Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/14/2003 6:06:23 PM EDT
Can anybody elaborate on the failures experienced by Bushmaster and Colt at the DEA trials? Apparently, RRA was chosen.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 6:10:35 PM EDT
BLASPHEME! I can see Bushy's recent QC probs, but COLT??? The hell you say!
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 7:29:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2003 7:31:59 PM EDT by tac17]
Actually according to the purchase info you can pull up on the net RRA was awarded a contract along with Colt, not instead of it. Sig was awarded a contract as well. [url]http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2003/07-July/04-Jul-2003/10-awd.htm[/url] The way I heard it is that you will probably never hear of the actual problems that the Bushmasters were having. They pulled themselves out of the competition to keep their issue from going public.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 5:21:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 6:37:49 AM EDT
AS BRAD REELS FROM THIS PUNISHING ROUND OF UPPERCUTS !
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 6:38:48 AM EDT
SORRY BRAD - TAC17
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 7:08:23 AM EDT
Did I read that right? Is DEA going to be spending more than $300 million on carbines?
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 7:59:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kc3: Did I read that right? Is DEA going to be spending more than $300 million on carbines?
View Quote
It's for the children!
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 3:57:17 PM EDT
Jarrod, I apologize for opening this can of worms. The testing was mentioned in another thread and I was just curious what the alleged failures were. For the record, I have no first hand knowledge of Bushmaster's participation or lack thereof in the testing.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 6:31:38 PM EDT
Not to start anything but Somebody at Bushmaster was interested in the contract or vise versa as their name is on the bidder's list Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. Percy Dieppa IT Manager 999 Roosevelt Trail Windham ME 4062 207-892-3594 207-892-8068 info@bushmaster.com Small Business RFP Number DEA-02-R-0030 Document Type: Presolicitation Notice Solicitation Number: DEA-02-R-0030 Posted Date: Jun 06, 2002 Original Response Date: Original Archive Date: Current Archive Date: Classification Code: 10 -- Weapons Contracting Office Address Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Acquisition Management, None, Washington, DC, 20537 Description The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has a requirement for .223 caliber carbine rifles capable of semi-automatic fire. The carbine rifle shall be medium weight and length and capable of accurate semi-automatic fire out to 250 meters. This weapon shall lend itself to efficient operation of all controls for both left and right handed shooters, and by both male and female shooters. SPECIFICATIONS: The rifle shall encompass, but not be limited to, the following: Caliber shall conform to the 5.56mm x 45mm NATO specifications and shall be the industry standard; standard beveled magazine; barrel length shall not be less than 9.5" nor more than 15"; maximum overall length shall be 34"with stock extended and 31" with stock retracted/folded; maximum empty weight shall not exceed 8 lbs, including the weight of one (1) empty magazine. WARRANTY: Standard five (5) year warranty. Award will be based on the proposal(s) that best meets the requirements defined in the solicitation and that is determined to be the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. Multiple awards are likely. The Government anticipates awarding a base year and four (4) twelve month option periods. Offerors will be required to provide a technical proposal, as well as information regarding their past performance history. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) number for this effort is 332994. A draft copy of the solicitation will be posted on the DEA website at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ on or about July 10, 2002 to allow potential offerors the opportunity to review the requirement and provide questions/comments regarding the solicitation. The official solicitation will be posted on or about August 7, 2002, and will be issued solely through the DEA's acquisition website. Hard copies of the solicitation will not be available. Potential offerors will be responsible for downloading their own copy of the solicitation and any amendments. It is the offeror's responsibility to monitor this website for the release of the solicitation and any amendments. Original Point of Contact Herbert Sterling, Contract Specialist, Phone 202-307-7812, Fax 202-307-4877, Email hsterling@dialup.usdoj.gov - Jason Eickenhorst, Contracting Officer, Phone 202-353-9505, Fax 202-307-4877, Email jeickenhorst@dialup.usdoj.gov Place of Performance Address: DEA Office of Training Quantico, Virginia Postal Code: 22134 Country: USA Things that make you say hmmmmm by no means am I insinuating that Bushmaster was involved in any trials for the DEA rifle. I am just reposting already free information. Dave
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 7:31:48 PM EDT
The bidder's list is [url=http://128.121.209.186/rfps/rfpsummaries/bidderslist.asp?idRFP=19&format=excel]here[/url]. I'm curious if there was a parts contract included with that contract. I can't find the detailed info that lists what the line numbers mean.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 8:07:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist:
Originally Posted By kc3: Did I read that right? Is DEA going to be spending more than $300 million on carbines?
