boycott Colt
- Thread starter Boss Spearman
- Start date
This is very old news.
The History Channel story was made years ago.
The Colt Smart Gun was dead on arrival, and only a few prototypes were ever made.
In other words, you're calling for a boycott over a product that never was and happened years ago, under old management who are no longer even employed by Colt..............Dfariswheel.....You have my vote for the most well thought out comment here. Yeah...I want to get outraged at something that did not happen....I shake my head in wonder and disgust at the stupidity..... :barf: ...
The History Channel story was made years ago.
The Colt Smart Gun was dead on arrival, and only a few prototypes were ever made.
In other words, you're calling for a boycott over a product that never was and happened years ago, under old management who are no longer even employed by Colt..............Dfariswheel.....You have my vote for the most well thought out comment here. Yeah...I want to get outraged at something that did not happen....I shake my head in wonder and disgust at the stupidity..... :barf: ...
Vanguard.45
New member
Colt already made the SMART gun. . .
It was called the Model 1911A1 in Caliber .45 ACP.
And they still make 'em. And they're still the smartest gun in the world!
What's the problem?
Vanguard.45
It was called the Model 1911A1 in Caliber .45 ACP.
And they still make 'em. And they're still the smartest gun in the world!
What's the problem?
Vanguard.45
spacemanspiff
New member
someone buy GuntotinFool a beer. 
Double Naught Spy
New member
I don't see anything wrong with Colt or any other company trying new technology. Those like Boss Spearman who are afraid of such technological works are apparently set in their ways and fail to realize that similar innovations in the past resulted in having so many guns. The embracement of Eli Whitney's interchangeable parts in the gun industry was definitely not liked by several politicians. Imagine the horrors if gun prices dropped, broken guns could be repaired by simply replacing parts (as opposed to having a part hand-crafted to fit), and more folks would have access to them!!
In fact, it could well be said that it was Eli Whitney who was responsible for the growth of gun manufacturing in general, making several Connecticut gun companies quite prosperous.
Oh sure, new technology is bad, always bad. We always should stay with the old ways.
Gimme a break. Facist notions to doing harm because some company doesn't agree with your view is a little over the edge.
Once again, I will ask and once again, I expect no answer, but given the number of companies we are supposed to boycott for all sorts of reasons, can somebody publish the list of companies we can buy from? You see, it has dawned on me that the list of "buy from" companies will be the shorter of the two.
Let's see, we can buy anything foreign because that weakens our economy. We must buy American. We are okay with buying American-named products that are mostly or entirely foreign made, however, an intriguing yet moronic sort of reasoning. Now, we can't buy from several American companies because that have expressed certain political directions. We can't buy from companies who to cave in to public support of some X activity and so we think they are evil (example, Target). We can't buy from evil S&W and not Colt even though they have been mainstays in helping keep America safe. Since they do something we disagree with, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
That is just real real smart. We don't buy foreign because it weakens America, but we will eat our own children if they misbehave. Never mind that such boycotts also weaken us quite a bit and the worst part is that we are only hurting ourselves.
In fact, it could well be said that it was Eli Whitney who was responsible for the growth of gun manufacturing in general, making several Connecticut gun companies quite prosperous.
Oh sure, new technology is bad, always bad. We always should stay with the old ways.
Gimme a break. Facist notions to doing harm because some company doesn't agree with your view is a little over the edge.
Once again, I will ask and once again, I expect no answer, but given the number of companies we are supposed to boycott for all sorts of reasons, can somebody publish the list of companies we can buy from? You see, it has dawned on me that the list of "buy from" companies will be the shorter of the two.
Let's see, we can buy anything foreign because that weakens our economy. We must buy American. We are okay with buying American-named products that are mostly or entirely foreign made, however, an intriguing yet moronic sort of reasoning. Now, we can't buy from several American companies because that have expressed certain political directions. We can't buy from companies who to cave in to public support of some X activity and so we think they are evil (example, Target). We can't buy from evil S&W and not Colt even though they have been mainstays in helping keep America safe. Since they do something we disagree with, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
That is just real real smart. We don't buy foreign because it weakens America, but we will eat our own children if they misbehave. Never mind that such boycotts also weaken us quite a bit and the worst part is that we are only hurting ourselves.
Boss Spearman
New member
Yeah, I'm afraid of new technology. That's the only reason the smart gun offends me.
Repititious misinformation
"I've been boycotting Colt since 1970 when there [sic, sic] piece of garbage M-16 almost cost me my life."
If you are referring to the jams 'Nam-era M-16s are infamous for, you are placing blame on the wrong entity. As anyone remotely familiar with the development of the M-16 knows, those problems were caused by McMamara's intermeddling, not Eugene Stoner's design or Colt's execution of it.
McNamara applied his bean-counter analysis to DOD purchases. Some of his actions were perfectly logical - you DIDN'T need a different type of dress shoe for each of the 5 services, for example.
When it came to the M-16, his ignorance of need was exceeded only by the arrogance of his interference. Despite being told that chroming the bore and barrel kept the gun cleaner and prevented corrosion, he eliminated that step to save money. Despite the fact that the gas system, which dumps directly into the bolt, requires a very specific powder type to burn cleanly and still generate the proper pressure curve, McNamara changed the ammo specs to a cheaper powder.
The consequences of his meddling in matters he knew too little about were the various feeding, jamming and cleaning problems you vaguely allude to. Those problems were NOT Colt's fault; they were McNamara's. And they've long since been resolved, as is obvious from the fact that M-16s went on to Panama, Desert Shield, Desert Storm, the Balkans miasma and now Afghanistan and Iraq. The M-4 is basically an abbreviated M-16.
Not a bad service life for an allegedly defective weapon.
"I've been boycotting Colt since 1970 when there [sic, sic] piece of garbage M-16 almost cost me my life."
If you are referring to the jams 'Nam-era M-16s are infamous for, you are placing blame on the wrong entity. As anyone remotely familiar with the development of the M-16 knows, those problems were caused by McMamara's intermeddling, not Eugene Stoner's design or Colt's execution of it.
McNamara applied his bean-counter analysis to DOD purchases. Some of his actions were perfectly logical - you DIDN'T need a different type of dress shoe for each of the 5 services, for example.
When it came to the M-16, his ignorance of need was exceeded only by the arrogance of his interference. Despite being told that chroming the bore and barrel kept the gun cleaner and prevented corrosion, he eliminated that step to save money. Despite the fact that the gas system, which dumps directly into the bolt, requires a very specific powder type to burn cleanly and still generate the proper pressure curve, McNamara changed the ammo specs to a cheaper powder.
The consequences of his meddling in matters he knew too little about were the various feeding, jamming and cleaning problems you vaguely allude to. Those problems were NOT Colt's fault; they were McNamara's. And they've long since been resolved, as is obvious from the fact that M-16s went on to Panama, Desert Shield, Desert Storm, the Balkans miasma and now Afghanistan and Iraq. The M-4 is basically an abbreviated M-16.
Not a bad service life for an allegedly defective weapon.
Actually, Number 6, YOU need to read up on M-16 history. The Army board changed the powder, the barrel twist and insisted on an unneeded chroming of the chamber, which they got.
McNamara's orders were simple: 1. Produce the Armalite product as identically to the prototype as possible. 2. Consult Eugene Stoner on any changes. The Army did neither, and ignored what Colt told them after production began.
If McNamaras orders had been followed to the letter the guns wouldn't have jammed and been more lethal.
McNamara's orders were simple: 1. Produce the Armalite product as identically to the prototype as possible. 2. Consult Eugene Stoner on any changes. The Army did neither, and ignored what Colt told them after production began.
If McNamaras orders had been followed to the letter the guns wouldn't have jammed and been more lethal.
Really?
"The Army board changed the powder, the barrel twist and insisted on an , which they got."
Then how is it that, in its analysis of the evolution of the M-16 as part of the "Tales of the Gun/Guns That Made History series, the History Channel cites McNamara as the source of these changes? Eugene Stoner was interviewed; he made no reference to any such order for adherence to his design. Note also that I did not mention barrel twist, the poster I replied to made no such complaint, and that barrel twist is not a source of jams.
I'm sure we'd also like an explanation of that "unneeded chroming of the chamber," too.
"The Army board changed the powder, the barrel twist and insisted on an , which they got."
Then how is it that, in its analysis of the evolution of the M-16 as part of the "Tales of the Gun/Guns That Made History series, the History Channel cites McNamara as the source of these changes? Eugene Stoner was interviewed; he made no reference to any such order for adherence to his design. Note also that I did not mention barrel twist, the poster I replied to made no such complaint, and that barrel twist is not a source of jams.
I'm sure we'd also like an explanation of that "unneeded chroming of the chamber," too.
I don't know who does research for that TV show, but the books I've read on the topic had bibliographies that included government documents, so I tend to give that researcher credit.
McNamara was not a gun person. He was given reports of the lethality and reliability of the original AR-15 in Green Beret hands in early '60s Vietnam. Armed with this knowledge, he ordered THAT gun to be produced, as close as possible.
The Army independantly made a requirement for universal use of ball powder in all rifle rounds. McNamara was not involved in that decision, and it would have gone against his earlier order to produce the gun as is.
When the powder change caused the Colts to fail their op checks for firing rates, the same Army board gave them permission to use a different powder that was more like the original Dupont stuff, but only for op checks. The same Army board did nothing to change the arsenal produced issue ammunition, despite the reports from Colt.
Further, the Army board decided to conduct arctic tests and changed the rifling from 1:14 to 1:12 for cold air stability. Again, a violation of McNamara's order. Nothing to do reliability, but more evidence that the Army board did what it liked.
As for the chrome chamber everybody gets so excited about, you're aware that we are one of the few western countries that ever did this? The enormously reliable, and very dirty G3 rifle does just fine with a steel chamber and barrel, for instance. This became in issue only after the Army board proved itself "right" by issuing known bad powder to the troops and used the lack of chroming as evidence that they knew better than McNamara or Stoner about how rifles should work.
