Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 155

Thread: Army to Re-Bid M4 Contract

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,688
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Nvm I wont go there with you Montrala.
    I just merely point out, that there still is some things or some knowledge, that is not widely published on "all websites". And when you put some BS into the Web it spreads faster and further than real piece of information. Copernican-Gresham rule in work here.

    In real world XM-8 could be even a plasma rifle, but it was doomed to fail before first prototype was even made. And controlled leaks to Internet, how supposedly bad this weapon is were just one (and least important) of tools used to reach this goal.
    Montrala

    I'm sponsored competition shooter representing Heckler&Koch, Kahles, Hornady and Typhoon Defence brands in Poland, so I can be biased

    http://montrala.blogspot.com

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Insider View Post
    What happened to the gas piston operated M6 which was supposed to replace the M4? Why aren't we supplying our troops with the best weapons money can buy?
    Got any links to thise M6? If we wanted we could field a new rifle but at what cost? It would take billions and 10's of years to field a new weapon system and then you would only get marginal upgrades over the current system. This is similar to what happened to the SCAR, marginal upgrades at a steap cost. Why not PiP the current system for a fraction of the cost and stick with the 95% solution?

    You also have to remember no other system has seen wide scale use and while its nice to think QC can stay great alot of times its safe to say when you have to produce 500,000 rifles QC is gonna slip some and some companies may try to find easier ways to produce parts. Thats something you never know about.

    And of course it would still be shooting 5.56.

    Montrala normally I agree but when you have SME's talking about how bad the XM8 was it is safe to assume it probably was not that good.
    Last edited by sinlessorrow; 10-05-12 at 08:58.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,688
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Montrala normally I agree but when you have SME's talking about how bad the XM8 was it is safe to assume it probably was not that good.
    Read some SME complaining that biggest drawback of XM8 is lack of rails... while in fact XM8 had continuous top rail, side rails and bottom rail (refer to page 22 and following http://static.hkpro.com/straightgrai...eHKDecades.pdf). Most people commenting XM8 actually did not have contact with real thing and based their opinions on rumors and pictures or early "Starship Troopers" looking prototypes. As to reliability, Army dust test figures speak for themselves. I does not mean XM8 was best thing since sliced bread. Just it was doomed to fail for reasons that has nothing to to with it being good or bad.

    Anyway, XM8 is as dead as well done steak. Let's see if PIP and IC programs can use lessons learned.
    Last edited by montrala; 10-05-12 at 09:28.
    Montrala

    I'm sponsored competition shooter representing Heckler&Koch, Kahles, Hornady and Typhoon Defence brands in Poland, so I can be biased

    http://montrala.blogspot.com

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by montrala View Post
    Read some SME complaining that biggest drawback of XM8 is lack of rails... while in fact XM8 had continuous top rail, side rails and bottom rail (refer to page 22 and following http://static.hkpro.com/straightgrai...eHKDecades.pdf). Most people commenting XM8 actually did not have contact with real thing and based their opinions on rumors and pictures or early "Starship Troopers" looking prototypes. As to reliability, Army dust test figures speak for themselves. I does not mean XM8 was best thing since sliced bread. Just it was doomed to fail for reasons that has nothing to to with it being good or bad.

    Anyway, XM8 is as dead as well done steak. Let's see if PIP and IC programs can use lessons learned.
    Doc GKR was one who commented that the XM8 was a POS, as was Gordo, they would certainly know.
    Also isnt jim Schatz/ aka g3kurz NDIA thing was full of innacuracies. Here it is http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Schatz.pdf left cold

    I believe pat rogers corrected him on it by saying this.

    120mm- well said, and combined with Gordo and others, give a more realistic approach vice the rants and commercialisim spewed forth by one with a strong agenda.

    Revisionist history is useful to one who is agenda drivin and who uses "facts" skewed with errors.

    On Pg 54 of his rant submitted to NDIA, he states:
    ===============================================
    15 June, 1876–General George Armstrong Custer and 650 Calvary armed with single-shot Springfield model 1873 trap-door rifles (Custer left behind 2 Gatling guns) ride up the Rosebud river to the mouth of the Little Big Horn valley to 1,500 Sioux waiting with Henry, Spencers and Winchester repeaters.All 650 soldiers died!
    ================================================

    Not quite, though it fits the agenda.
    Accurate figures for this particular fight may vary due to hype, propaganda, lies, myths and age, but recent studies, books and archaeological studies have eventually produced appropriate numbers that are in the ball park.
    The fight actually occurred on 25June 1876, 10 days later than your stated date of 15 June.

    Custer was a LtCol at the time of the Little Big Horn Battle. He was a Brevet Major General of Cavalry during the War of Northern Aggression (as the folks down here refer to it), but not at the time of the Little Big Horn fight. While it was common to refer to him at his temporary rank as a sign of respect, his actual rank as the Commanding Officer of the 7th Cavalry Regiment was LtCol.

    As an example of numerical confusion, one booklet (Little Big Horn 1876, Osprey) lists the following examples.
    Before departing the Crow’s Nest on the morning of 25June, the 7th Cavalry was organized into four groups.
    One Bn was commanded by Capt Benteen and consisted of D, H and K Companies, with a strength of 120 men.
    A second Bn under the command of the XO, Maj Reno, had A, G and M Companies, at 175 men.
    A third Bn, led by LtCol Custer comprised two separate wings. Capt Yates led Companies E and F, and Capt Keough Companies C, I and L, with a total of 221 men.
    The Pack Train was escorted by B Company, with 7 men from each company detached to assist the packers, giving them 175 men- a total of 691 men.
    However, several pages earlier it lists the on deck strength as 664 O’s and E’s.

    The difference may be the normal fog of admin in war, or additional civilians with the expedition.

    A more scholarly book Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Big Horn) states a total of 268 US Cavalry KIA- 262 on the battlefield and 6 DOW. This is significantly less than you stated in your presentation, probably as the result of believing that the entire command was wiped out when in fact both Maj Reno and Capt Benteen’s commands, as well as the Pack Train were engaged on Reno Hill, some 5 miles from Last Stand hill where Custer’s Bn was destroyed.
    As an aside, Indian Warrior strength was guessed to be 2000- 3000, of which approximately 150 were KIA.

    That the Indians were armed with repeating rifles is telling, but those rifles were of pistol caliber.

    The 7th Cavalry was armed with Model 1873 Carbines (not rifles) of 45/55 caliber, not rifles (though some were present by choice).

    These carbines managed to do very well in the hands of Reno's and Benteen's battalions on Reno Hill.

    I have walked that ground and pinged distances, and while the fight at the west end was at relatively close range, the fight at Reno Hill was out to 1200 yds in some places.

    While the XO (Reno) was combat inneffective to due being drunk, Capt Benteen offered an excellent defense and managed to fight off several thousand Warriors by skill at arms.

    The Custer defeat was not a failure of weapons, but of tactics, ego and overconfidence.

    As one very bright SFC on this forum stated after he walked the dirt there "What the **** was Custer thinking".

    Gordo has pointed out similar agenda driven points in his posts, leaving one to wonder how much of this presentation was also smoke and mirrors.
    This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pat _Rogers, 26 November 2009 13:41

    S/F

    Pat sends
    www.eagtactical.com

    As to the dust test have you ever seen the whole .PPT? It sheds alot of light on things if you have read it.

    The most interesting parts of the dust test are these 3 slides you never see mentioned.
    Slides arent loading ill work on it.
    Last edited by sinlessorrow; 10-05-12 at 10:44.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    96
    Feedback Score
    0
    Politics and procurements aside...maybe we have developed the concept, that is a device "capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant" to it's end or peak. Afterall even when you consider the marginal improvements made with such things as free floating or piston operation, currents weapons are about as effective as thay can possibly be without a radical departure from the norm...that is not to say we have hit a wall...but where to go from here? caseless ammo...did someone say plasma or energy type weapon, seems almost science fiction even in these times. But it appears that ammunition developement is the next focus...smart bullets as it were. I am going to go get my SAA outta the safe now and fondle.
    Last edited by hill; 10-05-12 at 10:26.
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” W. Churchill

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by hill View Post
    Politics and procurements aside...maybe we have developed the concept, that is a device "capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant" to it's end or peak. Afterall even when you consider the marginal improvements made with such things as free floating or piston operation, currents weapons are about as effective as thay can possibly be without a radical departure from the norm...that is not to say we have hit a wall...but where to go from here? caseless ammo...did someone say plasma or energy type weapon, seems almost science fiction even in these times. But it appears that ammunition developement is the next focus...smart bullets as it were. I am going to go get my SAA outta the safe now and fondle.
    Kind of my point for billions of dollars and 10+ years we can field a new rifle that offers us maybe 1-5% increase in performance, but is that small marginal upgrade worth the cost? Or is it more effective to focus on ammo advancements and PiP's to the M4?
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere...
    Posts
    1,247
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Insider View Post
    What happened to the gas piston operated M6 which was supposed to replace the M4? Why aren't we supplying our troops with the best weapons money can buy?
    Something tells me that you don't have a whole lot of practical experience carrying a weapon...

    I've heard that comment from a bunch of people, and none of them had a clue what they were talking about....

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Update: looks like they are rebidding
    http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...icit-new-bids/
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    255
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    If we can't even buy a new full-auto weapon I can't imagine the gov't letting civilians get anywhere close to a directed energy weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by hill View Post
    Politics and procurements aside...maybe we have developed the concept, that is a device "capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant" to it's end or peak. Afterall even when you consider the marginal improvements made with such things as free floating or piston operation, currents weapons are about as effective as thay can possibly be without a radical departure from the norm...that is not to say we have hit a wall...but where to go from here? caseless ammo...did someone say plasma or energy type weapon, seems almost science fiction even in these times. But it appears that ammunition developement is the next focus...smart bullets as it were. I am going to go get my SAA outta the safe now and fondle.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    341
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Update: looks like they are rebidding
    http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...icit-new-bids/
    Interesting. I wonder how long this phase will drag out.

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •