Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:21:39 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:28:04 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:44:19 PM EDT
Only source I have found for that story is RRA.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:48:03 PM EDT
AFAIK, they didn't fail.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:51:28 PM EDT
Here is some background on the test, but not why anyone "failed"

DEA Test parameters
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:58:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 4:05:19 PM EDT
I have heard (as in not proven fact), that no one failed, Colt and SIG just didn't get a new big contract. RRA received a new large scale contract, while SIG and Colt received contracts that were continuations of their old ones.

This is supposedly why Colt and SIG had much higher numbers in their contracts even though RRA received the largest order from this particular contract award.

Who knows though.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 4:11:32 PM EDT
Looks to me that all three contracts were new ones:

www.usdoj.gov/jmd/pe/contractlist.htm

I wrote that Connie Jones for details, never heard back.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 4:43:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By redfisher:
Here is some background on the test, but not why anyone "failed"

DEA Test parameters



So, this seems to imply what I had heard and mentioned but gives no details.

FWIW, I'm not out to prove Sig or Colt make bad rifles (It appears they did better than some of the other samples done in the testing). I merely want to know the skinny on this particular testing that was done.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 5:31:52 PM EDT

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


Probably their cost when compared to RRA.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 5:35:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4Madness:

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


Probably their cost when compared to RRA.

That's what I always thought. No knock on RRA though. But they could knock off with the "monkey with a dremel" ramps.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 5:35:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 5:36:42 PM EDT by ColSanders]

Originally Posted By M4Madness:

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


Probably their cost when compared to RRA.



That doesn't make sense because they were still awarded a contract, yet it specifically says in the article and from other sources I've heard that the other two were given do-overs and subsequently awarded contracts.

If they didn't want to award them contracts, they had an "excuse" not to, but they still gave them contracts.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 5:50:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColSanders:

Originally Posted By M4Madness:

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


Probably their cost when compared to RRA.



That doesn't make sense because they were still awarded a contract, yet it specifically says in the article and from other sources I've heard that the other two were given do-overs and subsequently awarded contracts.

If they didn't want to award them contracts, they had an "excuse" not to, but they still gave them contracts.



What "other sources"? The source for that article is RRA.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 5:53:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By ColSanders:

Originally Posted By M4Madness:

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


Probably their cost when compared to RRA.



That doesn't make sense because they were still awarded a contract, yet it specifically says in the article and from other sources I've heard that the other two were given do-overs and subsequently awarded contracts.

If they didn't want to award them contracts, they had an "excuse" not to, but they still gave them contracts.



What "other sources"? The source for that article is RRA.



Well, I don't have a link or anything but I have just read stuff in the past. Obviously I was looking for more concrete proof or whatever. If I knew the whole scoop I wouldn't have asked the question would I?
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 6:17:11 PM EDT
This is the only info I have seen that comes from a source other then RRA:


Originally Posted By regalgseguy:
Bottom line was RRA finished ALL the testing without breaking down and needing a "second Chance"...no other rifle can claim that. Look, I'm not trying to say RRA is better than Colt. It just seems like there's a bunch of Colt fanatics who beleive that if you buy anything other than a Colt you are compromising on relibility. I just think the DEA/FBI carbine trials go a long way in dispelling this myth. When I read the test results put out by the Government (not RRA) on the carbine trials it sold me.



archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260375&page=5

I have a sneaky feeling the poster was bluffing though.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 6:19:23 PM EDT
This is all speculation on my part, but it sounds like Colt, Sig, and RRA all passed, but RRA was the lowest bidder. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but that's just what it looks like.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 6:38:38 PM EDT
This guy seems to have the inside scoop, named more names here:


Originally Posted By regalgseguy:
The FBI/DEA beat the crap out of some RRA, Bushmasters, Colt, Armalite. Guess who was the only one who finished without breaking? Rock River Arms. Colt had to resubmit some rifles and they passed also. Bushmaster??? Well, they aparently pulled out of the trials. This is not to say that the Bushy is not a good rifle for civilian use. You and I will never abuse our rifles like the DEA/FBI did when they were looking for a new carbine. However, after reading all the details of the testing process above, I was very impressed with the RRA. I bought the Tactical Entry Model with chrome lined barrel. Very happy with my decision.



www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=262806&page=2

Link Posted: 3/3/2006 6:51:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 7:03:08 PM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
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
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 6:58:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ekie:
This guy seems to have the inside scoop, named more names here:


