Do we know how the Colt and Sig "failed" in the DEA testing? - Page 2

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Do we know how the Colt and Sig "failed" in the DEA testing? (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 3/5/2006 4:25:55 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised the RRA DEA carbine uses a 2-stage trigger with a peened disco pin.

Why? What difference would that make?

The pin could work its way loose, slide out a bit and either cause the hammer to get stuck in the cocked position or allow double fire action...

OK, but how likely is this to happen? Does anyone know of this happening?

Do you want third or forth hand stories, or an internet anecdote, because that is what you're likely to get.

Posted: 3/5/2006 5:26:57 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised the RRA DEA carbine uses a 2-stage trigger with a peened disco pin.

Why? What difference would that make?

The pin could work its way loose, slide out a bit and either cause the hammer to get stuck in the cocked position or allow double fire action...

OK, but how likely is this to happen? Does anyone know of this happening?

Hey, people hit the lotto don't they...

Posted: 3/5/2006 5:32:53 PM EDT

[#3]

Well, by the same token, it seems just as likely you're standard trigger would suffer problems?

Am I wrong?

Posted: 3/5/2006 5:33:11 PM EDT

[#4]

ColSanders, heres something to check out... RRA trigger with the weak link (disconnect pin) upgrade

Posted: 3/5/2006 5:35:41 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised the RRA DEA carbine uses a 2-stage trigger with a peened disco pin.

Why? What difference would that make?

The pin could work its way loose, slide out a bit and either cause the hammer to get stuck in the cocked position or allow double fire action...

OK, but how likely is this to happen? Does anyone know of this happening?

Do you want third or forth hand stories, or an internet anecdote, because that is what you're likely to get.

Variablebinary, Does RRA sign your pay check?

Posted: 3/5/2006 5:44:08 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised the RRA DEA carbine uses a 2-stage trigger with a peened disco pin.

Why? What difference would that make?

The pin could work its way loose, slide out a bit and either cause the hammer to get stuck in the cocked position or allow double fire action...

OK, but how likely is this to happen? Does anyone know of this happening?

Do you want third or forth hand stories, or an internet anecdote, because that is what you're likely to get.

Variablebinary, Does RRA sign your pay check?

No more than Colt signs yours. Nice avatar

If anything, bushmaster should cut me dividends since my collection is mostly their stuff.

Posted: 3/5/2006 5:58:48 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised the RRA DEA carbine uses a 2-stage trigger with a peened disco pin.

Why? What difference would that make?

The pin could work its way loose, slide out a bit and either cause the hammer to get stuck in the cocked position or allow double fire action...

OK, but how likely is this to happen? Does anyone know of this happening?

Do you want third or forth hand stories, or an internet anecdote, because that is what you're likely to get.

Variablebinary, Does RRA sign your pay check?

No more than Colt signs yours. Nice avatar

If anything, bushmaster should cut me dividends since my collection is mostly their stuff.

All right, you got me there...

Posted: 3/5/2006 6:48:23 PM EDT

[#8]

It could also have to do with PRICE. I worked for a supplier and we had, and competed for, contracts with variouse LE agencies for gear and car stuff. Some of the contracts we lost by 10ths of a Cent.

Just a thought

Posted: 3/6/2006 1:20:41 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Well, by the same token, it seems just as likely you're standard trigger would suffer problems?

Am I wrong?

How would the standard trigger, which uses the actual trigger pin, suffer the same problem as the RRA 2-stage trigger which uses a peened in place roll pin for the disconnector?

I have heard of RRA 2-stages becoming single stages due to excess material in the back "notch" above the disco (bigbore posted info on how to fix this if it is a problem), along with some 2-stage failures in the field (pin came out?) when I searched the archives. RRA made things right again in each case IIRC, but it should be damn near foolproof in the field.

Posted: 3/6/2006 3:13:29 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised the RRA DEA carbine uses a 2-stage trigger with a peened disco pin.

Why? What difference would that make?

The pin could work its way loose, slide out a bit and either cause the hammer to get stuck in the cocked position or allow double fire action...

OK, but how likely is this to happen? Does anyone know of this happening?