View Quote
It's for the children!
View Quote
LOL!
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 5:18:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 7:33:22 AM EDT
Looking at the other names on the bidder's list that's what I figured Jarrod.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 7:39:21 AM EDT
Jarrod McDevitt 1-800-998-7928 Ext# .223
View Quote
Ext#.223 VERY NICE
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 8:34:17 AM EDT
From what Iv'e seen of the government so far if they chose Rock Rivers over Colt its more about it being cheap, just like those cheap ass berettas that they give to the military, but interestingly the special forces don't use them. haha
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 8:42:24 AM EDT
From the look of the numbers in the award they're buying more Colt's than RRA's, or Colt is charging more per unit. [;D]
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 8:59:30 AM EDT
Well tell me Murdoch, what are they carrying? I was pretty dam sure I saw a M9 on the triple tabed guy in my shop this morning?
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 11:03:44 AM EDT
Anyone know what configuration the DEA rifles are going to be?
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 11:17:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PSYWAR1-0: Well tell me Murdoch, what are they carrying? I was pretty dam sure I saw a M9 on the triple tabed guy in my shop this morning?
View Quote
Hehe...Oops!
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 3:16:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MurdochsM4: From what Iv'e seen of the government so far if they chose Rock Rivers over Colt its more about it being cheap, just like those cheap ass berettas that they give to the military, but interestingly the special forces don't use them. haha
View Quote
I see your a Colt snob, judging by your other posts. RRA guns work, and work well. I've owned Colt's, BM's and now RRA. All of mine functioned fine. Yes, Colts are fine guns. But I would not pay extra for the name.
Link Posted: 10/19/2003 12:28:00 AM EDT
Hey! Who cut the cheese?
Link Posted: 10/19/2003 4:05:51 AM EDT
The DEA boys in south Florida are taking shipment on RRA rifles and seem happy about the choice.
Link Posted: 10/19/2003 7:13:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Can anybody elaborate on the failures experienced by .... at the DEA trials? Apparently, RRA was chosen.
View Quote
Probably the main failure was caused by the prefered tactical round used by the DEA for the testing. Its a Federal 62 gr. Tactical Bonded round designed to mushroom like a handgun bullet, vice tumble like a FMJ. The bullets look like they are moly coated, which in my experience may allow the bullet to "set back" into the case during feeding up the feed ramp--even on "ramped guns". I say this because I shot much better accuracy groups with this tactical bonded ammo when I single loaded them, vice when I let them feed semiautomatically. And these were accurate barrels, as their (DEA's)secondary round I also tested was Federal's 69 gr. Match, and this shot 1.5 moa through a mil-spec 14.5" barrel. Problem is that these bullets are what I would also call a "round nose, lead tip" type. So I think this bullet design really pushes the M4 feed ramp design to its limit, considering that the M4/M16 design is for pointed FMJ projo's. So in my accuracy tests, the lead nose was probably being deformed in the feed-ramp area, and perhaps suffering some bullet set-back as well, which tends to widen the velocity's standard deviation. Add to this that all DEA firing was semi-auto, so this should have demonstrated the highest levels of reliability by totally eliminating full-auto/higher cyclic rate induced malfunctions, but it obviously didn't. During the DEA tests, some carbines fired the 500 round strings of 55 gr. FMJ without a problem, then experienced feeding problems with the next 500 rounds of round nose lead tipped tactical...and after x-number malfunctions, you were eliminated. Bottom line...not the kind of ammo I'd have in my gun when "going through the door" thank you. Good luck guys...
Link Posted: 10/19/2003 7:18:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By coldblue:
Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Can anybody elaborate on the failures experienced by .... at the DEA trials? Apparently, RRA was chosen.
