User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 8:57:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm guessing you missed the, now nuked, M27 thread from the most recent trials I think he was the OP of that thread. 
ETA DI owns the 2nd page even with the edit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 8:58:21 PM EDT
[#2]
I hate piston ARs. Adding parts for no reason.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 8:59:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mad? No. Amazed? Yes. What mystery is there? What's to discuss that hasn't been beat into the ground already? Why is this in GD instead of the tech forum? Why is your MO what it is? Just severe curiosity? Maybe I just don't get it. Oh well. S/F OP seems to be a piston and/or H&K fanboy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 8:59:20 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still mad the last thread got nuked. There was so much useful information and I didn't get to read it all... +1  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:02:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Edited.
S/F |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:02:47 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP seems to be a piston and/or H&K fanboy. Honestly when I requested this FOIA I was expecting a significantly different set of Results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:04:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly when I requested this FOIA I was expecting a significantly different set of Results. You are the HK/Piston fanboi aren't you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:08:05 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is what it is. His trolling went too far, and he learned he could draw out people to talk more than they should. Kid does more damage than he knows. But, if there's information you want to know, just give me a buzz on PM and I'll tell you what I can. I can't say everything, obviously, but I'll do what I can. S/F You give me to much credit. I control no one, anyone who posts here does so of their own volition. I am not God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:08:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It looks like the Colt did as good, also cost far less per rifle. Is switching for switchings sake really a good thing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yea but the new Marines have a cool rifle. You laugh, but when I dumped my A2 for a new M4 it was like Christmas. Colt served honorably, but the military will eventually be shooting Kraught/Stoner rifles. It looks like the Colt did as good, also cost far less per rifle. Is switching for switchings sake really a good thing? Do I think it will happen? yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:11:06 PM EDT
[#10]
That was meant to be a PM but I hit reply instead of IM user. Delete at your discretion.
S/F |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:12:17 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was meant to be a PM but I hit reply instead of IM user. Delete at your discretion. S/F I think I'll leave it up. You still give me far too much credit if you think I can control everyone on this website. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:18:07 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are the HK/Piston fanboi aren't you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Honestly when I requested this FOIA I was expecting a significantly different set of Results. You are the HK/Piston fanboi aren't you? Yes, he is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:18:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I have seen the 416 performs horribly with M855A1, enough so that the chamber wall gets destroyed...Something that does not happen to the M4.(I posted pictures of this in my magazine thread in technical). So if with M855 the Colt performed on par with the H&K it's safe to assume 855A1 would not go in favor of the 416. @joglee Link please? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:19:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly when I requested this FOIA I was expecting a significantly different set of Results. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OP seems to be a piston and/or H&K fanboy. Honestly when I requested this FOIA I was expecting a significantly different set of Results. Props to you for going ahead and posting it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:22:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Fair enough, but that isn't credit I'm giving you.
Remember an General Election was won (or lost) based on Pepe the Frog memes. Think about that - trolls changed the course of history. Words said on the net mean something, can and do have massive effect in the real world. Opinion is influenced from the outside, small voices become big, and big become small (sometimes good, sometimes bad). The last several threads like this were either crap shows, or nuked for a reason. Either way, I'm out at this time. S/F |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:26:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@joglee Link please? I discuss it here. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_17/710705_Unscientific-M855A1-magazine-feed-ability----Round-2--Now-with-EPMs-.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:27:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fair enough, but that isn't credit I'm giving you. Remember an General Election was won (or lost) based on Pepe the Frog memes. Think about that - trolls changed the course of history. Words said on the net mean something, can and do have massive effect in the real world. Opinion is influenced from the outside, small voices become big, and big become small (sometimes good, sometimes bad). The last several threads like this were either crap shows, or nuked for a reason. Either way, I'm out at this time. S/F Maybe so, but I'm not slinging shit one way or another. All I did was use my rights to request info and post it for the public to see. No offense, but so far you're the only one to come in here and start shit in a post that was meant to be informative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:32:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Any chance they looked at the financial stability of the companies as part of the decision? Colt's been circling the drain for a decade.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:32:49 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea but the new Marines have a cool rifle. You laugh, but when I dumped my A2 for a new M4 it was like Christmas. Colt served honorably, but the military will eventually be shooting Kraught/Stoner rifles. My best to shit FN M16A4 had what I'm guessing was a clogged gas tube. I went until about week 8 in bct with it as a bolt action. Dumbass repair guy gave me a new bolt (didn't fix it) obviously...It ejected fine manually. When we did squad tactics I cranked down the blank firing adapter and my theory worked, it cleared (gas forced the clog out ) and it ran like a champ. 240 ate rusted ammo links from '70 dated ammo just fine. Even my 249s were great. Mk48s jammed a lot in break-in. I liked my .Mil squad/individuals. Mk 19s and m2s I can't say enough bad about though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:34:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is switching for switchings sake really a good thing? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:35:35 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any chance they looked at the financial stability of the companies as part of the decision? Colt's been circling the drain for a decade. H&k is on similar footing with the German government, on top of that we do have to deal with importing parts which could be a problem in a time of war. Both companies have financial issues right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 9:52:18 PM EDT
[#22]
I am having a hard time coming up with something about a rifle that could be so sensitive that people can't talk about it. This isn't exactly some cutting edge tech.
My gut tells me that someone with pull just didn't like that there were other people in the know who were publicly questioning/undermining the decisions made in procurement and they wanted that shit silenced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 10:14:09 PM EDT
[#23]
What about accuracy, barrel life, rapid fire till catastrophic failure, function with a suppressor, etc.?
I don't even know if any of that was tested, but there's got to be more relevant data out there than just class I and II stoppages, right? The contract had to have been awarded on more than just MRBS. Everyone is acting like this is some condemnation of the HK IAR and the Colt is equal for less money, but we don't know any of the other deciding criteria. If the HK was twice as accurate, could go twice as many rounds non-stop before blowing up, had a barrel that needed to be changed half as often, and didn't go insanely cyclic with a can, it makes sense why it won. This is such a small piece of the pie and just rationalizing HK haters who would hate the gun regardless. Need more data. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 10:21:34 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about accuracy, barrel life, rapid fire till catastrophic failure, function with a suppressor, etc.? I don't even know if any of that was tested, but there's got to be more relevant data out there than just class I and II stoppages, right? The contract had to have been awarded on more than just MRBS. Everyone is acting like this is some condemnation of the HK IAR and the Colt is equal for less money, but we don't know any of the other deciding criteria. If the HK was twice as accurate, could go twice as many rounds non-stop before blowing up, had a barrel that needed to be changed half as often, and didn't go insanely cyclic with a can, it makes sense why it won. This is such a small piece of the pie and just rationalizing HK haters who would hate the gun regardless. Need more data. I'm working on getting that data. This is just part 1. I should be getting sustained fire rates and Class III failures next. Which should give us enough of the picture as those are the key things. Reliability. Durability. Sustained Fire. Second as for a suppressor even I'll admit the 416 runs at a far higher cyclic rate than the M4...Hands down, there's no comparison. The reason this is all I have is because I misjudged just how literal your request must be, so I have an amendment for more information in now to get what I didn't "specify" the first time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 10:26:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Accuracy too? That had to have been a criterion, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 10:29:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Accuracy too? That had to have been a criterion, right? I have also requested that in my amendment. However I believe the IAR accuracy requirement is 4moa with Mk318 in semi, 8moa with M855 auto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 10:34:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
RIP super awesome, scattered to the cyberwinds, IAR thread with Gunner Wade. best thread ever. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 10:38:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm working on getting that data. This is just part 1. I should be getting sustained fire rates and Class III failures next. Which should give us enough of the picture as those are the key things. Reliability. Durability. Sustained Fire. Second as for a suppressor even I'll admit the 416 runs at a far higher cyclic rate than the M4...Hands down, there's no comparison. The reason this is all I have is because I misjudged just how literal your request must be, so I have an amendment for more information in now to get what I didn't "specify" the first time. Want some fun? Start FOIAing Pic Arsenal's magazine testing. Wonder why PMAGs are the only mag that makes the M27 viable with 855A1 but the Army can't even order a PMAG? This will be a Congressional investigation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 10:45:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Want some fun? Start FOIAing Pic Arsenal's magazine testing. Wonder why PMAGs are the only mag that makes the M27 viable with 855A1 but the Army can't even order a PMAG? This will be a Congressional investigation. I'm not sure