Do you want third or forth hand stories, or an internet anecdote, because that is what you're likely to get.

FYI, someone else that has had a RRA 2-stage turn into a single stage: HERE

If you want official stamped QDRs, I think you might be waiting for awhile.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:00:52 AM EDT

[#11]

tag

Posted: 3/6/2006 6:14:11 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
All 3 were awarded contracts, there's no dispute in that.

What I do know for a fact (from speaking with several agents including my cousin who works for them) is that the DEA is only getting RRA rifles, no Colt's.

Explain that to the guys around here who are using nothing but Colts.

Posted: 3/6/2006 7:46:35 AM EDT

[#13]

You know, this hread has taught me alot.

Now I know that both Colt and RRA suck! Thanks guys, I've been wondering alot lately.

Give me a break, and more importantly, give yourselves a break. There's no need to give yourself a stroke over conflicting brand preferences.

Posted: 3/6/2006 8:11:15 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I realize they actually passed and were given contracts but they did need some type of do-over. Does anyone have any insight into some of the details of how they failed or why?

Failed? Tricky question.

SIG didnt fail they withdrew, which isnt the same thing. Three Colt samples choked during the endurance round (bolts werent heat treated correctly rumor has it), but had the right to the do-over and submitted new samples which worked fine.

RRA survived everything, no issues, no choking, no need for a do-over.

Have fun chewing on that. Some people have issues with RRA doing well but they are stupid

stop fighting, I want to hear about this. Anyone have any more info?

Posted: 3/6/2006 8:23:43 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
And WTF does the DEA do with their RRA carbines?

Shoot themselves in the foot as they are the only ones professional enough to do so?

Three Colt samples choked during the endurance round (bolts werent heat treated correctly rumor has it)

Perhaps you should heed your own quotes...

Do you want third or forth hand stories, or an internet anecdote, because that is what you're likely to get.

Posted: 3/6/2006 8:36:06 AM EDT

[#16]

How would the standard trigger, which uses the actual trigger pin, suffer the same problem as the RRA 2-stage trigger which uses a peened in place roll pin for the disconnector?

It happened to me once with a Colt Green Box HBAR years ago in an IPSC match.

Give me a break, and more importantly, give yourselves a break. There's no need to give yourself a stroke over conflicting brand preferences.

Possibly the best advice on this thread.
Buy what you want and shoot what you bought.
Just be gals we are all shooters and we live in a country where we can buy and shoot.

Bill

Posted: 3/6/2006 10:27:54 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
FYI, someone else that has had a RRA 2-stage turn into a single stage: HERE

If you want official stamped QDRs, I think you might be waiting for awhile.

How does that prove they are unreliable though?

Posted: 3/6/2006 10:34:11 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Do you want third or forth hand stories, or an internet anecdote, because that is what you're likely to get.

Besides the one coldblue post, that is all I have seen in a RRA DEA trials thread.

Anyone familiar with FOIA requests? Think it is possible to obtain trial results with that method?

Posted: 3/6/2006 1:32:33 PM EDT

[#19]

I just ran what we can say through the V.P. of RRA who was there representing us (along with a whole crew of our people to do the firing and mag loading). Of the fourteen companies that submitted rifles (we are not privy to who they all were), only four made it through the torture tests to the endurance firing phase...RRA, Colt, Sig, and Knights, All of these company's products had to be excellent to get that far. In the fifteen thousand round endurance firing test (five thousand rounds through each of three rifles, side by side with the other companies present on the same firing line), our rifles experienced three documented faiures. Two of the failures were attributed by the testing authoriites to the magazines being used, and the third was an ammunition failure. No other company's rifle/rifles finished the five thousand round test on the first attempt, and required subsequent reshoot(s) to complete the testing, at which point those that did complete the trials were also included as potential vendors on the contract, UP TO the amounts specified.
An awful lot of people were waiting for us to fall on our asses either during the trials or for the subsequent delivery time table...but we didn't. An awful lot of very dedicated people did an awful lot of work, in which they can be very proud, to win the trials, the vast lion's share of the contract award, and to get thousands of rifles out the door to the DEA and other federal agencies that are eligible to buy on the contract.
Some people still can't accept that anyone but "insert your favorite brand here" could possibly win such a contract and deliver the rifles as specified. So be it. I don't have to make any accomodations to them for what I know to be factual. I've been here for the entire course of events. We won. We delivered on what was requested, and then some. We have every reason to be proud of that accomplishment.
Steve Mayer
RRA Production Controller and ARFCOM moderator.

