User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 6:39:41 PM EDT
[#1]
Ironic that the "there is nothing wrong with the M4" company is now looking at improvements after they don't own the TDP and aren't going to be the sole source anymore... I respect making money but they have been a huge roadblock to improving the M-4 with their constant diatribe about how great it is and how everyone loves it...now that their cash cow is gone, it all of a sudden has room for improvement
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 7:12:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Ironic that the "there is nothing wrong with the M4" company is now looking at improvements after they don't own the TDP and aren't going to be the sole source anymore... I respect making money but they have been a huge roadblock to improving the M-4 with their constant diatribe about how great it is and how everyone loves it...now that their cash cow is gone, it all of a sudden has room for improvement WOW, this has so much fail in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 7:32:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Ironic that the "there is nothing wrong with the M4" company is now looking at improvements after they don't own the TDP and aren't going to be the sole source anymore... I respect making money but they have been a huge roadblock to improving the M-4 with their constant diatribe about how great it is and how everyone loves it...now that their cash cow is gone, it all of a sudden has room for improvement It's my understanding that Colt has proposed many improvements to the M4 over the years. I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:37:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Colt has asked to change the TDP but the USG is rarely interested.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 8:37:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Colt has asked to change the TDP but the USG is rarely interested.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 9:19:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Nothing to see here. No problem with using hot fiilty gas to drive your carrier back. Move along, pistons are just a fad, like mechanized infantry or boats that lauch airplanes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 9:22:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Nothing to see here. No problem with using hot fiilty gas to drive your carrier back. Move along, pistons are just a fad, like mechanized infantry or boats that lauch airplanes. Piston ARs are a fad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2010 9:23:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Nothing to see here. No problem with using hot fiilty gas to drive your carrier back. Move along, pistons are just a fad, like mechanized infantry or boats that lauch airplanes. Piston ARs are a fad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 12:21:14 AM EDT
[#9]
The army wants a reliability upgrade to the M4 and a piston is a likely choice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 12:44:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing to see here. No problem with using hot fiilty gas to drive your carrier back. Move along, pistons are just a fad, like mechanized infantry or boats that lauch airplanes. Piston ARs are a fad. You do know that you are in the piston section of the forum, right? -Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 6:20:44 AM EDT
[#11]
Yeah. I hadn't realized until yesterday that there was such a thing.
I'm not opposed to pistons in other guns but it's unecessary in an AR and comes with its own set of issues. The round carrier is a bigger problem than DI ever could be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 6:48:07 AM EDT
[#12]
Colt has had Piston AR's. But have not been brought to market.
I think this is from the pressure of HK getting(maybe not) the USMC contract for a new squad gunner weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 8:28:09 AM EDT
[#13]
Colt only takes the position of 'nothing wrong with the M4' whenever the Army is asking. Colt has the only contract to produce the M4 for the army right now, so whenever uncle moneybags is asking 'OH YUS SUH, OUR GUNZ R GREAT LOL'
however, as another poster pointed out, with HK pushing deep into the special operation world, Colt is seeing where the future of the AR platform is going... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 8:56:31 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Yeah. I hadn't realized until yesterday that there was such a thing. I'm not opposed to pistons in other guns but it's unecessary in an AR and comes with its own set of issues. The round carrier is a bigger problem than DI ever could be. And why is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 9:22:29 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Colt only takes the position of 'nothing wrong with the M4' whenever the Army is asking. Colt has the only contract to produce the M4 for the army right now, so whenever uncle moneybags is asking 'OH YUS SUH, OUR GUNZ R GREAT LOL' however, as another poster pointed out, with HK pushing deep into the special operation world, Colt is seeing where the future of the AR platform is going... I really don't believe that this is the case. A similar thing happened with the M9 trials. The military wanted a new handgun and when the subject of replacing old 1911s with new 1911s came up, Colt said "Let us update the TDP, it is outdated with regard to manufacturing processes." They didn't say "You should give us more money because our 'guns r great lol'."  