I believe Pmags remove the wear. Given the shallow chamfer of the forcing cone in the chamber face I don't see Pmags removing the bullet tip striking the corner of that chamfer...Which is the main issue. I have both Pmags and EPMs and they're feed angle and bullet presentation is identical enough to be not discernable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 10:53:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about accuracy, barrel life, rapid fire till catastrophic failure, function with a suppressor, etc.? I don't even know if any of that was tested, but there's got to be more relevant data out there than just class I and II stoppages, right? The contract had to have been awarded on more than just MRBS. Everyone is acting like this is some condemnation of the HK IAR and the Colt is equal for less money, but we don't know any of the other deciding criteria. If the HK was twice as accurate, could go twice as many rounds non-stop before blowing up, had a barrel that needed to be changed half as often, and didn't go insanely cyclic with a can, it makes sense why it won. This is such a small piece of the pie and just rationalizing HK haters who would hate the gun regardless. Need more data. I imagine there is at least one more MRBS test, since none of the entries came close to meeting the spec - unless they waived that requirement altogether, which seems highly unlikely for a LMG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:01:51 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The listed companies are the only 4 to make the final downselect. Think about this the Colt bid was $14 million. H&K was $26 million. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Agreed. Why are some company names listed but others aren't. The listed companies are the only 4 to make the final downselect. Think about this the Colt bid was $14 million. H&K was $26 million. Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:02:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I may have missed something here, but total rounds fired on each gun would be 2400, right? And the number of Class 1 and 2 failures are the number of failures for that gun within that 2400 round test. They wanted mean rounds between failures of 900. Unless I'm very confused, your best performer would be Entry F, whose MRBF here would be 2400/12=200 MRBF. Your worst is H at 2400/124=19 MRBF. HK =2400/27=88.88... (appropriate for a German company) MRBF. Did they run a new type of ammo in these? The M4 is performing at 3600 MRBS according to a 2009 letter (http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/docs/WeaponsReliabilityInformationPaper-Oct%2009.pdf), with a requirement of 600. The best performer being at 200 MRBF? That's terrible. MRBF per rifle (if failures were equally distributed between the 3 samples ) for HK would be 2400/9. Still not at threshold. ETA noticed during the "hot temp" test, doesn't look like they let the barrel cool to a baseline temp like the other tests. Would wonder which test cause the most failures for each rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:03:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am having a hard time coming up with something about a rifle that could be so sensitive that people can't talk about it. This isn't exactly some cutting edge tech. My gut tells me that someone with pull just didn't like that there were other people in the know who were publicly questioning/undermining the decisions made in procurement and they wanted that shit silenced. There is some classified info surrounding these subjects, (such as Colt's M4 TDP) but what I find ridiculous is people acting like public info that falls under the FOIA is classified information. And classified info does not apply to the FOI act. So in other words, it feels like you're right. The amount of ass hurt these mil evaluation threads create is astonishing tho lol. But like the OP, I just like to know the data because mil rifles are something I'm interested in. Random parts build AR's just don't do it for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:24:16 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Agreed. Why are some company names listed but others aren't. The listed companies are the only 4 to make the final downselect. Think about this the Colt bid was $14 million. H&K was $26 million. Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins. 
