now I'm sure that FNH sees money. They are the parent company after all. The money put into this project goes back into the economy in taxes just as much as it would through Rem or Colt. If you think for one moment that Colt or Rem doesn't invest in foreign interests you are sorely mistaken. FN is a solid company with a solid product.

Hell. They're probably all owned by Disney anyway.

Reply

Jim SF Ret. February 28, 2013 at 5:22 am

LOL. You hit the nail on the head.

Reply

Howie February 27, 2013 at 9:34 pm

Let's look at this whole foreign company thing from a logical perspective.

FN has, and has for a while, a manufacturing plant in SC. These weapons are manufactured in a US facility with US materials and labor. The govt pays the money to FN USA. This is a subsidiary of FNH. FN USA pays taxes back to the govt since they are a US company. Now I'm sure that FNH sees money. They are the parent company after all. The money put into this project goes back into the economy in taxes just as much as it would through Rem or Colt. If you think for one moment that Colt or Rem doesn't invest in foreign interests you are sorely mistaken. FN is a solid company with a solid product.

They're probably all owned by Disney anyway.

Reply

Johnny Quest February 28, 2013 at 6:44 am

Wa La!! The union representative is in the house!

Reply

Johnny Quest February 28, 2013 at 6:47 am

"FN will do a better job than would Colt or Remington on this contract."

Please expound on what information you base this statement.

Reply

Luke February 28, 2013 at 9:56 am

If 80% of soldiers cant clean and lubricate our weapons properly then whats the point of talking about the weapon outshining any other platforms? i've only used mine a few times when the weather was cooperating with me or when i wasnt in a bog or other situations that helped make my m4 not be at its fullest potential. Most of us are not SF. So why compare us to them?

Reply

E. Ronc February 28, 2013 at 10:39 am

@Luke

What if the next platform outshined the M4 and didn't require cleaning? Till we find something more along those lines were keeping what we have.

Keep your powder dry.

Reply

Bob Alexander March 1, 2013 at 5:24 pm

FN is great, glad to see them get this contract. I have their competition .45 and love it. You can drive a tac or shot a nat of the wall. The most accurate and reliable .45 out of the box I have ever own, even better than my old Colt .45. Way to go FN.

Reply

Earl Rogers,Jr. March 3, 2013 at 8:52 am

Lance, what up with you and the unions that you seen to hate so much.What have they done to you,not give you a job.Read about America before there were unions,I don't think you would want too work in any of the factory we use to have that was the manufacture of good.

Reply

VeritsOmniVincit March 3, 2013 at 12:21 pm

Lance, you are right on the money! I have worked in manufacturing for years and unions have been irrelevant for the last 50 years. All they do is take efficiency out of the workplace in the name of "job Protection", shield underperforming employees from being fired and replace, and driving the cost of U.S. goods through the roof. Unions should be abolished in countries like the U.S. where federal regulations more than protect employees from the criminal hours and working conditions suffered back when unions were needed. Right-To-Work states outperform union states every time and that is fact.

Reply

Lance March 3, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Im not pro union. Im for American forces use American weapons. I dont care if M-4s are made by Colt Remington Olympic Arms Bushmaster or Ruger. As long as everything the company is that making our men wepons is placed here in the USA and has no foreign ownership with foreign interest at heart.

Reply

E. Ronc March 3, 2013 at 3:12 pm

Hope the guy buying the products made in his country, by his people don't feel the same about ford or GM being the "foreign ownership with foreign interest".

Reply

Bill Cain March 3, 2013 at 9:35 am

NO, Damn it , I don't like the idea of selling our goods to some DAMN forgien country. COLT has done the US a favor providing our boys with the best arms ever made. Now these JERKS want to give it away??? What the hell are the IDIOTS thinking, oh sorry, they didn't think. We could use the MONEY her at home. DAMNED IDIOTS.

Reply

E. Ronc March 3, 2013 at 3:19 pm

Not sure your mad about us selling stuff. We are the largest supplier of arms in the world. Colt had parts made in Canada, no outrage there? As long as the plants here and we have the capability to continue to build, I'm all for it. American workers making guns for American soldiers and sailors.

Reply

Jack Klouseau March 3, 2013 at 1:12 pm

I wonder how many of these fully auto's will find their way into the lockers of homeland security and their muslim allies in government……..sounds to me like an obozo move.