Originally Posted By regalgseguy:
The FBI/DEA beat the crap out of some RRA, Bushmasters, Colt, Armalite. Guess who was the only one who finished without breaking? Rock River Arms. Colt had to resubmit some rifles and they passed also. Bushmaster??? Well, they aparently pulled out of the trials. This is not to say that the Bushy is not a good rifle for civilian use. You and I will never abuse our rifles like the DEA/FBI did when they were looking for a new carbine.p However, after reading all the details of the testing process above, I was very impressed with the RRA. I bought the Tactical Entry Model with chrome lined barrel. Very happy with my decision.



www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=262806&page=2




He's full of shit. He was no closer to the test than you or I.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:03:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
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 failed 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



Just for clarification I used the word "failed" because they did "fail" at something although that failure led to an eventual finish, it still had a setback of some sort in the trial and I din't know how else to word it other than "failed".

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:04:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 7:07:48 PM EDT by ColSanders]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Ekie:
This guy seems to have the inside scoop, named more names here:


Originally Posted By regalgseguy:
The FBI/DEA beat the crap out of some RRA, Bushmasters, Colt, Armalite. Guess who was the only one who finished without breaking? Rock River Arms. Colt had to resubmit some rifles and they passed also. Bushmaster??? Well, they aparently pulled out of the trials. This is not to say that the Bushy is not a good rifle for civilian use. You and I will never abuse our rifles like the DEA/FBI did when they were looking for a new carbine.p However, after reading all the details of the testing process above, I was very impressed with the RRA. I bought the Tactical Entry Model with chrome lined barrel. Very happy with my decision.



www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=262806&page=2




He's full of shit. He was no closer to the test than you or I.



The question is, how do I believe you over him (or vise versa)? It's your word against his.

It's not the first time I have read that that was the case, but I was hoping we could get some more solid info. All of the info I have read (although it's still not 100% conclusive) seems to lean with to what I had heard previsouly though...
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:13:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 7:15:47 PM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By ColSanders:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
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 failed 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



Just for clarification I used the word "failed" because they did "fail" at something although that failure led to an eventual finish, it still had a setback of some sort in the trial and I din't know how else to word it other than "failed".

Sorry for the misunderstanding.



This is unverified so take it with a grain of salt: SIG withdrew because they locked up their portion of the contract by offering a great bid price on 55x carbines bundled with their beefy DHS/DOJ/DEA/FBI pistol award

Colt didnt have the same luxury so they had to go to the end. Do-over options are common in .mil and .gov weapon testing

Also RRA wasnt the lowest bidder and they actually have the smallest portion of the contract by about 24%
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:15:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
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



Did chew it, but having trouble swallowing that one. If SIG withdrew then how did they get a contract? And if it was not SIG that passed the endurance test with RRA and Colt, then why did that out fit not get a contract?

You have a source for any of that?
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:19:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By ColSanders:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
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 failed 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



Just for clarification I used the word "failed" because they did "fail" at something although that failure led to an eventual finish, it still had a setback of some sort in the trial and I din't know how else to word it other than "failed".

Sorry for the misunderstanding.



This is unverified so take it with a grain of salt: SIG withdrew because they locked up their portion of the contract by offering a great bid price on 55x carbines bundled with their beefy DHS/DOJ/DEA/FBI pistol award

Colt didnt have the same luxury so they had to go to the end. Do-over options are common in .mil and .gov weapon testing

Also RRA wasnt the lowest bidder and they actually have the smallest portion of the contract by about 24%



Now even more confused.

I called RRA myself to ask about this topic. Was told that all three qualified, all three got contracts. SIG and Colt's made deliveries, but that RRA's are making up the bulk of current orders.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:33:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 7:34:25 PM EDT by ColSanders]
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.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 8:18:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By regalgseguy:
The FBI/DEA beat the crap out of some RRA, Bushmasters, Colt, Armalite. Guess who was the only one who finished without breaking? Rock River Arms. Colt had to resubmit some rifles and they passed also. Bushmaster??? Well, they aparently pulled out of the trials. This is not to say that the Bushy is not a good rifle for civilian use. You and I will never abuse our rifles like the DEA/FBI did when they were looking for a new carbine. However, after reading all the details of the testing process above, I was very impressed with the RRA. I bought the Tactical Entry Model with chrome lined barrel. Very happy with my decision.



