View Full Version : Trade your M16 for a Bushmaster?
Apparently one police dept in Texas wants to:
Rollingwood's police department decided to buy Bushmaster .223 rifles to modernize its weapons after the Newtown, Conn., shootings, Pryor told the newspaper. He said he was worried that his officers, who currently carry M-16s as patrol rifles, won't have the best equipment in the event of a similar school shooting.
"If an incident were to happen at one of the schools close by, we're most likely going to be first in," Pryor said. "We want to make sure we have the best stuff for that."
http://baytownsun.com/texas_ap/article_134120de-555f-5bdc-b9a9-08f85439afbd.html
JBecker 72
01-28-13, 10:53
Haha, this is what happens when idiots are in charge of procuring gear.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
He may not be an idiot, just not sufficiently informed. Probably just not a gun guy especially not an AR gun guy. If they are A1's or 2's, a rebuild to flat tops would really be helpful.
If they are loaner rifles from the Department of the Army, they are still technically property of the U.S. Government. Our agency had both D.O.A. loaner rifles and commercially purchased carbines. It was more convenient to mount optics on the carbines with removable carry handles than the M-16s. We also were instructed to not drill any holes on the handguards or make any modifications to mount lights on the M-16s.
It's possible the M-16s are getting a little worn and need replaced. It's also possible the department feels that getting in and out of a police cruiser and moving through tight spaces inside buildings is easier with a carbine.
It's possible the chief does not know much about firearms, but I can't overlook the fact that the media is involved in providing the information we are reading. I have been interviewed by the media before and it was amazing how much of the interview was edited out when the story went to press or was aired on broadcast news. By the time you heard the story, it sounded nothing like the information provided to the media.
Just a WAG, but I suspect it is because GT Distributors is pushing these:
http://www.gtdist.com/ProductDetail.aspx?PartNumber=BFM-BCWA3F16M4TXIO
"This is the same rifle (except for TX DPS Markings) that passed the Texas D.P.S. torture test and is now being issued to Texas D.P.S. troopers. 3,400 of these rifles have been ordered from GT Distributors by Texas D.P.S., the largest purchase of an AR15/M4 weapon outside of a Federal Agency Purchase."
Just a WAG, but I suspect it is because GT Distributors is pushing these:
http://www.gtdist.com/ProductDetail.aspx?PartNumber=BFM-BCWA3F16M4TXIO
"This is the same rifle (except for TX DPS Markings) that passed the Texas D.P.S. torture test and is now being issued to Texas D.P.S. troopers. 3,400 of these rifles have been ordered from GT Distributors by Texas D.P.S., the largest purchase of an AR15/M4 weapon outside of a Federal Agency Purchase."
I think you have a pretty good handle on the reason for the purchase.
Magic_Salad0892
01-28-13, 15:07
They should just drop some Colt 11.5'' uppers on the M16 lowers.
Replace the lower springs, and stick a carbine stock on it. Good to go.
They should just drop some Colt 11.5'' uppers on the M16 lowers.
Replace the lower springs, and stick a carbine stock on it. Good to go.
It's more cost effective to return the M-16 rifles and buy new carbines than to do all of this work. It's also less ATF paperwork.
It's more cost effective to return the M-16 rifles and buy new carbines than to do all of this work. It's also less ATF paperwork.
How would it be more cost effective to return the M16's and buy new carbines, that makes no sense. There isnt any extra ATF paperwork involved, just acquire the new uppers and parts and let the armorer go to work.
How would it be more cost effective to return the M16's and buy new carbines, that makes no sense. There isnt any extra ATF paperwork involved, just acquire the new uppers and parts and let the armorer go to work.
You assume the City of Rollingwood has an armorer. My guess is they don't.
Rollingwood is a small, close-in suburb of Austin, between Austin and Weslake Hills. At the 2010 census, the population of Rollingwood was only 1,410. Just how big can their police dept be?
On their web site (http://cityofrollingwood.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46%3Apolice&catid=47%3Apolice&Itemid=73&lang=en), I see a total of 8, including the chief and 1 reserve officer.
I may be wrong, but since they already have the M16's which are by definition machine guns (i.e. NFA), they are not required to do any additional paperwork for the SBR uppers.
So in reality if they can get complete SBR uppers I don't see how getting an entirely new weapon is more cost effective.
It's more cost effective to return the M-16 rifles and buy new carbines than to do all of this work. It's also less ATF paperwork.
My guess is that they don't have anyone savvy enough to know how to effectively carry this out. I have seen this time and time again.
How would it be more cost effective to return the M16's and buy new carbines, that makes no sense. There isnt any extra ATF paperwork involved, just acquire the new uppers and parts and let the armorer go to work.
I may be wrong, but since they already have the M16's which are by definition machine guns (i.e. NFA), they are not required to do any additional paperwork for the SBR uppers.
So in reality if they can get complete SBR uppers I don't see how getting an entirely new weapon is more cost effective.
The paperwork we had to do to get M16A1 rifles from the Department of the Army was simple. We were told by Legal and ATF that in order to acquire or build rifles with barrels shorter than 16" required more ATF paperwork.
If we were to replace the fire control group, stock and complete upper, the cost for parts our agency was quoted was higher than our bid for complete patrol rifles with 16" barrels. Our quote was considerably less than that on the Texas DPS bid.
Hopefully their current M16s are transferable and a savvy SOT is trading for them. I consider it a public service to get transferable MGs our of LE inventory and into the commercial market.
If you own a transferable M16A2 and convert it to an M4 do you need to get another tax stamp to registed it as an SBR?
The paperwork we had to do to get M16A1 rifles from the Department of the Army was simple. We were told by Legal and ATF that in order to acquire or build rifles with barrels shorter than 16" required more ATF paperwork.
If we were to replace the fire control group, stock and complete upper, the cost for parts our agency was quoted was higher than our bid for complete patrol rifles with 16" barrels. Our quote was considerably less than that on the Texas DPS bid.
Converting LESO guns requires a cost:benefit that may or may not work out. Agency FET-exempt pricing for known-good carbines is in the mid-$800-$900 range. By the time you buy an upper, rear sight, and stock group, most will find that they're close enough to new cost that they may as well buy them. If you're converting, you also have to maintain the old parts, and convert the guns back to LESO configuration when returned.
Conversion of the LESO guns doesn't require additional NFA paperwork, per BATFE.
Bean counters appreciate simplified logistics. Conversion carries additional logistic, accountability, and A&D issues many don't want to bother with.
Converting LESO guns requires a cost:benefit that may or may not work out. Agency FET-exempt pricing for known-good carbines is in the mid-$800-$900 range.
Your unit cost for carbines is much higher than we were quoted less than one year ago. The M-16 rifles are property of the U.S. Army and only on loan, so tax stamps were not an issue. The primary issue was replacement cost versus rebuild cost.
Anything that is department property can be surplused in the future instead of returned to the Department of the Army. It was my understanding we could not sell the M-16 rifles and had to destroy them or return them to the Department of the Army.
Your unit cost for carbines is much higher than we were quoted less than one year ago.
That's an average bid range for single unit quantities of various Colt, BCM, LTM, and S&W skus, which included shipping. Others were cheaper, but I wasn't interested in them.
Yes, the guns remain DOD property to be inspected or returned on demand. Audits occur, esp when other LE agencies have been caught playing reindeer games with the LESO program. No portion of the guns can be transferred except to LESO or other LESO eligible agencies with LESO's consent. They can't be sold at all. NFA paperwork is whatever form number it is for a gov transfer. No tax stamp.
Turnaround time for BATFE papework on these is averaging 2-3 weeks.
ffhounddog
01-29-13, 07:33
Keep the M16's for the castle (Police Station) and get the M4's to the guy on the ground?
They might also want to use a better round like 75 grain tap or 64 grain Speer Gold Dot and the current weapon system does not support that system.
Could be a decision on getting in on a State Contract for ammo as well.
Never know but it is not a bad issue. Just means they own their weapons instead of having to turn theirs back in and then being without.
Self sufficiant for the department to have these verse being stuck on a maybe we might have them next year kind of thing.
JBecker 72
01-29-13, 07:44
If you own a transferable M16A2 and convert it to an M4 do you need to get another tax stamp to registed it as an SBR?
I could be wrong, but I was always led to believe machine guns were one stamp items regardless of barrel length.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
I could be wrong, but I was always led to believe machine guns were one stamp items regardless of barrel length.
I believe he was asking the question rhetorically.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.