Reply

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 1:45 pm

Lots Jack,

Every month we send full auto rifles to the Palistinian Authority and they just disappear along with the ammo and money.

Reply

Old Timer March 4, 2013 at 10:27 am

So on the same basis you are saying that European countries should definitely NOT buy weapons made in the USA? The US exports far more defense equipment to Europe and elsewhere than it buys in. Would you be happier if Belgium decided not to buy US-made F-35s and ordered Chinese instead? How much do you think will come back to the USA from selling 36 F-35s to them as against the amount that FN sends back to Belgium for low value M-4s? It is called international trade. The USA should normally buy what is best, at the cheapest available price, wherever the manufacturing company is based, unless there are really good security reasons not to do so.

Reply

SFret March 4, 2013 at 10:38 am

As long as we don't stop giving F-16's to Egypt (and the $400M gift). I wonder if they still have that major contract building part of the M-1 tank. I figured that was just the mixing up the depleted uranium with the metal ore.

Reply

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 1:53 pm

SF,

The Egyptians have been licensed to build the M-1 since the late 80's. Dont really remember how much US components go into them besides the engine pack. Originally Teledyne Continental out of Michigan had a contract to modify Egypt’s T-54/55/62 fleet to accept all of those M-60 engine packs but Egypt wanted the M-1. The M-1’s are so expensive to operate that if you watched the Egyption Spring uprising you would have noticed most of the tanks in use in town were Russian tanks. Easier on the roads too.

Reply

Lance March 4, 2013 at 3:08 pm

Actually Egypt dumped its failed T-55 and T-62 fleet in the 1980s and replaced them with M-60A1s and soon M-60A3s which under this deal being upgraded again. They won the rights to make M-1s but it stalled till now that Obama is giving them more support. The BAD thing is the new Islamist government is prepping for a new war against Israel and so Obama's giving them some very best heavy weapons to do this with.

Reply

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Late 1990 we were trying to give all of the M-60 tanks in Europe to Egypt rather than bring them back and have to pay to cut them up and dispose of the engines. They refused as they wanted the M-1's. The big problem besides operating cost for third world countries is the fuel consumption. Turkey has tried to talk us into letting them build an M-1 and allow them to put a piston engine diesel in it. The T-54/55/62 tanks are good tanks for the desert and for 3rd world countries. A reasonable level of maintenance will keep them running for years. They are no match for Nato tanks but thats ok with me. The dead track lasts forever and they are simple enough to maintain. The engines are copies of 1930's detroit diesel engines using a pretty reliable air start system.

As far as obama giving them the best well thats not good but being able to use it is another matter. In the 73 war all the israeli Hawke batteries had to do was light them up with their radar and the egyption pilots would immediately eject. They wont be able to maintain the F-16's or the tanks. Most will stay parked when they finally start to use them.

Lance March 4, 2013 at 11:08 am

Sorry but in your mind your want the EU to dictate US policy then they have the power to cripple US arms production and if the liberal scum who runs Europe hates the US they can cripple US war production. Not to smart.

Reply

E. Ronc March 4, 2013 at 12:32 pm

There is no way in this arrangement that the EU will be able to dictate US policy or have the power to cripple US arms production. As stated, the weapons MUST be produced here, it is part of the contract. Thus we have the ability to always make the weapons. FNH USA as a seperate entity doesn't have to follow what EU says they have a contract they are obligated to fill. If contract not met you could do many things from giving it back to Colt or in time of dire national emergency taking over their manufacturing plant. That is why the contract always specified they are made here so we can't be crippled.

When Beretta won thier contract for the M9, they had to come put in a plant to make them here.

Reply

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Lance, SOCOM has wanted to get away from the AR platform and the 5.56 for about 15 years but until big army gets off its ass and adopts something better, on common items like guns and commo etc SOCOM will always use the same (or a a variant) as Big Army. They do it for practical logististics reason. Imagine SOCOM having to deal with getting say 6.8mm ammo in sufficient quantities all over the world and how would they resupply after a firefight. Ditto for rifles. If a M-16 varient malfunctions the weapon can be repaired anywhere. Yes I do love my SCAR 17s. I have never fired a weapon so accurate right out of the box and with so little recoil for a 7.62. I do however have uses for AR. You can put a lot of well aimed rounds downrage in a very short amount of time. Guns are like cars. Everyones got an opinion and preference.