Posted: 3/6/2006 1:48:03 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
FYI, someone else that has had a RRA 2-stage turn into a single stage: HERE

If you want official stamped QDRs, I think you might be waiting for awhile.

How does that prove they are unreliable though?

It has happened more than once through a span of at least 2 years - I know becuase I've read about these issues with the RRA 2-stage since I started looking into AR15s. I have not heard about RRA upgrading/improving their 2-stage trigger. It doesn't appear to be a widespread issue, however, knowing my luck with parts, I'll probably get the lemon.

As for the typical smart alek reply, "you get what you pay for..." when shelling out $90+ for a FCG, you should be getting a top notch durable FCG. Power Custom can pump out adjustable FCGs for AKs for under $80, and Tapco can make their G2 FCG for AKs for under $30. These are hardened steel FCGs, and contain a lot more material overall than the AR FCG. One could argue that there are extra machining processes involved for the AR FCG, but I can't justify to myself spending $300 on a trigger group just to reduce the pull by a few lb.

Posted: 3/6/2006 1:54:24 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I just ran what we can say through the V.P. of RRA who was there representing us (along with a whole crew of our people to do the firing and mag loading). Of the fourteen companies that submitted rifles (we are not privy to who they all were), only four made it through the torture tests to the endurance firing phase...RRA, Colt, Sig, and Knights, All of these company's products had to be excellent to get that far. In the fifteen thousand round endurance firing test (five thousand rounds through each of three rifles, side by side with the other companies present on the same firing line), our rifles experienced three documented faiures. Two of the failures were attributed by the testing authoriites to the magazines being used, and the third was an ammunition failure. No other company's rifle/rifles finished the five thousand round test on the first attempt, and required subsequent reshoot(s) to complete the testing, at which point those that did complete the trials were also included as potential vendors on the contract, UP TO the amounts specified.
An awful lot of people were waiting for us to fall on our asses either during the trials or for the subsequent delivery time table...but we didn't. An awful lot of very dedicated people did an awful lot of work, in which they can be very proud, to win the trials, the vast lion's share of the contract award, and to get thousands of rifles out the door to the DEA and other federal agencies that are eligible to buy on the contract.
Some people still can't accept that anyone but "insert your favorite brand here" could possibly win such a contract and deliver the rifles as specified. So be it. I don't have to make any accomodations to them for what I know to be factual. I've been here for the entire course of events. We won. We delivered on what was requested, and then some. We have every reason to be proud of that accomplishment.
Steve Mayer
RRA Production Controller and ARFCOM moderator.

Thank you for the response. Your success has been earned

Posted: 3/6/2006 2:15:44 PM EDT

[#22]

Thanks for wading into this mess of a thread.

After reading these two posts:

Quoted:
The prefered method of gov contracting these days is to award to everyone who meets the minimum requirements, but then initially award subsequent delivery orders to only one of them based on price, value, whatever. (note: it is much harder to win a protest on not getting a Delivery Order, than being eliminated "up front" based on some specific combination of objective/subjective criteria). Then if months or years later that initial company fails, flounders, can't keep up with deliveies, or whatever, one of the other original winners will receive his first Delivery Order unter the terms of the contract and pricing he signed-up-to way back when. I believe this DEA contract obligated the submitters for years, as you had to sign up for pricing your product for that entire period. And hopefully, you are still serially producing this exact product 3 or 4 years later.

The real challenge that gave us all fits in the testing was their (DEA) use of lead-tipped Federal ammo. Apparently RRA solved this feeding problem from the get-go, as they were the only company not allowed a second chance. I believe the seond chance was all about the gov having a 5-year contract obligation in place from a second, and ideally a third souce, if down the line the primary awardee flounded (see above).