You ignore many suggested improvements to the M4 - that came from Colt - rejected by the military. I would like to know where your information came from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 9:29:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Ironic that the "there is nothing wrong with the M4" company is now looking at improvements after they don't own the TDP and aren't going to be the sole source anymore... I respect making money but they have been a huge roadblock to improving the M-4 with their constant diatribe about how great it is and how everyone loves it...now that their cash cow is gone, it all of a sudden has room for improvement You do know that you're completely incorrect? Colt owns the M16 TDP and the M4 Addendum. You do realize that they are still the sole source provider for the US military for the M4 carbine. You do realize that Colt has contracts with over 80 countries worldwide? You do realize that Colt has tried to implement multiple improvements to the M4 carbine (such as hammer forged barrels) but has been denied by the government. You did know all that, correct? You were just being obtuse and trolling, correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 9:52:56 AM EDT
[#17]
I think that in the future ,we will not here any more that AR piston suck,and DI is better because Colt is making them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 10:06:51 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing to see here. No problem with using hot fiilty gas to drive your carrier back. Move along, pistons are just a fad, like mechanized infantry or boats that lauch airplanes. Piston ARs are a fad. You do know that you are in the piston section of the forum, right? -Ed He's just another troll in a series of trolls with nothing better to do but come to the piston section and look for someone they can argue with. Pathetic really, just like saying piston is a fad after it's been around for so many years now in AR's and only growing in number and interest. That Colt has looked to move into piston is predictable since they can't change the fact that more people look to go into that direction hurting their bottom line and I'm sure there will be more who were previously sticking to their DI guns and talking shit. I know I won't be buying one from them and any other holdout when there are such excellent choices out there already who've been at it and dedicated to it from the start. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 10:13:26 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nothing to see here. No problem with using hot fiilty gas to drive your carrier back. Move along, pistons are just a fad, like mechanized infantry or boats that lauch airplanes. Piston ARs are a fad. You do know that you are in the piston section of the forum, right? -Ed He's just another troll in a series of trolls with nothing better to do but come to the piston section and look for someone they can argue with. Pathetic really, just like saying piston is a fad after it's been around for so many years now in AR's and only growing in number and interest. That Colt has looked to move into piston is predictable since they can't change the fact that more people look to go into that direction hurting their bottom line and I'm sure there will be more who were previously sticking to their DI guns and talking shit. I know I won't be buying one from them and any other holdout when there are such excellent choices out there already who've been at it and dedicated to it from the start. Actually, like me, he came here because he was probably browsing Active or Newest Topics and didn't see the subforum location. Colt has had a piston/op-rod design for several years now, AFAIK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 10:29:19 AM EDT
[#20]
Colt has had a piston/op-rod design for several years now, AFAIK.
Yep I know, they've just withheld putting it out. I can't remember how long it's been since info and photo's where first released on it, but if I remember right it was made for Army competition in looking at new issue rifles. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 10:35:23 AM EDT
[#21]
Looks like an Adams Arms Gas block with a folding sight built into it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 10:47:05 AM EDT
[#22]
All you people suggesting Colt is the reason behind not adopting a piston driven weapon obviously haven't dealt with Govt. contracts.
I work for a company that does lots of Govt. work and we are still using designs and manufacturing processes dating back to the 1960's and 1970's. With new technology, we could make a more reliable and cheaper rocket engine, but the Govt's position is they want exactly what was designed decades ago because it worked then and they don't want anything but that old design since it has a proven track record. Before all you know it all's start running your mouths about something you have no clue about, I would suggest educating yourselves about who came up with the requirements for the weapon that became the M4 carbine, here's a hint, it wasn't Colt. Edit: That said, I do rememeber at 2008 SHOT, when I asked the Colt rep whether or not the piston design was going to go into production, his answer was an emphatic NO. He proceeded to talk down to me asking me why they would do that since there is no benefit of a piston system over DI. Perhaps in some ways he is correct, I really don't know, but I looked at him like this  and walked away wondering how a company can put somebody out as a spokesperson who has no customer realation skills whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 11:00:23 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah. I hadn't realized until yesterday that there was such a thing. I'm not opposed to pistons in other guns but it's unecessary in an AR and comes with its own set of issues. The round carrier is a bigger problem than DI ever could be. And why is that? Too much bearing surface, and forgings are a production bottleneck. The m4 should have a hammered and nitrided mid length barrel, a KAC E3 bolt and pmags.and a larue 10.0. That's all it needs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 12:10:53 PM EDT
[#24]
Cool rolled-up sleeves on the Colt armorer. Colt Pythons!!!!