Reply

Lance March 4, 2013 at 3:04 pm

No I agree preference is alot. we have different taste. Yes SOCOM wanted there own weapon for both 5.56 and 7.62 calibers. But they changed there mind and ditched the SCAR L in favor of the M-4A1 SOPMOD because the SCAR L offered nothing over it. Some argue the M-4 has better qualities anyway.

Reply

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 4:13 pm

I work fairly often with SOCOM on other programs and decisions like this are based on practicalities. If it wasnt lightyears better why change. Still say we need to change ammo until those changes come.

Enchilada March 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Uhhh… cause this is a Military gear site, and he's responding to a post on a gun, and in that post he says something completely moronic.

If you still don't get my point, have you ever received a weird look when discussing your firearm with someone who does not own a gun? It's because your friend, just for a second, is picturing you as Billywhat? Also, if you agree with Billywhat?, your friend was right. :)

Reply

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 1:40 pm

Rick,

Federal procurement law says that the whatever has to be made in the US no matter who makes the item. In violation of the law the Stryker vehicles are made in Canada.

BAE USA is an independent subsidiary of BAE England and they make a ton of missiles, avionics and shipboard fire control systems. FN already makes a ton of weapons and weapon components for us so in the grand scheme of things this is a noting contract for the military and they again avoid making the hard decision of what the armys future infantry weapon will be. The next rifles are going to have to be a serious improvement to satisfy everyone. Big Army wants hyperburst capability probably so they can go to an even smaller caliber round.

Reply

Rick March 4, 2013 at 2:22 pm

Don't get me wrong. I know FN is a good company, and I own an FN FAL that is a sub MOA rifle out to 1K. My point being, this has been going on for too long. We as a nation, were always at our strongest when we were self sustaining. We needed an industry, we created it. We are now completely (or damn near completely) dependent upon other nations for a lot of our daily used goods. Even a whole lot of our food comes from elsewhere, putting another American Farmer out of business. This need to be put in check, and it can only be done by regulating imports and foreign contracts. Ex: Since when has China been our ally? Why is it 80% of everything you find in any store is from China? Same could be said for Mexico.

It just has to start somewhere. And since I'm an equal opportunity hater, I can't look at this FN situation as any different.

Reply

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 2:28 pm

Mexico started under Bush1 NAFTA and Clinton secured most favorable nation trading status for china for their financial suppot of his campaigns. With globalization came factories cross supporting each other. Ever Fords and Chevies are about 50% foriegn made. As long as we have a healthy civiliam gum market we will always be able to make our own.

Reply

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 1:42 pm

SF and the rest of you guys that dont like the fact a foriegn company is going to make the rifle. If your in the military next time you go to the range look to see who made the bullets. Israeli arms. They also make about 10% of the rifle ammo.

Reply

Lance March 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm

I agree when a new caliber come time to look at guns I like 6.5mm alot but its not going to happen 5.56mm is here to stay.

Reply

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 5:17 pm

There are some really deadly rounds in 5.56 but the lawyers sa they MIGHT beconfused with dumb dumb rounds and we might be sued for killing the enemy. Havent heard much about the composite ammo they sent to Afghanistan a few years ago. Heard a few good things and some people said the rounds were coming apart. Never saw or heard anything first hand have you?

Reply

Lance March 4, 2013 at 7:37 pm

I agree some HP ammo rocks in 5.56mm So does original M-193 ball ammo. M-855 is the one that brought down the rounds performance on none armored enemy.

Reply

DB Cooper March 5, 2013 at 4:00 am

The steel penetrator in the SS109 bullet turns it into a flying ice pick. I remember when it first started coming out they said it was tungston :-).Still the round was designed to be most effective at under 100 meters as thats what the army desided engagement ranges would be. Needless to say in the open area's thats seldom the case. The army screws so much equipment up its unbelievable and once the stuff gets a bad name it stays so in the minds of soldiers. The army made some seriously bad changes to the originall M-249's. Firt thing was a butt stock so short (said they had to be short for paratroop and air asault operations) that the first round moved your aimpoint so badly that people had to look over the sights and walk rounds in. They also took off the lever on the gas tube that was meant to be used to increase cyclic rate to 950 Rounds per Minute to blow out carbon/dirt annd then reset to 750 as they felt US sildier had no fire dicipline sstc etc etc. They Army screwed up the ammo loading machines for linked ammo and had to use mags until they finally figured out they measured the wrong rounds for the design. Then they discovered that aluminum mags couldnt be used in the 249 as they tend to distort and cause double feeds. Everyone in the Army (1987 had to go through their footlockers to find every available remaining steel mags so they could field them to the 82nd and 101st. After learning that mistake within 5 years they started buying aluminum mags again. The first M-9's kept blowing up in peoples faces at almost exactly 200 rds because the army bought the wrong 9mm ammo. They bought the hotest loaded rounds Israel made that were intended for use in only full sized UZI's. We still have the M-203 that doesnt work well in sandy or soft earth environments because we are so invested in them no one wants to go to better systems. We went to 105 M-1's because people in the armor branch had only known the 105 round and their love affair with it cost us Billions through the years to fix. Even though there was clear evidence the 105 was only OK against old tank but next to worthless againt newer soviet tanks. I could go on and on. Sorry didnt mean to ramble so much.