Obviously "my hat's off" to RRA for developing what I assume to be a ramp angle, method of feed, or whatever that was at least initially more compatable with feeding this lead tipped ammo than others.

Quoted:
I just ran what we can say through the V.P. of RRA who was there representing us (along with a whole crew of our people to do the firing and mag loading). Of the fourteen companies that submitted rifles (we are not privy to who they all were), only four made it through the torture tests to the endurance firing phase...RRA, Colt, Sig, and Knights, All of these company's products had to be excellent to get that far. In the fifteen thousand round endurance firing test (five thousand rounds through each of three rifles, side by side with the other companies present on the same firing line), our rifles experienced three documented faiures. Two of the failures were attributed by the testing authoriites to the magazines being used, and the third was an ammunition failure. No other company's rifle/rifles finished the five thousand round test on the first attempt, and required subsequent reshoot(s) to complete the testing, at which point those that did complete the trials were also included as potential vendors on the contract, UP TO the amounts specified.
An awful lot of people were waiting for us to fall on our asses either during the trials or for the subsequent delivery time table...but we didn't. An awful lot of very dedicated people did an awful lot of work, in which they can be very proud, to win the trials, the vast lion's share of the contract award, and to get thousands of rifles out the door to the DEA and other federal agencies that are eligible to buy on the contract.
Some people still can't accept that anyone but "insert your favorite brand here" could possibly win such a contract and deliver the rifles as specified. So be it. I don't have to make any accomodations to them for what I know to be factual. I've been here for the entire course of events. We won. We delivered on what was requested, and then some. We have every reason to be proud of that accomplishment.
Steve Mayer
RRA Production Controller and ARFCOM moderator.

I get the idea that is off the mark:

Quoted:
SIG didnt fail they withdrew, which isnt the same thing. Three Colt samples choked during the endurance round (bolts werent heat treated correctly rumor has it), but had the right to the do-over and submitted new samples which worked fine.

While this is closer, if not right on:

Quoted:
So, I read this to mean that the SIG/Colt are designed around NATO M855/SS109 and the ammo in the test was SP. RRA's "proprietary feed ramps" allowed them to breeze through the endurance test while the NATO weapons choked on the SPs.

Meaning that the other carbines suffered from feeding problems with SP ammo at such a level that they failed the initial endurance test, not that they busted too many parts?

Posted: 3/6/2006 2:30:26 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I just ran what we can say through the V.P. of RRA who was there representing us (along with a whole crew of our people to do the firing and mag loading). Of the fourteen companies that submitted rifles (we are not privy to who they all were), only four made it through the torture tests to the endurance firing phase...RRA, Colt, Sig, and Knights, All of these company's products had to be excellent to get that far. In the fifteen thousand round endurance firing test (five thousand rounds through each of three rifles, side by side with the other companies present on the same firing line), our rifles experienced three documented faiures. Two of the failures were attributed by the testing authoriites to the magazines being used, and the third was an ammunition failure. No other company's rifle/rifles finished the five thousand round test on the first attempt, and required subsequent reshoot(s) to complete the testing, at which point those that did complete the trials were also included as potential vendors on the contract, UP TO the amounts specified.
An awful lot of people were waiting for us to fall on our asses either during the trials or for the subsequent delivery time table...but we didn't. An awful lot of very dedicated people did an awful lot of work, in which they can be very proud, to win the trials, the vast lion's share of the contract award, and to get thousands of rifles out the door to the DEA and other federal agencies that are eligible to buy on the contract.
Some people still can't accept that anyone but "insert your favorite brand here" could possibly win such a contract and deliver the rifles as specified. So be it. I don't have to make any accomodations to them for what I know to be factual. I've been here for the entire course of events. We won. We delivered on what was requested, and then some. We have every reason to be proud of that accomplishment.
Steve Mayer
RRA Production Controller and ARFCOM moderator.

Thanks for your post. Kudos to RRA for your success; you guys seem to have earned it.

Posted: 3/6/2006 2:41:47 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I just ran what we can say through the V.P. of RRA who was there representing us (along with a whole crew of our people to do the firing and mag loading). Of the fourteen companies that submitted rifles (we are not privy to who they all were), only four made it through the torture tests to the endurance firing phase...RRA, Colt, Sig, and Knights, All of these company's products had to be excellent to get that far. In the fifteen thousand round endurance firing test (five thousand rounds through each of three rifles, side by side with the other companies present on the same firing line), our rifles experienced three documented faiures. Two of the failures were attributed by the testing authoriites to the magazines being used, and the third was an ammunition failure. No other company's rifle/rifles finished the five thousand round test on the first attempt, and required subsequent reshoot(s) to complete the testing, at which point those that did complete the trials were also included as potential vendors on the contract, UP TO the amounts specified.
An awful lot of people were waiting for us to fall on our asses either during the trials or for the subsequent delivery time table...but we didn't. An awful lot of very dedicated people did an awful lot of work, in which they can be very proud, to win the trials, the vast lion's share of the contract award, and to get thousands of rifles out the door to the DEA and other federal agencies that are eligible to buy on the contract.
Some people still can't accept that anyone but "insert your favorite brand here" could possibly win such a contract and deliver the rifles as specified. So be it. I don't have to make any accomodations to them for what I know to be factual. I've been here for the entire course of events. We won. We delivered on what was requested, and then some. We have every reason to be proud of that accomplishment.
Steve Mayer
RRA Production Controller and ARFCOM moderator.

It's hard to argue with that.

Unless somebody from Colt or Sig steps in to dispute this claim, I'd guess the case has been solved, or rather confirmed.

Posted: 3/6/2006 2:45:16 PM EDT

[#25]

.

Posted: 3/6/2006 2:56:55 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I just ran what we can say through the V.P. of RRA who was there representing us (along with a whole crew of our people to do the firing and mag loading). Of the fourteen companies that submitted rifles (we are not privy to who they all were), only four made it through the torture tests to the endurance firing phase...RRA, Colt, Sig, and Knights, All of these company's products had to be excellent to get that far. In the fifteen thousand round endurance firing test (five thousand rounds through each of three rifles, side by side with the other companies present on the same firing line), our rifles experienced three documented faiures. Two of the failures were attributed by the testing authoriites to the magazines being used, and the third was an ammunition failure. No other company's rifle/rifles finished the five thousand round test on the first attempt, and required subsequent reshoot(s) to complete the testing, at which point those that did complete the trials were also included as potential vendors on the contract, UP TO the amounts specified.
An awful lot of people were waiting for us to fall on our asses either during the trials or for the subsequent delivery time table...but we didn't. An awful lot of very dedicated people did an awful lot of work, in which they can be very proud, to win the trials, the vast lion's share of the contract award, and to get thousands of rifles out the door to the DEA and other federal agencies that are eligible to buy on the contract.
Some people still can't accept that anyone but "insert your favorite brand here" could possibly win such a contract and deliver the rifles as specified. So be it. I don't have to make any accomodations to them for what I know to be factual. I've been here for the entire course of events. We won. We delivered on what was requested, and then some. We have every reason to be proud of that accomplishment.
Steve Mayer
RRA Production Controller and ARFCOM moderator.

It's hard to argue with that.

Unless somebody from Colt or Sig steps in to dispute this claim, I'd guess the case has been solved, or rather confirmed.

"Solved", or "confirmed"? Mr Mayer did not answer the question, you may remember that it was:

Quoted:
I realize they actually passed and were given contracts but they did need some type of do-over. Does anyone have any insight into some of the details of how they failed or why?

Nothing about "how" or "why". But coldblue made mention of "how and "why".