I noticed the posters on UCT coatings. Is Colt planning to use more Fail Zero? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 3:40:28 PM EDT
[#25]
I could weigh in with another note, these colt improvements that the government has denied ultimately came back to cost. When you're talking about buying a quarter of a million rifles, or upgrades for the existing arsenal, 300 dollar barrels and 500 dollar piston drop ins immediately drop government attention due to cost x demand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 4:22:26 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Cool rolled-up sleeves on the Colt armorer. Colt Pythons!!!! That's Ken Elmore from SAW. Good dude! Very knowledgeable. http://www.specializedarmament.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 4:23:46 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: I could weigh in with another note, these colt improvements that the government has denied ultimately came back to cost. When you're talking about buying a quarter of a million rifles, or upgrades for the existing arsenal, 300 dollar barrels and 500 dollar piston drop ins immediately drop government attention due to cost x demand. On the large scale, hammer forged barrels are cheaper to produce. Because Colt already has the tooling, there would be no additional cost. Again, where is your information coming from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 5:07:16 PM EDT
[#28]
Info comes directly from my own line of brass (i'm in the army right now, 11b, keep my ears open).
Here in the real world, yes they are cheaper. But if you know anything about how the private sector works with the government, you'd know right off the top of your head there's a 200% markup on everything they sell to the government. The army literally spends $45 per 6-pack of coca cola in-theater because of the markup costs through KBR, for example. Weapons are the one thing the army must always have, thus it makes sense for the vendors to demand a greater price structure for their contracts. If you examine how many M4's are in the current Colt contract through 2012, or whatever the year is, and look up their quarterly revenue, specifically on government sales, you can do the math, the markup is there, and it's probably not going to go away. Not calling Colt out, because FN does the same thing. An M240b, for example, cost some $25,000 new from FN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 6:25:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Info comes directly from my own line of brass (i'm in the army right now, 11b, keep my ears open). Here in the real world, yes they are cheaper. But if you know anything about how the private sector works with the government, you'd know right off the top of your head there's a 200% markup on everything they sell to the government. The army literally spends $45 per 6-pack of coca cola in-theater because of the markup costs through KBR, for example. Weapons are the one thing the army must always have, thus it makes sense for the vendors to demand a greater price structure for their contracts. If you examine how many M4's are in the current Colt contract through 2012, or whatever the year is, and look up their quarterly revenue, specifically on government sales, you can do the math, the markup is there, and it's probably not going to go away. Not calling Colt out, because FN does the same thing. An M240b, for example, cost some $25,000 new from FN. The government pays something like $585 for every M4. Your "sources" aren't doing you any favors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 6:53:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Info comes directly from my own line of brass (i'm in the army right now, 11b, keep my ears open). Here in the real world, yes they are cheaper. But if you know anything about how the private sector works with the government, you'd know right off the top of your head there's a 200% markup on everything they sell to the government. The army literally spends $45 per 6-pack of coca cola in-theater because of the markup costs through KBR, for example. Weapons are the one thing the army must always have, thus it makes sense for the vendors to demand a greater price structure for their contracts. If you examine how many M4's are in the current Colt contract through 2012, or whatever the year is, and look up their quarterly revenue, specifically on government sales, you can do the math, the markup is there, and it's probably not going to go away. Not calling Colt out, because FN does the same thing. An M240b, for example, cost some $25,000 new from FN. The government pays something like $585 for every M4. Your "sources" aren't doing you any favors. This. Besides, the money spent on small arms improvements pale in comparison to the money spent on F-22's and ballistic missile subs. In fact we are talking about SMALL arms and the DOD attitude is they are good enough. If more lethality is needed there is fighters and artillery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 8:30:15 PM EDT
[#31]
The government does NOT pay under 600 for an M4. That's laughable. Oh civvies. <3
But yeah, the F22 is a great example of the hypocrisy of government justification. They apparently needed to invest billions to fight our imaginary air adversaries, when grunts like me are stuck with a DGI M4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 9:00:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
The government does NOT pay under 600 for an M4. That's laughable. Oh civvies. <3 But yeah, the F22 is a great example of the hypocrisy of government justification. They apparently needed to invest billions to fight our imaginary air adversaries, when grunts like me are stuck with a DGI M4. The price of M4s varies based on configuration and bid package but I've seen prices of less than $600 for basic M4s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2010 9:39:28 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: The government does NOT pay under 600 for an M4. That's laughable. Oh civvies. <3 But yeah, the F22 is a great example of the hypocrisy of government justification. They apparently needed to invest billions to fight our imaginary air adversaries, when grunts like me are stuck with a DGI M4. Actually, they do. I'm not a "civvy"; I'm a Navy Corpsman with a year in Fallujah with a Marine PSD platoon. Being in the military - as evidenced by your own woeful lack of hard data - does not mean that you know technical details about weapons or weapons procurement. You have been wrong about nearly everything you have posted in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2010 5:34:05 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Info comes directly from my own line of brass (i'm in the army right now, 11b, keep my ears open). Here in the real world, yes they are cheaper. But if you know anything about how the private sector works with the government, you'd know right off the top of your head there's a 200% markup on everything they sell to the government. The army literally spends $45 per 6-pack of coca cola in-theater because of the markup costs through KBR, for example. Weapons are the one thing the army must always have, thus it makes sense for the vendors to demand a greater price structure for their contracts. If you examine how many M4's are in the current Colt contract through 2012, or whatever the year is, and look up their quarterly revenue, specifically on government sales, you can do the math, the markup is there, and it's probably not going to go away. Not calling Colt out, because FN does the same thing. An M240b, for example, cost some $25,000 new from FN. 
