User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:28:04 PM EDT
[#1]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:44:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Only source I have found for that story is RRA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:48:03 PM EDT
[#3]
AFAIK, they didn't fail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:51:28 PM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:58:01 PM EDT
[#5]
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. In this case, look at the reputations of Colt and SIG. Both have issued the rifles in question (or models VERY close to the specified configuration) for years/decades, and both have earned a rep for being tough and reliable. In order to get a true test, you'd want to take, say, 10 rifles from each brand, and send them around the world to have them tested in real-world environments. At least, test them in desert (NTC/Ft Irwin), jungle/swamp (JRTC/Ft. Polk), and artic (CRTC/Ft. Greely). And, for good measure, test them in an urban environment, maybe police duty. THAT would give you results that you can take to the bank. Of course, that costs a lot of money and time, so it's not the kind of testing that's regularly done. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 4:05:19 PM EDT
[#6]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 4:11:32 PM EDT
[#7]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 4:43:54 PM EDT
[#8]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:31:52 PM EDT
[#9]
Probably their cost when compared to RRA. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:35:09 PM EDT
[#10]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:35:42 PM EDT
[#11]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:50:05 PM EDT
[#12]
What "other sources"? The source for that article is RRA. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:53:43 PM EDT
[#13]
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? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:17:11 PM EDT
[#14]
This is the only info I have seen that comes from a source other then RRA:
archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260375&page=5 I have a sneaky feeling the poster was bluffing though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:19:23 PM EDT
[#15]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:38:38 PM EDT
[#16]
This guy seems to have the inside scoop, named more names here:
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=262806&page=2 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:51:57 PM EDT
[#17]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:58:35 PM EDT
[#18]
He's full of shit. He was no closer to the test than you or I. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:03:33 PM EDT
[#19]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:04:33 PM EDT
[#20]
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... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:13:04 PM EDT
[#21]
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% |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:15:48 PM EDT
[#22]
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? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:19:03 PM EDT
[#23]
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. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:33:50 PM EDT
[#24]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 8:18:46 PM EDT
[#25]
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 .
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 11:23:15 PM EDT
[#26]
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 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 12:58:35 AM EDT
[#27]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 2:19:11 AM EDT
[#28]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 4:53:43 AM EDT
[#29]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 5:04:36 AM EDT
[#30]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 7:42:41 AM EDT
[#31]
That is how these threads go.
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:
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? |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 7:44:50 AM EDT
[#32]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 8:10:21 AM EDT
[#33]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 12:34:17 PM EDT
[#34]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 12:37:36 PM EDT
[#35]
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 12:54:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Well this topic was doing pretty good, but now I'm guessing the internet boxing gloves will be called upon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 1:04:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Fuckin A right! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 1:19:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Yeah, don't think we shall see another post from coldblue, or another with good info, so here we go..... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 1:23:08 PM EDT
[#39]
Bah, nevermind.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 5:24:02 PM EDT
[#40]
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? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 8:51:28 PM EDT
[#41]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 9:04:07 PM EDT
[#42]
When a company declares bankruptcy as often as Colt does every penny counts |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2006 10:23:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Looks like your right, all that experiance don't count for nothing, when going up against the mighty RRA. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 7:25:23 AM EDT
[#44]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 7:32:05 AM EDT
[#45]
I think it about prices, they had to choose betwen DPMS & RRA, the test is for moral issues only.
 TG |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 8:25:13 AM EDT
[#46]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 9:24:25 AM EDT
[#47]
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...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 2:29:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Why? What difference would that make? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 2:51:36 PM EDT
[#49]
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... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2006 4:18:28 PM EDT
[#50]
OK, but how likely is this to happen? Does anyone know of this happening? |
|||
|
|
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.