Posted: 3/6/2006 3:17:39 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just ran what we can say through the V.P. of RRA who was there representing us (along with a whole crew of our people to do the firing and mag loading). Of the fourteen companies that submitted rifles (we are not privy to who they all were), only four made it through the torture tests to the endurance firing phase...RRA, Colt, Sig, and Knights, All of these company's products had to be excellent to get that far. In the fifteen thousand round endurance firing test (five thousand rounds through each of three rifles, side by side with the other companies present on the same firing line), our rifles experienced three documented faiures. Two of the failures were attributed by the testing authoriites to the magazines being used, and the third was an ammunition failure. No other company's rifle/rifles finished the five thousand round test on the first attempt, and required subsequent reshoot(s) to complete the testing, at which point those that did complete the trials were also included as potential vendors on the contract, UP TO the amounts specified.
An awful lot of people were waiting for us to fall on our asses either during the trials or for the subsequent delivery time table...but we didn't. An awful lot of very dedicated people did an awful lot of work, in which they can be very proud, to win the trials, the vast lion's share of the contract award, and to get thousands of rifles out the door to the DEA and other federal agencies that are eligible to buy on the contract.
Some people still can't accept that anyone but "insert your favorite brand here" could possibly win such a contract and deliver the rifles as specified. So be it. I don't have to make any accomodations to them for what I know to be factual. I've been here for the entire course of events. We won. We delivered on what was requested, and then some. We have every reason to be proud of that accomplishment.
Steve Mayer
RRA Production Controller and ARFCOM moderator.

It's hard to argue with that.

Unless somebody from Colt or Sig steps in to dispute this claim, I'd guess the case has been solved, or rather confirmed.

"Solved", or "confirmed"? Mr Mayer did not answer the question, you may remember that it was:

Quoted:
I realize they actually passed and were given contracts but they did need some type of do-over. Does anyone have any insight into some of the details of how they failed or why?

Nothing about "how" or "why". But coldblue made mention of "how and "why".

Well, maybe he didn't confirm the details of the issues with the Colt and Sigs, but he did confirm what the "word" going around was, and that was that RRA was the winner without the need of a do-over.

I'd like to know more details but it's quite possible he's not "privy" to all the extra info regarding those other companies and their guns.

Do you think someone from Colt/Sig is gonna get on here and give us the details of how their weapon choked and why? I'd love to hear it.

BTW, I think all 3 of these companies are making a good product, I'm not trying to say anything bad about Colt or Sig, they deserve the reputation they have developed over the years, but I highly doubt they will want to weigh in on this topic. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Posted: 3/6/2006 3:46:29 PM EDT

[#28]

This thread is a waste of bandwidth.

Posted: 3/6/2006 3:56:41 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
This thread is a waste of bandwidth.

Why is every Kool aid drinker so offended? So what, RRA makes a decendt product. It makes sense, Colt and RRA get most of their parts from the same subcontractor (CMT). Big surprise.

Posted: 3/6/2006 4:13:54 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This thread is a waste of bandwidth.

Why is every Kool aid drinker so offended? So what, RRA makes a decent product. It makes sense, Colt and RRA get most of their parts from the same subcontractor (CMT). Big surprise.

It is not about kool-aid, or Colt, or preferences.

Its about the testing, and how it fails to prove anything.

Kinda like this arguement.

Posted: 3/6/2006 4:25:29 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I just ran what we can say through the V.P. of RRA who was there representing us (along with a whole crew of our people to do the firing and mag loading). ...
Some people still can't accept that anyone but "insert your favorite brand here" could possibly win such a contract and deliver the rifles as specified. So be it. I don't have to make any accomodations to them for what I know to be factual. I've been here for the entire course of events. We won. We delivered on what was requested, and then some. We have every reason to be proud of that accomplishment.
Steve Mayer
RRA Production Controller and ARFCOM moderator.

Would this "scramble to meet the contract timelines" have had any impact on deliveries of over the counter products? It was my impression that the begining of the "gee, it takes forever to get something from RRA" period seemed to coincide with the award of-or the fulfillment of-the DEA contract. Which makes a lot of sense; you wouldn't have been contracturally bound to sell one rifle to Joe Arfcommer, but you were bound to deliver a bunch to the DEA...

In any case, your ability to compete, let alone win, is astounding and laudable. Today, people don't think "the little guy" can get ahead at all. You and your guys have proven otherwise.

Thanks for trying, and congratulations for succeeding!

Posted: 3/6/2006 4:36:37 PM EDT

[#32]

There really isnt anything else to say.