Check out: "Misfire:The History of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military" by William H. Hallahan. You can read his references and go right to the sources.
McNamara was not a gun person. He was given reports of the lethality and reliability of the original AR-15 in Green Beret hands in early '60s Vietnam. Armed with this knowledge, he ordered THAT gun to be produced, as close as possible.
The Army independantly made a requirement for universal use of ball powder in all rifle rounds. McNamara was not involved in that decision, and it would have gone against his earlier order to produce the gun as is.
When the powder change caused the Colts to fail their op checks for firing rates, the same Army board gave them permission to use a different powder that was more like the original Dupont stuff, but only for op checks. The same Army board did nothing to change the arsenal produced issue ammunition, despite the reports from Colt.
Further, the Army board decided to conduct arctic tests and changed the rifling from 1:14 to 1:12 for cold air stability. Again, a violation of McNamara's order. Nothing to do reliability, but more evidence that the Army board did what it liked.
As for the chrome chamber everybody gets so excited about, you're aware that we are one of the few western countries that ever did this? The enormously reliable, and very dirty G3 rifle does just fine with a steel chamber and barrel, for instance. This became in issue only after the Army board proved itself "right" by issuing known bad powder to the troops and used the lack of chroming as evidence that they knew better than McNamara or Stoner about how rifles should work.
Check out: "Misfire:The History of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military" by William H. Hallahan. You can read his references and go right to the sources.
Thanks for the info
However, I still question your dismissal of the chromed chamber and bore:
"As for the chrome chamber everybody gets so excited about, you're aware that we are one of the few western countries that ever did this?"
How many other auto rifles can you think of that vent their gasses directly INTO the breech? Garands, carbines, H&K 91s and 93s, M-14s, AKs, SKSs, etc all use a gas tube and operating rod or similar mechanism. NO propellant gasses are vented into the bolt/chamber area. This is why chroming the surface to reduce fouling is more important on the AR design than other battle rifles.
For that matter, H&K uses fluting of the chamber to scrape crud off as the round chambers, albeit from a different source, so chamber cleanliness is not an issue unique to the AR-15/M-16 mechanism.
However, I still question your dismissal of the chromed chamber and bore:
"As for the chrome chamber everybody gets so excited about, you're aware that we are one of the few western countries that ever did this?"
How many other auto rifles can you think of that vent their gasses directly INTO the breech? Garands, carbines, H&K 91s and 93s, M-14s, AKs, SKSs, etc all use a gas tube and operating rod or similar mechanism. NO propellant gasses are vented into the bolt/chamber area. This is why chroming the surface to reduce fouling is more important on the AR design than other battle rifles.
For that matter, H&K uses fluting of the chamber to scrape crud off as the round chambers, albeit from a different source, so chamber cleanliness is not an issue unique to the AR-15/M-16 mechanism.
Last edited:
novus collectus
Moderator
I heard that the fluting was to help in extraction because it helped the gasses to loosen the spent cartridge.
Look, that appears to be old news. Second, if you are boycotting Colt you are missing out on some of the nicest 1911s out there today. Third, Colt is now two companies. If you are LE/military they want you to visit www.colt.com; if you are a commercial (the rest of us) they want to to visit www.coltsmanufacturing.com.
Simple. Is Colt perfect? Nope. What company, gun maker or no, is?
Simple. Is Colt perfect? Nope. What company, gun maker or no, is?
Precisely
"Those HKs have no gas system at all, and the dirtiest chambers and bolt heads on earth."
Therefore, having no gas system (being recoil-operated), the H&K fits exactly into the described class:
NO propellant gasses are vented into the bolt/chamber area.
In other words, no gasses used to cycle the action are released INTO the action. Of course, all semi/full automatics will release a certain amount of gas from the case in the course of ejecting it.
"Those HKs have no gas system at all, and the dirtiest chambers and bolt heads on earth."
Therefore, having no gas system (being recoil-operated), the H&K fits exactly into the described class:
NO propellant gasses are vented into the bolt/chamber area.
In other words, no gasses used to cycle the action are released INTO the action. Of course, all semi/full automatics will release a certain amount of gas from the case in the course of ejecting it.
Boss Spearman
New member
I will not own any new Colts. Maybe, just maybe I'll get a 20 or 30 year old Colt 1911 someday.
Maybe.
On a side note, I've owned or fired Colt 1911s, Kimbers, and Springfields. For my money the Springfields are the best affordable 1911s out there.
Maybe.
On a side note, I've owned or fired Colt 1911s, Kimbers, and Springfields. For my money the Springfields are the best affordable 1911s out there.
The HK Roller Locking System in Technical Detail- complete with operational video of "cut-away."
http://www.hkpro.com/technical.htm
http://www.hkpro.com/technical.htm
Wildalaska
Moderator
Ya wanna see dirty, torch off 500 rounds of podunk 308 surplus out of an HK 21 belt fed....then clean it out...its like pudding in the chamber!
Handy 1 opponents 0
WildtheumpireAlaska
Handy 1 opponents 0
WildtheumpireAlaska