Colt&FN get M16 Contracts

H

HappyGunner

New member
FN Manufacturing, Columbia, S.C., was awarded on Dec. 21, 2007, a $33,670,649.00 firm-fixed-price, contract for M16A3 and M16A4 Rifles to support the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Columbia, S.C., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Web bids were solicited on Sep. 10, 2007, and nine bids were received. TACOM LCMC, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52H09-08-D-0121).

Colt Defense, Hartford, Conn., was awarded on Dec. 21, 2007, a $ 15,925,000.00 firm-fixed-price contract for M16A3 and M16A4 Rifles to support the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Work will be performed in Hartford, Conn., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 13, 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Web bids were solicited on Sep. 10, 2007, and nine bids were received. TACOM LCMC, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52H09-08-D-0122).
 
Clearly not. Colt and FN have managed to keep getting contracts for a rifle that consistently gets beaten by HK weapons in actual testing. Yay for lowest bidder and corruption! Sorry troops!
 
So the military could spend $400 for a weapon system that works 99.9916% of the time (553 stoppages of the M-16A4), or they can spend $1,500 on a weapon system that operates 99.9965% of the time. With that $1,100 they can buy ACOGs to top them with.
 
PPGMD,

If you don't mind my asking, what costs $400 and what costs $1500? Not the XM8 I presume?

And represent the numbers how you like, we know the XM-8 performed SEVEN times better than the m4 in the dust testing. I can't recall how the M16 did. Poorly I can safely assume.
 
Not so Jeff. I was issued a A2 that was made by Hydro-Matic Transmission Corp., Div of General Motors. It had a 1:9 bbl, and that was fine for Reservists until we got mobilized for OIF- then we got FN's with 1:7's. Yes, I still have access to the records- I was the unit armorer.
 
If you don't mind my asking, what costs $400 and what costs $1500? Not the XM8 I presume?
Click to expand...

$1,500 is the cost of the 416 with BUIS with the excise tax subtracted out (the stoppage rate was from the XM8 which is likely more expensive but I can't find a cost figure). I am sure that it can get around $1,000 with a large contract since that price for a single gun on a LE demo letter. The $400 is the cost I was quoted that the M16A4 costs the Corps.

The M16A4 has 553 stoppages IIRC, it was from the summer test to determine the amount of lube to use in a desert environment.

Yes seven times better, how about we show what those numbers really mean. Since the M-4 is not related to this contract I will leave those numbers out:
XM8: 99.9965%
MK16 SCAR Light: 99.9962%
416: 99.9961%
M16A4: 99.9916%

Yes the XM8 is 5 times better then the M16A4, above 99% you are splitting hairs.

It seems like people expect that every time that the military orders more rifles that it has to do a competitive test on every single new rifle available on the market. So then the military will have a dozen different weapons in the supply line, or spend billions every year replacing it's entire stockpile.
 
XM8 and G36 both suffer in one area....too much full auto will damage(melt) the polymer receiver parts and stop the weapon, long before a M4 overheats and warps the gas tube(which is fixable)....You dont want a melty rifle to repel human wave attacks do ya lol:eek: (oh and they get cracks as well)

So while they eat dust, the receiver melting was a tough one for the testers to gloss over. So while the M4 never has been or will be anything near perfect, it works well enough. The G36 on the otherhand will never see widespread use other than Germany, and a license built version for Mexico.
Its as innovative as a plastic Armalite AR18. (and yes I have used G36KE1's)
 
P99,

PPGMD and I are veterans of a long stalemate on this issue (and Horse too). Be prepared for soul-crushing boredom if you join in.

But, while you are at it, do you want to point me to a source for your information on the XM-8 melting? Just wondering, because NO ONE has been able to do so yet. It is, as far as I can tell, total internet B.S.. Everybody talks about "tests" or "my buddy in special detachment wango tango sez so," but nobody has coughed up anything other than anectodatal (i.e. "trust me") evidence or just links to somebody else on the web that says so. I suspect you have been misinformed, but hey, I would be saying the same thing except one day a few years back I started asking folks for their evidence, and they never were able to come up with anything.