I have never seen a post more deserving this flag. I don't believe the $45 Coke six packs either. I was in the Marines for five years and some of the bullshit that got floated and then repeated as fact always amazed me. You need to double check your sources. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2010 6:59:52 AM EDT
[#35]
Vuurwapen is right I jusd to be a firearms instructor in the air force and I saw the equipment listing when our new M4s came in and they were sub $600 with M68 and KA rails.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2010 8:57:13 AM EDT
[#36]
The real deal is one day, based on whatever they want, Colt will announce that the piston will save lives and be awarded a contract to fix all our woes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2010 4:55:41 PM EDT
[#37]
As far as the coke thing goes, and i can't believe i actually have to use michael moore's products as a reference, but he *did* point out how the KBR contracts work... the more they spend, the more they get paid.
And frankly, that's a lot more believable than a $500 M4 from COLT. Brains? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2010 6:19:25 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: As far as the coke thing goes, and i can't believe i actually have to use michael moore's products as a reference, but he *did* point out how the KBR contracts work... the more they spend, the more they get paid. And frankly, that's a lot more believable than a $500 M4 from COLT. Brains? What you want or do not want to believe is completely irrelevant. How long have you been out of OSUT? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2010 6:44:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
As far as the coke thing goes, and i can't believe i actually have to use michael moore's products as a reference, but he *did* point out how the KBR contracts work... the more they spend, the more they get paid. And frankly, that's a lot more believable than a $500 M4 from COLT. Brains? Herein lies the problem. If this is your source, my friend, my dog's ass can produce more correct statements than he. 87GN/Vuurwapen is pretty good about disseminating correct information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2010 6:14:50 AM EDT
[#40]
being a contractor myself when the governement contracts through a company to recieve goods not produced by that company there is a substantial mark up. but when the government contracts through the company that produces than they get them for a cheaper price. butt it's really more like we will award a 5 yr contract for your company to be the sole supplier of x.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2010 7:02:10 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah. I hadn't realized until yesterday that there was such a thing. I'm not opposed to pistons in other guns but it's unecessary in an AR and comes with its own set of issues. The round carrier is a bigger problem than DI ever could be. And why is that? Too much bearing surface, and forgings are a production bottleneck. The m4 should have a hammered and nitrided mid length barrel, a KAC E3 bolt and pmags.and a larue 10.0. That's all it needs. DING DING DING !!! This man wins all the internet points for today! EXACTLY what I've tried to tell people before ( the carrier part that is). It's not DI that's the problem. It's that the crud doesn't have anywhere to go inside the carrier and the upper reciever. You've got a tube(the bolt) inside a tube(the carrier) inside a tube(the upper). All with minimal clearances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2010 9:54:43 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah. I hadn't realized until yesterday that there was such a thing. I'm not opposed to pistons in other guns but it's unecessary in an AR and comes with its own set of issues. The round carrier is a bigger problem than DI ever could be. And why is that? Too much bearing surface, and forgings are a production bottleneck. The m4 should have a hammered and nitrided mid length barrel, a KAC E3 bolt and pmags.and a larue 10.0. That's all it needs. DING DING DING !!! This man wins all the internet points for today! EXACTLY what I've tried to tell people before ( the carrier part that is). It's not DI that's the problem. It's that the crud doesn't have anywhere to go inside the carrier and the upper reciever. You've got a tube(the bolt) inside a tube(the carrier) inside a tube(the upper). All with minimal clearances. Gas residue (carbon) either vents or collects; hell, even when venting it almost always collects somewhere too. In the DI gun it vents ever-so-slightly out the holes in the carrier and collects on the bolt tail and rear of the bolt-hole in the carrier. Piston AR's usually vent under the handguards/gas block and while not getting on any internals it does indeed collect on the surface of the barrel, gas block, and/or underside of the handguards. The most efficient dispersal of gas residue on an AR platform I've personally ever seen was on the HK416 where it vented up and away from the gas block/barrel; basically nothing to wipe off, and certainly no digging around with Q-tips. The second-most efficient dispersal is on my Osprey, where it is deposited in a rather neat (comparatively) "ring" on the top of the barrel and bottom of the handguard––- a very restricted area to clean up. I used to have an LMT Enhanced BCG on one of my DI guns and the extra vent hole in the carrier, coupled with the *supposedly* increased dwell time before unlocking (thereby leaving a fraction of a second longer for venting to take place), left less residue on the bolt tail/rear of the carrier than comparable DI setups. Notice I said less, as it certainly was there. Perhaps a bit subjective on my part but mechanically it made sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2010 10:01:17 AM EDT
[#43]
Carbon isn't the problem. When you mix sand with it, or let it dry out, you have a problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2010 10:10:09 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Carbon isn't the problem. When you mix sand with it, or let it dry out, you have a problem. Correct, especially in the environments we find ourselves in these days. One other AO where carbon can cause a problem if left unchecked is in tropical, humid places (i.e. jungles). I spent 3 years in Panama as a grunt and can vouch for the fact that an uncleaned weapon in those climes can cause corrosion to form, which WILL bind up an M16 if left unaddressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 4:44:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ironic that the "there is nothing wrong with the M4" company is now looking at improvements after they don't own the TDP and aren't going to be the sole source anymore... I respect making money but they have been a huge roadblock to improving the M-4 with their constant diatribe about how great it is and how everyone loves it...now that their cash cow is gone, it all of a sudden has room for improvement You do know that you're completely incorrect? Colt owns the M16 TDP and the M4 Addendum. You do realize that they are still the sole source provider for the US military for the M4 carbine. You do realize that Colt has contracts with over 80 countries worldwide? You do realize that Colt has tried to implement multiple improvements to the M4 carbine (such as hammer forged barrels) but has been denied by the government. You did know all that, correct? You were just being obtuse and trolling, correct? Colt no longer holds the TDP for either weapon. They are both heald by tthe USG. The uber Colt piston rifle came about after they sold the M4 TDY to the USG... Don't get me wrong...Colt makes great rifles. My go to guns are Colts. My issue is their blatent stonewalling on big improvements to the M-4 FOW. Yeah...they proposed a spring change here and there...but the bolt lugs aren't breaking because of the ejector spring. The gas port erosion is a serious issue. The ROF following the gas port erosion is a serious issue. All in all, I hope Colt comes out with a great upgrade...but we have been at war for almost a decade and needed it back when this war started, not just now that the cash cow TDP got sold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 4:46:03 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ironic that the "there is nothing wrong with the M4" company is now looking at improvements after they don't own the TDP and aren't going to be the sole source anymore... I respect making money but they have been a huge roadblock to improving the M-4 with their constant diatribe about how great it is and how everyone loves it...now that their cash cow is gone, it all of a sudden has room for improvement You do know that you're completely incorrect? Colt owns the M16 TDP and the M4 Addendum. You do realize that they are still the sole source provider for the US military for the M4 carbine. You do realize that Colt has contracts with over 80 countries worldwide? You do realize that Colt has tried to implement multiple improvements to the M4 carbine (such as hammer forged barrels) but has been denied by the government. You did know all that, correct? You were just being obtuse and trolling, correct? Colt no longer holds the TDP for either weapon. They are both heald by tthe USG. The uber Colt piston rifle came about after they sold the M4 TDY to the USG... Don't get me wrong...Colt makes great rifles. My go to guns are Colts. My issue is their blatent stonewalling on big improvements to the M-4 FOW. Yeah...they proposed a spring change here and there...but the bolt lugs aren't breaking because of the ejector spring. The gas port erosion is a serious issue. The ROF following the gas port erosion is a serious issue. All in all, I hope Colt comes out with a great upgrade...but we have been at war for almost a decade and needed it back when this war started, not just now that the cash cow TDP got sold. Are you a troll? I mean did you not read this thread? You are wrong, reread the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2010 6:31:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cool rolled-up sleeves on the Colt armorer. Colt Pythons!!!! That's Ken Elmore from SAW. Good dude! Very knowledgeable. http://www.specializedarmament.com/ No thats THEE Ken elmore ! For real that man has forgot more about the stoner system then most of the people here on this board will EVER know . When the guys at Colt in Hartford fuck up , or cant figure something out they call ken . The guy simply know more about this system with the only exeptions being mister Stoner , or mister Sullivan ! 