Why would it cost more? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:34:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Interdasting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:39:16 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I'm reading it correctly, each model had 3 samples used in testing, those failures are across those 3 guns for each model. MRBF per rifle (if failures were equally distributed between the 3 samples ) for HK would be 2400/9. Still not at threshold. ETA noticed during the "hot temp" test, doesn't look like they let the barrel cool to a baseline temp like the other tests. Would wonder which test cause the most failures for each rifle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I may have missed something here, but total rounds fired on each gun would be 2400, right? And the number of Class 1 and 2 failures are the number of failures for that gun within that 2400 round test. They wanted mean rounds between failures of 900. Unless I'm very confused, your best performer would be Entry F, whose MRBF here would be 2400/12=200 MRBF. Your worst is H at 2400/124=19 MRBF. HK =2400/27=88.88... (appropriate for a German company) MRBF. Did they run a new type of ammo in these? The M4 is performing at 3600 MRBS according to a 2009 letter (http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/docs/WeaponsReliabilityInformationPaper-Oct%2009.pdf), with a requirement of 600. The best performer being at 200 MRBF? That's terrible. MRBF per rifle (if failures were equally distributed between the 3 samples ) for HK would be 2400/9. Still not at threshold. ETA noticed during the "hot temp" test, doesn't look like they let the barrel cool to a baseline temp like the other tests. Would wonder which test cause the most failures for each rifle. Oh that's much better. Those numbers are far less horrible when divided by 3, but still not within spec. I expect they had good reasons for picking HK - there's enough FARs that blatant corruption is rather difficult, especially for an expensive contract like this. And from the banished thread, I definitely got the feeling that those guys had the best interests of the shooters, not the companies, at heart. That said I would be happy to see more. It's interesting to see how things develop from inauspicious beginnings (like this test) to winning a contract. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:41:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure I believe Pmags remove the wear. Given the shallow chamfer of the forcing cone in the chamber face I don't see Pmags removing the bullet tip striking the corner of that chamfer...Which is the main issue. I have both Pmags and EPMs and they're feed angle and bullet presentation is identical enough to be not discernable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Want some fun? Start FOIAing Pic Arsenal's magazine testing. Wonder why PMAGs are the only mag that makes the M27 viable with 855A1 but the Army can't even order a PMAG? This will be a Congressional investigation. I'm not sure I believe Pmags remove the wear. Given the shallow chamfer of the forcing cone in the chamber face I don't see Pmags removing the bullet tip striking the corner of that chamfer...Which is the main issue. I have both Pmags and EPMs and they're feed angle and bullet presentation is identical enough to be not discernable. Huh. Haven't read your magazine thread yet, will have to check that out. Okay, M855A1 chews up 416's even worse than M4's. Fuckin' wonderful. Christ, that's gonna come back to bite their asses here in another couple years when barrels are reaching the point where they need to be replaced, but the Corps makes the same tightwad decision it always does when it comes to replacing consumable parts. I'm wondering if that might potentially cause a safety issue, 'cause that steel-tip shit isn't exactly pud-loaded.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:49:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Wow, this isn't just beating a dead horse anymore, its raping it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:50:20 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would it cost more? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Agreed. Why are some company names listed but others aren't. The listed companies are the only 4 to make the final downselect. Think about this the Colt bid was $14 million. H&K was $26 million. Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins.
Why would it cost more? 6940 is a monolithic design made from bar stock 7075. The difference in machining/materials is, in a word, "yuuuge". Turning a big block of aluminum into a single piece upper takes a lot more CNC machine time than machining a separate upper and handguard, not to mention they have to order the materials in larger pieces, while the majority of the material is cut away and either trashed, or recycled. There's a reason a lot of companies are making new designs based around 60-series aluminum extrusions instead of machining them from bar stock 7075; it's cheaper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2017 11:57:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
6940 is a monolithic design made from bar stock 7075. The difference in machining/materials is, in a word, "yuuuge". Turning a big block of aluminum into a single piece upper takes a lot more CNC machine time than machining a separate upper and handguard, not to mention they have to order the materials in larger pieces, while the majority of the material is cut away and either trashed, or recycled. There's a reason a lot of companies are making new designs based around 60-series aluminum extrusions instead of machining them from bar stock 7075; it's cheaper. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Agreed. Why are some company names listed but others aren't. The listed companies are the only 4 to make the final downselect. Think about this the Colt bid was $14 million. H&K was $26 million. Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins.
Why would it cost more? 6940 is a monolithic design made from bar stock 7075. The difference in machining/materials is, in a word, "yuuuge". Turning a big block of aluminum into a single piece upper takes a lot more CNC machine time than machining a separate upper and handguard, not to mention they have to order the materials in larger pieces, while the majority of the material is cut away and either trashed, or recycled. There's a reason a lot of companies are making new designs based around 60-series aluminum extrusions instead of machining them from bar stock 7075; it's cheaper.