Reply

Lance March 5, 2013 at 10:06 am

Combat experince in Iraq and Afghanistan showed M-855 to over penatraight and do little damage to unarored terrorist. The bullet was too heavy and its steel penatratore didnt make it tumble. M-193 was far better for this role. Hence the army makes a new M-855A1 ammo trying to get better results staying with 62gr ammo.

While you can debate about a T-80 the NATO 105mm gun is combat proven to destroy all previous tanks made in the USSR. Israelis up gunned M-48 and M-60 and Centurion in combat easily killed T-55 T-62 and T-72 tanks with 105s.

DB Cooper March 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm

The soviet tanks just dont have the range to engage an M-1 and the russians have been selling the 3rd world country their oldest ammo. The M-1 is just to damned heavy.

Reply

Tiger March 4, 2013 at 6:26 pm

Quit the flag waving BS. Colt did not create a damn thing. Stoner & Armalite did. When you type on your computer; do you care where the chips come from? What is more "American?"

A Camaro made in Canada by Chevy or A Honda Civic made in Ohio?

Reply

E. Ronc March 5, 2013 at 6:03 am

I'd go neither. Half the parts for both probably come from overseas. We use to like to stamp: Assembled in the USA. Of course about the only thing we made was the box to put the stuff that came in the little baggies from China in.

Reply

DB Cooper March 5, 2013 at 6:06 am

Ronc,

We don't even make the boxes anymore. Those containor ships that bring the stuff here go home filled with recycled cardboard and paper. So much so that the greenies are upset that there isnt enough left from this to make toilet paper from recycled paper. NOT KIDDING! Liberalism really is a mental disorder.

Reply

SFret March 5, 2013 at 6:13 am

How did we stop the USSR and China from being war machines? Fill them with capitalism. Now that they make money, they don't want to make war their number one industry.

All this arguing. I wonder if we could come together to protect the constitution (esp. 2nd Amdt.) instead of arguing over capitalism.

To quote the great Pogo Possum, a funny paper cartoon in the 60's: "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

Reply

E. Ronc March 5, 2013 at 6:13 am

Well we still made them. Had a Bobst machine from the Swiss we made them on.

Reply

Tiger March 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm

UAW garbage.

Reply

Tiger March 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm

You realize it is 2013 & not 1883? What's next? I need my TV made by Philco & my car still made by Studebaker?

Reply

E. Ronc March 5, 2013 at 5:47 am

As stated, the weapons MUST be produced here, it is part of the contract. Thus we have the ability to always make the weapons. FNH USA as a seperate entity. If contract not met you could do many things from giving it back to Colt or in time of dire national emergency taking over their manufacturing plant. That is why the contract always specified they are made.

When Beretta won thier contract for the M9, they had to come put in a plant to make them here.

So after these "foreign" companies come and build a plant here (construction jobs) and hire americans to work and run these plants, you want to blame them for getting a little return on thier investment.

Reply

Old Timer March 5, 2013 at 10:51 am

So are you equally happy with how other countries would react if they were told that nasty protectionist Uncle Sam had stopped them bidding? 'Oh, let's stop the Yanks from selling us weapons and Boeing airliners and Apple computers and General Electric engines and Bose radios and mid-West grain and …' you get my drift. There is not much made by the USA that cannot be replaced by something pretty good made in Europe or Asia. In fact many foreign manufacturers would welcome an excuse to get successful US companies locked out of their home markets. Of course key defence products should be made in the USA. No one is going to suggest that foreign countries bid to build Trident or nuclear warheads. But we are not about to refight World War II and do not need to design and make every single item. Americans should be pleased that foreign companies are willing to invest in US factories, create jobs and make their products here. Does it make sense for the US to design and build weapons that are both inferior and more expensive if there is an alternative that can be manufactured in the States? If you want an all-American solution then US companies need to perform better in competition with their foreign rivals.