According to S.W.A.T. magazine, Blackwater issues the Bushmaster exclusively, and they have been very pleased with the performance of their rifles in Iraq and other hot-spots the world over. I think RRA just made more noise about getting the contract than everybody else .
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 11:23:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 11:26:37 PM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:

Originally Posted By regalgseguy:
The FBI/DEA beat the crap out of some RRA, Bushmasters, Colt, Armalite. Guess who was the only one who finished without breaking? Rock River Arms. Colt had to resubmit some rifles and they passed also. Bushmaster??? Well, they aparently pulled out of the trials. This is not to say that the Bushy is not a good rifle for civilian use. You and I will never abuse our rifles like the DEA/FBI did when they were looking for a new carbine. However, after reading all the details of the testing process above, I was very impressed with the RRA. I bought the Tactical Entry Model with chrome lined barrel. Very happy with my decision.



According to S.W.A.T. magazine, Blackwater issues the Bushmaster exclusively, and they have been very pleased with the performance of their rifles in Iraq and other hot-spots the world over. I think RRA just made more noise about getting the contract than everybody else .



And WTF does the DEA/FBI/DOJ/DHS do with their RRA carbines? Wipe them down with cotton balls and leave them in the safe waiting to collect dust.

And when you get a Government-wide, 5 year contract for $85,923,935.00, after only making AR15's a couple of years, you're entitled to some chest beating. Notice how hard it is to find RRA products after the DEA contract.

For anyone interested in hard numbers here is how it played out:

DEA-03-C-0030 - Estimated $115,142,537.00
CARBINE RIFLE
Sigarms, Inc., 18 Industrial Drive, Exeter, N. H. 03833

DEA-03-C-0032 - Estimated $85,923,935.00
CARBINE RIFLE
Rock River Arms, Inc., 1042 Cleveland Road, Colona, Il. 61241

DEA-03-C-0031 - Estimated $113,639,340.00
CARBINE RIFLE
Colt Defense LLC, PO Box 118, Hartford, Ct. 0614

But some of the people that work for .gov have said that only RRA is doing any real volume on their portion of the contract
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:58:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ColSanders:
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.



My father is in the FBI and he says they have just started to issue LAR-15's in his office, exclusively.

He is issued a HK MP510mm but he says the FBI is getting away from the MP5's and going with LAR-15's.

I've noticed that the FBI and the DEA seem to always pick the same weapons and carry ammo from what I can tell. I've guess they share a lot of testing data with each other. Seemingly moreso than most other agencies.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 2:19:11 AM EDT
I believe that these government contracts are used to do more than just buy product. They are used as an economic tool. Sure, they could have given all of the money to Sig or Colt, but by spreading it around they are encouraging competition, which is good for the economy and for the future prices of more rifles. Also, by giving a relatively small and new company like RRA an $85 million order, they are giving that company a significant boost.
The government doesn't want to end up in a place that they can only get ARs from a single source as that will not bode well for pricing.

Mike
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:53:43 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 5:04:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By coldblue:
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 source, 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.



Respectfully, it would seem you haven't seen the "method" up close.

Half joking here, but I do wonder if the infamous "monkey with a dremel" is to thank?




and I agree that RRA has done a masterful job marketing their 'win'. Not many AR enthusiasts do not know about the RRA DEA or Government Carbine
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 7:42:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 7:45:47 AM EDT by Ekie]

Originally Posted By ColSanders:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Ekie:
This guy seems to have the inside scoop, named more names here:


Originally Posted By regalgseguy:
The FBI/DEA beat the crap out of some RRA, Bushmasters, Colt, Armalite. Guess who was the only one who finished without breaking? Rock River Arms. Colt had to resubmit some rifles and they passed also. Bushmaster??? Well, they aparently pulled out of the trials. This is not to say that the Bushy is not a good rifle for civilian use. You and I will never abuse our rifles like the DEA/FBI did when they were looking for a new carbine.p However, after reading all the details of the testing process above, I was very impressed with the RRA. I bought the Tactical Entry Model with chrome lined barrel. Very happy with my decision.



www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=262806&page=2




He's full of shit. He was no closer to the test than you or I.



The question is, how do I believe you over him (or vise versa)? It's your word against his.

It's not the first time I have read that that was the case, but I was hoping we could get some more solid info. All of the info I have read (although it's still not 100% conclusive) seems to lean with to what I had heard previsouly though...



That is how these threads go.


Originally Posted By coldblue:
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.



A highly unusual informative post in a DEA trials thread, thanks.

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.

That makes more sense then anything else I have read on the topic.