It's a forging... Not only that. It should be cheaper to make because you have fewer mating parts. You also avoid having to buy third party handguards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 12:15:00 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a forging... Not only that. It should be cheaper to make because you have fewer mating parts. You also avoid having to buy third party handguards. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Agreed. Why are some company names listed but others aren't. The listed companies are the only 4 to make the final downselect. Think about this the Colt bid was $14 million. H&K was $26 million. Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins.
Why would it cost more? 6940 is a monolithic design made from bar stock 7075. The difference in machining/materials is, in a word, "yuuuge". Turning a big block of aluminum into a single piece upper takes a lot more CNC machine time than machining a separate upper and handguard, not to mention they have to order the materials in larger pieces, while the majority of the material is cut away and either trashed, or recycled. There's a reason a lot of companies are making new designs based around 60-series aluminum extrusions instead of machining them from bar stock 7075; it's cheaper.
It's a forging... Not only that. It should be cheaper to make because you have fewer mating parts. You also avoid having to buy third party handguards. Okay, so I do have to explain this.
Colt has a limited number of CNC machines. Running them is fairly expensive. Making one 6940 receiver takes up that CNC machine for something close to double the amount of time it would take to machine a separate receiver and handguard.(Estimated based on input from someone in the industry who makes monolithic uppers, I'm not entirely certain on how long it takes Colt to make them) Those machines being used to make those 6940 receivers put out finished products at a much slower rate. That means it takes longer to fill a gov't order, and those machines can't be used to make products for the civilian market until the order is filled, IE, lost revenue. By the way, if the separate handguards are being made with 60-series aluminum, they can be made much easier/faster. Anyone know if the 416's quad rail is 70-series or 60-series aluminum? I know aftermarket handguards are 60-series. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 12:27:54 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay, so I do have to explain this.
Colt has a limited number of CNC machines. Running them is fairly expensive. Making one 6940 receiver takes up that CNC machine for something close to double the amount of time it would take to machine a separate receiver and handguard.(Estimated based on input from someone in the industry who makes monolithic uppers, I'm not entirely certain on how long it takes Colt to make them) Those machines being used to make those 6940 receivers put out finished products at a much slower rate. That means it takes longer to fill a gov't order, and those machines can't be used to make products for the civilian market until the order is filled, IE, lost revenue. By the way, if the separate handguards are being made with 60-series aluminum, they can be made much easier/faster. Anyone know if the 416's quad rail is 70-series or 60-series aluminum? I know aftermarket handguards are 60-series. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Agreed. Why are some company names listed but others aren't. The listed companies are the only 4 to make the final downselect. Think about this the Colt bid was $14 million. H&K was $26 million. Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins.
Why would it cost more? 6940 is a monolithic design made from bar stock 7075. The difference in machining/materials is, in a word, "yuuuge". Turning a big block of aluminum into a single piece upper takes a lot more CNC machine time than machining a separate upper and handguard, not to mention they have to order the materials in larger pieces, while the majority of the material is cut away and either trashed, or recycled. There's a reason a lot of companies are making new designs based around 60-series aluminum extrusions instead of machining them from bar stock 7075; it's cheaper.
It's a forging... Not only that. It should be cheaper to make because you have fewer mating parts. You also avoid having to buy third party handguards. Okay, so I do have to explain this.
Colt has a limited number of CNC machines. Running them is fairly expensive. Making one 6940 receiver takes up that CNC machine for something close to double the amount of time it would take to machine a separate receiver and handguard.(Estimated based on input from someone in the industry who makes monolithic uppers, I'm not entirely certain on how long it takes Colt to make them) Those machines being used to make those 6940 receivers put out finished products at a much slower rate. That means it takes longer to fill a gov't order, and those machines can't be used to make products for the civilian market until the order is filled, IE, lost revenue. By the way, if the separate handguards are being made with 60-series aluminum, they can be made much easier/faster. Anyone know if the 416's quad rail is 70-series or 60-series aluminum? I know aftermarket handguards are 60-series. Having been employed for a few years at a company that makes AR's....I think I know my way around a production machine shop. The monolithic FORGINGs do not require you to hog out material like bar stock. Are you a DCMA 1910? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 12:43:39 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having been employed for a few years at a company that makes AR's....I think I know my way around a production machine shop. The monolithic FORGINGs do not require you to hog out material like bar stock. Are you a DCMA 1910? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Agreed. Why are some company names listed but others aren't. The listed companies are the only 4 to make the final downselect. Think about this the Colt bid was $14 million. H&K was $26 million. Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins.