Reply

Rick March 5, 2013 at 2:23 pm

There is a difference between putting something in check, and banishing it. No where in any of my statements did I say to stop all imports and exports. I spoke of regulating them. Bring them down to a point where we are not so dependent upon other countries. Continue to trade with our ALLIES, but reduce the amount of imports, and you'll create jobs and wealth in this country. It's simple economics. As for all the countries that aren't our proven allies…to hell with them all. Look at all the money and loss of life we are encountering in the sand box saving countries that basically hate us. Our gov has become nothing but the UN go to boys. Anyone who doesn't sign on to the UN's bull crap, basically gets us breathing down their throats, threatening them with sanctions, etc. I spent 6 years over in that sand, took 2 bullets, blown up once and got a bronze star. What do I get in return? I'm called a dissident because I won't dishonor my oath. Because I'm unwilling to submit to a government, I don't get the care I was promised can't fly home to see my family.

Anyway, I digress. I said imports need to be put in check, not stopped completely. Read into whatever you choose.

Reply

vps March 14, 2013 at 7:28 am

Hello! I really like this blog. Tell me please – from where do you have information for ths post?

Reply

deepsky March 22, 2013 at 3:22 am

Uh rah, Absolutely correct sir

Reply

Bryan March 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm

…the whole conversation and article is about guns…

…and the comment was a bit nuts….

Enchilada putting it together and saying that comment was the type of thing that made people think of us as "gun nuts" was perfectly logical.

Reply

Bryan March 22, 2013 at 2:37 pm

That's not true at all. Guerrilla is a word for a specific type of fighting or a fighter often using that type of fighting. Insurgent is a fighter fighting for a revolutionary or rebel type cause.

Basically one describes a way a fighter typically fights, the other describes the reason a fighter fights. There are insurgents that are guerrillas, and there are insurgents that are not guerrillas. There are guerrillas that are insurgents, and there are guerrillas that are not insurgents.

Reply

Bryan March 22, 2013 at 8:46 pm

Disney? Sweet! I want the special edition Cinderella M4!

Reply

SFC Earnán March 23, 2013 at 4:38 am

Before the outbreak of this current buying-panic it was possible for a civilian to put together an M4-gery for not much more than $600: $90 lower receiver, $100 lower parts kit with M4 stock, $115 bolt carrier group, $300 barreled upper receiver assembly, $20 charging handle.

Once the panic runs its course and backorders clear, we'll probably see even better prices for a while. After the first Obama panic it wasn't impossible to find $60 lower receivers and $100 BCGs.

Reply

SFC Earnán March 23, 2013 at 4:44 am

Colt and Remington fund — through the taxes they pay and the union dues of their employees — the Democratic Party that is trying to disarm the American people.

If Colt and Remington are stupid enough to stay in Democrat-controlled states where their employees are required to be dues-paying members of unions that financially support the Democratic Party then Colt and Remington have demonstrated that they don't value their own interests enough to be considered reliable and rational outfits.

Let 'em move to free states if they want DoD contracts.

Reply

Jack Kennedy March 24, 2013 at 12:28 pm

Amen

Reply

SFC Earnán March 23, 2013 at 4:56 am

Unions have destroyed manufacturing in the US. And through their massive diversion of (mandatory in New York and Connecticut) member dues to the Democratic Party's coffers they have gained massive political power.

I'm for anything that moves jobs from union states to free states and cuts the umbilical cord of taxpayer funding of the UAW and other appendages of the Democratic Party.

I'd rather see gun-maker profits funding Belgian Euro-trash than the Democrats.

Reply

E. Ronc March 23, 2013 at 6:21 am

Good points, I worked in MA and the company I joined it was mandatory to join the union. Didn't like one candidate they backed, but they got my dues every week.

Reply

Doug Kemp March 25, 2013 at 5:17 am

Y is a foreign buz like FN getting any US contract when we have companies here that can supply our troops/Marines/Sailors/Airmen with a weapon we designed here in the states. I don't care about the BID…..these r US servicemen who need a US manufactured weapon.I have nothing against the Belgians or any other foreign gun manufacturer but we need to take care of our own….Americans……period.