Do like the part about awarding all three contracts to avoid a protest, that is actually brilliant on the part of the .gov.

But a guy at RRA told me that thier rifles were the only still working at the end of the endurance test:


Originally Posted By Ekie:

OK, I did. The guy I talked to did not want to be quoted on ar15.com, and I forgot his name any how. What I was told that all three manufacturers passed the required standards so they were all three awarded contracts. In addition RRA is shipping large quantities, while the others have delivered like less then 200. The "hype" is in reference to the endurance test. While the other two passed minimum requirements, the three RRA Carbines were the only Carbines still functional at the end of the endurance test.



That is a little different story, unless the SP ammo some how destroyed the SIG/Colt carbines. Or perhaps this part of the story is bogus?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 7:44:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By redfisher:
Respectfully, it would seem you haven't seen the "method" up close.

Half joking here, but I do wonder if the infamous "monkey with a dremel" is to thank?

www.hunt101.com/img/373463.JPG


and I agree that RRA has done a masterful job marketing their 'win'. Not many AR enthusiasts do not know about the RRA DEA or Government Carbine



I still call BS at the idea that came from the factory like that. That whole thread had a few iffy issues, and I think that's why RRA wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:10:21 AM EDT
My limited experience with gov't contracting is in submarine building. In the 90s, with the downscaling of the fleet, the gov't tried to maintain two active sub building shipyards, NNS, Norfolk and EB, Groton. The Seawolf, which I had some contact with, was designed at NNS and built at EB, in an attempt to keep two running yards capable of building subs. It failed miserably in this particular venture, for a number of reasons.

The way I see it is that they might be keeping multiple "feet in the door" so to speak. This could do many things for them. Competition may drive prices down some. If an unforseen event causes one to go out of business, another is ready to step right in, at least in meeting the spec area.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:34:17 PM EDT
If the story had been RRA had choked during the endurance round and Colt was the only one left standing a lot less people would be opening their pie hole in protest or concern.

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:37:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 12:38:45 PM EDT by Ekie]

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
If the story had been RRA had choked during the endurance round and Colt was the only one left standing a lot less people would be opening their pie hole in protest or concern.




Duh, Colt has been conducting 6,000 round endurance tests in their facility on a routine basis with AR type rifles since 1964. And RRA was who prior to thier DEA contract?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:54:06 PM EDT
Well this topic was doing pretty good, but now I'm guessing the internet boxing gloves will be called upon.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 1:04:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 1:07:13 PM EDT by theshootersden]

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
If the story had been RRA had choked during the endurance round and Colt was the only one left standing a lot less people would be opening their pie hole in protest or concern.




Duh, Colt has been conducting 6,000 round endurance tests in their facility on a routine basis with AR type rifles since 1964. And RRA was who prior to thier DEA contract?



Fuckin A right!
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 1:19:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By olds442tyguy:
Well this topic was doing pretty good, but now I'm guessing the internet boxing gloves will be called upon.



Yeah, don't think we shall see another post from coldblue, or another with good info, so here we go.....
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 1:23:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 1:24:30 PM EDT by olds442tyguy]

Originally Posted By theshootersden:

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
If the story had been RRA had choked during the endurance round and Colt was the only one left standing a lot less people would be opening their pie hole in protest or concern.




Duh, Colt has been conducting 6,000 round endurance tests in their facility on a routine basis with AR type rifles since 1964. And RRA was who prior to thier DEA contract?



Fuckin A right!


Bah, nevermind.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 5:24:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 5:34:23 PM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
If the story had been RRA had choked during the endurance round and Colt was the only one left standing a lot less people would be opening their pie hole in protest or concern.




Duh, Colt has been conducting 6,000 round endurance tests in their facility on a routine basis with AR type rifles since 1964. And RRA was who prior to thier DEA contract?



So? What possible relevance does this have? Colt has been making 1911's for 100 years, and not by any stretch of the imagination can anyone say a current Colt 1911 is in the same class as an RRA 1911.

No matter how a person spins it, RRA was no one 5 years ago and managed to beat Colt at what it should do best. RRA has $85,000,000 of what should have been Colt's money because Colt couldnt lock down 100% of the contract. Clearly making weapons since 1964 didnt prevent that. Lets not even add the fact that Colt needed a do-over and RRA did not. Making AR15's since 1964 didnt prevent that either

If Colt is so great and infallible how did RRA manage to pull a rather large contract right out of Colt's mouth?