Why would it cost more? 6940 is a monolithic design made from bar stock 7075. The difference in machining/materials is, in a word, "yuuuge". Turning a big block of aluminum into a single piece upper takes a lot more CNC machine time than machining a separate upper and handguard, not to mention they have to order the materials in larger pieces, while the majority of the material is cut away and either trashed, or recycled. There's a reason a lot of companies are making new designs based around 60-series aluminum extrusions instead of machining them from bar stock 7075; it's cheaper.
It's a forging... Not only that. It should be cheaper to make because you have fewer mating parts. You also avoid having to buy third party handguards. Okay, so I do have to explain this.
Colt has a limited number of CNC machines. Running them is fairly expensive. Making one 6940 receiver takes up that CNC machine for something close to double the amount of time it would take to machine a separate receiver and handguard.(Estimated based on input from someone in the industry who makes monolithic uppers, I'm not entirely certain on how long it takes Colt to make them) Those machines being used to make those 6940 receivers put out finished products at a much slower rate. That means it takes longer to fill a gov't order, and those machines can't be used to make products for the civilian market until the order is filled, IE, lost revenue. By the way, if the separate handguards are being made with 60-series aluminum, they can be made much easier/faster. Anyone know if the 416's quad rail is 70-series or 60-series aluminum? I know aftermarket handguards are 60-series. Having been employed for a few years at a company that makes AR's....I think I know my way around a production machine shop. The monolithic FORGINGs do not require you to hog out material like bar stock. Are you a DCMA 1910? Nope, I work with steel for a living. Ah, sorry. I was under the impression that Colt did all the machining in-house from forged bar stock, disregard. I remember hearing that someone made monolithic uppers from solid bar stock... Who the hell was that? Eugh, my memory's going to shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 12:57:07 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
This is part 1. I hope to attain additional information regarding this trial at a later date, until then. Enjoy. Takeaway....DI is as reliable as pistons in Class I and II stoppages. Colt proposal B was the IAR we have all seen weighing 9.5lbs. http://i.imgur.com/JWrG5kzh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dpB0N8t.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UmtmBA3.jpg Colt proposal B is the second Colt. http://www.apacheclips.com/boards/attachment.php?attachmentid=791&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1270570780 So, let's look at this a different way - numbers of failures per magazine and number of magazines between failures. This test was 3000 rounds or 100 magazines. I'll round these off a bit for clarity: 1 = one failure per 50 rounds = one failure per two magazines. 2 = one failure per 107 rounds = one failure per four magazines. 3 = one failure per 130 rounds = one failure per five magazines. 4 = one failure per 38 rounds = one failure per two magazines. 5 = one failure per 77 rounds = one failure per three magazines. 6 = one failure per 250 rounds = one failure per nine magazines. 7 = one failure per 111 rounds = one failure per four magazines. 8 = one failure per 124 rounds = can't even get through a single magazine! 9 = one failure per 115 rounds = one failure per four magazines. This puts the numbers into terms more people can readily understand. Keep in mind they never fired more than 600 rounds without clean and lube. In my mind, all of these weapons exhibited horrible performance. Number 6 is the only rifle that could statistically get through an 8 mag loadout without a failure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 1:05:24 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins. Replaced with G rails last I saw pics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 1:06:45 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about accuracy, barrel life, rapid fire till catastrophic failure, function with a suppressor, etc.? I don't even know if any of that was tested, but there's got to be more relevant data out there than just class I and II stoppages, right? The contract had to have been awarded on more than just MRBS. Everyone is acting like this is some condemnation of the HK IAR and the Colt is equal for less money, but we don't know any of the other deciding criteria. If the HK was twice as accurate, could go twice as many rounds non-stop before blowing up, had a barrel that needed to be changed half as often, and didn't go insanely cyclic with a can, it makes sense why it won. This is such a small piece of the pie and just rationalizing HK haters who would hate the gun regardless. Need more data. The HK hits 1100 RPM suppressed. The -212 Surefire came to be because the -K can had too much backpressure for the 416 and it choked them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 1:30:34 AM EDT
[#47]
OK so who knows who the unnamed competitors are?