Reply

Billywhat? March 25, 2013 at 5:21 am

Like i said, it's surely not a bad product. And it's at least better than the rusty old AK's the adversarys are walking around with.

All i said was, let's let the company that wins the contract make the best rifle they ever could and not the cheapest.

Reply

zac October 13, 2013 at 2:59 pm

the caliber is not ineffective, its designed ineffective, they shouldve never got rid of m193 ball ammo and they wouldnt have half the complaints about the stopping power of the round, the m193 tumbled and fragmented due to its design and the rifles design, NATO ruled it inhumane…as if war is not inhumane? come on, and ruined the round by going to the m855 out of a 1/7 twist, the round is over stabilized and alot of the time just punches .22 caliber wholes and doesnt always fragment because of design flaws, and the 5.56 is designed for use out of a 20 in barrel like the m16 all you do is lose velocity by going to the 14.5 in barrel the m4 uses this is another contributing factor the shorter barrel, it wouldnt be a problem if they used the ammo they did before if they hadnt made these ignorant changes, theyd still have the stopping power, and russias 5.45 functions alot like the m193 ball ammo, they dont seem to care whether its humane or not, neither do the iraqis who use it all the time, i say fuck them go back to m193 who cares if its humane or not, what part of getting shot is humane at all? and we wont have this problem, as for the reliability of the platform is good, if you have a well built ar15 platform like the colt m4a1s reliability shouldnt be an issue as long as you take care of it properly, and they still make m193 ammo, the military just dont use it anymore, id rather have a round that caused horrible wounds then one thats "humane"

Reply

CaptainDoc February 24, 2014 at 10:49 am

FN. has always made very good weapons BUT, as been said before they are not American companies and I prefer American made products, that is my choice. the 5.56 cal. should be replaced at this juncture of up dating the standard arms. the 7.62 cal. would, in my opinion, make a very nice upgrade. the m4 can at this time be made to modify the 7.62 recoil everyone is worried about. the upgrade with full auto will in the long run save ammo, sounds like an oxymoron though, if you have ever fired a stoner series in 7.62 you will know what I am talking about as the round is much more robust than the 5.56. there is the plus side of moving to a better supply picture of not handling both cal.'s. YES the person stated the best way to handle whatever they give us is to……train train train and then train some more like the corps. and special ops. does. you cannot hit with it unless you train with it. if the 5.56 is what they give us that is what we will use. we should actually quit complaining about the subject as someone above our paygrade has made the decision to have a 5.56 cal. rifle, for what ever reasons, that we will be using.

Reply

Big Guy February 25, 2014 at 12:38 pm

Sorry FN MANUFACTURING of COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA is an American company. The rifles are made in South Carolina by Americans. FNH USA, located in McLean, Virginia, is the sales and marketing branch of FN Herstal in the United States.

Reply

CaptainDoc February 25, 2014 at 10:21 pm

Toyota is made in the USA but it still is a foreign company that makes part/sometimes all of the assembly in the USA and part outside conus. they only came to the USA for the weapon contracts and that includes berretta. this is a very large market with lots of $$. you can bet on where the money ends up it sure does not end in conus. they both make nice weapons. I carried the m4 and it was great, for carrying purposes, until I had to return fire at objects that were landing rounds next to me, the cal. simply could not reach out and touch someone and all of us wasted a ton of ammo shooting back at ranges beyond the capability of the round. I also used the a2 with the 20" barrel it did not seem to make it any easier to hit at long distances although I think I got lucky once in a while, felt great to mark a solid target

Reply

Big Guy February 26, 2014 at 3:54 am

Sorry, FN and Toyota are American, they are incorporated in the United States. It is the same as any other American subsidiary, that returns a profit to it benefactor whether they are a wholly owned US company or foreign. True Toyota may import parts and assemblies from other places but so do GM and Ford. FN and Berretta do not import anything to make the guns. They are 100% made here now as stipulated in their contracts. Yes a lot of that money ends up in the conus. The workers are paid. Buildings are bought, machine and equipment, maybe even taxes are paid, though a lot of places give businesses a breaks to locate there. So you would rather pay Americans at Colt or Remington to build the rifle to mil-spec and get a larger profit than Americans at FN factory because a small part of the pie might go overseas. In other words say Colt charged $600 a rifle an actual cost to make was $500 you would rather them make $100 than FN who charged $550 for one that cost them to make $490, because $60 bucks might go overseas.[numbers are for illustration, no idea what actual is]
Granted the 5.56 is probably not the best cartridge ever made but that is not the fault of the company. That lies with the people who specified that cartridge as the one to be used. Then again no one cartridge will ever be best for everything. 338 Lapua might be great for distance but wouldn't want to use it to clear a small house with that long barrel
Sort of an M-14 fan myself but would not be fond of clearing a house with it either. .