RRA Mod said it all and there is nothing else to argue. The RRA design excelled where others failed

Of the fourteen companies that submitted rifles (we are not privy to who they all were), only four made it through the torture tests to the endurance firing phase...RRA, Colt, Sig, and Knights, All of these company's products had to be excellent to get that far. In the fifteen thousand round endurance firing test (five thousand rounds through each of three rifles, side by side with the other companies present on the same firing line), our rifles experienced three documented faiures. Two of the failures were attributed by the testing authoriites to the magazines being used, and the third was an ammunition failure. No other company's rifle/rifles finished the five thousand round test on the first attempt, and required subsequent reshoot(s) to complete the testing

RRA Mod spelled it out very clearly.

Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing, but god forbid RRA would have choked during testing it would have been because of 4140, lack of MP testing, two stage trigger, or some other B.S.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:04:25 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:10:20 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:13:08 PM EDT

[#35]

RRA whats not to like. Great quality. I do not own any RRA stuff. However they have shown themself to be a quality producer through simple numbers. Right here on this very board. My first AR was a Colt 6920 and my second was a LMT M4. Both are great. I chose them for there anatomy, 4150, 1/7, M4 Ramps and chrome lined. Are they any better Quality than a RRA. Not Likely! I would not hesitate to buy a RRA product. If it was what I was looking for.

For me I find the standard non-custom brands A, B, C, L, R, S, To all be First Rate.

I hope I didnt mis any?

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:16:18 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
There really isnt anything else to say.

RRA Mod said it all and there is nothing else to argue. The RRA design excelled where others failed

RRA Mod spelled it out very clearly.

Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing, but god forbid RRA would have choked during testing it would have been because of 4140, lack of MP testing, two stage trigger, or some other B.S.

Sorry the issue is not going away, the how and why issue has not been addressed by RRA. Seems to me that coldblue produced that answer, twas a closely held bit of info, but it is out, and am sure with time more will be learned.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:17:16 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

It does on a montly basis, that is a 6,000 round endurance test. And they don't get cleaned every 250 rounds.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:23:33 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

It does on a montly basis, that is a 6,000 round endurance test. And they don't get cleaned every 250 rounds.

You wouldnt happen to be a fan of this band would you

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:24:11 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

Until you know why the test guns failed you're just running your mouth. Funny how RRA failures were attributed to magazines and ammo. Sounds like they squeeked by just like everybody else.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:27:14 PM EDT

[#40]

I love how the reason that RRA excelled was feed ramp perfection and yet the anti-RRA crowd latch on to one out of a billion RRA's that came out with sloppy feed ramps and go gaga over it.

keep up the good work. Knights has ZERO to be bashful about either, you both are doing great work for us and for the guys that matter. I can only afford RRA's though!

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:27:30 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

Until you know why the test guns failed you're just running your mouth. Funny how RRA failures were attributed to magazines and ammo. Sounds like they squeeked by just like everybody else.

* Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
* Anger (why is this happening to me?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

What stage are you in over Colt choking on game day?

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:30:01 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

Until you know why the test guns failed you're just running your mouth. Funny how RRA failures were attributed to magazines and ammo. Sounds like they squeeked by just like everybody else.

* Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
* Anger (why is this happening to me?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

What stage are you in over Colt choking on game day?

Sounds to me like RRA choked, too, and were given a reprieve.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:34:09 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

It does on a montly basis, that is a 6,000 round endurance test. And they don't get cleaned every 250 rounds.

You wouldnt happen to be a fan of this band would you

www.highergroundmusic.com/i/artists/spindoctorsforsite.jpg

\

My first guess is that you would have to be a child to know who those guys are.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:36:43 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

Until you know why the test guns failed you're just running your mouth. Funny how RRA failures were attributed to magazines and ammo. Sounds like they squeeked by just like everybody else.

* Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
* Anger (why is this happening to me?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

What stage are you in over Colt choking on game day?

Sounds to me like RRA choked, too, and were given a reprieve.

DEA dictated the rules. Not you. Colt failed under the conditions required by the DEA. Nuff said.

And it sounds like you're in the bargaining phase.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:38:46 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

It does on a montly basis, that is a 6,000 round endurance test. And they don't get cleaned every 250 rounds.

You wouldnt happen to be a fan of this band would you

www.highergroundmusic.com/i/artists/spindoctorsforsite.jpg
\

My first guess is that you would have to be a child to know who those guys are.