Anyone know the difference between the first and second Colt entry? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 1:31:56 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope, I work with steel for a living. Ah, sorry. I was under the impression that Colt did all the machining in-house from forged bar stock, disregard. I remember hearing that someone made monolithic uppers from solid bar stock... Who the hell was that? Eugh, my memory's going to shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Agreed. Why are some company names listed but others aren't. The listed companies are the only 4 to make the final downselect. Think about this the Colt bid was $14 million. H&K was $26 million. Oh, I fuckin' knew it... Some motherfucker got paid off. Classic HK.
I figured the 6940 IAR and 416 IAR were both about even for reliability, but I didn't know Colt undercut HK by nearly half. The funny thing is, the 6940 is more expensive to produce than the 416!
The entire upper receiver, handguard and all, is machined from a single piece of bar stock 7075 T6, with the bottom rail of the handguard made removable for maintenance/M203 attachment. Takes a hell of a lot of machine time to do that, not even counting the heat sink and folding FSB. And according to Chris Bartocci, Colt is probably discontinuing the 6940 at some point in the near future due to the limited profit margins.
Why would it cost more? 6940 is a monolithic design made from bar stock 7075. The difference in machining/materials is, in a word, "yuuuge". Turning a big block of aluminum into a single piece upper takes a lot more CNC machine time than machining a separate upper and handguard, not to mention they have to order the materials in larger pieces, while the majority of the material is cut away and either trashed, or recycled. There's a reason a lot of companies are making new designs based around 60-series aluminum extrusions instead of machining them from bar stock 7075; it's cheaper.
It's a forging... Not only that. It should be cheaper to make because you have fewer mating parts. You also avoid having to buy third party handguards. Okay, so I do have to explain this.
Colt has a limited number of CNC machines. Running them is fairly expensive. Making one 6940 receiver takes up that CNC machine for something close to double the amount of time it would take to machine a separate receiver and handguard.(Estimated based on input from someone in the industry who makes monolithic uppers, I'm not entirely certain on how long it takes Colt to make them) Those machines being used to make those 6940 receivers put out finished products at a much slower rate. That means it takes longer to fill a gov't order, and those machines can't be used to make products for the civilian market until the order is filled, IE, lost revenue. By the way, if the separate handguards are being made with 60-series aluminum, they can be made much easier/faster. Anyone know if the 416's quad rail is 70-series or 60-series aluminum? I know aftermarket handguards are 60-series. Having been employed for a few years at a company that makes AR's....I think I know my way around a production machine shop. The monolithic FORGINGs do not require you to hog out material like bar stock. Are you a DCMA 1910? Nope, I work with steel for a living. Ah, sorry. I was under the impression that Colt did all the machining in-house from forged bar stock, disregard. I remember hearing that someone made monolithic uppers from solid bar stock... Who the hell was that? Eugh, my memory's going to shit.  steel firearms...what's not to love about steel!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 2:53:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure I believe Pmags remove the wear. Given the shallow chamfer of the forcing cone in the chamber face I don't see Pmags removing the bullet tip striking the corner of that chamfer...Which is the main issue. I have both Pmags and EPMs and they're feed angle and bullet presentation is identical enough to be not discernable. I don't disagree the EPMs feed angle is an infringement of Magpul PMAG Patents. I can say with a very high degree of certainty that in Government testing Gen 3 PMAGs are more reliable than EPM. I can say with a very high degree of certainty that the Army cannot purchase PMAGs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2017 3:05:01 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
H&k is on similar footing with the German government, on top of that we do have to deal with importing parts which could be a problem in a time of war. Both companies have financial issues right now. FNH-USA/whatever could take over the contract from COLT without so much as a hickup. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