In short, please show me why you said this about the XM-8:
So while they eat dust, the receiver melting was a tough one for the testers to gloss over.
Click to expand...
What is your source for this? If you don't have one, fair enough, but I think you are repeating b.s..

By the way, "too much full auto fire" will damage and/or melt any gun, so I presume you are talking about something unique to the XM-8.


The G36 on the otherhand will never see widespread use other than Germany, and a license built version for Mexico.
Click to expand...

Although I hesitate to address this because the G-36 is not at issue here, the G-36 is acutally one of the most successful rifles of modern times. Name another new rifle since the 1970s that has been adopted by more militaries? You will notice that it has wide adoption among special forces groups. Odd for gun with so many easily detected flaws.

- Italian Gruppo di Intervento Speciale special operations group of the Carabinieri, Aeronautica Militare for the RIAM Special Forces group. -
French GIGN and RAID.
- Bundeswehr and Bundespolizei (German Federal Police).
- Georgian Army special operating forces, presidential guard.
- Indonesian Army Kopassus and Indonesian Marine Corps Denjaka (G36C and G36K).
- Latvian Army and Speciālo uzdevumu vienība (Latvian special forces).
- Lithuanian Army adopted the G36V and G36KV in 2007. [1]
- Irish Army Rangers.
- Jordan Special Forces.
- Malaysian Army Grup Gerak Khas and Royal Malaysian Police Pasukan Gerakan Khas counter-terrorist units (G36C).
- Nepalese Army.
- Norwegian Navy Kystjegerkommandoen.
- Philippine Navy Special Warfare Group and Philippine Army Light Reaction Battalion.
- Polish police and special forces GROM (G36K), Government Protection Bureau (G36K, G36KV and G36C).
- Portuguese Marine Corps, Portuguese Republican National Guard, Portuguese Air Force Pol�*cia Aérea (military police) and NFOT (former-RESCOM).
- Singaporean STAR unit.
- Spanish Armed Forces (G36E).
- Särskilda Skyddsgruppen (Special Protection Group, SSG) and Nationella insatsstyrkan (National Task Force, NI).
- Royal Thai Navy SEALs, Royal Thai Marines RECON Battalion.
- UKSF, CO19.
- Cypriot National Guard.
- Finnish Border Guard rapid response units.
-
Click to expand...

PPGMD,

Here is how the hair splitting worked out in the last test...

XM8: 127 Class I, II and III stoppages.
Mk16 (5.56 SCAR): 226 Class I, II and III stoppages.
HK 416: 233 Class I, II, and III stoppages.
M4: 882 Class I, II and III stoppages.

Either way, the M4, and M16 just don't perform as well. That is why Delta force and Seal team 6 get them, they like to be able to split hairs.
 
Great. Maybe that will keep Colt around for another 3 years.
Click to expand...

LOL....well they made 100 plus before the M16 was even invented..

You do know that Colt defense (M16s) and Colt manufacturing (SAAs and 1911s) are seperate companies...??

Wildmore1911spleasefolksAlaska TM
 
I wish Colt (not colt defense) would come out with a series 70 1911 with a beavertail, Novaks and no front serrations. I have an XSE and the duckbill and front serrations are annoying. I am probably going to send it to get an Answer backstrap from Novak's like my sweet ass commander...

shapeimage_2.jpg



BTW Wild, Cormack McCarthy RULES! Pynchon stinks!
 
represent the numbers how you like, we know the XM-8 performed SEVEN times better than the m4 in the dust testing.
Click to expand...

one rifles number of failures relative to another is meaningless without the context no(the number of rounds fired)?

that line of reasoning seems to latch onto the number of failures and dismiss the total of rounds fired.

doesnt the percentage give the context far better?

that fraction of a percent may very well be enough justification for a change in a case like this.i wouldnt be the one to tell a soldier in harms way otherwise.

is it the best in sand?apparently not.

but in those conditions its still pretty damn impressive for such an "unreliable weapon" imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top