Guess those carpet stains and smart gun advancements hamper feeding various types of ammunition.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:39:22 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

Until you know why the test guns failed you're just running your mouth. Funny how RRA failures were attributed to magazines and ammo. Sounds like they squeeked by just like everybody else.

* Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
* Anger (why is this happening to me?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

What stage are you in over Colt choking on game day?

Sounds to me like RRA choked, too, and were given a reprieve.

DEA dictated the rules. Not you. Colt failed under the conditions required by the DEA. Nuff said.

And it sounds like you're in the bargaining phase.

Exactly, RRA got to blame mags and ammo and Colt got a do-over. Sounds like everybody choked to me.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:41:02 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

It does on a montly basis, that is a 6,000 round endurance test. And they don't get cleaned every 250 rounds.

You wouldnt happen to be a fan of this band would you

www.highergroundmusic.com/i/artists/spindoctorsforsite.jpg
\

My first guess is that you would have to be a child to know who those guys are.

Guess those carpet stains and smart gun advancements hamper feeding various types of ammunition.

Maybe RRA just took a Dremel to the feedramps after the mags and ammo reprieve.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:44:39 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Though I think it is amusing how some now say testing means nothing

Nobody is claiming that testing means nothing. They are claiming that one endurance test does not a combat weapon make. People want to see these rifles pay their dues before they are claimed to be on par with weapons that have been there and done that for decades. RRA makes a fine weapon, but how much use do you think a DEA gun is going to see compared to an M4 in the sandbox? Like it or not Colt has proven that if the minimum standards of the TDP aren't met, a weapon won't survive the rigors of real combat. I can't help but find it odd that you cry about the necessity for statistical evidence to justify things like 4150 steel and MP testing and yet you'll derive complete confidence in a manufacturer from one test. One test under less than scientific conditions is hardly statistical. Let the consumer reap the benefits of the testing, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

What was that? The Colt TDP design didnt survive a paltry 5000 endurance test. Okay, thanks for the clarification

It does on a montly basis, that is a 6,000 round endurance test. And they don't get cleaned every 250 rounds.

You wouldnt happen to be a fan of this band would you

www.highergroundmusic.com/i/artists/spindoctorsforsite.jpg
\

My first guess is that you would have to be a child to know who those guys are.

Guess those carpet stains and smart gun advancements hamper feeding various types of ammunition.

Considering Colt has conducted and passed 6,000 round endurance tests in house, under Govt. supervision for some 40 years on a monthly basis, I have trouble believing the DEA busted all their carbines in one 5,000 round test, and that all the RRA carbines breezed it. If you can swallow that, then have I got some "in use by NAVY SEALs" stuff to sell you.

Posted: 3/6/2006 5:58:32 PM EDT

[#49]

There was a time that I thought RRA manufactured a decent AR... Mainly this was due to the hype over them being awarded the DEA contract...

Today, after my personal experiences with their products and many months of reading about the 2-stage trigger failures, hacked extended feedramps and receivers that fit so tight that you need a hammer to knock out the take down pin for field servicing, I now categorize them as being compared to Hesse and Vulcan...

COLT, Bushmaster, LMT and CMT are the only parts that I have used and have found to be reliable, dependable high quality parts that live up to my expectations...

The facts are there, RRA isn't all of what people want to believe it is...

Posted: 3/6/2006 6:01:43 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
There was a time that I thought RRA manufactured a decent AR... Mainly this was due to the hype over them being awarded the DEA contract...

Today, after my personal experiences with their products and many months of reading about the 2-stage trigger failures, hacked extended feedramps and receivers that fit so tight that you need a hammer to knock out the take down pin for field servicing, I now categorize them as being compared to Hesse and Vulcan...

COLT, Bushmaster, LMT and CMT are the only parts that I have used and have found to be reliable, dependable high quality parts that live up to my expectations...

The facts are there, RRA isn't all of what people want to believe it is...

wow dude, you are WAY beyond kool aid.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Do we know how the Colt and Sig "failed" in the DEA testing? (Page 2 of 4)

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us