his only proublem here is some gunshow commando mega force arfcommers pissed him off here a couple years ago , and ken had to smack there pee pees hard and bruised there egos , so for the longest time ken has been personna non grota here , but it does not change the fact ken is THEE man to go for Colt repairs, knowledge , parts ect !
only bad thing is when you deal with ken make sure to brace yourself for price shock !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 6:10:49 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ironic that the "there is nothing wrong with the M4" company is now looking at improvements after they don't own the TDP and aren't going to be the sole source anymore... I respect making money but they have been a huge roadblock to improving the M-4 with their constant diatribe about how great it is and how everyone loves it...now that their cash cow is gone, it all of a sudden has room for improvement You do know that you're completely incorrect? Colt owns the M16 TDP and the M4 Addendum. You do realize that they are still the sole source provider for the US military for the M4 carbine. You do realize that Colt has contracts with over 80 countries worldwide? You do realize that Colt has tried to implement multiple improvements to the M4 carbine (such as hammer forged barrels) but has been denied by the government. You did know all that, correct? You were just being obtuse and trolling, correct? Colt no longer holds the TDP for either weapon. They are both heald by tthe USG. The uber Colt piston rifle came about after they sold the M4 TDY to the USG... Don't get me wrong...Colt makes great rifles. My go to guns are Colts. My issue is their blatent stonewalling on big improvements to the M-4 FOW. Yeah...they proposed a spring change here and there...but the bolt lugs aren't breaking because of the ejector spring. The gas port erosion is a serious issue. The ROF following the gas port erosion is a serious issue. All in all, I hope Colt comes out with a great upgrade...but we have been at war for almost a decade and needed it back when this war started, not just now that the cash cow TDP got sold. That's news to Colt, I would imagine, since they own both TDPs. Oh wait, let me guess... you read that Army Times arrticle by Cox and now you think you're right. Except Cox was wrong, and had to print a correction. Colt never sold the TDP to the government, it is still owned by Colt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 10:51:41 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
I was just watching Tactical Arms on the Sportsman channel and they had a rep from Colt the whole line-up of M4s and were explaining the different features. They tried out a new Colt piston M4 that has not even gotten a designation yet and said they were planning on releasing it later this year and a civilian model was in the works. It looked pretty good and had a monolithic upper on it with what look like a better flip sight then the LE6420. They also had a M4 that could replace the SAW and it looked pretty gnarly but it was not piston. That's good to hear. Hopefully it will be an affordable addition. Colt has done a good job of getting their prices down to realistic levels over the last year or so. Them offering a piston is a good move. The more options out there the better. Looking forward to trying one. Thanks for the heads up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2010 1:23:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: I was just watching Tactical Arms on the Sportsman channel and they had a rep from Colt the whole line-up of M4s and were explaining the different features. They tried out a new Colt piston M4 that has not even gotten a designation yet and said they were planning on releasing it later this year and a civilian model was in the works. It looked pretty good and had a monolithic upper on it with what look like a better flip sight then the LE6420. They also had a M4 that could replace the SAW and it looked pretty gnarly but it was not piston. That's good to hear. Hopefully it will be an affordable addition. Colt has done a good job of getting their prices down to realistic levels over the last year or so. Them offering a piston is a good move. The more options out there the better. Looking forward to trying one. Thanks for the heads up. Colt hasn't changed anything in their price schedule, the dealers have always just been charging way too much money. |
|
|
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.