View Quote
Probably the main failure was caused by the prefered tactical round used by the DEA for the testing. Its a Federal 62 gr. Tactical Bonded round designed to mushroom like a handgun bullet, vice tumble like a FMJ. The bullets look like they are moly coated, which in my experience may allow the bullet to "set back" into the case during feeding up the feed ramp--even on "ramped guns". I say this because I shot much better accuracy groups with this tactical bonded ammo when I single loaded them, vice when I let them feed semiautomatically. And these were accurate barrels, as their (DEA's)secondary round I also tested was Federal's 69 gr. Match, and this shot 1.5 moa through a mil-spec 14.5" barrel. Problem is that these bullets are what I would also call a "round nose, lead tip" type. So I think this bullet design really pushes the M4 feed ramp design to its limit, considering that the M4/M16 design is for pointed FMJ projo's. So in my accuracy tests, the lead nose was probably being deformed in the feed-ramp area, and perhaps suffering some bullet set-back as well, which tends to widen the velocity's standard deviation. Add to this that all DEA firing was semi-auto, so this should have demonstrated the highest levels of reliability by totally eliminating full-auto/higher cyclic rate induced malfunctions, but it obviously didn't. During the DEA tests, some carbines fired the 500 round strings of 55 gr. FMJ without a problem, then experienced feeding problems with the next 500 rounds of round nose lead tipped tactical...and after x-number malfunctions, you were eliminated. Bottom line...not the kind of ammo I'd have in my gun when "going through the door" thank you. Good luck guys...
View Quote
Thanks for the insight. So did RRA get lucky or are they doing something different with their feedramps?
Link Posted: 10/19/2003 7:22:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By coldblue:
Originally Posted By Bradd_D: Can anybody elaborate on the failures experienced by .... at the DEA trials? Apparently, RRA was chosen.
View Quote
Probably the main failure was caused by the prefered tactical round used by the DEA for the testing. Its a Federal 62 gr. Tactical Bonded round designed to mushroom like a handgun bullet, vice tumble like a FMJ. The bullets look like they are moly coated, which in my experience may allow the bullet to "set back" into the case during feeding up the feed ramp--even on "ramped guns". I say this because I shot much better accuracy groups with this tactical bonded ammo when I single loaded them, vice when I let them feed semiautomatically. And these were accurate barrels, as their (DEA's)secondary round I also tested was Federal's 69 gr. Match, and this shot 1.5 moa through a mil-spec 14.5" barrel. Problem is that these bullets are what I would also call a "round nose, lead tip" type. So I think this bullet design really pushes the M4 feed ramp design to its limit, considering that the M4/M16 design is for pointed FMJ projo's. So in my accuracy tests, the lead nose was probably being deformed in the feed-ramp area, and perhaps suffering some bullet set-back as well, which tends to widen the velocity's standard deviation. Add to this that all DEA firing was semi-auto, so this should have demonstrated the highest levels of reliability by totally eliminating full-auto/higher cyclic rate induced malfunctions, but it obviously didn't. During the DEA tests, some carbines fired the 500 round strings of 55 gr. FMJ without a problem, then experienced feeding problems with the next 500 rounds of round nose lead tipped tactical...and after x-number malfunctions, you were eliminated. Bottom line...not the kind of ammo I'd have in my gun when "going through the door" thank you. Good luck guys...
View Quote
Fellow AR15.comers, unlike 'some' of us, "coldblue" is a member who actually knows the schit about which he speaks !!
Link Posted: 10/19/2003 7:33:49 AM EDT
My RRA upper has what you'd call "inbetween" feedramps. They are not standard ones and they are not as "cutout" as the M4 feedramps.
Link Posted: 10/19/2003 9:39:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By coldblue: and perhaps suffering some bullet set-back as well, which tends to widen the velocity's standard deviation.
View Quote
Exactly and the reason why ammo intended for general service use in AR15s must have a cannelure on the bullet and a solid crimp on the case mouth. These were lessons learned decades ago by the military but somehone missed by quite a few LE agencies.
Link Posted: 10/20/2003 7:00:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MurdochsM4: From what Iv'e seen of the government so far if they chose Rock Rivers over Colt its more about it being cheap, just like those cheap ass berettas that they give to the military, but interestingly the special forces don't use them. haha
View Quote
Really? What do you consider Air Force Pararescue Jumpers? Or Army Rangers? Both use the standard issue Beretta pistols. There are other units as well... I am now in the process of trying to write a definative article on the Beretta M9 and the TRUTH about them, warts and all. If you have any credible information about failures of the M9 (slide failures or otherwise) please send it to me...
Top Top