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:51:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 8:52:49 PM EDT by scottryan]

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By Ekie:
Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
If the story had been RRA had choked during the endurance round and Colt was the only one left standing a lot less people would be opening their pie hole in protest or concern.





If Colt is so great and infallible how did RRA manage to pull a rather large contract right out of Colt's mouth?




Huh? Rather large contract?????

Colt supplies the entire US military and half the free world with weapons.

The DEA thing is a drop in the bucket.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:04:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scottryan:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By Ekie:
Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
If the story had been RRA had choked during the endurance round and Colt was the only one left standing a lot less people would be opening their pie hole in protest or concern.





If Colt is so great and infallible how did RRA manage to pull a rather large contract right out of Colt's mouth?




Huh? Rather large contract?????

Colt supplies the entire US military and half the free world with weapons.

The DEA thing is a drop in the bucket.



When a company declares bankruptcy as often as Colt does every penny counts
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:23:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
If the story had been RRA had choked during the endurance round and Colt was the only one left standing a lot less people would be opening their pie hole in protest or concern.




Duh, Colt has been conducting 6,000 round endurance tests in their facility on a routine basis with AR type rifles since 1964. And RRA was who prior to thier DEA contract?



So? What possible relevance does this have? Colt has been making 1911's for 100 years, and not by any stretch of the imagination can anyone say a current Colt 1911 is in the same class as an RRA 1911.

No matter how a person spins it, RRA was no one 5 years ago and managed to beat Colt at what it should do best. RRA has $85,000,000 of what should have been Colt's money because Colt couldnt lock down 100% of the contract. Clearly making weapons since 1964 didnt prevent that. Lets not even add the fact that Colt needed a do-over and RRA did not. Making AR15's since 1964 didnt prevent that either

If Colt is so great and infallible how did RRA manage to pull a rather large contract right out of Colt's mouth?




Looks like your right, all that experiance don't count for nothing, when going up against the mighty RRA.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 7:25:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 7:26:07 AM EDT by metroplex]

Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
This is all speculation on my part, but it sounds like Colt, Sig, and RRA all passed, but RRA was the lowest bidder. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but that's just what it looks like.



Yes that has to be the correct answer. Colt and SIG are not cheap. I seriously doubt they can be less expensive than RRA in high volume purchase.

If you figure $800 for a civilian RRA carbine, $1000+ for a Colt, and possibly $1500+ for a SIG, you can see how RRA would win hands down as a lowest bidder. The product quantity was probably not enough to lower the prices of the Colt and SIGs enough. The DEA is big but not .MIL big when purchasing rifles.

I'm surprised the RRA DEA carbine uses a 2-stage trigger with a peened disco pin.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 7:32:05 AM EDT
I think it about prices, they had to choose betwen DPMS & RRA, the test is for moral issues only.


TG
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 8:25:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
I never put a ton of faith in any test where only a few examples of a brand are tested. This is true of cars, guns, or whatever, but it is especially true as something gets more complicated.

What tends to be much more accurate is to look across a large spectrum of examples.

----------snip------------

Of course, that costs a lot of money and time, so it's not the kind of testing that's regularly done.

-Troy

The way to get the best results you can out of a trial with few samples is to use tons of "historical data" and use the current samples to test new features. So with the huge history Colt has, even if they had a part fail, it would be simple to look at their overall failure rates for such parts and say "That's a fluke; their long term rate of failure is 0.000X% per year, so let 'em fix it and redo the test." And that would be correct because there really is nothing new under the sun, just different combinations of features and advances in materials.

I'm betting that SIG has a similar and extended history to draw on, leading to a similar (and equally valid) redo call.

Since RRA has not been in business long enough for it to build that kind of track record, a part failure for them would have been really bad, even if it was on a part supplied by some outside source. Fortunately for them, that appears not to have happened.

You can use statistical analysis to determine the significance of any failure of any part if you have a long enough history to look at. Good recordkeeping really does matter when you're trying to get business in as competitive a sector as government contracts.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 9:24:25 AM EDT
I dont understand all the RRA bashing, they did well enuff in the testing to prove they have a product that will hold up to some extreem curcumstances. It proved that it is alittle more than just a civilian rifle, is that so bad Give them a break PS, I own several brands of ARs and like them all for what they are...
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 2:29:17 PM EDT

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



Why? What difference would that make?
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 2:51:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColSanders:

Originally Posted By metroplex:
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...
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:18:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By theshootersden:

Originally Posted By ColSanders:

Originally Posted By metroplex:
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?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top