Reply

DBM February 26, 2014 at 6:47 am

We can't fight any war anymore without support from our enemies/ I saw a critical circuit board from a major com's system not long ago. It said "Components made in China and assembled in Korea".

Reply

Lance March 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm

No it was in the late 90s when we sold M-60 series tanks to allies. Egypt dumped the T-55 and T-62 for M-60s. Yes after Desert Storm they wanted and bought some M-1s. Egypt Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Israel use M-60 heavily still. Some M-60s are in US service but very few and far between. The M-60 has a great combat record and beat all Soviet counterparts in combat the T-55 T-62 and T-72 all failed to counter the M-60s little lone the M-1A1 series. Both tanks will solder on for many years to come.

Reply

DB Cooper March 5, 2013 at 11:06 am

Whether or not a main gun round can penetrate the frontal armor of an opposing tank at max effective range is the measure of if its good enough. If it cant penetrat the frontal armor at range then it isnt good enough. Even the T-80 varients can be easily taken out by 105s from a side shot. However, going one on one frontal attack the 105 was marginal on the T-54-62 series tanks. The M-60s carried two rounds per expected engagement because the first shot had a low expectation of hitting the target (tank movement on uncompressed gound) and no expectation of a one round kill on a frontal armor hit. That was the reason the army took HE rounds out of the tanks in 73. I had a friend whose tank took a turret hit from less than 1000 meters by a sabot rd at the NTC in the 80s fired by an M-60. Thankfully it didnt penetrate. I had a T-55 that took a direct hit just to the right of the gun tube from a 105. It didnt penetrate either and the iraqi repair guys just filled the hole in with a welder.

But we digress from rifles.

Reply

Lance March 5, 2013 at 11:33 am

Not really combat data showed the 105 to easily kill a T-55/62 and 72. I watched USMC gunners in Desert Storm waste T-55 with 105mm ADPST Sabot rounds. Saw a Marine who played in a dead T-55 the day after the battle. Israel still uses M-60s and will for a long while since Merkava production is shut down now. They showed the T-72 was inferior to there tanks and both in 82 used 105mm guns destroyed over 400 Syrian tanks including T-72s south of Beirut and no losses for them. 105 is not better than the 120mm but it can hold its own and will be in use here in the US with the Striker and foreign for a long time to com.

Reply

DB Cooper March 5, 2013 at 5:54 pm

Lance we are a little off topic but do enjoy the conversation. The T-72 (and 90) are roughly equivelent to the M-60. The biggest difference is the quality and training of the crews and how well the tanks are maintained. The Russians had to take the T-80's out of the Afghan theater because the 80's suspension couldnt stand up to the rough terrain. They had to bring in 62's and 55's. They had to take the T-80s out of Chechnia because they are to easy to destroy from the sides. They replaced them with T-72s as they are a tougher and more reliable tank. I think I read somewhere that the israelis upgunned their M-60's to 120mm.

I reserve comment on the Stryker because I know to much about them and it isnt good. Also the army insists on using them as combat vehicles when they were designed for use as APC's to ferry troops around.

As a side note you should know that the russian design first rate stuff but build shit. If countries like China start building the russian designs with some degree of quality we will have a fight on our hands.

Reply

Lance March 5, 2013 at 8:18 pm

T-80s did well no they where not ever deployed to Afghanistan the T-72 was but its the tank that couldn't take rough terrain and so was pulled in favor of T-55 and T-62s. T-72s where pulled from Chechnya too because older T-80BVs and T-72s both lost in BIG numbers in Grozny both did well later in the war however. The T-80 beat the T-72 on fire and maneuver and gun accuracy. It wasn't either tanks fault in Grozny when dumb Russian Generals sent there tanks into town w/o infantry support, that suicide in tank terms. I agree Israel and turkey worked before Turkey went Islamic and up-gunned M-60s. But Saudi US and Egypt's M-60 still have 105s.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: