Sounds about right. If this gun were available, it wouldn't be on my list of wants to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
I would still take the LMT first.
The Colt is interesting, but not enough for me to want to pay for it.
Sounds about right. If this gun were available, it wouldn't be on my list of wants to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
I would still take the LMT first.
The Colt is interesting, but not enough for me to want to pay for it.
I don't understand companies that employ executives that want to reduce market share.Quote:
Colt Defense Executive Vice President (EVP) and Chief Operating Officer (COO) Maj. Gen. James R. Battaglini USMC (Ret.) issued the following statement on the CM901 to DefenseReview:
Our primary customer is the US military, not the commercial market.
I don't think the idea is to carry multiple upper receivers at the same time. I think the lower receiver is just intended to add flexibility in how you configure a rifle beforehand. To be able to reconfigure the magwell size is pretty cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
Keep an eye out for me, I'll be there too. Not sure yet if I'll be rocking the yellow visor, but I'll have it in my bag just in case! :sarcastic:Quote:
Originally Posted by MAP
I would be careful reading too much into that. Colt Defense is supposed to be focused on the military customer, that's the entire point. Getting upset that Colt Defense says that they don't focus on the commercial market is like getting upset that Ferrari won't sell you an F1 car.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianS
I'm fairly interested in how the 5.56 uppers attach and how the magwell works - not from a "I want to buy one" perspective, but merely from a "Oooo, how's that work" perspective.
I would be interested in a decently priced fully ambi lower - and if it provided more flexibility for uppers/calibers down the road that would be cool... but I'm sure the CM901 lowers will be right up there with the KAC ambi lowers in terms of price.
If I have a both 7.62 and 5.56 uppers, currently I would need two lowers. The Colt would mean I just need one. So the advantage of the Colt CM901 is that I wouldn't need an extra 5.56 lower. I am finding it hard to see that much of an advantage in that. If it was that much of an advantage none of us would have more than one 5.56 lower. I know there are guys that have one lower and multiple uppers but most AR owners I know have multiple lowers also. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianS
Thinking in a military role I might be issued a short(er) 5.56 weapon and a long(er) 7.62 weapon and choose which ever made sense for a specific location or mission. The total advantage to the Colt CM 901 would be one lower rather than two?
I just don't see a huge advantage especially when the stock setup is typically related to the upper setup. I might want a 14.5" RDS equipped 5.56 and an 18" scoped 7.62, will I want the same stock?
While I do see that a true multi caliber lower is an advantage, personally I really don't see a huge logistical advantage or an evolutionary step, when the new system will remove a 2lb 2oz lower that is 15" long from the load out.
I know FNH is effectively doing the same thing as Colt here with their new multi caliber SCAR receiver.
Cameron
Neat idea, but I would not be interested. I would see the upper without a home and have to get it one.
I figure it is more practical to those who need to configure things for certain jobs, of which I do not belong to such a group.
The real issue is 223 does not have enough stopping power and range. No one can develope a round of the same weight of 223 with the stopping power of 308.
http://lfm.mit.edu/blog/drewhill/fil...-explosion.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by voncoz
look what you did....
from the video, either the shooter has some learning to do about controlling a heavy auto rifle, or that gun has substantial recoil.